*UPDATE: Polls are closed, nearly two-thirds of precincts have reported as of 10:40 p.m., and Democratic Assemblyman Curren D. Price Jr. will come in first, but with less than 50% of the vote. In this unusual quasi-open primary, that means Price must face Republican Nachum Shifren (currently battling for third place) and Peace and Freedom candidate Cindy V. Henderson (now running seventh) in a May 19 runoff. Or, more correctly, a special general election. Watch the updated returns tonight by refreshing frequently here or at http://rrcc.co.la.ca.us/elect/.

**UPDATED UPDATE: Semi-final official returns, with 100% of precincts reporting at 11:05 p.m.: Curren D. Price Jr., 35.65% and a place in the May 19 election; Mike Davis, 21.78%, stays in the Assembly; Robert Cole, 13.23%; Nachum Shifren, 11.53%, joins Price in the runoff because he is the top vote-getting Republican (and the only one); Jonathan Friedman, 7.87%; Saundra Davis, 7.61%; Cindy V. Henderson, 1.75% but, as the only Peace and Freedom candidate running, she gets a place in the three-way runoff; and Mervin Leon Evans, 0.57%. Total registration: 390,409. Votes counted: 23,687. Turnout, not including late vote-by-mail and provisional ballots: 6%.

Voters are at the  polls today across a wide swath of Los Angeles to fill a seat in the state Senate. The 26th District takes in some of the city's wealthiest neighborhoods, including Westwood, Century City, Holmby Hills, Cheviot Hills -- and some of its most downtrodden, including the portion of South Los Angeles west of the Harbor Freeway and north of Manchester. In between are Koreatown, Hollywood, Culver City, Ladera Heights and much of Baldwin Hills. At the north end, the district stretches across Cahuenga Pass and touches the San Fernando Valley, and it also reaches east to Silver Lake; but in image, the 26th is most closely associated with South L.A. or, sometimes, Culver City.

Mark Ridley-Thomas resigned the seat following his election to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in November; leading candidates to replace him include two Assembly members who recently began their second two-year terms.

The seat's vacancy played an integral role in the months-long foundering of a state budget deal, since it left the Democrats one more vote short of the constitutionally required two-thirds supermajority - which, in turn, required the majority party to get three GOP senators to sign on instead of just two. That third vote turned out to belong to Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria -- although it's impossible to say with any certainty how different the budget deal would have looked, or whether the other two Republican senators would have signed on, if the Democrats had their full complement on board.

Some other quirks and characteristics of this election and this seat: As a special election to fill a legislative vacancy, it's a modified open primary. Members of every party run together on the same ballot, and the candidate who wins more than 50% of the vote wins. But if none garner a majority, there will be a May 19 runoff among -- no, not the top two vote-getters -- the top vote-getters of each party. That means whoever wins today will likely win the election, even after the runoff, as Times reporter Jean Merl explained in her story Thursday....

When it comes to definitions of life before birth, our society tends to draw lines in the sand. Are you pro-choice or anti-abortion? Do you consider an embryo a human life or a collection of cells?

But the editorial board's discussion earlier this week on embryonic stem-cell research revealed a more unsettled group of reactions, even among a board that has been a booster of such research for years, that endorsed Proposition 71 and that welcomed President Obama's decision to qualify hundreds of new stem-cell lines for federal grants.

At the heart of the matter was this: Is it acceptable to create human embryos with the sole intent of destroying them to create new stem-cell lines? Current law prohibits federal funding from being used for that; for that matter, it also prohibits the use of such money to derive stem-cell lines from any of the 400,000 or so embryos now frozen in fertility labs, even though about 8,000 of those are slated for destruction in any case.

Board members had no qualms about using embryos that would be destroyed, but several shuddered at the thought of creating embryos for the purpose of research, which means for the purpose of destroying them. A couple were unaware that Proposition 71 allows the state bond money to be used for both types of research work.

The question is how we reconcile these two reactions. If we have no problem with the idea of destroying embryos that would have been destroyed anyway, we imply a belief that trash is trash, embryos no different from any other, and we might as well make good use of it. Sort of like turning a milk carton into a bird feeder instead of shipping it off to the landfill, as long as we didn't create the milk carton to be a bird feeder. To the extent that we as a society have a gut reaction against creating embryos for destruction, though, we are saying we don't look at these microscopic collections of cells as simply scientific supplies that might be used to bring new life into the world, or to embark on potentially life-saving research, or to simply discard if we have no better use for it.

Perhaps we -- and by this I mean supporters of embryonic stem-cell research -- are of feeling and thought more mixed than we might have assumed. 

Photo: Paul Sancya/AP

Does Obama's proposed budget amount to class warfare against the rich?  Times readers are sharply divided.  Their mail on the subject led the Letters Top Five tally last week.

During the week ending March 7, The Times received 778 usable letters, 316 of which were in our Top Five Topics.

