Assembly Impasse

In his commentary on the state Assembly speakership stalemate (Dec. 14), UCLA law Prof. Daniel Lowenstein asks, “Who is to blame?” The normative judgment expressed throughout is that Jim Brulte (R-Rancho Cucamonga) should have been voted Speaker. Why? Because mathematically, there are now more Republicans than Democrats in the Assembly. So when Paul Horcher (R-Diamond Bar) bolts from GOP ranks and votes for Willie Brown, everything gets murky and cries of irresponsibility and unethical behavior ensue. Gone is the tidy little rubber-stamp formula where the elephants pick elephants and donkeys pick donkeys.

Here are the problems. Only the most naive among us really believe either Democrats or Republicans can be held accountable via partisan lines. Whether it is matters of policy or procedure, members of both parties switch sides in order to leverage some position or broker some appointment. There are some tendencies and patterns, but essentially almost everything can be haggled over.

The good professor also implies that the last election was about replacing Willie Brown as the Speaker. Funny, but I didn’t recall seeing that issue on my ballot sheet, and I’m quite sure no one in Diamond Bar did either. The Assembly will organize its own. That is part and parcel of what you get with representative democracy.

What the Speaker of the Assembly is really about, indeed politics itself, is power. Willie Brown. Almost enough said right there. Love or admire him, all will agree he is a personal embodiment of power. Arguably, Brown has been the most powerful person in the state for the last 14 years.

Maybe we should focus a bit on Brulte. Does he possess the influence, skill, and leadership to become the Speaker? Can he persuade enough members that he does to win the post? Willie Brown persuaded all the Democrats to vote for him. Did Brown persuade Horcher, maybe cut him a deal? Or did the GOP and Brulte fail to? Whatever the answer, it is a matter of people, persuasion and power, not a “concern nowadays about . . . government accountability.”

Lincoln once said the “politicians are the lifeblood of our democracy.” He was right and the latest developments in Sacramento confirm this more than ever.

ROBERT J. GROCHOLSKI

Los Angeles

Re “Legislative Games Shortchange Voters,” Commentary, Dec. 14:

By stating that Paul Horcher betrayed the voters of his district, Daniel Lowenstein implies that elected officials must march “lock-step” with the most conservative or most liberal factions of their party, even when they disagree with them. Sixty-one percent of the voters in the 60th Assembly District voted to return Horcher to Sacramento, presumably based on his past representation of their interest. Nowhere on the ballot was a statement that dictated how Horcher was to vote on each issue before the Legislature, including the speakership.

These voters have a right to expect Horcher to use his best judgment to fight for what he believes will benefit his district. In this case, based on past experience, Horcher believes that going against his party’s right-wing leadership is in the best interest of his constituents. He might be wrong. He might be right. But his decision is neither irresponsible nor unethical, as Lowenstein calls it.

Horcher may lose in a recall effort. However, unlike regular elections, recalls are not indicative of the voters exercising their voting rights. Recalls are the manipulation of regular voters by wealthy, outside special interests whose only stake in democracy is to undermine it.

Earlier this year, the National Rifle Assn. financed the failed effort to recall David Roberti. And now, the Rev. Louis Sheldon, head of the Traditional Values Coalition, an ultra-conservative organization based in Anaheim (not part of the 60th District), says his group will finance the recall effort against Horcher.

MARCELA HOWELL

Executive Director

California Abortion and Reproductive

Rights Action League-South

Los Angeles

Let me get this straight, Prof. Lowenstein. Richard Mountjoy (R-Arcadia) submits two declarations under oath, one that he intends to serve in the Assembly if elected and one that he intends to serve in the Senate if elected. Inasmuch as one declaration or the other must be false, Mountjoy is morally, if not legally, guilty of perjury. On the other hand, you describe Horcher’s conduct as “legal but irresponsible.” Your ultimate conclusion: Horcher (whose conduct is legal) is much more culpable than Mountjoy (a person who submits a false declaration under oath).

Run that by me again.

TERRENCE V. SCOTT

ANDREW RUBIN

Santa Monica