Valley’s Pro-209 Vote at Odds With City, County

San Fernando Valley voters handily approved Proposition 209 this week, putting local voters in sync with the statewide electorate but sharply at odds with Los Angeles city and county voters as a whole.

While the controversial anti-affirmative-action measure was supported by 45.5% of county voters and 38.6% citywide, it passed by a 52.8%-to-47.2% margin in the City Council districts that are situated wholly within the Valley.

The split between the Valley electorate and that of the rest of the region was previously highlighted by the overwhelming vote here in favor of Proposition 187. In 1994, the anti-illegal-immigration measure won with 62% of the vote in the Valley, six points more than in the county and three points more than it drew statewide.

The division between the Valley and the rest of Los Angeles came as no surprise to former U.S. Rep. Bobbi Fiedler, who, as a leader in an antibusing campaign and Valley secession effort in the 1970s, has seen the Valley and city take divergent political paths before. In fact, it happens all the time, she said.

“That is a very major reason why people in the Valley feel disenfranchised,” Fiedler said.

Newly elected Assemblyman Tony Cardenas, a Democrat whose district encompasses the northeast Valley, took a darker view of the Valley vote.

“It’s very disappointing and disgusting to me to see this taking place in the Valley,” Cardenas said. “Even though we are one Valley, we are not one voice.”

To determine the Valley vote on Proposition 209, election results of the four City Council districts located entirely in the Valley--the 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 12th--were analyzed. The districts stretch from the more conservative and predominantly white West Valley to the largely Latino northeast Valley.

Two other districts, substantial portions of which are in the Valley, were not analyzed because they include considerable Westside terrain.

In addition to being at odds with the city and county as a whole, the Valley itself was divided over Proposition 209. Of the four all-Valley districts, only the 7th, a heavily African American and Latino area centered around Pacoima, rejected Proposition 209 by more than a 2-1 majority.

Voters in the two West Valley districts overwhelmingly cast their ballots in support of the measure.

“One of the things this says is there are some really different realities between the East and West Valley,” said Father Tom Rush, pastor of Mary Immaculate Church in Pacoima and a member of Valley Organized in Community Efforts, known as VOICE.

Even so, the Valley can hardly be called a conservative bastion.

President Clinton campaigned actively in the area, and Valley voters, who strongly supported him in 1992, rewarded him again this week with 58% of their votes. By comparison, Clinton took 51% of the vote statewide and 60% of the vote in the county.

Still, the question in the minds of many of Rush’s Latino parishioners, he said, was whether white voters supported Proposition 209 because they believe it promotes equality or because they bear ill will toward Latinos.

“There’s a whole climate of anti-immigrant, anti-Latino sentiment,” Rush said.

But resident experts on the Valley view the vote as understandable when seen through the eyes of small-business owners battered by recession and middle-class homeowners who are afraid of losing ground.

“I would have been amazed if the Valley hadn’t voted for it,” Fiedler said. “They’re concerned about not being able to hold on to what they’ve got. Their kids are trying to go to school.”

Such sentiments fuel another strong viewpoint among many Valley residents--that the Valley doesn’t get its fair share of services and amenities from the city.

Valley-based political consultant Larry Levine recalls past campaigns for bond issues in which it was impossible to get anywhere near a two-thirds majority in the Valley. In the rest of the city, the measures passed.

“The Valley is always different from the rest of the city,” Levine said. “Valley voters never really believed that if they voted for the bonds, the money would stay in the Valley.”

Like Fiedler, Levine characterized the typical Valley voter as a non-Latino white, conservative homeowner and a middle-class wage earner.

“It’s the family with one foot on the banana peel,’ Levine said. “They constantly feel threatened, and this is a frustration vote.”

But supporters of Proposition 209 are not the only ones frustrated. Nor are they the only group feeling threatened.

After Proposition 187 passed two years ago, the Latino community sprang into action, Rush said. Fears about 187’s impact on their community have moved thousands of Latinos to seek citizenship or register to vote.

Several political analysts say a voter registration drive among Latinos helped Democrats retake the state Assembly this year. The passage of 209 could, some say, push even more Latinos to vote.

Father Pat Murphy of Holy Rosary Church in Sun Valley sees “some progress” in the approval of Proposition 209 because it passed more narrowly than 187.

“It’s a defeat, but also hope for the future,” Murphy said. “People are waking up. Latinos will continue to vote in greater numbers.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

The Vote on Proposition 209

*--*

Yes No San Fernando Valley 52.5% 47.2% City of Los Angeles 38.6% 61.4% Los Angeles County 46.2% 54.5% California 54.3% 45.7%

*--*

Note: San Fernando Valley results are based on the four Los Angeles City Council districts that are wholly contained in the Valley.