The June 3 stealth primary, stripped as it was of its presidential component, didn't even attract 20 % of eligible California voters, but it did set a turnout record in one area: Vote by mail balloting. For the first time ever, more than half the voters did their civic duty by mail. See Secretary of State Debra Bowen's announcement, in pdf, here.

There are all kinds of implications. Voting by mail means voting early, which in turn means that all the late campaign mail, letters to the editor, blogging etc. came too late for 58.71% of voters. There seem to be two schools of thought among political consultants trying to figure out how to respond: Don't worry about it, it's no big deal, this was an unusual election; or, Target your voters better and earlier, and rely less on late-campaign mail.

Some election reformers like the trend to more mail voting, and in fact Los Angeles voters may be asked, before too many more elections go by, to adopt a law mandating mail-only elections.

One problem. Although Los Angeles County is the nation's most populous election jurisdiction, and although Californians seem to be leaning more and more toward voting by mail, L.A. County was a huge outlier in June. Only 38.92% of voters here went to the mailbox instead of the ballot box. You can figure that a majority of those who are going old-school -- going to the polling place on voting day -- are Democrats, because most of the county's voters are Dems, and because stats generally show that the older, whiter and more conservative a voter, the more likely he or she is to vote by mail. So it stands to reason that Republicans would promote more vote-by-mail and more Democrats would resist it.

Only a couple counties did worse than Los Angeles in vote-by-mail turnout. Mono had 36.9% voting by mail. Maybe that's because it's so lonely there that voters like to drive their pickups to the voting booth, hang out for the day and get reacquainted. Napa had 37.38%. Too busy picking grapes or turning bottles to get the vote-by-mail applications in, I suppose.

The foothill and mountain counties are really into voting by mail. In tiny Alpine County, literally everyone -- all 499 of them -- went to the mailbox. Same in dinky Sierra County, where all 1,391 people voted by mail.

Compare the June stats to the record-setting turnout of the February election, as reported here.

Los Angeles Times:

Police show up at IndyMac Branches in Encino, Northridge as waiting customers clash
People in line seeking to withdraw their money are told to remain calm or face arrest. A disruption reportedly occurs when some try to cut in line outside the failed institution.
By Andrea Chang and Andrew Blankstein

Banks hit by fallout from the crisis at IndyMac
Worried depositors swarm the seized thrift. Other firms assert strong cash positions.
By E. Scott Reckard and Andrea Chang

Los Tiempos de Nueva York:

Cconfidence ebbs for bank sector and stocks fall
Lines form at lender
As regulators reassure depositors, analysts point to problems
By Louise Story and Eric Dash

La Opinión:

Alto a miles de embargos
IndyMac suspende esas transacciones mientras clientos acuden a retirar su dinero
Yolanda Arenales e Iván Mejía

Sistema hipotecario en suspenso
Problemas de Fannie y Freddie harán más difíciles los préstamos
Yolanda Arenales

Orange County Register:

Lenders' woes cause jitters
IndyMac reopens as worried customers check on accounts or withdraw their funds .
By Mary Ann Milbourn

Daily News:

Run on IndyMac continues
We want our cash, worried account holders say
By Gregory J. Wilcox

USA TODAY:

Anxiety sends regional banks' shares plunging
By Kathy Chu and Jefferson Graham

Financial Times:

Bail-out fails to calm nerves
Large regional banks suffer in wide sell-off
Shine taken off Fannie and Freddie backing
By Francesco Guerrera, Saskia Scholtes and Henny Sender in New York and James Politi and Krishna Guha in Washington

Is Antonio Villaraigosa really fundraising for the governor’s race instead of his mayoral re-election? Are gay Republicans really trying to get the California Supreme Court to remove the same-sex marriage ban from the November ballot? Did Zev Yaroslavsky actually demand to know whether Dean Logan and the other candidates to be county registrar underwent criminal background checks? Who is Joe Canciamilla and why should you care? When does Jamiel’s law go to voters?

The summer is moving quickly and there has been a lot of election news — not just for November 9, but for next year's mayoral election and the 2010 race for governor (already?) as well. Find it all here, and keep up to date on the facts — with an opinionated twist — on Los Angeles' (and California's) perpetual election at Vote-O-Rama.

First things first. November 4: There’s a chance that your roster of 11 California propositions will get shorter, and you may have a gay Republican research attorney to thank.

Legal experts call it a long-shot, but on June 20, several petitioners asked the state Supreme Court to toss Proposition 8, the initiative to restrict marriage to a man and a woman (find a the one-line text of the initiative in pdf, plus the attorney general documents, here). The justices, fresh from their 4-3 ruling that same-sex couples in this state have an equal right to marry (see a pdf of the opinion here), will now have to decide whether their decision turns the ballot measure from a constitutional amendment into a constitutional revision.

Huh?

Q: Who is the most controversial elections official in the Western United States?

A: Dean C. Logan.

Q: What is the largest elections jurisdiction in the United States?

A: Los Angeles County.

Q: Who is Los Angeles County hiring Tuesday as its permanent elections director?

A: Dean C. Logan.

The Board of Supervisors has been discussing the position in closed session for several weeks, but made clear on the agenda it has posted for its Tuesday, July 8 meeting that it has decided to keep Logan, the interim registrar-recorder/county clerk since the end of last year, and make his appointment permanent. But at-will.

Salary is $195,000 [pdf].

Logan was vilified in 2004 by Washington state Republicans, who accused him of stealing the election of Dino Rossi as governor and handing it to Democrat Christine Gregoire. He was the director of elections for King County, which includes Seattle.

That experience did not save Logan from being vilified by Democrats for his choice of voting software and equipment.

This year, he was vilified by voter advocates after the Feb. 5 presidential primary, in which the ballots of several thousand independent (“decline-to-state”) Los Angeles County voters initially went uncounted in the notorious “double bubble” mess. A majority of those ballots ultimately were counted, and Logan won grudging praise from some of his detractors.

Logan’s name was not mentioned in open session at last week’s board meeting, but Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky went to unusual lengths to prepare critics for the appointment, praising election watchdogs, especially those from his liberal Westside/Valley district, for their vigilance. He also made a point to get on the record that the search firm hired by the county wasn’t really a shill for some voting equipment company. Like Diebold. But there was more.

“Were the candidates vetted for their criminal records?” he asked. Just in case anyone was wondering. And yes, they were. Civil cases? Judgments filed against them? Bankruptcies? Yes, the personnel team responded, they checked into all that.

