Commentary : A Crowded Field Could Put a Latino in City Hall : Politics: But one viable candidate must emerge who can gain crossover support outside of his or her core backers.

As the public dialogue on the next mayoral election in Los Angeles begins to unfold, doubt has been cast on the ability of a Latino candidate to win. But a dispassionate examination of likely scenarios should lead to the opposite conclusion.

The scenario for a Latino mayor in 2001 has three conditions. First, the field must be crowded with candidates who would split both Westside and San Fernando Valley non-Latino voting blocs (any candidate who carries a relatively unified vote in either area automatically makes the June 2001 runoff election). With City Atty. James Hahn, City Councilman Joel Wachs and business mogul Steven Soboroff reportedly in the race, this condition is satisfied. The potential entry of state Controller Kathleen Connell or county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky only emphasizes the point.

Second, one viable Latino candidate must emerge. Viability means the ability to raise $3 million (in small increments because of campaign finance law) and have a critical mass of name recognition with Los Angeles voters. Two prominent Democratic Latinos, Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa and county Supervisor Gloria Molina, have sufficient name recognition and proved fund-raising ability. Two others, U.S. Reps. Lucille Roybal-Allard and Xavier Becerra, both Democrats, hold positions on the powerful Appropriations and Ways and Means committees that could serve as mayoral launching pads.

Third, the Latino vote must continue its rapid growth. Latinos are currently 17.7% of registered voters in the city of Los Angeles. Since 1994, there has been a 25,000-per-year net gain in Latino voters. If this trend continues, it will yield an increase of 50,000 new Latino voters by March 2001. Moreover, if we see the same preelection surge in new citizens that we saw in Los Angeles in 1996, an additional 150,000 new citizens, most of whom are Latino, will be eligible to register and vote in the 2001 mayoral sweepstakes. Therefore, Latino registration could grow to at least 22% of the total registered voters by March 2001.

In both 1973 and 1993, candidates with core support of only 25% attracted enough votes to make the runoff and win the mayoralty. Of course, to be successful a viable Latino mayoral candidate ultimately has to include more than the core vote of Latinos. An electoral majority will have to be built that draws from segments of the African American and Asian Pacific Islander communities, San Fernando Valley suburbanites, Westside liberals, working-class Harbor residents and the entrepreneurial sector.

In other words, a viable Latino candidate has to have effective crossover appeal. This is not a problem. In 1998, Latino mayors were elected for the first time this century in San Bernardino, San Jose and Salinas. This adds to earlier first-time Latino mayoral victories in Santa Ana, Pomona, Oxnard and Sacramento in the 1990s. None of these cities has Latino electoral majorities. Sacramento has only 10% Latino voters. Add to that the recent trend in which half of the Latino state legislators have non-Latino electoral majorities in their districts, and there is a clear conclusion that Latinos are increasingly practicing crossover politics.

There is an unspoken logic to these crossover victories. As the emerging majority in California, Latino leaders increasingly understand that their role is to represent broader interests. This is a natural fit. Why? Because as an essentially working-class people, Latinos share a broad set of needs and interests with millions of others across ethnic lines who see themselves in the lower-middle or lower rungs of California society. Better public schools, safer streets, better wages, more jobs, more and better health care, a cleaner environment and more affordable housing are core issues for Latinos. They are also the issues of California’s middle class and working poor. Moreover, as a long-excluded ethnic minority, Latinos embrace the values of respect for diversity, fairness and equality.

Competing against a crowded field, a single, viable Latino candidate with a crossover populist vision would enjoy a large bloc vote of Latino voters and attract voters with similar interests across L.A. Such a candidate could finish in the top two in the 2001 mayoral primary. He or she would be formidable in a June 2001 runoff. Sound familiar? It should. In 1969 and 1973, Tom Bradley used a similar coalition-building strategy. The players and context will be different in 2001, but the approach is the same.