• "Class warfare": 140 letters, including mail about this news story and this Michael Hiltzik column, as well as letters responding to earlier letters on the subject;
• The Times' new format: 84 letters, mostly angry, commenting on this newspaper's decision to fold California into the main news section; 
• Drug wars: 45 letters, including reactions to this editorial;
• March 3 election: a relatively paltry 26 letters, reacting to coverage of last week's elections; and
• State-funded trips: 21 letters, responding to this investigative piece about California officials who charge what seem to be personal expenses to the state.

How the Top Five is tabulated: Each week, your letters maven receives thousands of e-mails, dozens of letters through the good old U.S. postal service, and even a few faxes here and there.

After she cuts out spam, obscene mail, letters addressed to more than one recipient, letters that seem to be the fruit of letter-writing campaigns and letters with attachments (which gum up our computer systems,) she is usually left with several hundred eligible items, represented in the Letters Top Five tally. From these, she selects the somewhere around 100 that get published in the newspaper. Faxes and snail mail are not reflected in the chart.

The final questioning by the justices revolved around what they seemed to see as two fundamental rights: the rights of gays and lesbians to marry the mate of their choice, and the rights of voters to amend their own constitution according to the processes set up in the state Constitution.

The latter fits with Kenneth Starr's statement: "One of the inalienable rights articulated in the Constitution is control over the Constitution."

But lawyers for the other side countered that the Constitution places limits on the voters and on how changes can be made, including by setting up a judiciary to rule on such matters.

The court had given earlier indications that it had a tentative ruling in place, but it offered no outright hint about which way it would ultimately rule. But the justices' questions suggested grave doubts about overriding the will of the voters who had embedded new wording into the constitution. They suggested equal concern about invalidating previous marriages based on an initiative that doesn't say anything specifically about those marriages. 

Photos: Yes on 8, Steve Yeater/AP. No on 8: Marcio Jose Sanchez/AP

If the case were being decided on the basis of the attorneys' styles, I'd have to hand it to Kenneth Starr, the defender, who handles his arguments with articulate, easygoing panache. The anti-Proposition 8 side might have been at a disadvantage by having several lawyers. The sense of rush to finish by their allotted times, and the lack of a smooth flow to the arguments, made for a choppier set of discussions. Starr has had more opportunity to build his argument, which mainly revolves around the idea that the court should exercise jurisprudence, relying on its history of rulings about revision rather than moving in a new direction.

It's questionable, though, whether Starr's light humor, his smiles as he compared changes to marriage law to a previous case in which an affronted wife challenged no-fault divorce fits well with the subject at hand. The justices appear intense and even occasionally impassioned as they parse the question of the right of voters to revoke the rights of others.

In today's Times editorial and opinion pages, editorial writer Karin Klein drops in on the op side with a reflection on mothering in the era of Online LunchBox, Aeries and other tools for Big Mother.

Who needs the maternal instinct? Today, the school's online data systems tell me everything I need to know about my children's classroom performance. From my desk at home, or work via Wi-Fi, I can find out whether they turned in their homework, whether they cut class, what grades they got on the tests they said they didn't need to study for -- and, in a twist, how many cookies they had for lunch.

Columnist Gregory Rodriguez examines the millennial generation and wonders about their reaction to recession. Pepperdine faculty member Mark Nelson compares the Republicans of the New Deal era, like Federal Reserve chief Marriner Eccles -- who warned FDR he wasn't pumping enough money into the economy -- with the Bobby Jindals of today.

On the editorial page, the Times urges U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to focus on the bad guys.

We're not suggesting that ICE should look the other way when it finds illegal immigrants. Rather, we're arguing for a renewed emphasis on the most dangerous criminals.

The page also notes that the Obama administration has sent confusing signals on No Child Left Behind: Will it emphasize funding or accountability? Schools, and perhaps even the economy, could use federal funding, but "nothing will improve if the new money is spent in the same old ways."

We also recap our endorsements for Tuesday's Los Angeles city election.

Last week, President Barack Obama led the Letters Top Five tally.

During the week ending Feb. 28, The Times received a relatively paltry 549 usable letters, 283 of which were in our Top Five Topics. 

Maybe folks were busy looking for work.  Maybe they spent their free time watching the Oscars or "American Idol."  Whatever the case, they weren't writing us.

• President Obama: 107 letters, including reactions to his speech to Congress and his administration's work this week, including Hillary Clinton's trip to Asia and Energy Secretary Steven Chu's take on green energy;
• California's budget: 90 letters.  A budget may have finally passed, but many of you remain upset about the dysfunction in Sacramento; 
• March 3 elections: 47 letters, responding to our endorsement of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa for mayor as well as Police Chief William J. Bratton's endorsement of Jack Weiss for city attorney;
• Death Row: 24 letters, reacting to this news story and this editorial; and
• Eric Holder: 15 letters, reacting to the attorney general's comment that we are a "nation of cowards" when it comes to discussing race.

How the Top Five is tabulated: Each week, your letters maven receives thousands of e-mails, dozens of letters through the good old U.S. postal service, and even a few faxes here and there.

After she cuts out spam, obscene mail, letters addressed to more than one recipient, letters that seem to be the fruit of letter-writing campaigns and letters with attachments (which gum up our computer systems,) she is usually left with several hundred eligible items, represented in the Letters Top Five tally. From these, she selects the somewhere around 100 that get published in the newspaper.

Faxes and snail mail are not reflected in the chart.

Letters to the editor is already receiving responses to the lead letter that ran on today's page.  David Coffin, of Los Angeles, questions the infrastructure projects in the president's stimulus program and wonders how it will really put Americans to work:

This article's subhead shouts, "Unlike the marvels of FDR's New Deal, the stimulus is more about traffic, sewers and school repairs."

Grand projects or not, President Obama's stimulus plan seems to have missed the mark by a wide margin. How many of those people losing their jobs at Mervyns, Circuit City, Starbucks or even Lehman Bros. can put on a hard hat and find jobs repairing schools, building bridges or replacing aging sewers?

Very, very few, I suspect.

But that misses the point, many of you say.  This e-mail, received this morning from Doris Dent in Studio City, sums up the counterargument:

How short-sighted some Times readers are.  A letter writer wonders how infrastructure jobs will put people who work at places like Starbucks, Circuit City, Mervyns and even Lehman Brothers back to work.

These businesses depend on people who have money to spend.  People who have jobs have money to spend.  Put more people to work and watch our economy improve.

Back to today's page, readers also comment on Barack Obama and Bobby Jindal's performances on Tuesday night, on a recent court decision on autism, and on the contested election for Los Angeles City Council in district five.

In Wednesday's Letters to the editor, we hear from readers about endorsements for the March 3 elections.

Some readers objected to our endorsement of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa for a second term, questioning his record and his commitment to Los Angeles. 

Manny Rodriguez, of West Hollywood, writes:

Did I miss something? I read The Times' endorsement of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa twice to try to get your point.

The accomplishments The Times desperately touts are the least we expect from a mayor. Keeping a good police chief and replacing a fire chief are not noteworthy but rather typical and expected. The billions-of-dollars "subway to the sea" makes you wonder if there is any modern thinking at City Hall at all.

Los Angeles needs and deserves better.

Eagle Rock's Jeffrey Stewart complains that

The fact that Villaraigosa will not rule out a run to be California governor means that he absolutely intends to run for that office.

When he was my city council member, he promised his constituents that the position was not a mere steppingstone to higher office and that he would finish his term. However, as soon as he smelled a better opportunity with a vulnerable Mayor James K. Hahn, he was out the door.

We need a mayor who is fully committed to Los Angeles. Unfortunately, Antonio Villaraigosa is completely and passionately committed to only one thing -- Antonio Villaraigosa.

Former LAPD veteran (and Monterey police chief) Carlo Cudio takes exception to LAPD Chief William J. Bratton's endorsement of City Councilman Jack Weiss for city attorney:

It is not appropriate for emergency services personnel to be seen favoring one politician over another. Police officers, particularly, need to be unbiased.

Any thoughtful police executive, including Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton, should instinctively know that it is inappropriate to endorse a candidate -- unless, perhaps, that police official was brought up in an East Coast "pay for play" environment.

As police chief of Monterey, I often was asked for political endorsements and never had trouble refusing, thanks to my upbringing with the Los Angeles Police Department.

Ethical standards are apparently changing at my alma mater. Sad.

But Murray Levin, of Sherman Oaks, disagrees:

Not only is it the chief's right, but it is his duty as a public figure to weigh in on one of the most important elections in the city -- especially when he perceives that the stakes are high.

Puzzlement over Republican governors who refuse stimulus money and Obama's pledge to reduce the deficit, and a take on using fingerprints as evidence, too.

Photo: Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa at a Feb. 20 White House event.  Credit: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images.

The Times endorses candidates today for the four contested seats on the Los Angeles Community College District: Angela J. Reddock, Kelly Candaele, Jozef Essavi and Kurt S. Lowry. The editorial board also offers kudos to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for projecting a "nonconfrontational foreign policy" during her Asia tour, her first official trip overseas.

Over on the Op-Ed Page, Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid bemoans the concessions being made in Islamabad toward the Taliban, which is negotiating a deal that might allow the Swat Valley region to impose Islamic law -- a deal that Rashid calls "an unmistakable defeat in the country's losing battle against Islamic extremism."

Also, columnist Jonah Goldberg sees Barack Obama morphing into someone who resembles George W. Bush -- now that he has taken office, Obama is turning out to be a good deal more centrist than liberals or conservatives expected. "It's early yet, but I think we're seeing with Obama what happened with Bush," Goldberg concludes. "The chess master is really just a man who's figuring it out as he goes along. Sometimes he'll be right; other times, horribly wrong. But whether he's right or wrong, left-wing or centrist, liberalism will likely mean whatever Barack Obama says it means."

Finallly, oceanographer William Patzert and water board member Timothy F. Brick point out that higher temperatures are reducing mountain runoff even as other traditional sources of water for Southern California are in severe distress, leading to only one possible outcome: higher water prices and more rationing. That's something Californians are going to have to get used to.

Photo: Residents of Pakistan's Swat valley gathering to listen to an Islamic political party leader. Credit: EPA / Rashid Iqbal