It’s a Vote Against Motherhood, Says Rebuffed Candidate

Zoe Lofgren is the proud parent of two kids. So when she filed papers for a run for Congress recently, she included mother in the blank where candidates describe their occupation for the ballot.

Much to her surprise, election officials balked. Although Lofgren may indeed be a mother, it seems that saying so on the California ballot is against the law.

“They’re telling me motherhood is not a job,” said Lofgren, who, incidentally, is also a full-time politician--a Santa Clara County supervisor--when she’s not making sandwiches or helping her kids with their homework. “As any mother will tell you, it is a job--24 hours a day.”

Lofgren is the latest in a long parade of California candidates who have struck out with their chosen ballot description. Her dilemma, says acting Secretary of State Tony Miller, illustrates a “troubling problem” with elections law, one he would like to change.

Under rules adopted more than 60 years ago, candidates’ ballot designations may refer only to their “principal professions, occupations or vocations.” A person’s less conventional description--be it mother, patriot, wage slave or non-meat eater--doesn’t qualify.

Miller, a candidate himself this year, believes the rules are unfairly strict and do a disservice to voters. As long as candidates are truthful, he says, they should be permitted to describe themselves however they please.

“If a person thinks being a mother is important to her candidacy, why shouldn’t she be allowed to put that down?” said Miller, who is running for the job he inherited when March Fong Eu resigned to become ambassador to Micronesia. “That piece of information might be important in a voter’s decision.”

Lofgren, 46, heartily agrees, and has written letters to leaders of the state Legislature, asking that the law be changed.

“It seems to me that being a parent is probably the most important job to the future of our country,” she said. “If the law says that doesn’t count, the law is wrong.”

California is one of only a few states that permit all candidates to describe themselves on the ballot, according to the Federal Election Commission. Miller said the practice, initiated by the Legislature in 1931, was originally intended to help candidates with similar names distinguish themselves.

As any political strategist will attest, the art of crafting ballot descriptions has evolved considerably since then. In many races--particularly those with a crowd of candidates lacking the money to wage high-profile campaigns--the ballot designation can serve as a powerful, last-minute advertisement.

“It is unquestionably a very important item,” said H. Eric Schockman, a political scientist at USC’s Unruh Institute of Politics. “Especially when the voter is confronted with a bunch of unknowns, the title they see beside the name on their ballot can be the deciding factor that sways their vote.”

As a result, wars over what’s legal and what’s not can be fierce. Each election year, the secretary of state decides scores of disputes over ballot designations, many of which wind up in court.

Frequently, such disputes are sparked by a candidate who challenges an opponent’s designation. Unless a description is illegal on its face--like the broad description mother-- the secretary of state certifies it, relying on watchful competitors to make a stink if something is amiss.

Ironically, Miller’s designation was challenged this year by his opponent, former Los Angeles City Councilman Mike Woo. Woo argued that the title acting secretary state was illegal because Miller had never been elected or appointed to the job of secretary of state. Woo lost in court.

In another case, Tom McClintock, a former Thousand Oaks assemblyman running for state controller, won the right to describe himself as taxpayer advocate. Miller had barred the designation, noting that he routinely denies the use of gun-control advocate or anti-abortion advocate, but a judge reversed that decision because McClintock works full time as director of the Center for the California Taxpayer.

As for Lofgren, she will not take her fight to court, preferring to push for a change in the law. Lofgren says her decision to use mother-- as well as county supervisor-- in her ballot description stems from her belief that children and their needs are not receiving sufficient attention from the federal government.

Others, however, take a more cynical view, speculating that Lofgren--a veteran politician--may have sought to use mother in a calculated attempt to dilute her image as a political insider.

“To me, it seems as if she’s disowning her incumbency to pander to those who want to see innocent mothers in the political process,” Schockman said. “Being a mother is an honored and valid profession. But for her to play it both ways seems disingenuous.”

To those who question her motives, Lofgren responds, “Hey, if there’s something wrong with saying you’re a mother when you are . . . then I’m guilty.”

Lofgren is a candidate in one of California’s most interesting and competitive congressional primaries, the fight to succeed retiring San Jose Rep. Don Edwards. But so far, her leading opponent in the Democratic primary has stayed above the fray.

“I think mother is a pretty admirable title, and if she wants to use it, she should be allowed to,” said former San Jose Mayor Tom McEnery. Just for the record, however, McEnery adds that he is the very proud father of three daughters.

Even before the Lofgren squabble surfaced, Miller said he was convinced the rules governing ballot descriptions should be changed. In the past, however, the Legislature has shown little interest in doing so.

That may be because the current system tends to favor incumbents, Miller said. Although outsiders are permitted only a three-word ballot designation, incumbents are allowed an unlimited number of words to describe their office.

“So you might get something like Assembly member, California Assembly, 19th Assembly district,” Miller said. “A lot of people believe that the more words in your title, the more impressive it looks. So that’s an unfair advantage.”