Yaroslavsky also asked that the contract for Lo—I mean, for whoever they hire as recorder-registrar/clerk include language forbidding the use of his or her image on any vendor’s promotional material. That’s kind of a no-brainer – except that a picture of and quote from the last registrar, Conny McCormack, ended up on a Diebold brochure.

There also was mention of “desirable” qualifications, including a college degree. That’s something Logan reportedly does not have.

The relationship between McCormack and California Secretary of State Debra Bowen was strained, in part over different levels of confidence in the county’s voting equipment. In her “top-to-bottom review” of equipment throughout California, Bowen decertified Los Angeles County’s touch-screen equipment, which was used for early voting and was in line for eventual use in election-day balloting as well.

On Feb. 5 the county used the double-bubble stamp cards, together with the InkaVote scanner system that alerts voters if they improperly voted twice in the same race or did anything else that would invalidate the ballot. The actual ballots were updated for the June 3 election. InkaVote equipment has been recertified for the limited purpose of scanning ballots at the polling place. It is in line to be used in the Nov. 4 presidential election as well.

To count ballots, the county has scrapped plans to use Diebold GEMS 2 equipment, since it failed to win certification because of security concerns. In its place, the registrar is using a proprietary “legacy” system – in other words something that is rapidly aging – known as MTS. It has been certified, with conditions.

Logan said his department plans to use MTS through the 2010 statewide election and, in the meantime, go through a strategic planning process to figure out how to eventually replace it.

The city of Los Angeles is also without a permanent elections official. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa appointed Karen Kalfayan as interim city clerk in March on the retirement of Frank Martinez. His action is required to make Kalfayan permanent, or to pick a replacement, subject to approval of the City Council

What could be more titillating than a weeklong Dust-Up on L.A.'s $12 billion adult industry? Porn producer John Stagliano and Pepperdine professor Barry McDonald keep it clean while arguing about what's obscene, what's allowed, and what adults should be free to look at. Yesterday, Stagliano and McDonald debated legal definitions of obscenity and the federal case against Stagliano and his company. Today, they take a look at what the Alex Kozinski scandal says about public attitudes toward adult entertainment. 

Various sundry bits of immigration news have slipped through Opinion L.A.'s fingers in the past few days, but let's start with today's hits. Fresh off the virtual press, The Times reports that a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department that sought to nix Special Order 40 has been dropped:

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu, granting a motion from the city and the ACLU, said the plaintiff failed to prove that "Special Order 40" was in conflict with federal laws that dictate the flow of information between local and federal agencies regarding people's immigration status.... [The plaintiff's] lawyers called Special Order 40 "essentially a 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy regarding illegal aliens." They said the policy restricts the LAPD's ability to share information with federal immigration officials -- a claim that city attorneys denied.

But even if Special Order 40 is here to stay, L.A. County jails are expanding immigration screenings (Special Order 40 does allow officials to question those accused of or incarcerated for a crime.) As The Times notes, officials have interviewed 20,000 inmates and had more than half of them referred for possible deportation. But even with five extra interviewers (for a grand total of 13), every foreign-born inmate can't be interviewed. And of course, people lie. As the story notes, referring to the case that launched the Special Order 40 scrutiny, even though the order wasn't to blame for the tragic murder:

Pedro Espinoza, an illegal immigrant and alleged gang member, is accused of killing high school football star Jamiel Shaw II in March, one day after Espinoza was released from an L.A. County jail. Espinoza wasn't red-flagged for an interview because he said during booking that he was born in the U.S., sheriff's officials said. A judge ruled last week that Espinoza would be tried for murder.

Meanwhile, advocates of stricter illegal immigration enforcement are doing what they can without a presidential candidate to guide them. The Times reports that they're focusing efforts on state and local governments (where a lot of enforcement measures have already passed). And they're taking it to the streets.

Finally, the editorial board has two immigration editorials today, see our previous post for more.

The editorial board has two immigration-related editorials today, one urging the president to sign a bill that would streamline citizenship applications for soldiers, and another discussing Congress' compassion to one particular group of visitors to the U.S.: supermodels. The board also wonders what's in store for transportation in L.A.:

Who deserves a light-rail line more, the people of Azusa or the people of Santa Monica? Which line makes more sense, one that would serve the future needs of fast-growing communities to the east, or the current needs of the traffic-choked Westside?

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is faced with the unenviable task of answering these questions on Thursday....

On the Op-Ed page, state Sen. Sheila James Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) throws her support behind the Expo line. Pierce O'Donnell, lead attorney for Hurricane Katrina victims, tells flood victims to beware the obscure Section 702c, which protects the government from lawsuits. Author Michael A. Elliott rehabilitates the Indians who killed George Armstrong Custer. And historian James M. Banner Jr. wonders when Europe will stop blaming Ireland.

On the letters page, readers remember George Carlin. Roza Besser of Calabasas remembers getting shut out of a comedy show as a college student until Carlin himself lent a hand:

Ten minutes before showtime, Carlin walked out of the theater's front doors and quietly said, "I hear you can't get tickets. I'm sorry there aren't student tickets. Here, take these." And he quickly turned and went back inside.

Orchestra tickets for everyone! We were stunned.

*Photo of an annual tribal ceremony in Montana, marking Custer's Last Stand, by Larry Mayer, Associated Press

Former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John R. Bolton calls Barack Obama naive:

Barack Obama's willingness to meet with the leaders of rogue states such as Iran and North Korea "without preconditions" is a naive and dangerous approach to dealing with the hard men who run pariah states. It will be an important and legitimate issue for policy debate during the remainder of the presidential campaign.

Consider his facile observations about President Kennedy's first meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, in Vienna in 1961.

Columnist Rosa Brooks compares Hillary Clinton's failed campaign with President Bush's Iraq strategy. And columnist Patt Morrison wonders why L.A. didn't preserve the site where Bobby Kennedy was shot 40 years ago.

The editorial board urges Bernard Parks and Mark Ridley-Thomas to focus on real issues in the five months before their run-off election for Board of Supervisors. The board also thinks an LAUSD teacher walk-out is a bad idea, even if it's born of legitimate grievances. Finally, the board doles out some Lakers love and waxes nostalgic about the last time the team faced off against the Celtics.

On the letters page, readers discuss Joel Stein's column urging old people to get over their squeamishness and support gay marriage. Huntington Beach's Betty Holden says, "I resent Stein's denigration of senior citizens," but Camarillo's Sean Ragan thinks, "Stein definitely has me pegged."

*Photo of the site of the Kennedy shooting, courtesy The Times.

