State Assembly members Mike Davis and Curren Price are among the eight candidates who met yesterday's filing deadline for the race to fill the state Senate vacancy left by Mark Ridley-Thomas.

The election is March 24. The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder's Office is still checking the nomination papers to determine whether all eight candidates complied with filing rules. The certification process then moves to the secretary of state in Sacramento.

Both Davis and Price are Democrats and were elected to the Assembly in 2006. Davis' 48th District includes a chunk of Koreatown, then covers a north-south swath of the city along, and to the west of, the Harbor Freeway. He's a former aide to Rep. Maxine Waters and former county Supervisor Yvonne Burke.

Price's 51st District includes Inglewood, where Price served on the City Council, and takes in Playa Vista in Los Angeles, all or parts of the cities of Hawthorne, Lawndale and Gardena, the community of Lennox and portions of Harbor Gateway.

The other candidates who returned nomination papers are Robert Cole, a member of the Los Angeles County Economy & Efficiency Commission; Saundra Davis, member of the Culver City school board; Mervin Leon Evans, an author, crisis consultant and perennial candidate; Jonathan Friedman, a financial analyst; Cindy Varela Henderson, a communications technician; and Nachum Shifren, an educator.

Henderson is a Peace and Freedom Party candidate. Shifren is a Republican. The rest are Democrats.

Under the rules of the "special primary," a candidate who gets more than 50% of the vote on March 24 wins the seat. If no one gets a majority, there will be a May 19 runoff -- more properly known as a special general election (no, really; I don't make this stuff up) between the top vote-getters of each party. In other words, Henderson and Shifren against the top Democrat.

* Photo of red-carpeted state Senate chamber by Robert Durrell / Los Angeles Times

There will be economic pain, at least in the short term, along with environmental gains as Califoirnia imposes steep new rules on diesel trucks, the editorial board warns. But the investment will pay off long-term in better health--and reduced public healthcare costs--as well as ultimately saving truckers some money on fuel:

When it comes to pollution, somebody always pays a price. Currently, the overwhelming majority of the costs are borne by the public. The air board estimates that the new rules will save 9,400 lives by 2025 and up to $68 billion in healthcare costs as cancer-causing emissions are reduced. Moreover, the fuel-efficiency requirements will ultimately save truckers money and help make up for the cost of the upgrades.

The board also offers President-elect Barack Obama advice on picking a new Education secretary: Someone who will keep the reform and accountability movement going, but be open to the many changes needed in the No Child Left behind Act.

On both sides of the fold, there is pondering on Obama's role in the allegations of pay-to-play surrounding Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich. The editorial board is glad that Obama came forward, if a bit belatedly, to address the issue in many Americans' minds about whether his administration was in any way involved. And op-ed columnist Doyle McManus writes that even though the early indications are that Obama's aides did nothing untoward in telling him the administration's preferences about the new senator the governor would appoint, these are always nervous times in case someone said something cringe-worthy:

At worst -- although we are not yet there -- the president-elect could even face calls to fire one of the aides he hoped to bring to the White House, merely for the appearance created by a conversation with Blagojevich in an era of high ethical standards.

Elsewhere on the op-ed page, Joel Stein frets about his status as a potential creditor of Sam Zell, and a human-rights advocate praises the San Diego man who lost his family when a military jet crashed into their home, for being honest about his pain and unwilling to give in to anger.

Blagojevich cartoon by Ed Hall/Artizans.com.

George Frey/Getty Images

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been emphatic about its role in the Proposition 8 campaign. Yes, it strongly urged its members to donate to the Yes on 8 campaign to repeal the right of same-sex couples to marry, as well as encouraging them to volunteer for the campaign. But the actual donations of time and money came from Mormons, not the church.

Gay-rights activist Fred Karger takes exception to that description, and now the state Fair Political Practices Commission is listening. Karger alleged that the church organized out-of-state phone banks to work on the campaign, and distributed thousands of the nearly-ubiquitous lawn banners as well as other campaign materials -- none of it reported as non-monetary contributions as the law would require.

The FPPC said it will investigate the allegations. If they're found to have merit, the church could be fined for each infraction.

The backlash isn't dying down so fast over the passage of Proposition 8, which gives signs of being one of those events that transform a group into a force. Proposition 8 has brought gays and their many supporters to a new level of anger and determination that the initiative's backers probably hadn't foreseen.

