‘92 Brings California to Political Crossroads : Government: Fall elections may alter partisan terrain and influence decisions well into the 21st Century.

For the first time since California became a state in 1850, public anger and political opportunity have converged at a special apex: 1992 is the year that voters can virtually wipe clean the legislative slate, if indeed they believe that a ballot-box revolution will make their lives any better.

The Golden State’s budget is hemorrhaging red ink. Californians are worried about keeping their jobs and angry about the higher state and federal taxes they pay when they have jobs. The Legislature is tarred by corruption scandals. A once-respected U. S. senator is leaving office in disgrace. And for the first time in the memory of most of its 30 million residents, California is worse off economically than the nation at large.

Against this gloomy tapestry, candidates will compete for a historic array of offices in a June 2 primary and a Nov. 3 general election that could revolutionize California politics well into the next century.

When the disparate pieces of an unpredictable election campaign fall into place next November, the result will be nothing less than a remaking of the California political landscape. Within the space of 24 months--from January, 1991, to January, 1993--the nation’s largest state will have installed a new governor and two new U.S. senators, and possibly shaken up the Democratic leadership that has dominated the Legislature and the U. S. House delegation for more than a decade.

The dour public mood is daunting, even for the usually upbeat Phil Angelides of Sacramento, the state Democratic Party chairman.

But in an interview, Angelides said it is impossible to make assumptions now about what will happen as the year unfolds.

“Going into 1992, I almost see it as the year California politics becomes unhinged, in the sense of traditional trends,” Angelides said.

If Democrats are to succeed in 1992, Angelides said, they must overcome a perception that they are against economic growth and regain voters’ trust that they can do a better job of managing the economy.

“How can we do that? I don’t know,” Angelides said. “The Democrats have got to understand there is one issue that will drive this election: an absolute commitment to try anything that works to get the economy going.”

His counterpart, Republican State Chairman Jim Dignan of Modesto, said: “The challenge to Republicans, both nationwide and statewide, is to come up with some solutions. I have faith that our President will be coming up with many good points that will bring an end to problems nationwide.”

But Dignan did not hint at what those solutions might be. And he noted that Republican Gov. Pete Wilson needs the help of the Legislature’s Democrats to control the state budget deficit. The 1992 budget battle will provide a raucous backdrop to an extraordinary political campaign.

Both of California’s U. S. Senate seats will be at stake for the first time since statehood, with no elected incumbent running for either post. The state will choose a record 52 members of the U. S. House of Representatives, a delegation bolstered by seven seats taken from other states that suffered relative population losses in the 1990 census.

All 80 state Assembly seats and 20 of the 40 state Senate seats will be up in 1992. Incumbents will face the uncertain welcome of flocks of new voters created by the redrawing of district lines to accommodate population shifts of the last 10 years.

Today, there is a single overriding 1992 election issue, one that threatens to engulf all the partisan jockeying like a tidal wave: the economy.

How quickly the political tide can change.

Just a year ago, Republicans were euphoric. With the Soviet empire crumbling and Americans preparing for a stunning victory over Iraq, President Bush was enjoying unprecedented popularity.

At the same time, California was inaugurating a pragmatic, take-charge governor. Wilson came to office determined to break the political deadlock that had immobilized Sacramento and bent on bringing creative solutions to the problems that had dragged state government into chronic budget deficits.

Moreover, Wilson was in a position to end the power of majority Democrats in the Legislature to redraw legislative and congressional district boundaries for their own benefit. In fact, Wilson vetoed Democratic redistricting plans and threw the issue to the California Supreme Court, which has produced a plan generally considered favorable to Republicans.

As the recession deepened, however, the economy eclipsed everything else. The political stock of the two GOP leaders, Bush and Wilson, plunged. Both men angered the conservative right of their party by supporting tax increases. Wilson was forced to swallow a $7-billion package of higher taxes that even extended to snack foods, and violated his campaign pledge to veto any income tax hike.

By the end of the year, with reports of businesses fleeing California’s inhospitable economic climate, the California Poll said that 85% of its respondents believed the state’s economy was in a bad way. More than a third thought it would worsen in 1992.

“The results indicate a general lack of confidence in either political party being able to improve the state’s economic conditions,” said the Field Institute, the poll’s sponsor.

One political party’s adversity usually becomes the other’s opportunity. But political analyst William Schneider of the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute said there is enough wrath afoot this year to worry both sides.