The point of Times endorsements is not to pick winners, but to back those candidates who would do the best job in the office regardless of whether they have a chance of winning. Still — we want to know how our picks did. And we might even tell ourselves that a Times endorsement helped them cross the finish line first. So here it is:

Los Angeles Superior Court endorsements and results:

Office 4: We endorsed Ralph Dau. He won. Score one for us.

Office 69: Serena Murillo. She was beaten by Harvey Silberman. We're 1-1.

Office 72: Hilleri Grossman Merritt. Leading, but she's in a runoff with Steven Simons. We're, uh, 1-1-1.

Office 82: Cynthia Loo. Leading, but in a runoff with Thomas Rubinson. 1-1-2.

Office 84: Pat Connolly. Leading, but in a runoff with Lori-Ann Jones. 1-1-3.

Office 94: Michael O'Gara. Leading, but in a runoff with C. Edward Mack. 1-1-4.

Office 95: Patricia Nieto. A win. 2-1-4.

Office 119: Jared D. Moses. A win. 3-1-4.

Office 123: Kathleen Blanchard. A win. 4-1-4.

Office 125: James Bianco. A win. 5-1-4. Things are looking up.

Office 154: Michael Jesic. Runoff with Rocky Crabb. 5-1-5.

So there it is for judicial endorsements. Our picks lost one and came out ahead in the other 10 contested races, with five victorious outright and five ending up in a Nov. 4 runoff.

In other races: We endorsed three incumbent county elected officials and, no surprise, they all won. District Attorney Steve Cooley and Supervisors Don Knabe and Michael D. Antonovich. That puts us at 8-1-5, but we can hardly take credit for those. In the Second District supervisorial race, our pick — Bernard C. Parks — came in second to Mark Ridley-Thomas but is in a runoff. We're 8-1-6.

We said no on Proposition 98 and yes on Proposition 99. So did voters. 10-1-6.

We endorsed in five partisan legislative primaries, and each of our candidates won their nomination: Republican for Senate Bob Huff, Democrat for Senate Fran Pavley, and Democrats for Assembly Bob Blumenfield, John A. Perez, and Isadore Hall. Our final, tally: 15 wins, 1 loss, and 6 runoffs.

And this all means — what? That the Los Angeles Times is the heaviest hitter in town, and that our endorsement is what makes the difference in elections; or that the Times editorial page is a follower rather than a leader, and endorses only the establishment candidates who already have the inside track; or that these races were really no contest, with one candidate the obvious choice in each of them; or nothing at all. Take your pick. And get ready for November.

Results for the L.A. County district attorney race:

STEVE COOLEY    327,088 64.35
ALBERT ROBLES   101,886 20.04
STEVE IPSEN         79,357 15.61

Registration 4,027,819
Precincts Reporting 4,783
Total Precincts 4,783
% Precincts Reporting 100

The Times editorial board endorsed Cooley, without visible enthusiasm.

The man named Bill Johnson/Daniel Johnson/William D. Johnson/James O. Pace has been handily defeated in his quest to be elected to the Los Angeles Superior Court. Read up to learn why, but here's the short version: he wrote a book calling for non-whites to be denied U.S. citizenship and deported. He led an organization advocating for a constitutional amendment toward that end. More recently, he helped a ridiculous write-in campaign against six Latino judges. He was bested in the race for Office No. 125 by Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner James Bianco, whom the Times endorsed.

By the way, this was at least the fourth political campaign for Johnson, who ran as a Republican for the Hawaii state Assembly, a Republican for Congress from Wyoming, and a Democrat for Congress from Arizona.

Also winning outright are Deputy District Attorney Kathleen Blanchard (who also won a Times endorsement) in Office No. 123; Deputy D.A. Jared Moses (ditto) in Office No. 119; and Superior Court Commissioner Patricia Nieto (ditto) in Office No. 95. That makes four new judges.

It's great news in the case of Blanchard and Moses, not just because they'll make good judges, but also because their opponents were so eminently unqualified. It's good news in Nieto's case too, but a shame that her opponent, Deputy Attorney General Lance Winters, cannot take the bench as well, since he is also a great candidate. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, take notice when it's next time to appoint someone to the bench in Los Angeles.

The only sitting judge to be challenged, Ralph Dau, also easily won election in Office No. 4, as did those six Latino judges against whom no write-in challengers ever materialized.

The balance of the Superior Court races appear to be headed toward November runoffs.

Here is a complete list of the Times editorial board's endosements and here we make the case for our judicial choices.

More than half the vote is in, but Mark Ridley-Thomas has less than half of it. That means he and Bernard C. Parks are in for five more months of campaigning as they head toward a Nov. 4 runoff in their battle to become the newest member of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Hey, you members of the campaign donor class -- open your wallets. Again.

It's bad news for the county, as its government prepares to deal with Martin Luther King Medical Center and other health issues in South Los Angeles; and state budget cuts; and a host of other problems -- with a long period of uncertainty about the future.

It also throws a wrench into the works of special elections to fill either Ridley-Thomas' Senate seat or Parks' Los Angeles City Council seat. Which seat will open up? When will the special election be?

There likely will be several runoffs for Los Angeles Superior Court judicial seats. With more than 60% of the vote counted, these runoffs appear likely:

Office No. 72: Hilleri Merritt and Steven Simons

Office No. 82 Cynthia Loo and Thomas Rubinson

Office No. 84 Pat Connolly and Lori-Ann Jones

Office No. 94 Michael O'Gara and C. Edward Mack

Office No. 154 Michael Jesic and Rocky Crabb

Things could change as more votes come in. But don't hold your breath.

A staple of election season is the newspaper story or editorial that laments that no one knows anything about judicial candidates. So it's gratifying to see that some of those stories this year advised voters not to mark their ballots for candidate Bill Johnson.

How do they know about Johnson? How do they know that he wrote a 1985 book under the name James O. Pace, called Amendment to the Constitution, calling for all non-white people to be stripped of U.S. citizenship and deported? How do they know that he led an organization to drum up support for the amendment? How do they know that he ran for Congress in Wyoming as a Republican and Arizona as a Democrat, all while keeping his Los Angeles law practice?

They know because the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, a small Los Angeles daily newspaper that covers courts, judges and the legal community, reported on Johnson earlier this year. That report led to a Times editorial and several opinion blog posts, a story on KTTV Fox Channel 11, a story in the Jewish Journal, endorsements for Johnson's opponent in the Daily News and other papers belonging to the Los Angeles Newspaper Group, a reference to Johnson's past in a Daily Breeze story, and a story in the Pasadena Weekly. Final election results aren't in, but it seems that at least the word got out, thanks to the MetNews.

