NEWS ANALYSIS : Prop. 187 Rises as Key Theme in Top 2 Races

It’s not the economy, stupid. It’s not “three strikes, you’re out.” Not welfare or health care or the death penalty. It’s not even the general subject of illegal immigration.

The issue that has suddenly emerged as the central theme of California’s hard-fought gubernatorial and Senate races is Proposition 187, the initiative that proposes to deny most public services to illegal immigrants.

But even as it has split the races in an obvious way--Democrats on one side, Republicans on the other--Proposition 187 is proving to be treacherous ground for those seeking major office in California this year. For starters, the ground may be shifting--opponents of the measure say their polls show support for Proposition 187 narrowing.

Candidates from both parties are finding ways to seize on the measure as a potential tool. Yet it is clear that Proposition 187 can cut several ways, depending on party, incumbency and record.

On Monday, just over two weeks before the Nov. 8 election, Gov. Pete Wilson released two new ads on illegal immigration that urge Californians to vote yes on Proposition 187 because “there’s a right way and there’s a wrong way, (and) to reward the wrong way is not the American way.”

“American citizenship is a treasure beyond measure. But now the rules are being broken,” say both of the ads, the latest indication that the Republican incumbent is tethering his reelection hopes to Proposition 187. “Join Gov. Wilson in sending a strong message to Congress and to the courts to stop illegal immigration.”

Wilson’s new ads come even as Democrat Kathleen Brown also has seized upon Proposition 187 with renewed vigor. Brown aggressively attacked the measure during campaign stops over the weekend as racially divisive and irresponsible.

And last week, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her GOP opponent, Mike Huffington, staked out positions on opposite sides of the measure--Feinstein against it, Huffington for it.

Several major national politicians also weighed in last week, notably President Clinton and Republicans William J. Bennett and Jack Kemp, who denounced Proposition 187 as ill-conceived and unconstitutional.

Why the sudden flurry of activity on Proposition 187? Political analysts said the sweeping initiative has touched such deep-rooted concerns among California voters that the major political figures could hardly avoid it.

This is the time when candidates must distinguish themselves once and for all in a way that voters care about, and Proposition 187, which sparks emotional responses from both opponents and proponents, is the kind of issue that lends itself to such distinctions.

Analysts said it also is the kind of issue that could be used to the advantage of politicians on both sides.

For Brown and Huffington, the sudden increased emphasis on Proposition 187 is an attempt to motivate their base voters--liberal Democrats in Brown’s case, conservative Republicans in Huffington’s.

Wilson, meanwhile, may be trying to tone down what some describe as the “us vs. them” messages of his earlier ads on illegal immigration. While those ads had an ominous tone--”They keep coming,” warned a narrator--the new ads focus on fairness and on following the rules, noted Sherry Bebitch Jeffe of the Claremont Graduate School.

“Wilson’s polling must be indicating that his harsh rhetoric on immigration is beginning to backfire,” Jeffe said--a suggestion that Wilson’s campaign flatly denies. “If Wilson ratchets up the rhetoric to the point where he mobilizes the right, he may well risk losing the moderate liberals and Democrats to Brown.”

For Feinstein, the issue of Proposition 187 is more complicated, and some analysts speculate that the incumbent senator would have avoided taking any position on it had her opponent Huffington not first announced his support.

“Proposition 187 is a very difficult issue for any Democrat and I think it is only human for virtually any Democrat to hope that he or she can avoid taking a stand,” said Darry Sragow, a Democratic political consultant who once worked for Feinstein but is not involved in the race this year.

“It is not only a broadly popular proposition, it’s also one that is supported with a great deal of passion,” Sragow said. “Democrats . . . are afraid if they oppose it it will cost them a lot of votes in a year when votes aren’t easy to come by.”

A Times poll earlier this month found that 59% of likely voters planned to support Proposition 187, while 33% opposed it. Of the measure’s proponents, 21% said they were motivated to vote by Proposition 187. Of the opponents, 30% said the measure was a reason they would go to the polls.

Dan Schnur, Wilson’s chief campaign spokesman, says there is only one explanation for Brown’s aggressive attacks on Proposition 187: Brown expects to lose and wants to do it gracefully.

“This is a decision to mobilize her base and write off the swing voters who will decide this race once for all,” Schnur said. “This is the Michael Dukakis lose-with-dignity strategy. You go back to your base, you close the margins, but by giving up on the swing vote she is tacitly conceding defeat.”

Jeffe disagrees. She said the state treasurer, who has been criticized for running a lackluster campaign that does not motivate loyal Democrats, may be trying to lure previously unconvinced Democrats to the polls by drawing a sharp contrast between herself and Wilson.

“For months, people have been yelling that there is no clear distinction between the two gubernatorial candidates. (Proposition) 187 is one issue (on which) she had the ability to articulate an alternative,” Jeffe said. “Up till now, liberal Democrats didn’t seem to care enough about this issue or about Kathleen Brown. . . . But that may be changing.”

Brown’s campaign also may be gambling on a shift in public sentiment.

Sragow said Brown’s opposition to the measure might win her votes “because she’s viewed as courageous. But that strategy is only going to work if there’s a major shift in 187. (The Brown campaign) is praying that the public opinion on 187 is going to move in a significant way as the Kemps and the Bennetts come out against it.”

Richard S. Woodward, whose political consulting firm is running the Taxpayers Against 187 campaign, said that tracking polls they are conducting five times a week show that the race has tightened up considerably. Woodward says his recent polling shows 46% in favor of Proposition 187, 42% against.

“In the gubernatorial race, to the extent it helps or hurts, it’s helped Wilson as much as it’s going to,” Woodward said. “It has the potential for helping Kathleen Brown out, depending how well we do. I think you can make the judgment it might help Kathleen the better we do.”

Several analysts said Proposition 187 may have less impact on the Senate race, in part because Feinstein has a solid record on illegal immigration and in part because she and Huffington have waited so long to make their views public.

“I just don’t think it hurts Dianne because, like Pete Wilson, she has been out in front on immigration,” said Dick Rosengarten, editor of California Political Week. “She has been out there pushing for more border guards, she has been out there on the crime bill.”

Arnold Steinberg, a political strategist who primarily works for Republicans, said for Huffington, support of Proposition 187 is a pure political gambit.

“It is closing in the polls so either you are supporting it because you are a person of enormous courage and conviction or you are still looking at tea leaves and feel on balance that it will pass,” he said. “And no one has ever accused (Huffington) of being a person of enormous courage and conviction.”

Historically, several political analysts said, even the clearest split between candidates on one key issue is often not enough to guarantee a vote. Indeed, they said, voters almost always look at more than one position before settling on a candidate.