There are the ongoing protests, the legal challenges. There are the calls to boycott all things Mormon because the church strongly and successfully called on its members to donate and work for the Yes on 8 campaign, and even the movement to boycott all things Utah (including the Sundance Festival, hardly a bastion of social conservativism). And now a gay-rights group in Utah (not quite the oxymoron you might think) plans to use the words of the church itself to launch legislation there that would expand civil rights for gays.

In an apparent effort to soothe scorched feelings after the vote, Mormon Elder L. Whitney Clayton  said that in general, the church does not oppose civil unions and domestic partnerships created to extend equal benefits such as health insurance and property rights to gays and lesbians. Taking him at his word, Equality Utah says it will help draft five bills for the Utah Legislature seeking these as well as equal rights in employment, housing and probate. The idea is that the church, a powerful force in the state, is faced with a choice of either favoring these rights or coming off as less than honest.

Church spokesmen are mum on this issue so far.

Mormons have been beset this week by news that tends to cast their community in a negative light. A Holocaust survivors' group stopped all discussions with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, saying that despite a 13-year-old agreement to stop the practice, Mormons continue to posthumously "baptize by proxy" Jewish Holocaust victims as Mormons, a practice that deeply offends most Jews. And a judge has ordered the University of Phoenix and its parent company to pay $1.88 million to settle accusations that it discriminated against its non-Mormon employees.

Photo by Chris Detrick/AP

The Yes on 8 campaign is doing its best to spread its outrage -- outrage!! -- over the latest ad against Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to take away the right of gay and lesbian couples to wed.

The ad, which debuted on YouTube and is going out on television today, is certainly the most attention-getting TV spot to criticize the proposition. Most of the ads against Proposition 8 have been extraordinarily tame, unlike the fear-mongering rumors spread by the Yes side.

Not any more. The new ad -- a skit in which two actors playing Mormon missionaries visit the home of a married lesbian couple -- is clearly intended to signal viewers that the Mormon church has been a major player in the Yes campaign. Its message is that the religious right is claiming the power to strip others of their rights, starting with marriage and heading into any other arenas the movement finds immoral.

Having viewed the ad, I can't see what the big deal is. Skits like this are common fodder for campaign ads. Were opponents of Prop. 8 supposed to never touch the religious aspect of this? Is it supposed to be unfair to play the Mormon card, considering the role Mormonism has played on the Yes side (e.g., pressing its members to donate and work for the campaign)? Surely the Mormon church and its members never expected to leap into a campaign with this much vocal and financial might, funding it in large part and pushing for it relentlessly, without expecting that they would be viewed as a force that is trying to roll back the clock on gay rights in California. And considering that the Yes on 8 campaign has tried to depict gays and lesbians as attempting to take over elementary schools and force themselves on religious weddings, it's not in a great position to claim bigotry and intolerance, let alone misleading advertising, coming from the other side.

The "missionaries" show up at the front door .... but watch and judge for yourself.

The sad word just came across that Bill Stall, a fellow editorial writer here at the Times until a few years ago, died today of emphysema.

What you'll probably see first in obituaries about Bill is that he won the Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing, and he did indeed produce an outstanding series of pieces in 2004 that analyzed with extraordinary clarity and conciseness the shenanigans and dysfunctions of state government, and offered common-sense remedies.

But I didn't mention that first, because even his depth of knowledge about important matters, and ability to put that into prize-winning prose, isn't what I remember most about him. Bill was at retirement age when I first joined the department; he already was frequently unwell from emphysema. But nothing slowed his unflagging devotion to his job and his commitment to bringing critical analysis of major issues to readers. He was a plain-spoken guy, but a true gentleman who was unfailingly helpful to me as a beginner in the department, generous with ideas and sources. And when my mother died of Alzheimer's and I had to take off some time, Bill stepped up to take on the editorial I was working on so that it wouldn't be abandoned.

Bill and I exchanged a few emails last week when he was in hospice care. He expressed avid concern about Tuesday's election, about the environment, which was always a great interest of his (He was determined as an editorial writer to keep the number of snowmobiles in Yellowstone from escalating), and about the future of newspapers. Even the nearness of death couldn't quell the intensity of his interest in the affairs of the world at large.

Photo by Gary Friedman/LA Times

   

SUNDAY UPDATE: Half-truths and mistruths about adoption, field trips and church weddings: See today's editorial on Proposition 8.