To be fair to the Pasadena Weekly, writer Kevin Uhrich had personal experience with Johnson in the Pace days, and he recounted it in his recent story. But the word about Johnson is out in large part because MetNews editor Roger Grace does something that no one at any other publication in the state does -- he digs deep into judicial races and subjects candidates to the kind of scrutiny that other papers complain never is used. I worked with Grace for 11 years at the MetNews and it was a treat to watch him in action at judicial election time.

As far as the complaint that no one knows anything about judicial candidates, I have to say: Not true. MetNews readers know, as do readers of the Los Angeles Times endorsements.

I like to think we at the Times editorial page do a much better job of evaluating judicial candidates, because of what I learned at the MetNews, than we might otherwise. Whether or not that is the case, the Johnson episode shows that a small, independent newspaper still can make a big difference.

As other election news swirls, the Daily Breeze has this seemingly tiny but in fact very important story: Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) has let go of her previously tenacious support for Hillary Clinton and is now a Barack Obama supporter.

The move is significant to anyone trying to figure out what Clinton meant when she said she wouldn't be making any decisions this evening. Is she really going to try for the VP spot, or is she taking this all the way to the convention? Waters' move signals that Clinton's bid for the top spot is over.

Obama clinched the nomination based on primary results today in Montana and South Dakota.

Waters is an enormously influential figure in South Los Angeles and African American Democratic Party politics. Her endorsement is crucial to local candidates like Bernard C. Parks for county supervisor and Ron Wright for state Senate. Her slate card packs tremendous clout with voters.

She has been under tremendous pressure from other African American leaders to jettison Clinton for Obama, but she held firm. Until now.

Somebody -- anybody -- please just get 50% plus one tonight. Otherwise, like the folktale of the political consultant who comes out of his hole on election day but doesn't see his shadow (that's how the story goes, right?) we have five more months of campaigning.

But it's looking grim in these early hours. With a still-paltry 1.35% of precincts reporting, Mark Ridley-Thomas has a comfortable lead over Bernard C. Parks in the race for Los Angeles county supervisor in the Second District. But it's not comfortable enough. Ridley-Thomas has 47.12% of the vote to Parks' 35.57%, but he needs 50% to avoid a runoff.

That might be tough. There are seven other candidates in this race, and even if none of them captures more than a few thousand votes, it could be enough to prevent anyone getting a majority. As it stands now, even Morris "Big Money" Griffin, the man who came up with the idea of an "ethnic lottery" so that winnings would only go to people of the same ethnic group as those who bought tickets, has 2% of the early vote.

So if the campaign ending now was all about Ridley-Thomas and Parks, the next five months will be, well, more Ridley-Thomas and Parks.

It's that way in any non-partisan race with more than two candidates. There will likely be at least a couple judicial runoffs in November.

It's a good opportunity for the New America Foundation to move forward with its plan for instant runoff voting, in which the runoff takes place simultaneously with the election. San Francisco currently uses IRV, as the insiders call it. Hear KPCC's Frank Stoltze report on New America's presentation yesterday at Los Angeles City Hall.

By the way, this 50% plus one issue doesn't apply to partisan primaries, like state Senate and Assembly. A Democrat just needs one more vote than his or her competitors -- same for Republicans -- to win the primary. There is a general election between party winners in November, but most districts are virtually owned by one party or the other, so it's really all being decided today.

California Progress Report posts a jeremiad called "What’s the matter with Los Angeles When It Comes to Elections?" and it doesn't even mention that there's an election today! But if you've had trouble voting today, you still might want to take a look:

With the largest concentration of voters in the State, 18 Congressional Districts are partly or wholly contained in the County, along with 14 State Senators and 26 Assembly-members.

(The L.A. Times is not responsible for unattached participles in sentences written by other publications.) The Report cites a host of troubles, and lays the blame for most of them on former Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Conny McCormack, who has "close ties to Diebold," and on her sucessor Dean Logan, who "has no college education." (If true, that should be considered a point in his favor.) I think it's time to let up on McCormack and give Logan a chance. They're like Boris and Natasha to Southern California fraudsters.

Still, vote-count enthusiasts have a point. I find Diebold somewhat like Freddy Kruger: scary the first few times but now so familiar as to be little more than a wisecracking old pal. But it's jarring to consider that we accept in voting an ambient level of inaccuracy that would never be allowed in a banking software, a weapons system or any other product the public actually cared about.

So as I'm getting ready to vote this morning, I look through my pile of literature from the state and county to make sure the address of my polling place is the same as usual. The only current piece of mail I find is an absentee voter pack, which does not contain the address and which I then throw away. I head down to the usual polling place and find it's open for business.

But when they check me out on the rolls, I discover I'm marked down as the recipient of an absentee ballot, and thus ineligible for a real ballot. It turns out that the absentee ballot I threw in a dumpster an hour before was the only ballot I was allowed, and I was supposed to drop that off at the polling place. The kind folks at the polling place provided me with a provisional ballot and I was required to fill out a bunch of personal information, including the last four digits of my social. (Is there any activity left in America that does not require you to bear the mark of the beast?)

The trick is that I never requested a vote-by-mail ballot, and would never vote by mail under any circumstances. I vote out of a sentimental attachment to dying ways of life, for the tiny bit of satisfaction I get from taking the trip to the polling place, seeing all the earnest oldsters behind the folding table and going through the rituals of our democratic charade. What could be more pointless than voting absentee, where you miss out on the whole Four-Freedoms vibe of the activity? Today I even brought my camera to get some nice election-day pics, but since I remained the only voter in the Hollywood Neighborhood City Hall throughout my ballot brouhaha, that didn't amount to much. Still, here are some shots of folks hanging out in and around Hollywood.

My questions: 1) Why would I have received an absentee ballot when I didn't request one? The poll workers, who were pretty clearly hoping I would just leave, said it was probably a mixup. On the page that had my name, I and one other person had been marked down as having received a vote-by-mail ballot, so it doesn't seem to be that common to order them. (I wouldn't even know how to order one, let alone how to get off the vote-by-mail list that I seem to be on now.)

2) What are the odds that my provisional ballot will get counted? This is one of the lowest-impact elections I can recall, and as indicated above I'm not a big believer in elections, government or democracy, so I won't get exercised either way, but in her list of reasons for giving provisional ballots, Secretary of State Debra Bowen says I'm entitled to have my vote counted:

• Records indicate that the voter requested an absentee ballot and the voter fails to turn in the absentee ballot at the polls on Election Day. The Elections Official’s Office will check the records, and if the voter did not vote an absentee ballot, the voter’s provisional ballot will be counted.

