Will Cal. A.G. Race Settlement End Contested-Vote Epidemic?
Ending one of the starkest Hot-vs.-Not political campaigns of 2010, San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris has defeated Los Angeles D.A. Steve Cooley in the race for California attorney general.
The race -- one of many prominent contests around the United States whose outcomes remained in dispute long after Election Day -- made for a fluid and entertaining ballot count. Cooley declared victory on election day, then saw the count seesaw for weeks (with both sides trying to work the media) as California counties sent their bags of ballots to Sacramento [pdf].
Quite a few counties, including some large ones, have still not finished their recounts, and two contests for the U.S. House of Representatives remain undecided. In the 11th District, Republican David Harmer trails Democrat Jerry McNerney by 2,474 votes, with the candidates awaiting the final count from 16,982-vote Contra Costa County. In the 20th District, a bitter race between Democrat Jim Costa and Republican Andy Vidak has the Democrat ahead by 3,033, with Fresno County's 10,202 votes yet to be counted.
As noted here a few weeks ago, these two elections are good examples of the gerrymandering weirdness that may or may not be solved by California's new districting process.
Almost exactly ten years ago to the day, Reason's Nick Gillespie, in his true identity as Mr. Mxyzptlk, dilated on the Bush/Gore Very Special Election, arguing that the disputed vote was the summation of a gnat-straining trend in reporting that characterized the 1990s:
As a decade, the still unnamed 1990s were characterized by nothing so much as high-profile controversy after controversy in which either the basic facts themselves were called into question or apparent reality was refuted by nonstop "spin." Hence, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's 1991 Senate confirmation hearings ultimately hinged on unproven (and perhaps unproveable) He Said/She Said charges every bit as unseemly as the contemporaneous Kevin Bacon movie that may have inspired the attack in the first place. Was the footage of L.A. cops beating the hell out of Rodney King an example of good police work, as the jury in the first trial, and an appalling number of regular citizens, concluded after defense attorneys broke it down for them frame by frame? Similarly, did the film of various rioters braining Reginald Denny in the mayhem that followed that verdict adequately identify the luckless trucker's assailants (juries split on this question)?
What to make of the "thermal imaging" shots from the government's assault on Waco — does the haunting infrared footage show anything conclusive, or is it simply a high-tech Rorschach test of an individual's attitude toward the government (and religious freaks)? Did L.A. cops monkey with evidence to frame O.J. Simpson for a crime he may have committed anyway? What to make of the impassioned pleas by the Juice's attorneys, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufield, that the seemingly incontrovertible DNA evidence — the stuff they routinely rely on to free innocent defendants in other situations — was useless crap in this case? Was the gun pointed at Elian Gonzalez, or just at Donato Dalrymple (who technically may not have been a fisherman)? Everything solid, it seemed, dissolved into air, during the decade.
It would be tempting to say that this Age of Uncertainty is still with us, but the big stories of the aughts have tended to contain non-negotiable facts: the 9/11 attacks, the absence of weapons of mass destruction, the first black president, and the credit unwind can all be debated as to importance, perpetrators or effects. But the basic events are pretty clear.
More on gerrymandering:
Update: Vidak has thrown in the towel. Harmer still refuses to concede, but apparently it is numerically impossible for him to win. Both the winners are incumbent Democrats, in regions that are broadly speaking about as Republican as California gets. As noted in the post linked above, the Republicans have nobody to blame but themselves, for accepting an incumbency-protection redistricting back in 2001, rather than trying to remain a competitive party. (Although Harmer might also blame American Independent Party candidate David Christensen, who took 5.2 percent of the vote on a platform of eliminating the 12th, 16th and 17th Amendments and repealing the Federal Reserve Act.)
