Charges of Hypocrisy Travel Both Ways in the Recall of Doris Allen

The recall of Assemblywoman Doris Allen was not an “empty exercise” to the people she betrayed (Editorial, Dec. 21). Rather, The Times’ continued editorial support of Allen seems to be an empty exercise. Why does The Times continue to champion Doris Allen after her own constituents have overwhelmingly rejected her? Why is The Times so piqued at a system that allows the electorate to decide these things?

And if the Republicans--Assemblymen Curt Pringle of Garden Grove and Scott Baugh of Huntington Beach, and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of Huntington Beach--tried to use Democrat Laurie Campbell--in much the same way as the Democrats used Republican Doris Allen--let the Democrats decide whether or not they want her as a representative.

And if we go after the Republicans for some sort of conspiracy, should we not also go after former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown and the Democrats on the same ground?

CHARLES JOYCE

Lake Forest

After having gone back to Newt Gingrich’s “Reading List for America” and gotten reacquainted with colonial history, I became concerned about the California recall fever ’95. I see many correlations between the disruptive nature of the three state-level recalls and the chaotic, near-anarchic political period between the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the Constitution. That was the period when we functioned under the Articles of Confederation. Are we Californians intent on discovering George Santayana’s lesson, that those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it, the hard way?

Last month, Allen was recalled by a significant margin of those who voted. But a major problem with recalls, and other special elections, is that not many people vote. Just as it was preposterous for Bill Clinton to have claimed that he had a mandate from the people following the ’92 presidential election, it is equally ludicrous for Baugh to claim that the constituents of the 67th Assembly District sent a clear message via his election.

Baugh won the recall election with fewer votes than Allen’s opponent, Democrat Jonathan Woolfe-Willis, garnered while losing in November ‘94! Baugh had 21,465 votes to Woolfe-Willis’ 34,074, and Woolfe-Willis was trounced by a plurality of almost 47%. The voter turnout in November 1994 was just over 67%, whereas in November 1995 it was just over 25%, with 141,896 and 52,688 ballots cast, respectively.

A second factor in this recall is that the results were obtained primarily by concentrating financial and manpower resources from outside the 67th District on a singular target, Doris Allen. In other words, influences from outside the district, by virtue of overwhelming resources, largely determined the district’s representation.

Another problem, addressed in the Federalist Papers but missing in a special election, is that the filtering process of candidates designed to occur in a primary or general election cycle does not happen. The candidate screening and selection process by both the party and the voters is truncated, weakening quality control.

Irrespective of Rohrabacher’s hyperbole, the worst that Allen did was offend the sensibilities of key GOP members. Right, wrong or indifferent, her actions pale in real magnitude and significance compared to what we are now learning about the conduct of the recall and Baugh campaigns, whether attributable to criminal intent or incompetence.

Messrs. John Herrington and Mike Schroeder of the California GOP, and Tom Fuentes of the Orange County GOP, need to think carefully about the selection of an Assembly speaker. Pringle may be loyal, hard-working and articulate, and the people of Garden Grove may be happy with his representation, but both the party and all of the citizens of California deserve someone who exercises better judgment in that key leadership position.

BRUCE CRAWFORD

Fountain Valley

There is a saying in this computerized world to the effect that “if all else fails, manipulate the data.”

I, having lived in one-party Orange County for most of the last 30 years, believe that the Republicans not only manipulated the data, but the candidates and, most importantly, the voters!

As the politicians continue to play the “blame game,” the revelations of these behind-the-scenes machinations only lead to more voter distrust, apathy and disgust.

MARTHA ABELL

Seal Beach

If intentional interference with a democracy is not against the law, then I don’t know what is. What hypocrites! Rohrabacher, Pringle and Baugh, who cry foul at every alleged “liberal” turn, have once again placed themselves on immoral high ground by the proclamation of no involvement in the career of Laurie Campbell. Yet minute by minute more is revealed that they, not just their aides, held a manipulating hand in the unethical tampering of an electoral process. At the very least, resignations should be demanded and accepted from Rohrabacher’s campaign manager, Rhonda Carmony, and Pringle aide Mark Denny. Every public servant has some responsibility for the actions of their aides and employees.

MICHAEL BOLGER

Dana Point

Say it again, Dana Parsons (Column, Dec. 24).

Michael Schroeder calls Capizzi a rogue district attorney for executing a valid search warrant signed by an impartial judge. Doesn’t sound like “hard on crime” to me.

Rohrabacher complained about the district attorney sending armed men into the home of honest citizens and said, “This tactic of sending armed men in at daybreak . . . is the most outrageous act of intimidation I have ever seen in this county.” And, “If this were done in China, we’d be having official protests for violations of human rights.”

Don’t these people watch the evening news? Sounds like business as usual with the “war on drugs.” It happens all the time, sometimes even to the wrong house.

RICHARD A. HEIN

Fullerton