The No on Proposition 8 campaign reports that it has obtained from campaign finance statements the name of a "secret million-dollar donor" to the Yes on 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage -- John Ashton of Utah, grandson of David O. McKay, who was president of the Mormon Church for nearly 20 years.

A week ago, the Yes on 8 campaign sent letters to businesses that had donated to the other side, to keep same-sex marriage legal in California, demanding that they donate an equal amount against gay marriage or the Yes campaign would "out" them. There are no reports that any businesses caved to this demand. The No campaign seems to have been wise enough not to seek a million bucks from Ashton.

* Photo by Ken Hively/LA Times

Yes on Proposition 8--the campaign that is going all out to ban same-sex marriage in California--has sent out a slew of missives complaining about the lawn signs that have been ripped from their supporters' lawns. No doubt about it, it has happened, and it's a nasty trick (and something that crops up for various campaigns in just about every campaign season).

Strange to say, though, Prop. 8 directors somehow saw this as justification for sending letters to about three dozen companies that donated to the opposite campaign. OK, we're all for free speech, and complaining about someone else's closely held beliefs is fair game. But in this case, the Yes on 8 people demanded equal contributions to their campaign, or they would "out" the donor:

"Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error," reads the letter. "Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. ... The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published."

The pro-8 campaign continues to confuse support for same-sex marriage with lack of support for traditional marriage. In any case, why make life so difficult for the Yes on 8 campaign? They shouldn't have to go to all the trouble of sending out threatening letters if what they want to do is publicize a list. Anybody out there willing to freely give your name as a No on 8 donor so that the other camp can expand its list without having to pay money for postage? (And leave the Yes on 8 lawn signs alone.)

It's an old moan, but a good one, and the Times editorial board makes it again today: There are too few races for the Legislature, in this heavily gerrymandered state, in which the outcome isn't a foregone conclusion. Still, the board finds one of these rarities in the Santa Barbara area and makes an endorsement in it.

The board also suggests that the question of how much racial profiling goes on in the LAPD is more complicated than a recent report conducted for the ACLU reflects, and advises Congress to get rid of the clause in the No Child Left Behind Act that requires schools to give students' personal information to military recruiters unless their parents specifically opt out.

If Congress wants the military to have access to students' home phone numbers, it should openly legislate it, rather than surreptitiously slipping such a provision into an unrelated law.

On the op-ed page, a veteran cop tells a chilling story of the false confession he obtained from a murder suspect. When police are looking for guilt, he discovered, they tend to find it, even when it isn't there. Videotaping interrogations can reveal where things go wrong.

Reviewing the tapes years later, I saw that we had fallen into a classic trap. We ignored evidence that our suspect might not have been guilty and during the interrogation we inadvertently fed her details of the crime that she repeated back to us in her confession.

Joel Stein finds that last-minute voter registrants aren't the slackers he'd expected. And for those of you with access to the dead-tree version of the LAT, Ronald Brownstein describes what happens when the formidable campaign resources of the Obama campaign blanket Florida--but meet up with "one of the nation's most effective Republican organizations."

If you haven't registered, hurry up. Only 134 days until the election.

No, I mean it. You have until midnight to register for the historic Nov. 4 presidential election, with its 12 California propositions and its bevy of taxes and bonds. But vote-by-mail ballots for that one have been out for two weeks, and I’ve moved on. If you live in the city of Los Angeles, the days just before and after election day are the ones that count. Nov. 3 begins the five-day period for candidates for city or school office to file a declaration of intention to run in the March 3, 2009 primary election. And Nov. 5 is the deadline for the City Council to put measures before the voters.

Expect five measures on that ballot, along with the election of mayor, city attorney, controller, eight City Council seats, half the school board and half the community college board. And hope those races aren’t close, or else you’re getting a runoff in May. And, a month after that, you’re most likely getting one of the most important California special elections in recent history, with measures to change the way we do budgeting, and maybe taxing, plus perhaps a measure to bail ourselves out of financial disaster. But if the special election doesn't happen in June, it will happen in November. And then, after a couple months off, it will be time for the state primary – governor, attorney general, and all of that.

You can get a leg up on the March election by checking out Wednesday’s Rules Committee meeting at City Hall, where the panel is expected to sign off on four ballot measures. They are: