Voters Signal Major Changes in the Wind for City Politics : Ballot Outcome Hailed as Dawning of New Era

Capitalizing on the electoral changes that he helped bring about, John Hartley beat San Diego City Councilwoman Gloria McColl in Tuesday’s primary by proving that, in a district race, hustle is more important than money, and isolated pockets of neighborhood discontent can become potent political weapons.

Hartley’s stunning upset, combined with the uncertainty concerning the political fates of two other council members who were forced into November runoffs, were hailed Wednesday as proof of the new era in San Diego politics ushered in by voters’ narrow approval last fall of district-only elections.

“Under the old system, I wouldn’t have won, and the two other runoffs would be practically meaningless if they were still citywide,” said a jubilant Hartley, who coordinated last November’s Proposition E, the ballot measure that replaced the city’s former two-tiered format of district primaries followed by citywide runoffs between the top two vote-getters.

‘Most Important Contribution’

“I’ve said all along that, in the larger scheme of things, bringing in district elections is the most important contribution I could make to the city,” Hartley added. “We’ve begun to see a real sense of political empowerment in the neighborhoods that’s only going to get stronger. Hey, the revolution has begun!”

Final unofficial returns showed that Hartley received 7,900 votes (50.3%), compared to 6,457 votes (41.1%) for McColl and 1,354 votes (8.6%) for businessman Charles Ulmschneider. Although he comfortably outpolled the 6 1/2-year incumbent, Hartley finished only 44 votes abovethe 50% victory needed to avoid a November runoff.

In the day-after euphoria of Hartley’s stunning 3rd District upset, his inner circle giddily sought to put the election in perspective by emphasizing that, by winning, Hartley becomes the first benefactor of the electoral switch that he helped engineer.

Their analogy of choice dealt with a father-child theme, as in, having fathered the child, Hartley now had the pleasure of witnessing the delivery. Or, as Hartley consultant Tom Shepard put it: “John didn’t just see the delivery. He was the first child.”

While Hartley happily grew accustomed to the term “councilman-elect,” two incumbents--Abbe Wolfsheimer and Ed Struiksma--prepared for tough November runoffs against challengers who interpreted Tuesday’s primary results as evidence that a majority of their respective 1st and 5th District constituents favor a change.

Meanwhile, Councilwoman Judy McCarty, the other incumbent who faced reelection Tuesday, won the right to join Hartley on the political sidelines this fall after rolling up the 66%-34% landslide victory widely expected of her in the 7th District, in which she faced only token opposition from retired firefighter Kenneth Key.

Viewed as a Microcosm of Change

From the outset, the McColl-Hartley contest, in which Ulmschneider was essentially a political footnote, was viewed as a microcosm of the electoral impact of the change to district races. By pitting a well-known, well-funded incumbent against a longtime neighborhood activist who lagged far behind in both money and public recognition--but who hoped to compensate for those disadvantages with an aggressive grass-roots campaign--the race was widely viewed as a case study of the city’s altered political realities.

When he entered the race, Hartley, a 46-year-old Normal Heights real-estate broker, acknowledged that the campaign would, to a large extent, match “my stamina against her money”--and, in so doing, test one of the maxims of district elections. To win, Hartley explained, he would have to prove anew that, in a district compact enough to be covered by foot in a seven-month campaign, as the Mid-City 3rd District is, a challenger’s sheer hard work can offset an incumbent’s hefty campaign treasury and household name.

Much of the credit for Hartley’s success in a race in which he was outspent more than 3 to 1 can be attributed to what the candidate himself characterized as his campaign’s--and, more importantly, his own--”non-stop, pedal-to-the-metal hustle.”

Personally Campaigned Door-to-Door

Carefully targeting likely voters in what was expected to be a relatively low-turnout election, Hartley personally campaigned door-to-door in nearly 80% of the district’s precincts, hitting some key neighborhoods twice since February--an effort to which he devoted most evenings and weekends. A 140-person field organization--used, among other purposes, to operate telephone banks--reinforced Hartley in the critical nuts and bolts of the campaign.

Having been upset in a 1988 state Assembly election that she entered as a heavy favorite, McColl made it clear that overconfidence and complacency would not be problems in her reelection campaign. And, though McColl, too, ran an aggressive campaign, Hartley spent literally hundreds of hours more than she did on doorsteps in the 3rd District--in part because her council duties reduced the time she had available for campaigning.

Hartley consultant Shepard, however, emphasized that “hard work isn’t enough in itself,” even in a district race.

“Beyond hustle, there also has to be some discontent with the existing representative and the candidate has to have a message that resonates with voters,” Shepard said. “We were fortunate to have all those things.”

Message Took Firmer Hold

Throughout the campaign, Hartley persistently sought to persuade voters that the 3rd District was a “less safe, more congested, more troubled” community than it was before McColl took office. Though McColl dismissed the allegation as overblown political rhetoric and pointed to a long list of accomplishments, Hartley said that, in his door-to-door politicking and other public appearances, he witnessed his message taking firmer hold “almost week by week.”

“By saying there wasn’t a serious crime problem, she was just showing how out of touch she was with the district,” said Hartley, who frequently argued that McColl’s personal wealth distorts her perception of the district’s woes and needs. “I was out there every day talking to people afraid to go out at night. I knew what people were feeling. She was coming at things from more of a citywide approach. I could tell you almost street by street what people thought.”

