similar

WASHINGTON — It happened once before: a chaotic, contested, anger-plagued election that haunts American politics to this day.

The vote was a virtual tie. Recounts were demanded–then rejected. Increasingly distrustful camps warred over absentee ballots and the vagaries of voter intent. A Republican secretary of state came under fire. Controversy spilled over into the courts.

And in the end, when the Democratic-controlled U.S. House refused to seat the certified Republican winner from southwest Indiana, political relations took a long plunge into partisan bitterness–the sort of animus that threatens whoever ends up in the White House next year.

“When it was over, the buildings were still standing but the foundations were cracked,” recalled John J. Pitney Jr., a political scientist and Capitol Hill aide during the controversy of 1984-85. “It really changed the level of mutual animosity and the atmosphere of the House–to this day.”

“Indiana 8” (the disputed election was in the state’s 8th Congressional District) became a gut-wrenching GOP battle cry, an early milestone in the nation’s journey toward divisive, bitter politics that is now reflected in everything from the climate in the capital to razor-thin margins in elections across the country.

A Troubling Lesson on Tainted Elections

Indeed, in the eerie parallels between today’s presidential election and its Indiana predecessor, some see a warning for Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore: A result tainted with even the appearance of bias–however accurate the result may be–can trigger reactions that are destructive, long-lasting and unpredictable.

“People have to realize that these disputes have consequences. And what was true about one congressional district would be greatly magnified in a presidential race,” warned former Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat who heads the Smithsonian Institution’s Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Although little known, the tortured tale of Indiana’s “Bloody 8” remains seared in the memory of many politicians.

At first, in the early hours after the Nov. 6, 1984, election, it appeared that incumbent Rep. Frank McCloskey, a Democrat, had eked out a victory by 72 votes. But it was quickly discovered that two precincts had counted ballots twice, skewing the result in favor of the former Bloomington mayor.

Five weeks later, to the shock of Democrats, Indiana’s Republican secretary of state certified Republican Richard McIntyre as the winner by 34 votes. McIntyre’s margin grew to 418 in a January recount, when officials tossed out 4,800 ballots for a range of technical reasons that were judged by differing standards in the district’s 15 counties.

On Capitol Hill, however, the Democratic-controlled House questioned the findings and created a three member panel–two Democrats and one Republican–to recommend which man should be seated in Congress.

Seeking a process that would withstand scrutiny, task force members hired auditors from the government’s General Accounting Office. But Republicans complained that Democrats were stealing the election and employing a sham process to do it.

“If he is denied his seat, then any certified candidate . . . is open to political attack,” Rep. Bill Thomas of California, the Republican on the task force, complained at the time.

Quickly, the task force ran into pivotal disputes over which absentee ballots should be accepted and which should be rejected. In succeeding weeks, Republicans tried to seat McIntyre on several occasions, once launching a surprise vote when many Democrats were out of town. But the majority party always managed to prevail.

Increasingly frustrated Republicans unveiled aggressive guerrilla tactics, forcing roll-call votes on minor matters, blistering the podium with motions to adjourn and on at least one occasion keeping the House in session all night.

On May 1, six months after the election, the task force ruled that Democrat McCloskey had won the race by four votes. The House quickly endorsed the panel’s finding.

The party-line vote became a watershed in a new era of partisan feuding, even prompting the strange spectacle of Republican lawmakers singing “We Shall Overcome” as they stormed out of the House.

In an interview this week, Rep. Leon E. Panetta, the Carmel Valley Democrat who was chairman of the task force, cited the difficulty of bringing a disputed election to a satisfying conclusion: “The lessons are that, no matter what process is agreed upon, when it comes down to a very close vote, it leaves some very deep feelings that are not easily overcome.”

But, he said, the House vote to seat McCloskey would have been more broadly accepted if the task force had included an equal number of Democrats and Republicans and if there had been consensus in the finding: “If the committee leans partisan, either Republican or Democratic, then it will always be viewed as a partisan result.”

Before the Indiana battle, the Republican Party was largely split between a pragmatic old-guard, personified by House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel of Illinois, and a growing band of Young Turks, headed by Newt Gingrich of Georgia. The Gingrich troops had been seeking a much more confrontational approach, with the aim of capturing control of the House.

“Indiana 8” gave the mavericks the ammunition they needed to push the old guard aside. “Following the McIntyre incident, 95% of the Republicans came to the conclusion that the only way we were going to get the kind of attention we deserved was to win the majority,” said former Rep. Robert S. Walker, a Pennsylvania Republican who was a ringleader of the younger group.

‘A Transformational Episode’ for GOP

In the era that followed, Democrats and Republicans no longer belonged to different branches of the same insiders’ club. Instead, they belonged to warring clans.

“It was a transformational episode for Republicans,” said Dan Meyer, a longtime aide to Gingrich. “There was a sense across the board that seat was stolen. It gave legitimacy to the efforts of the [Gingrich] crowd. The Democratic leadership, in the eyes of even the older Republican members, lost some legitimacy.”

Recalling Indiana, some experts warned that today’s presidential election conflict could sow lasting seeds of partisan mistrust because both sides have cast doubt effectively on the legitimacy of their opponent’s claim to victory. But today’s stakes are much higher.

“When you have one-third or more of the country looking at the other candidate as illegitimate, that does not bode well for the president uniting the country,” said Eric M. Uslaner, a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, alluding to polls that point to such divisions.

But in an interview, the winner of the ill-starred Indiana election expressed surprising optimism that today’s furor will blow over without dramatic consequences. “I don’t think we’re into a perpetual, acrimonious quagmire,” said McCloskey, now an attorney in Bloomington.

