Lose the Mud, Stick to the Issues

For Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn, the results of Tuesday’s election had to be humbling. Yes, he squeaked past challenger Bob Hertzberg to finish second, winning a slot in a May 17 rematch against his 2001 opponent, Antonio Villaraigosa. But he also came within a few thousand votes of being the first L.A. mayor in 72 years to be turned out of office after a single term. And now he is the first in 32 years to be forced into a runoff.

Hahn on Wednesday was spinning his reelection struggle as a badge of courage, proof that as mayor he took controversial stands for the good of the city -- appointing a new police chief and leading the campaign against San Fernando Valley secession -- even though they cost him key constituencies. That’s only partly true.

His 2002 decision not to back then-Police Chief Bernard C. Parks, the highest-ranking African American in city government, for a second term cost Hahn much of the black support he had inherited from his father, legendary L.A. County Supervisor Kenneth Hahn. But he should have been able to reap a windfall from the citywide popularity of William J. Bratton, who replaced Parks and seemed joined to Hahn at the hip during much of the campaign. Hahn lost Valley votes to Hertzberg and Villaraigosa even though they too opposed secession, albeit in lower-profile roles.

What cost Hahn at least as much as his early gutsy actions was the lack of other standout achievements by a mayor whose administration is carrying a taint of scandal.

Hahn downplays the sizable percentage of voters who told exit pollsters they turned against him because of continuing criminal investigations into allegations that members of his administration awarded city contracts to campaign contributors. Prosecutors have not charged Hahn or any member of his administration with corruption, but several top deputies and commissioners have resigned. An executive of a large PR firm that sometimes did “free” work for Hahn’s office has been indicted for allegedly padding, even inventing, bills to the Department of Water and Power, and that investigation also continues.

Of course, what matters now is who wins the May 17 runoff. Hahn is far more energetic as a campaigner (and fundraiser) than as mayor. He came from behind in 2001 with last-minute attack ads that all but painted Villaraigosa as a crack-smoking gangbanger. In the most recent election he even resurrected the ad, if not the grainy images, lambasting both Villaraigosa and Hertzberg for supporting an early prison release for a convicted drug dealer. The May election may be a rematch, but voters deserve better than a repeat of that ugly campaign.

We had hoped to see a runoff campaign between Villaraigosa and Hertzberg. It would have offered a clear choice in both substance and style between Villaraigosa, the intuitive, charismatic former union organizer who excels at coalition-building, and Hertzberg, the businessman-turned-policy-wonk with outsized ideas and a conviction that city unions wield too much power.

Now, voters must choose between Villaraigosa and Hahn. They deserve a contest that makes each man’s vision clear, not just a mud fight that obscures them.