Hartley’s advisers also believe that McColl committed a serious tactical error by sharply attacking him for several minor misdemeanor infractions--for, as it turned out, selling lobsters from a pickup truck without proper permits--and for changing his name in 1973 to honor his grandfather. In both cases, the McColl campaign was vague about the precise circumstances, apparently hoping that voters would draw the worst possible conclusions.

“Once she did that, whatever moral standing she had began to erode,” Hartley said. “That really started the momentum moving in our direction, and it never stopped.”

McColl Claimed a 3-to-1 Lead

Any interpretation of the Hartley victory, however, must not overlook the obvious: Hartley, a Democrat, was running against a Republican incumbent in a district with a 55%-33% Democratic registration edge. Though council races are nominally nonpartisan, party affiliation usually plays a strong role.

Despite that demographic disadvantage, McColl insisted as recently as last week that her campaign’s own internal poll showed her with majority support and a 3-to-1 lead over Hartley. In light of the election results, the inescapable conclusion is that either the poll was seriously flawed or the announced results were doctored for public consumption.

On Election Night, McColl said simply that her campaign “apparently didn’t do a good enough job articulating all the fine work that’s gone on” in the district during her tenure at City Hall. On Wednesday, McColl, her campaign manager and consultant could not be reached for comment.

In the upcoming seven-week runoff campaign, the attention will shift to Wolfsheimer’s and Struiksma’s battles to retain their seats, both of which set up a compelling showdown over the politically volatile issue of growth.

The consensus of local political consultants and political activists is that both incumbents face uphill--though winnable--runoffs, with most rating Wolfsheimer’s chances as slightly better. Against two strong opponents, Wolfsheimer easily finished first in her primary, they noted, while Struiksma was forced to spend Wednesday trying to put the best possible face on a politically embarrassing second-place finish behind former Wolfsheimer aide and land-use planner Linda Bernhardt.

Wolfsheimer Led Field

In the 1st District, the final unofficial totals showed that Wolfsheimer led the three-candidate field with 11,300 votes, or 43.3%. Only 109 votes separated the two challengers competing for the second runoff spot, with former City Hall and county supervisorial aide Bob Trettin edging retired Navy Capt. Harry Mathis, 7,460 votes (28.6%) to 7,351 votes (28.1%).

As in the 5th District, interpretations of the primary’s vote breakdown appeared to hinge more on political perspective than on detached statistical analysis. From Trettin’s standpoint, for example, the “ really important number” from the primary showed that “57% of the people in the district want to replace the incumbent.”

Noting that he and Mathis hold nearly identical positions on most major issues, Trettin said he expects to attract most of Mathis’ former backers in the runoff. Arguing that the shift to district-only runoffs also enhances his candidacy, Trettin added: “I don’t have to start from scratch with seven-eighths of the city, as I would citywide. I’ll be going back to the same people, just adding to the base I already have.”

With the defeat of McColl, a member of the pro-development coalition that now dominates the council, the building industry can be expected to continue to heavily underwrite Trettin’s campaign, as it did in the primary. However, Wolfsheimer, whom environmentalists regard as one of their staunchest allies on the council, also will probably continue her primary pattern of relying on her personal wealth to outspend Trettin.

Potential for Shift

In addition, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups, recognizing that the November runoffs, coupled with Hartley’s victory, hold the potential to dramatically shift the council’s philosophical balance in their direction, plan to campaign for Wolfsheimer--and Bernhardt--with renewed vigor this fall.

Moreover, although Wolfsheimer left town Wednesday for a brief Mexican vacation, her aides took heart from the statistical fact that, as one put it, “we’ve got shorter to go than (Trettin) does” to reach 50% in the runoff.

Struiksma, however, cannot say the same in the 5th District, where he was outpolled by Bernhardt, 7,203 votes (38.9%) to 6,058 votes (32.7%). Former City Councilman Floyd Morrow finished third with 3,758 votes (20.3%), followed by lawyer Mike Eckmann (6.1%) and marketing consultant Bob Switzer (2.1%).

The Struiksma campaign’s “spin control” operation Wednesday, however, held that his showing was the almost inevitable byproduct of facing four opponents who consistently kept their rhetorical fire directed at him.

“In the primary, we were fighting a headless monster coming at us from all directions,” said Struiksma consultant Jim Johnston. His partner, David Lewis, added: “Ed’s not on enviable ground, perhaps, but, now that we’re running against one person instead of (four), it’s a whole different ball game.”

‘Eager’ for Campaign

Declaring himself “eager and not at all panicky,” Struiksma said he will try to subject Bernhardt to harsher scrutiny in the runoff than she faced in the primary.

“All she’s done so far is throw mud at me,” Struiksma said, referring, in part, to Bernhardt’s frequent recitation of the Sierra Club’s description of Struiksma as the “most dangerous” member on the council. “Now the spotlight will shift to her, and people will begin to ask who this person is and what programs, if any, she offers. Once that comparison is made, we’ll be in good shape.”

Responding with a line of reasoning similar to that of Trettin, Bernhardt said: “Ed must still be dreaming. More than two-thirds of the voters said they’ve had enough of Ed Struiksma. If I were Ed, I don’t think I’d feel encouraged about that.”

Struiksma, who spent about $250,000 in the primary, probably will match that in the runoff--again, largely from contributions from development interests. But Bernhardt, who spent less than $50,000 in Tuesday’s race, said she is unperturbed by the prospect of again being heavily outspent.