Of course, that's if some sneaky dumpster-diver didn't grab my absentee ballot, fill it out and hand-deliver it sometime today! Seems like a lot of trouble to go to just to commit vote fraud, but you never know. Did I mention that more people seem to be on bikes these days?

I love it when you can actually see in your daily life the evidence of one of these big news stories we're always writing about (oil price spike hits Angelenos hardest!). Maybe it's just my imagination, but traffic has seemed a lot lighter in recent weeks, and my slow route in this morning took me past hundreds of alt.transporation users:

See? It's the market, not smart growth or urban planning or any other government activity, that is actually getting people out of their cars. Which is another reason I have to keep harping about this ballot business. Election day is one of the few times that I actually get out and around in the morning, before reporting to the impenetrable fortress of the L.A. Times building. If I haven't got a polling place to go to, I'll be cutting myself off from the wellspring of my success, from the common man.

And speaking of the common man, that first picture above is several weeks old: The Bill Johnson poster became progressively more covered with graffiti and finally vanished entirely from its place at the corner of Beverly and Commonwealth. I wish I could say the graffiti indicated knowledge of our extensive Johnson coverage, but it was all just regular tagging.

Happy election day.

In the course of endorsing District Attorney Steve Cooley for re-election in the June 3 primary, The Times editorial board reminded voters that Cooley promised to serve only two terms (this would be his third). We also expressed alarm at his plan to anoint a successor. If he had kept his promise, we noted, there would be other qualified candidates running to succeed him instead of the two we believed would be worse than Cooley. Here's a link to the full editorial. Here's a brief selection:

As for Dist. Atty. Cooley, it is noteworthy that he criticized predecessor Gil Garcetti in 2000 for seeking a third term and promised that he would serve only two. This year, he is seeking his third.

It's not the first time a politician has broken a promise, but we recall his rationale -- the office benefits from "fresh eyes" on old problems. It held true then, and it holds true today. Under Cooley, the district attorney's office has done a competent job of handling felony prosecutions, and Cooley deserves credit for his principled stand on third strikes -- agreeing to prosecute them as strikes only when they are violent felonies. But if he stepped down now, as he had promised, other lawyers would be stepping up as candidates to reinvigorate the office.

We're especially concerned about Cooley's stated plan to stick around until he has groomed and selected a successor. That's a power that belongs to voters, not to him.

So it's with chagrin and a hint of admiration for his chutzpah that I take note of this Cooley mailer that quotes from the editorial in the lower right-hand corner and puts "Los Angeles Times" in huge letters to show we're on his team. "We go with Cooley." Well, we did say that.

You already read in the Times' L.A. Now blog last month's report of an amazing coincidence — Bernard Parks' campaign web site bore a striking resemblance to Barack Obama's.

Parks is not alone. Many candidates are trying to hitch a ride on the Obama steamer if it serves their purposes. You probably won't see many Obama-esque slogans in the Senate district where Republicans Bob Huff and Dick Mountjoy are facing off, but check out the bottom of Isadore Hall's brochure for the 52nd Assembly District and the top of the Obama poster. Even the font is kind of similar, don't you think? By the way, the Times endorsed both Parks and Hall. Originality isn't everything.

California has more registered Democrats, American Independents and decline-to-states than it did four years ago, according to figures released today by Secretary of State Debra Bowen, but fewer of everything else: Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Peace and Freedoms all lost voters. And I strongly suspect that the American Independents are up only because voters mistakenly believed that by registering "Independent" they were registering small-i "independent," or decline-to-state.

Those decliners had been the fastest growing voter group here, but the excitement over the Billary-Barama February 5 primary got the Democratic Party lots of new blood. The party undoubtedly is hoping its newbies will stick around for the big-stakes fight against John McCain in November. Bowen said she is hoping California's new voters will vote on Tuesday, too. It's good to have dreams.

The numbers: Out of 23 million people in the state who are eligible to vote, 70% -- 16.1 million -- have registered. Compare that with 15 million in 2004. Democrats have a net gain of 500,000, to bring their registered troops up to 7 million, or 43.75% of all registered voters in the state. Republicans lost 120,000 and are now at 5.2 million in California, or 32.53%. Decliners are at 3.1 million -- 19.4%.

It's also interesting to note where these voters are -- and aren't. Registration is second-highest in Republican-rich Orange County (84.97% registered; 45.88% of them are GOP). It is exceeded by, of all places, sparsely populated Sierra County and almost matched by other mountain and foothill counties like Alpine and Plumas. The most Republican of counties is Modoc, in the northeastern corner of the state, with 50.22% GOP voters, which comes out to 2,641 people.

Marin County, north of San Francisco, is up there in registration -- 80.64% of eligible voters, of which 53.89% are Democrats. It is one of nine counties, of California's 58, that is more than half Democrat.

One of those is Los Angeles County, with 4.06 million registered voters (that's 71.01% of the 5.7 million people who are eligible). The county has far more people registered here than any other county; compare with 1.5 million in Orange and 1.3 million in San Diego.

Democrats account for 50.96% in L.A. County, Republicans for 25.05%. Registration numbers are dismal in the Inland Empire and parts of the Central Valley.

Where would you look for registered Greens? No surprise -- they are thickest in Santa Cruz, Sonoma and San Francisco, all of which have more than 2% Green registration. The homeland for Libertarian Party members appears to be Calaveras County of jumping frog fame with 1.16% of registered voters(although in raw numbers, L.A. has the most of everyone in any category).

Two more cities are lining up to ask voters to ratify and broaden their telephone taxes, also known as utility users' taxes. Los Angeles, Pasadena and Huntington Park voters went for it in February; Culver City, Malibu and Sierra Madre voters did it in April. Now voters in Covina and Torrance will weigh in.

But wait — didn't Covina recall a whole city council over phone taxes? And didn't voters there just reject the phone tax a year ago? Well, sure. But they're trying again, and on the June 3 ballot there is no opposition statement because, well, the Covina City Council didn't want to include it.

Covina's phone tax history in a nutshell: The city council first adopted its utility users' tax in 1992, decades after cities like Los Angeles did the same. The tax was 6% on telephone, electric, gas and water bills. Let's just say it didn't go over well. Voters recalled all five members of the council in 1993. The new council rescinded the tax and then — get this — a year later they put the tax back in place, at a higher 8.25% rate. Lots of I-told-you-so's all around. Then in 1999, voters adopted a 6% UUT, to expire in 10 years.

