Voters Know Little of Candidates, Charter

As Los Angeles voters contemplate the city’s political future, it is with significant uncertainty: Most know little about the leading candidates to succeed Mayor Richard Riordan and even less about a proposal to overhaul the city’s aging and much maligned constitution.

Still, what voters do know, they generally like. And as they learn more about the charter reform proposal in particular, voters say that they are inclined to support it.

A new Times poll, conducted last week, found that nine of 10 city voters say they do not know enough about the proposed charter reform, which will appear on the June ballot, to voice an opinion; the small group that does feel well enough informed said it supports the measure. Of those polled, 7% back the reform plan and 3% oppose it.

The poll is based on telephone interviews with 1,221 city residents from March 20 to March 27. Of those interviewed, 854 were registered voters. The poll has a margin of sampling error of 3 percentage points, both for overall results and for results that target voters.

Although voters conceded that they have been little affected by two years of debate over the reform of the City Charter, once they were told of some of the document’s key provisions--strengthening the office of mayor, allowing voters to consider an expanded City Council, limiting Civil Service protection for top officials and creating a network of neighborhood councils--support for the charter jumped to 45%, with 23% opposed and 32% still unwilling to venture an opinion.

After hearing arguments for and against those provisions, support and opposition hardened, with 48% of voters indicating that they were inclined to vote for the charter and 28% saying that they were likely to vote against it. Nearly a quarter of voters remained undecided.

“I think it’s a good idea,” said Juan Garcia, a Cypress Park resident and poll respondent who agreed to a follow-up interview. “I think a lot of people might have better representation in their communities, and that’s why I support it.”

If adopted, the new charter would represent a major achievement for Riordan and create a significantly different city government for Los Angeles’ next mayor to inherit. So far, however, voters have little insight into some of the leading possible contenders for that office.

Officeholders Remain Unknown

Despite his five citywide elections and long family history in Los Angeles government, City Atty. James Hahn is still unknown to 58% of residents, with 4% saying that they knew of him but did not have an opinion about him. Despite two decades on the Los Angeles City Council and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Zev Yaroslavsky remains a mystery to 59% of residents. An additional 3% had no opinion about him.

And nevermind that Assemblyman Antonio Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles), the speaker of the state Assembly, arguably is the second most important elected official in California; more than three-quarters of city residents, including 73% of Latinos, have no sense of who he is or hold any particular opinion about him.

The officials fared somewhat better among registered voters, but not much. Forty-eight percent of registered voters either were unaware of Yaroslavsky or had no opinion of him; 54% of voters were similarly unmoved by Hahn. And 78% had no impression of Villaraigosa.

Those numbers suggest that no candidate for mayor is a clear front-runner and appear to leave the door open for other contenders. One result: They are gathering.

Riordan friend Steve Soboroff is quietly building his campaign. Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Los Angeles) is said to be contemplating a run, as is her colleague, Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Los Angeles). City Council members Mark Ridley-Thomas, Joel Wachs and Laura Chick are all considered potential candidates. And County Supervisor Gloria Molina also has floated the idea.

Only Hahn has effectively announced, but some insiders believe that the field will begin to take shape this month, when candidates are allowed to begin fund-raising for the April 2001 election.

Most of the potential candidates are relatively known commodities, at least within Los Angeles political circles. The wild card is Soboroff, a real estate specialist and millionaire who is a special, unpaid advisor to Riordan. His candidacy would presumably be in large part based on the premise that he would extend Riordan’s legacy.

But Soboroff’s campaign faces some early challenges. He would need Riordan’s enthusiastic backing to make his case, but if Riordan moves too early to help Soboroff, the mayor could risk backlash against charter reform, which will appear on the June ballot. Specifically, critics could charge that Riordan was supporting a new charter in part to deliver a stronger mayor’s office for his friend and handpicked successor.

Another problem for Soboroff and other potential candidates is that while Hahn, who is running, Yaroslavsky, who is considering running, and Villaraigosa, who is talking about running, all have a long way to go to build their name recognition, they are well-liked by those who do know them.

Among registered voters, Hahn receives favorable job approval ratings of 39%, compared with just 7% who have an unfavorable impression of his work. The son of Kenneth Hahn, a revered county supervisor whose district included South-Central, James Hahn runs especially well among African Americans. Fifty-two percent of black registered voters said they had a favorable impression of him, with 3% voicing an unfavorable impression.

“His dad was our supervisor for many years, and he’s been good to this area, too,” said Rogers Deckard, a South-Central resident who participated in the poll. “He’s very respected.”

Yaroslavsky sports nearly identical approval ratings, with 42% of voters saying that they liked his work and 10% disapproving. The Westside representative drew his strongest support from whites, but was viewed favorably by blacks and Latinos as well. His approval rating among Latino voters--34% of whom had a positive impression, compared with 5% who saw him negatively--represents a particular coup because some local observers have speculated that Latinos might resent Yaroslavsky’s role in sponsoring an initiative that prevents more sales tax money from being spent on subways. That measure, which voters approved, seals the fate of the subway system, which does not run to the predominantly Latino Eastside.