Voters are blaming the Democratic-controlled Congress and Legislature as much as they are the Republican President and governor, Schneider said. If their dissatisfaction crosses the threshold into real anger, he said, there could be a true voter revolt in November.

“If the recession doesn’t get better, we could find a flood of angry voters voting all incumbents out,” he said. “It happened in Massachusetts in 1990,” he said, and in California the same year with voters’ approval of term limits on officeholders.

Schneider declined to predict which party might suffer the most. “It would hurt incumbents. That’s all you can say.”

But Democrats have more incumbents in the Legislature and in Congress than Republicans, and potentially have the most to lose.

The current lineup in the state Assembly is 47 Democrats to 33 Republicans. Democrats control the Senate 24 to 13, with two independents and one vacancy. In the U. S. House delegation, currently with 45 members, the breakdown is 26 Democrats and 19 Republicans.

GOP Chairman Dignan believes Republicans still have the advantage because of gains from the redistricting plans, expected to be ratified by the court Jan. 28.

The biggest growth has been in Republican-leaning suburban areas, largely at the expense of traditionally Democratic urban cores. Democrats have dropped below 50% in statewide voter registration for the first time in recent history. Today, slightly fewer than 49% of California’s 13.1 million registered voters are Democrats. Republicans have edged up to nearly 40%.

“We’re going to see a lot of competitive legislative races,” Dignan said in an interview. “In the Assembly, we will come close to parity with the Democrats. We will pick up some in the Senate. In Congress, we have a great chance to pick up anywhere from six to 10 seats.”

But the big statewide battles will be for President and the U. S. Senate.

California never has been avid George Bush country, as it was for Ronald Reagan. While Republicans have captured California in every presidential election since 1968, Bush carried the state over Democrat Michael Dukakis by only about 3% of the vote.

In 1992, the state will be more important than ever in presidential politics. With the seven new House seats, California’s electoral vote total climbs to 54, or fully one-fifth of the 270 needed to elect a President.

California is critical to Democrats, Schneider said. Unless Democrats can sweep the South, as in 1976 with Jimmy Carter, they must take California to win the presidency.

And unusual national attention is being focused on California because both of the state’s U. S. Senate seats are open in 1992.

Democrat Alan Cranston, 77, ill with cancer and discredited because of ties to fallen Lincoln Savings & Loan owner Charles Keating Jr., is retiring after 24 years in the Senate, during which he rose to be the No. 2 Democratic leader. Three Democrats and four Republicans have declared for Cranston’s old seat.

The other seat is held by Republican John Seymour, 54, of Anaheim, who was a state senator from Orange County until Wilson elevated him to the U. S. Senate. Seymour filled the vacancy created when Wilson resigned as U. S. senator to be sworn in as governor last January. The 1992 winner will serve just two years, the balance of Wilson’s term, and then will have to seek a full six-year term in 1994.

Wilson’s choice of Seymour infuriated conservative Republicans because Seymour was a born-again moderate who had switched from anti-abortion to support of abortion rights, and had opposed discrimination against people with AIDS. Seymour faces a challenge from the right in the June primary from bedrock conservative Rep. William E. Dannemeyer of Fullerton. If Seymour survives the primary, he could face a difficult test against former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein or State Controller Gray Davis.

Wilson’s prestige is riding on Seymour’s candidacy, along with his declared intention of electing more moderate Republicans to the Assembly, and his plans for a November ballot initiative that would cut welfare.

While voters may be unhappy with Wilson’s job as governor, they cannot vote against him on the 1992 ballot. But, Schneider said, “the voters may take it out on Seymour,” a guilt-by-association phenomenon that has plagued appointed senators in the past.

The recession not only is affecting voter moods in 1992, it is having a major impact on campaign fund raising, both chairmen said.

“We get letters daily from our supporters wishing they could give more right now, but they’re cutting back,” Dignan said.

Angelides said: “It will impact us more severely because our private donor base is smaller and a lot of the labor unions are being affected. . . . We will be stretching for every dollar.”

Angelides said he expects Democratic campaigns to save money by conducting joint candidate operations, a practice Republicans have used to advantage.

Schneider said the multiplicity of campaigns and the unfamiliarity of so many candidates to so many voters may have another impact: an emphasis on issues rather than personalities.

Incumbents usually get reelected because they are able to develop powerful personal ties to their constituents, he said. Those links will be weakened because of the shifting of district lines.