In March 2007, voters were asked to re-up the tax for another decade, but they said no. City leaders insisted that voters didn't really mean "no," but were instead befuddled by a confusing ballot format. So they put together another measure for June 3, calling on voters to extend the tax for another 10 years after its 2009 sunset.

The ballot pamphlet contains arguments for the tax, but no arguments against, because instead of filing their statement at City Hall, opponents filed with county officials. The county, not the city, is running the election, and county officials said they wouldn't mind bending the rules and including the statement, but Covina officials, sticklers for procedure when it helps their case, said thanks, but no thanks.

See a pdf of the Covina ballot here and go to page 20, and on through the end.

It's easy to see why they would get nervous about losing the tax: The $5.5 million it brings in each year accounts for 20% of Covina's general fund budget.

Unlike Los Angeles' Proposition S from the February ballot, Covina's UUT does not broaden the phone portion of the tax to newer technologies.

That's Measure C, by the way — "C" for Covina. Measure T is in, of course, Torrance, and does broaden — sorry, "modernize" is the term of art — the phone portion of that city's 6.5% tax that first was adopted in 1972. From the ballot argument in favor: "To keep pace with technology advances, the City must modernize and ratify its UUT — closing loopholes that didn't exist in the 1960's." Translation: You people keep making your calls on newfangled cell phones and online instead of the old-school land-lines we're used to taxing you for, and when we tried to tax your new high-tech calls, we got challenged in court, so vote yes and let us keep taxing you on all your calls.

See a pdf of the Torrance ballot here, and go to page 24.

Extending the tax makes sense, but the verbal and intellectual gesticulations the cities go through to justify the move are, uh, taxing. They could just say that as consumers shift from old, taxable services to new, non-taxable ones, they are being de-funded. They could say that it makes sense for the service, rather than the technology, to be taxed. But they instead talk about closing loopholes. Some cities, like Los Angeles, even market their measures as tax reductions. Go figure.

Here's more on the legal background, but get ready for another wrench to be thrown in the works: Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) has introduced a bill to bar cities, counties and states from taxing cell phones.

Today's Op-Ed page asks UC academics and other experts for suggestions for the university system's incoming presidnet, Mark Yudof. And columnist Jonah Goldberg argues that attacking Michelle Obama is fair game:

[T]he Illinois senator's desire to protect his wife from criticism shows his heart's in the right place. The question is, where is his head?

If he truly finds it "unacceptable" for people to criticize his wife, he might want to rethink his policy of sending her out as his chief campaign surrogate, particularly when she has proved to be such a rich source of copy for journalists and barbs for critics.

And just out of curiosity, what does it mean, exactly, when a candidate finds something "unacceptable"? In a democracy, finding criticism unacceptable is a surefire way to drive yourself bonkers. It's like saying you find it unacceptable that bears use the woods for a bathroom.

On the editorial page, the board endorses Bernard C. Parks for the 2nd Supervisorial District. The board also criticizes the president's stimulus plan for excluding some legal immigrants and their spouses. And finally the board responds to ex-Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez's claim that the media is crutinizing his spending habits because "they think I have to sleep under a cactus and eat from taco stands."

Readers discuss oil companies' high profits. Former Unocal Corp. chair Richard J. Stegemeier notes, "If Exxon Mobil's senior vice president, J. Stephen Simon, donated his entire 2007 salary of $12.5 million to gas price reduction, it would lower Exxon Mobil's pump price by 0.03 cents a gallon, or less than one cent per tank."

*Artwork by Susan Tibbles

In March, a Carson minister launched a write-in campaign against six Latino Los Angeles Superior Court judges, with the help of a USC student and a judicial candidate who wrote a book advocating the loss of citizenship and deportation for everyone in the U.S. who isn't a white person of European descent. The minister, Ronald C. Tan, explained at the time that he wanted to replace the six with Filipino judges who share his view of religion, abortion and other social issues.

The Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports today that no candidates filed to challenge the six. Under state election law, a write-in candidate is counted only if he or she qualifies by filing nomination papers. The Tuesday deadline came and went with no papers filed, the MetNews reported.

That's good news for Judges Juan Carlos Dominguez (in the Pomona North Courthouse); Hector M. Guzman (Torrance); Daniel S. Lopez (Pomona); Daniel P. Ramirez (Whittier); Jose Sandoval (the Foltz criminal courts building in downtown Los Angeles); and Michael Villalobos (West Covina). Unlike the 130 or so other unchallenged judges who are up for election this year, the names of the six will still appear on the June 3 ballot, but any write-in votes against them will be in vain.

Tan said in March that he was in the process of getting some of his "dear friends" to try to unseat the judges. It could be that his friends were less dear than he thought, or that they were a bit turned off by the participation of judicial candidate Bill Johnson, who wrote a 1985 book under the name James O. Pace calling for the repeal of the 14th and 15th amendments and the loss of citizenship for Asians and all other non-whites.

Why pick on Latinos? Because, Tan said, they would be easier to beat than judges with Anglo names.

Your clueless friends and neighbors are waiting for November to vote, which means your ballot in the June 3 election will count for a heck of a lot more. Turnout is expected to be very low, so if you show up, you can run the state. But you don't even have to show up. You can vote by mail -- if you meet the Tuesday, May 27 deadline for a mail ballot.

Some candidates and initiative campaigns send you forms you can fill out and send to the Los Angeles County registrar, or you can use the form on your sample ballot.

Or you can apply electronically for your vote-by-mail ballot here.

Prefer doing it old-school, casting your ballot on voting day at the polling place? Find the right garage, church basement or elementary school auditorium by filling in your address here.

And check in often at the Times' Vote-o-rama site for endorsements and the latest bulletins, news and opinion on the June 3, November 4, and even the March 2009 elections.

It's the election officials' version of a rave! Without the music and the Ecstasy. Starting now, and rolling until midnight! Don't you dare miss it! Register to vote in the June 3 election! Your pick of three hot locations! The hippest Starbucks in town! Or the coolest courthouse west of La Brea! Or the rockinest registrar's headquarters, right where it's all happening — Norwalk! It's your last chance!

No, really. Los Angeles County elections officials will be on hand to register voters for the June stealth primary at three locations until midnight (pdf) and, for you folks who have aged out of the rave scene, five other locations until 9 p.m.