Finally, Villaraigosa, although confronted with a major challenge at building his profile, also is appreciated by the relatively small number of people who know enough to have an impression. Sixteen percent of voters polled approved of his job performance, while only 3% disapproved. Unsurprisingly, Villaraigosa’s approval rating was strongest among Latino voters: 31% saw him favorably, while 2% voiced disapproval.

The mayor’s race is beginning to take shape against the backdrop of several reform movements intended to reshape local municipal and educational institutions.

Riordan, who has called 1999 the “year of reform,” has made approval of a new charter one of his highest priorities, along with reform of the Los Angeles Unified School District and redrafting the city’s business tax code. The tax code has been approved, although not in the form Riordan proposed. And the effort to change the school board meets its first test this month, when three Riordan-backed challengers seek to unseat incumbents.

That leaves charter reform, an issue that Riordan has pursued since his reelection in 1997, fighting hard for his positions and compromising at key junctures.

“I think the charter will do a tremendous amount of good,” Riordan said Wednesday of the resulting document. “It’s three-quarters of a loaf, not a whole loaf. But in politics, you learn to be happy with three-quarters of a loaf.”

Mayoral Power an Issue

In the poll, voters expressed a variety of views about the proposed charter, a compromise document negotiated between members of an appointed commission and its elected counterpart. A ballot option offering voters the choice between increasing the size of the council to 21 or 25 members produced a blizzard of confusing responses with no clear consensus. That was precisely what critics of that approach had feared, given the unusual structure of the ballot, which provides that the main charter will keep the council at 15 members, even as voters are given the chance to amend the same document that they are being asked to approve.

In general, however, voters responded favorably to provisions that would limit Civil Service protection for top city officials and create neighborhood councils with the power to advise city leaders on local and other matters. In both cases, roughly a third of voters said those provisions were more likely to make them vote for the charter, compared with about a fifth who said they were less likely to vote for the charter knowing that it would have that effect.

Voters were less enthusiastic about a set of provisions that would give the mayor more power to run the city--increasing authority to fire department heads and commissioners, expanding power to craft a budget and issue executive orders and more firmly establishing the mayor as the city’s chief executive.

Thirty-three percent of voters said those provisions would make them less likely to support the charter, while 30% said they were more inclined to approve it as a result and 27% said those sections would not affect their view of the document.

Those findings confirm the warnings of some critics who complained throughout the charter process that Riordan’s determination to press for enhanced mayoral authority could turn some voters off to the resulting package. Informal surveys by the city’s appointed commission uncovered some misgivings about mayoral power--particularly the power to fire department heads.

“I think it’s dangerous to put too much power in one person’s hands,” said Versia Tatum, who has lived in Los Angeles since 1946 and is active in civic affairs. “I don’t like that idea.”

Tatum added that she strongly supported the idea of creating neighborhood councils, leaving her conflicted about how to vote on the charter.

“There are some things that I like, and some that I don’t,” she said. “I was telling my husband the other night that I need to study this charter.”

Times Poll Director Susan Pinkus contributed to this story.

In-depth analysis of The Times Poll and excerpts from polling data are available on The Times Web site: https://www.latimes.com/timespoll

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

A Lot to Learn

Looking ahead to the Los Angeles City Charter election in June and the mayor’s race in 2001, many residents are unfamiliar with key issues and players.

CITY CHARTER

* Have you heard anything about the proposed new City Charter? If yes, would you be inclined to vote for or against it? (Among registered voters)

Against: 3%

For: 7%

Haven’t heard / Don’t know: 90%

* The charter would increase the mayor’s power, create advisory neighborhood councils and limit Civil Service protections for some top city officials. Having heard more, how would you vote? (Among registered voters)

For: 45%

Against: 23%

Haven’t heard / Don’t know: 32%

* Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for the charter because it would ... (Among registered voters)

*--*

More Les No Don’t likely likely effect know Increase mayor’s power 30% 33% 27% 10% Create advisory neighborhood councils 36% 21% 32% 11% Limit Civil Service protection for some city officials 32% 20% 35% 13%

*--*

POTENTIAL MAYORAL CANDIDATES

* What is your impression of...(Among all respondents)

*--*

Haven’t hear enough/ Favorable Unfavorable Don’t know James K. Hahn 31% 7% 62% Zev Yaroslavsky 30% 8% 62% Antonio Villaraigosa 16% 3% 81%

*--*

HOW THE POLL WAS CONDUCTED

The Times Poll contacted 1,221 citywide residents in Los Angeles, including 854 registered voters, by telephone March 20 through 27. The margin of sampling error for the entire sample and for registered voters is plus or minus three percentage points. Telephone numbers were chosen from a list of all exchanges in the city. Random-digit dialing techniques were used so that listed and non-listed numbers could be contacted. The entire sample was weighted slightly to conform with census figures for sex, race, age, education and region. For certain subgroups the error margin may be somewhat higher. Poll results can also be affected by other factors such as question wording and the order in which questions are presented. Surveys were conducted in English and Spanish. Asians were interviewed as part of the overall sample, but there were not enough to break out as a separate subgroup.

Times Poll results are also available at https:/www.

latimes.com/timespoll

Source: L.A. Times Poll