Cardinals Prove Adept at Game of Political Football

The future of Los Angeles sports is at stake. There is a measure on Tuesday’s ballot in Arizona, Proposition 302, that would provide funding for a new stadium for the Arizona Cardinals. If it fails, that raises the possibility, no matter how slight, that the Cardinals could move to L.A.

Our town can withstand many things: earthquakes, brush fires, daily televised car chases. But it would not be able to tolerate a sports landscape that included the ownership follies of Donald Sterling and Bill Bidwill.

Bidwill is the Cardinals’ owner, the NFL version of the Clippers’ Sterling. Since Bidwill brought his team from St. Louis to the Valley of the Sun in 1988, the Cardinals have produced exactly one winning season (a 9-7 record two years ago). Two weeks ago they fired Vince Tobin and made defensive coordinator Dave McGinnis their sixth head coach in Phoenix.

In NFL circles, there’s a fear that bringing Bidwill to Los Angeles could set back pro football in the Southland 30 years. In other words, better to have no team in L.A. than a horribly run team.

It might not be our problem. San Antonio is prepared to make a run at the Cardinals if the stadium initiative falls through.

But hold the moving vans. There was optimism all around Sunday after a 16-15 Cardinal victory over the Washington Redskins and some encouraging news on the electoral front.

The state’s largest newspaper, The Arizona Republic, has come out in favor of Proposition 302 in an editorial. A blitz of advertising (the Cardinals dropped more than a half-a-million dollars on the cause) has helped sway the public toward the stadium after support lagged in earlier polls.

Recent results point to a dead heat, and a poll of voters in Maricopa County--where the new domed stadium would be built--showed that 53% of the voters surveyed supported Proposition 302 and 38% opposed.

“The polls are good, but the vote hasn’t been taken yet,” Bidwill said. “That’s all we’re concentrating on.”

The issue has such a hold on the organization that it’s a wonder they had time to come up with a game plan for the Redskins. Workers throughout the offices answer phones by saying, “Yes on 302.” McGinnis and quarterback Jake Plummer went door-to-door on Saturday morning, canvassing the neighborhood for votes.

“We thought it was important,” McGinnis said. “It’s a vital issue to the whole state.”

So vital that the Cardinals kept up the campaign throughout Sunday’s game. Commercials for Proposition 302 ran on the giant TV screen during timeouts. At one point the screen showed Phoenix Coyote star Keith Tkachuk wearing a “Yes on 302” cap. Another big-screen shot showed a fan flashing “3-0-2” with his fingers, then giving a thumb’s up sign.

Cardinal safety Tommy Bennett popped his head into the postgame conference room and told the waiting media: “Y’all get out and vote on Tuesday. Tell your mother, tell your father, tell your kids . . . tell your dog.”

Proposition 302 would provide $335 million for a new Cardinals stadium as part of a $1.8-billion funding plan. Money also goes to tourism promotion, the spring training Cactus League, and youth and amateur sports.

The Cardinals and other proposition backers are trying to sell the initiative by focusing on the other uses for the money and the fact that up to 95% of the costs would be paid by out-of-state tourists through taxes on rental cars and hotel rooms.

Critics say those figures don’t include infrastructure costs that would come from local taxpayers and wonder if there aren’t better ways to spend the money than on sports and football . . . and Bidwill.

Back in Los Angeles, the Coliseum Commission is keeping an eye on the developments.

“We’ve been following it for months,” said John Lynch, the Coliseum Commission general manager. Lynch said the process of moving a franchise would be much simpler than last year’s failed effort to win an expansion team.

He estimated that the tab to refurbish the Coliseum to current, suite-laden NFL standards would be $400 million, much less than the nearly $1 billion it was going to take to land an expansion team.

“This is an easier deal than what [Ed] Roski and [Michael] Ovitz were trying to do,” Lynch said.

The prospect of the Cardinals in L.A. is a little scary to think about: Bad football, no sellouts, television blackouts.

Bidwill wouldn’t comment when asked if a no vote on the referendum would cause the team to leave town.

But sports investment banker Dan Moag, the managing director of Legg Mason who brokered the deal to get the old Cleveland Browns to Baltimore, said: “If the Cards are to lose the vote in Arizona, no one can say with a straight face that they didn’t give it their all. They didn’t get the stadium they were promised when they got there.”

Could Tuesday be the beginning of the end of the Cardinals in Arizona?

“It could very well be, if they lose this referendum,” Moag said.

But Moag said that teams always seem to have funding crises, and they usually get resolved. Remember the Seattle Seahawks were supposed to leave Seattle, or, more recently, the New England Patriots were heading to Connecticut? And there’s no way the good people of Arizona can let this team leave after this stirring victory, one that the excitable McGinnis said “is what living is all about.”

Keep the Cardinals home. Save L.A.

Cardinal cornerback Aeneas Williams knew what was at stake. He made the play of the game when he recovered a fumble by Redskin tailback Stephen Davis in the end zone and took it 103 yards for a touchdown.

“The guys asked me, ‘Did you think about downing the ball?’ ” Williams said. “No way. I looked at them, I said, ‘Didn’t you know there’s an election Tuesday?’ ”

That’s the right attitude. So get out and vote, Arizonans.

And is it too late to start a write-in campaign for Aeneas Williams for president?

J.A. Adande can be reached at his e-mail address: ja.adande@latimes.com.