If you're already registered, and haven't changed parties or addresses, and haven't been convicted of a felony, you're OK. Otherwise, this is your final shot to be able to weigh in on two important ballot measures on government land-grabbing and, if you live in the Second Supervisorial District, it's your chance to decide the fate of Los Angeles County for the next 12 years. It's also your chance to make sure that the author of a tract proposing that all non-white people be expelled from the United States doesn't (or does; it's your vote, and for now it's still a free country) become a Los Angeles Superior Court judge. And that's no hype.

Here are the until-midnight hot spots:

Registrar-Recorder Headquarters, 12400 Imperial Hwy., Norwalk

Beverly Hills District Court, 9355 Burton Way, Beverly Hills

Magic Johnson Starbucks, 5301 W. Centinela, Los Angeles

Los Angeles County's clerk — the guy who handles marriages, among other things, in the nation's biggest county — told the Times in a story Saturday that he might find a way to let staff who feel, uh, uncomfortable performing a same-sex ceremony to opt out.

No way, says Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo. In a letter today to county Board of Supervisors chair Yvonne B. Burke, Delgadillo wrote:

Mr. Logan has no legal standing to grant County employees the authority or ability to choose which marriages they wish to officiate at based upon official views regarding an applicant's sexual orientation.

He wrote a similar letter to California Secretary of State Debra Bowen.

Of course, Delgadillo is the city's lawyer and has no authority or ability to tell Dean Logan or any other county employee what he can or cannot do. Expect a long, delayed and secret memo on the issue to come Logan's way from the county counsel at some undetermined time in the future.

Columnist Gregory Rodriguez explores whites' fear of decline:

Hillary Rodham Clinton is right. She has the broader and whiter political coalition, so she should, by all rights, be the Democratic presidential nominee.

After all, in other realms of the political process, we routinely refer to "black districts" or "Latino districts" and speak of the necessity of those jurisdictions to be represented by black or Latino elected officials. Well, then, because the American population is 66% white, maybe the United States is a de facto white district that should be represented accordingly.

Don't scoff at the idea. Ethnic and racial self-determination have been underlying factors in the formation of modern nations.

Author Glenn Hurowitz outs household products -- from Oreos to Burt's Bees soap -- that use destructive palm oil as an ingredient. George Mason University's Ilya Somin says Proposition 99 would actually block meaningful eminent domain reform. And environmentalists Graham Chisholm and Joel Reynolds explain why taking the middle road worked on the Tejon Ranch development.

The editorial board explains why the June 3 election for the 2nd Supervisorial District matters, and argues that  prosecutors are misusing a federal statute in their drive to prosecute Lori Drew for alleged online harassment of Megan Meiers on MySpace.

Today's letters page is devoted to reader reactions to the gay marriage ruling. San Diego's Charles Crawford looks ahead to November:

By being shortsighted and selfish, I fear that my fellow gay and lesbian brothers and sisters have handed our community a pyrrhic victory.... [I]n the most crucial election year in my lifetime, we have now unleashed the sleeping tiger on the right, and not only will we likely lose the constitutional battle to ban gay marriage, we have likely just handed John McCain California and the White House along with it.

Columnist Tim Rutten puts bluntly his opinion of the Los Angeles Unified School District:

Every day, the Los Angeles Unified School District fails its tens of thousands of ambitious students, dedicated teachers and hardworking principals in so many ways that it's difficult to imagine how its elephantine bureaucracy could shamble into some new outrage.

Difficult, but not impossible, because the LAUSD runs this city's schools about like the generals run Myanmar.

County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky has a proposal for reviving King-Harbor Hospital. Dickinson College's Crispin Sartwell discusses the demographic tricks behind political polling. And 27-year-old Erica Sackin says tax rebates won't help her in-the-red generation.

The editorial board encourages Bush to veto a bill that would stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and wonders why Congress is allowing the banning of all flavored cigarettes except the most popular kind, menthols. The board also says environmentalists have more work to do to prevent sprawl on Tejon Ranch.

On the letters page, readers question Nick Turse's Op-Ed linking the purchase of consumer products like Krispy Kreme and Pepsi to supporting Iraq war profits. Thomas J. Weiss of Ft. Hood, Texas, says, "Nick Turse's Op-Ed article has to be one of the most ridiculously alarmist articles I've ever read."

Either that or nobody can afford to take a day off in this economy. The May Day march is a total bust. People are finally starting to arrive (police estimate 8,500), but for most of the day It looked like Omega Man outside the L.A. Times building this afternoon.

Well, maybe it looked like Omega Man would have looked if Matthias and his followers had a Latin band and sold hot dogs wrapped in bacon. In fact, if you're around downtown, you may want to try and bargain down the price on some unsold bacon dogs. No matter how much you pay, you'll be participating in a crime, as this fairly stunning Drew Carey video about the war on bacon dogs makes clear.

Tomorrow's May Day march may not draw record-setting numbers, but it could see the first large-scale deployment of the LAPD's newest psi-ops gadgets. Captain Dennis H. Kato of the 77th Street Area explains that the police will be keeping in multilingual communication with crowds through the department's new Critical Incident Utility Vehicle, or "Polaris," a sort of souped-up golf cart that will patrol the streets dispensing helpful phrases.

Even more intriguing is the handheld "Phraselator," which will provide English, Spanish, Korean and Mandarin broadcasts of more than 100 useful phrases, with a range of about half a mile. That includes not only old favorites like "Hands behind your back" but some of the following:

Welcome to this event. We are here to help facilitate your First Amendment rights.

If you need medical attention see a police officer.

Please stay up on sidewalk. Please stay off streets.

Please stay out of the trees.

Please do not climb on the poles.

You are on private property. Please move back into this area.

All the phraselators are in the field at the moment, but I'm hoping to get a complete list of the phrases after the march is over. Meanwhile, if you really start trouble tomorrow you may get to hear the full Dispersal Order (text available on Page 53 of this PDF), which combines the urgent, the ominous and the legalistic in a frothy brew of police power. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Further reading:

"You're under arrest you have the right to make one phone call or remain silent so you better shut up," arguably the worst Miles Davis album of all time.

Photos and information about the universal translator from the Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki.

The June 3 stealth primary actually starts Monday. That's when voters can pick up (and mark and send in) vote-by-mail ballots. They're often are still called "absentee" ballots, but unlike the old days, you can take care of business early without having to pretend that you won't be around on election day. True "absentee" ballots, for people who can't vote in the regular mail voting because of military or other commitments, began April 4. So hurry up.