Still, it was with vehemence that he expressed the words that raise the blood pressure of many Republicans even 15 years later: “I won it fairly.”

Assemblyman Jack Scott lost a son when a host accidentally shot him in the head during a dinner party. Ken LaCorte lost a sister when a robber shot her and her boyfriend.

Senseless tragedies by any measure, but what sets Scott and LaCorte apart are the roles the killings have played in each man’s life.

For Scott the Democrat, the 1993 slaying of his son Adam, a 27-year-old attorney, has transformed him into one of the Legislature’s most ardent gun-control 0advocates. For LaCorte the Republican, the murder of his sister Cathy in 1973 and his fight to keep her killer behind bars has led him to campaign publicly to abolish parole and probation for violent offenders.

Each impassioned by tragedy, Scott and LaCorte are now vying for the 44th Assembly District seat, which stretches from the northeast San Fernando Valley to La Canada Flintridge and Pasadena.

A key Republican strategist said his party is in the process of evaluating whether to target the race, noting that results from recent GOP polls show it shaping up to be more competitive than predicted.

“It’s Jack Scott 35% and Ken LaCorte 27%, which for a perceived popular incumbent is nowhere near where it should be,” the strategist said. “I don’t think this is going to be a cakewalk for Jack Scott.”

Scott said his own polls show him leading by 21 points. Scott said he is confident that if the Republicans decide to dump money into LaCorte’s campaign, the Democrats will be there to help him out as well.

“You can count on me to run hard until election day,” Scott said. “I always run hard. I don’t let up.”

Though traditionally a Republican seat, the 44th Assembly District was claimed by Democrats when Scott wrested it away in 1996 from incumbent Bill Hoge. Recent voter records show that Democrats outnumber Republicans 45% to 39%.

As a result, Dick Rosengarten, publisher of the political newsletter Calpeek, predicts Scott will win the seat, not only because Democrats have an edge, but because of the prominent role Scott has played in the fight to impose stricter controls on guns.

“The Republicans are going to have to wait for Scott to get termed out,” Rosengarten said. “The one caveat is if Democrats don’t turn out on election day.”

Republicans are hoping the presidential scandal will keep Democratic voters home.

Getting Republican voters out in the area is also important for freshman Rep. James E. Rogan (R-Glendale), a member of the House Judiciary Committee and a key player in the impeachment debate, who is waging a tough campaign for reelection.

“It benefits the Republicans to get involved in one of the Assembly races out there,” said Allan Hoffenblum, a Republican consultant and publisher of the nonpartisan California Target Book. “They need a strong Assembly race to get out the Republican vote. To not get involved could hurt Jim Rogan.”

LaCorte and Scott are running on platforms that differ on education reform, guns and abortion. Scott is an abortion rights advocate, while LaCorte opposes abortion except in cases of incest, rape or threat to the life of the mother.

Scott was disappointed by Gov. Pete Wilson’s decision last month to veto legislation aimed at strengthening California’s ban on military-style assault weapons.

LaCorte, who says he favors outlawing all forms of automatic weapons, said he believed the legislation went too far and supported Wilson’s veto. LaCorte said he supports reasonable restrictions on guns and a crackdown on felons with handguns. He is a member of the National Rifle Assn., which has taken out newspaper ads against Scott.

“I keep a firearm to protect my children . . . locked in a steel box under my bed,” LaCorte said. “A lot of legislation is aimed at people like me.”

Scott has sponsored legislation aimed at tightening security at plants that manufacture the inexpensive Saturday night specials, many of which are concentrated in Southern California.

“More people die from gunfire in California than automobile crashes,” Scott said. “We can’t eliminate [gun-related deaths], but we can reduce them.”

Besides contrasting stands on key issues, the two men also possess distinct personal styles. LaCorte is a 33-year-old father of two young sons; Scott is a 65-year-old grandfather of eight.

A former Pasadena City College president, Scott has gained a reputation in the Legislature for being lucid, organized and having a flair for oratory colored by his Southern accent. In his first term, Scott pushed through 25 pieces of legislation, including increasing highway patrols in the Sunland/Tujunga area and upgrading the Altadena sheriff’s substation.

As chair of the committee that handles education funding, Scott is quick to point out his support for measures to reduce class sizes and lengthen the school year. He also sponsored a bill making it easier to fire community college teachers by changing the standard for dismissal from “incompetence” to “unsatisfactory performance.”

If reelected, Scott, who has raised slightly more than $317,000, said he will continue to push for school funding and to devise ways to hold low-performing schools accountable.

LaCorte has proposed that report cards be issued on individual schools, covering classroom sizes, teachers’ pay, standard test scores and how much money is spent in classrooms. If elected, he said he will work to reduce taxes on small businesses and expand to nonsexual offenders Megan’s Law, which allows police to alert neighbors to molesters in their midst.

A medical supply dealer who has previously worked for a political consulting firm, LaCorte has raised nearly $126,000 and lists the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Assn. and Susan Carpenter McMillan, a television commentator and spokeswoman for the Woman’s Coalition, as endorsements.

LaCorte made headlines earlier this year for posting the names of dozens of Los Angeles County’s most dangerous sex offenders, a list he culled from the Megan’s Law CD-ROM and posted on the Internet. Last month he also began distributing a booklet listing the names of hundreds of registered sex offenders in the San Gabriel Valley and parts of the northeast San Fernando Valley.

LaCorte, who has described Scott as an extreme liberal, alleged in a campaign brochure that his opponent’s voting record has been soft on crime and anti-business. Scott brushes such charges aside.

“If he’s trying to paint me as soft on crime, he’s going to have a hard time doing it,” said Scott, who has received endorsements from every major law enforcement agency in the state.