By the standards of recent local elections, a relatively strong voter turnout is predicted for this Tuesday’s citywide primary election.

Several local political observers predict that 35 percent to 40 percent of the city’s 1.5 million registered voters will go to the polls or mail in ballots, which translates to anywhere from 535,000 to 610,00 votes cast.

That would be a higher turnout than any citywide election since the 35 percent turnout for the 1993 primary, the last time there was an open seat for mayor. And it would be double the dismal 18 percent turnout for the June 1999 election in which voters approved a new city charter.

“This is one of the most exciting set of races we’ve had in many years,” said L.A.-based political consultant Jorge Flores. “The mayor’s race is really on people’s radar screens now, and there’s a higher energy level because there are so many qualified candidates in the mayor’s race.”

In fact, recent polls show the mayor’s race is so close that one percentage point 5,000 or 6,00 votes may separate the second-place finisher from the third place candidate. Since the polls show it will be virtually impossible for one candidate to garner more than 50 percent of the vote on April 10, a June 5 runoff between the top two finishers is a virtual certainty.

Flores said he believes the turnout will be upwards of 40 percent, boosted by newly registered Latino voters and an unusually heavy turnout in the 32nd congressional district race to fill the seat vacated by the death of Julian Dixon.

Turnout in the 32nd district, Flores said, will most likely benefit the mayoral bid of City Attorney James Hahn, who is drawing a lot of support from the African-American community centered in that district.

With former Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa emerging as the lone Latino contender with a shot at making the June runoff, Flores expects he will receive a boost from the newly energized Latino vote.

But another political observer says voter turnout will probably be closer to 35 percent and maybe even slightly less.

“While the races are certainly more exciting this time than in 1993, there is not the same sense of urgency drawing people to the polls,” said Raphael Sonenshein, a political science professor at California State University, Fullerton, who has long tracked L.A. politics. “Back in 1993, it had been less than a year after the riots and the city was in the midst of a brutal economic downturn. An astounding 80 percent of registered voters polled said the city was heading in the wrong direction and needed new leadership. That kind of situation just doesn’t exist today.”

Sonenshein was also a little more cautious in predicting the Latino turnout. “That’s one of the big imponderables in this election just how many Latinos will show up at the polls. Extensive Latino participation is such a new phenomenon, we simply don’t know what’s going to happen.”

Tension at Debate

Speaking of the mayor’s race, last Wednesday evening the six major contenders faced off for the last time in front of some 800 citizens at UCLA’s Royce Hall. And the headlines this time were not dominated by student protestors who had forced cancellation of a previous debate but rather by repeated clashes between Hahn and Soboroff.

Hahn who just a couple weeks earlier was expected to coast to a runoff slot, according to poll results at that time is now in a fierce battle with both Soboroff and Villaraigosa. And while Villaraigosa may pose the bigger threat he actually led Hahn in two polls released last week the tensions have flared between Hahn and Soboroff. Before the debate, the two were in a shouting match over campaign mailers, with Soboroff actually fingering Hahn and saying, “You’re shaking!” The whole episode was caught on television cameras.

Villaraigosa, meanwhile, largely managed to stay above the fray.

So why the tension between Hahn and Soboroff and not between either of those candidates and Villaraigosa? One observer who has no ties to any of the camps suggested that their conflict dates back to the beginning of the campaign, when the coalition backing Mayor Richard Riordan fractured. Riordan endorsed his trusted adviser Soboroff from the get-go, but one of the Mayor’s strong backers, political operative Bill Wardlaw, sided with Hahn.

(Another Riordan backer, billionaire businessman Eli Broad, went over to the Villaraigosa campaign, but Riordan and Broad have remained on friendly terms, largely because of their mutual interest in education and in revitalizing downtown.)

Relations between the Hahn and Soboroff camps soured early on, but thawed slightly as Hahn drew out to a big lead. Then, in recent weeks, as the race has tightened, the bruised feelings once again came to the fore.

“There is a real sense of betrayal on both sides,” this observer said. “And as it has come down to crunch time, these feelings have only deepened.”

Correction

An item in last week’s column, “Testing for Voting Threshold,” incorrectly reported information on the percentage of “yes” votes garnered by the two most recent L.A. Community College bond measures. The 1991 measure received a 62 percent “yes” vote and the 1996 bond received 49 percent.

Staff reporter Howard Fine can be contacted at (323) 549-5225, ext. 227, or at [email protected].