Click here to apply for a mail-in ballot if you live in Los Angeles County. Of course, there are other ways to go; you could apply at the registrar-recorder's office in Norwalk, or you could send in one of those applications that you may get in the mail this weekend, courtesy of one of the campaigns with skin in the game.

Campaigns are counting on mailbox voters and will try to reach them with glossy slate cards and brochures starting -- well, it's every campaign's closely-guarded secret, but probably Saturday, with big spurts planned for every weekend in May. Very few people are expected to actually go to the polls next month, so the mailbox is where the action is -- and now is the time the action starts.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. This election was going to be the presidential primary, when a record number of Californians would go to the voting booth to very likely have the final say in whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be the Democratic nominee. But last year the Legislature decided to strip out the presidential portion of this election and put it on the earlier February 5 ballot -- so our vote would have more impact. Ironic, huh?

The rest of the June ballot goes forward: Proposition 98 to curb eminent domain and phase out rent control, Proposition 99 just on eminent domain, party primaries for state Assembly and Senate, and in Los Angeles county, elections for Superior Court judge, district attorney and county supervisor.

Click here to see the Times endorsements for Superior Court, and here to see our endorsements for district attorney and two of the three supervisorial contests. Endorsements in the other races are coming soon, and of course you shouldn't even dream of voting early until you get the benefit of our guidance. But suit yourself.

And click here for the latest on the June 3 election, the November 4 election, and every election in between.

Columnist Rosa Brooks plays Hillary Clinton:

Thank you, Pennsylvania! What an incredible margin of victory you gave me! Ten percentage points over Barack Obama. Count 'em! Ten!

All right, 9.2 points if you insist on actually counting. But they said I had to win by double digits to keep my campaign alive, and I think 9.2 points counts as double digits. And I am alive! And kicking! And punching and biting and kneeing my opponent in the groin!

Contributing editor Arianna Huffington says only a media filled with self-loathing could hire the likes of former Bush rep Tony Snow. USC emeritus professor Robert E. Tranquada argues for an independent authority to oversea L.A. county health services. And columnist Patt Morrison reveals what she and other Angelenos would do with the city budget if they had their way. (Coffee poured by the mayor at the Getty House Bed and Breakfast, anyone?)

The editorial board praises three African countries that stopped a Chinese arms shipment to Zimbabwe, looks to a 1983 report on education for present-day advice, and looks beyond the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania:

The Democratic race only seems interminable; there will be a winner, and he or she will reconcile with the loser and call for party unity. If Republicans can withstand the abrupt alliance of Sen. John McCain and Mitt Romney, why shouldn't Democrats be united by an enthusiastic endorsement of Clinton by Obama, or vice versa? After all, for all the attacks, the two Democrats aren't far apart on policy.

On the letters page, readers take on the race, as well. Valley Village's Larry Margo has this to say to Clinton-bashers: "Quick! Stop her! Force her out before she wins again!"

UCLA graduate student and Chow Digest senior editor C. Thi Nguyen bemoans L.A. County's requirement that taco trucks move after one hour, and New York attorney Scott Horton analyzes UC Berkeley professor John Yoo's role in the Bush administration's stance on torture. Former Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan hopes LAUSD will repair its relationship with charter schools, and Gregory Rodriguez scratches his head at Americans' insistence that politicians act like the average Joe:

Sure, high-ranking politicians of humble origins can lay at least some claim to being "common." But that's really a ruse. Because the best politicians wouldn't get as far as they do if they hadn't already successfully convinced large numbers of people that they were distinct from -- read: better than -- the rest of us.

And therein lies our dilemma. We hold to the belief that we are all equal, yet we yearn for distinctiveness for ourselves and those we choose to represent us. In a nation whose form of government exalts the illusion of uniformity among its citizens, we are collectively engaged in a struggle to be recognized as unique by our peers.

The editorial board publishes its endorsements for 17 seats on the Los Angeles Superior Court, and puts its money behind a House bill to force 401(k) managers to clarify the fees they charge "Jack and Jill Cubicle":

Unfortunately, as this newspaper detailed in a series of articles in 2006, many employees aren't being told how much of their nest egg is being frittered away on fees paid to the companies managing their 401(k)s. Buried in the fine print of incomprehensible forms or not disclosed at all, those fees can consume thousands of dollars over time. To address that problem, several lawmakers have introduced bills that would require mutual funds, insurers and other providers of retirement plans to make complete disclosures of their fees to employers and workers. 

Readers react to the Supreme Court's decision finding legal injections humane. Writes Joy Buckley, "State-sanctioned killing is barbaric, cruel and should be highly unusual. We should join the civilized countries of the world in eliminating it."

Here's one encouraging development I came across while looking into the Vermont/Manchester project: There is in fact some fine dining coming to the area, albeit not at the corner in question and not as part of any government-guided project. On the site of the legendary Kite Restaurant on the 9100 block of South Vermont Ave., a Waffle Factory restaurant is set to open within the next two weeks. 

Waffle Factory is the brainchild of Cassie Lowe, seen here on a Saturday evening spent getting the place into final order. I followed this development at a distance as Lowe and his partner Robert Whitfield came close to abandoning the deal for lack of funding. They ended up closing the financing gap and, based on the work going on in the interior, it looks like the heavy lifting is already done.

The Waffle Factory, a prime example of the kind of retail that is at the center of South L.A. foment, is located on unincorporated county land and thus is not the kind of project that would involve an organization like the Community Redevelopment Agency. In fact, if you're looking to make a case against public subsidies for development, this is a pretty good one: The founders sought money from various sources but ended up paying for it out of pocket. That may cast some uncertainty on the business: Lowe expects to pay off all his loans on the place within 10 days of opening, while Whitfield jokes that his car's about to be repossessed.

The bottom line is that this project is actually being completed, in contrast to visionary projects that involve buy-in from multiple parties, public funding or tax breaks, alphabet-soup agencies, and so on. If even 25% of the people who have told me the Vermont corridor lacks decent sit-down dining are willing to back that claim up with their disposable dollars, the Waffle Factory could make a fortune.

There's a paradox in South L.A. retail campaigning: On the one hand, proponents of better businesses say the neighborhood has more disposable income than squeamish retail chains and shy lending institutions believe, but on the other, the default belief seems to be that anybody who builds in the area needs all manner of breaks, subsidies and guarantees because they're building in a distressed area. Whitfield and Lowe are betting on the former claim. The menu includes both quick takes ($5.99 for an everything burger) to more luxurious eat-in stuff (a red-meat dinner for less than $20). Following are some pictures of the place: