Enough Strange Bedfellows for a Pajama Party

If this were fiction, it wouldn’t be believable: All four major candidates for governor come out against a ballot initiative that seems a cinch to pass. Politicians of both parties choose to line up on the losing side, opposite most voters.

That certainly must be a first.

Then another first: The current governor endorses the measure and immediately is denounced and ridiculed by its sponsor. An irritated ingrate.

We’re talking here about Proposition 227, the proposal to gut bilingual education. It’s one of two hotly contested initiatives on the June 2 ballot.

The other is Prop. 226, which would require labor unions to get each member’s written permission before spending that member’s dues on politics. Some--maybe many--would deny that permission, thus weakening labor’s political muscle. This battle also is intriguing, but for a different reason: Prop. 226 likewise once seemed certain to pass; now it’s in dire danger of losing.

“We’re in the late rounds and we’re feeling pretty punchy,” says one Proposition 226 strategist. “Can we hang on to the end of the fight? We don’t know.”

More later on Prop. 226. First, Prop. 227.

*

The unique twists around the bilingual ed initiative have happened in the last two weeks. What gives? Legitimate policy concerns, of course. But clearly, the four gubernatorial candidates also want to be perceived as more Latino-friendly than Gov. Pete Wilson.

This is easy for the three Democrats. But not so easy for the Republican, Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren. So during The Times’ gubernatorial debate May 13, Lungren unexpectedly announced his opposition to Prop. 227. He hoped by this to be viewed as an education moderate, rather the extremist that Democrats will portray in November. And he knew it would put some distance between himself and fellow Republican Wilson.

All these candidates would rather be on the losing side of Prop. 227 than be cast in the same bag with Wilson, whose aggressive crusading against illegal immigration and racial preferences have turned him into a pariah among many Latinos.

“Latino leaders have done a good job of making Pete Wilson into the boogeyman,” concedes one of his advisors.

Enter Ron Unz, the wealthy computer whiz who is Prop. 227’s lead sponsor. “Wilson’s a controversial figure,” he told me. “We’re trying to avoid controversial figures.”

Last Monday, Wilson asked top aide George Dunn to make a courtesy phone call to Unz, tipping him that the governor was about to endorse his initiative while vetoing the Legislature’s alternative proposal for bilingual ed. Instead of saying, “That’s great, thanks,” Unz immediately faxed Dunn a threatening letter asking Wilson to shove off.

“As things already stand, we expect our Latino and general polling numbers to drop significantly by election day for a wide variety of reasons,” Unz candidly wrote. “If the governor endorses Proposition 227, the media--with our active encouragement--will blame most or all of this drop on the governor’s unpopularity. . . . I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider.”

The governor’s reaction was a two-word (seven-letter) expletive.

After Wilson’s announcement, Unz publicly asserted--in a comment the likes of which probably never had been heard before: “It is very unfortunate that the governor has chosen to endorse our initiative.”

Unz doesn’t just want to win--he wants to win big. The latest Times poll shows Prop. 227 doing just that. Among likely voters, it’s ahead 63% to 23%. And Latinos? They support it overwhelmingly, too.

*

The union dues initiative, however, has been staggered by a hard-hitting labor attack. “I don’t think anything can survive a $15-million ad campaign,” says the Prop. 226 strategist, speculating on the opponents’ TV buy.

The Times poll shows Prop. 226 hanging on to a 51% to 37% lead. But in early April, 66% supported it. Both sides agree this fight is going down to the wire, with Wilson bankrolling Prop. 226 and his old nemeses, the public employee unions, leading the opposition.

In the end, the outcome will hinge on what voters decide is fairer--giving union members more control over their dues, or allowing labor to remain on a political par with business. Should the playing field be tilted to the right? It’s really about Republicans vs. Democrats. And the contest is tightening because the passion is with the defenders, labor.

Since California is a legendary trendsetter, both of these initiatives are being closely watched by national politicians--their eyes cast west and their fingers to the prevailing wind.