With 86 percent of precincts reporting late Tuesday night, Democrat Gil Cedillo was still far behind Democrat Judy Chu in the race to fill the 32nd Congressional District seat vacated by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.

Chu had 32.6 percent of the vote compared to Cedillo's 23.7.

For the Republican race, Betty Tom Chu, a distant cousin to Judy Chu, was leading with 10.2 percent of the vote. Not far behind was Republican Teresa Hernandez, owner Cielito Lindo restaurant in South El Monte with 8.3 percent of the vote.

Newcomer Emanuel Pleitez also made a strong showing for the Democratic nomination. He earned 13.7 percent of the vote.

Because no candidate received more than 50 percent of the vote, the winners from each party will square off in another election.

Three hours after hours after the polls closed, with 65 percent of precincts reporting, Chu had 33 percent of the vote.

Though State Sen. Gil Cedillo, considered her main Democratic rival, is gaining on her lead, he continues to trail significantly with 25 percent of votes. Political newcomer Emanuel Pleitez, a 26-year-old financial analyst, is in third among Democrats, with 14 percent of the vote.

In the Republican race, Betty Tom Chu, a Monterey Park councilwoman and distant cousin of Judy Chu, holds the lead, with 10 percent of the vote. Restaurateur Teresa Hernandez, who spent nearly $100,000 in the race, much more than any other GOP candidate, trails with 8 percent; and David Truax, a former mayor of Covina, has 6 percent.

The top vote-getters from each party will face off in a special general election in July. Democrats outnumber Republicans in the district 2-1.  

Twenty minutes after the polls closed, with ten percent of polls reporting -- mostly vote by mail ballots - Judy Chu had 42 percent of the vote.

State Sen. Gil Cedillo, considered her main Democratic rival, had 17 percent.

Republican Betty Tom Chu, a Monterey Park City Councilwoman, had 13 percent; followed by 26-year-old Democratic Emanuel Pleitez, a financial analyst, with 8 percent; Republican Teresa Hernandez, a restaurant owner, with 8 percent; and Republican David Truax, a former mayor of Covina, with 7 percent.

If no single candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote, the top vote-getters from each party move on to the general election on July 14.

While voter turnout continues to be low in Los Angeles County - 17 percent as of 7 p.m., according to the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder - officials are saying it has been higher in the 32nd Congressional District.

"We expected more of a spike here... and we have seen more activity in the district today," said Efrain Escobedo, Executive Liason for the Registrar-Recorder.

While voters trickled into polls throughout most of the day, by 6 p.m. a steady stream of voters were entering the precinct at Shirpser Elementary in El Monte.

"I have been very surprised for a special election... I am very pleased at the turnout," said David Leeper, a supervisor at the precinct.

32nd Congressional Candidates Judy Chu and Gil Cedillo have kept us up to date with their whereabouts today, letting us know things like what time they voted to what times they will be at the campaign headquarters to what time their election parties will be.

Meanwhile, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who came to Industry yesterday to plead for voter support on the propositions, is M.I.A. Instead, he is in Washington, D.C. announcing an agreement on fuel efficient vehicle emissions. The Governor, however, defends his trip.

Civic duty, patriotism and a $105 paycheck. That's what inspired James Nguyen, 28, to serve as a pollworker in today's election.

Even though he was working the polls, Nguyen was among the youngest faces spotted at the West Covina precint at Monte Vista Elementary School.

"Most of the voters are 50 and older," said Nguyen, who had voted absentee.

Other precinct workers noted that few voters 18 to 25 showed up.

For Charter Oak High School senior James Edwards, 17, who worked at the polling place at the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control in West Covina, he missed the opportunity to vote in this election by just three days.

"My 18th birthday is on Friday," he said. 

So why did he choose to work at the polls?

"To get a day off from school," he said. "And to get paid."

Even though Monte Vista Elementary School, 1615 W. Eldred Ave. in West Covina served as a polling place for two precincts, one poll worker described the day as a vacation. Combined, only 141 people cast their votes.

By 1 p.m., inspector James Nguyen said that only 76 voters had turned out at his precinct. Chip Holmes, inspector for the other precinct at the school, recorded 65 voters. At that rate, Holmes predicted it would be a total turnout of about 12 percent.

"A day like today is easy on everybody," said Holmes, who has worked the polls for the past seven years.

Over at the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control at at 1145 N. Azusa Canyon Road in West Covina, Denise Yarbarough of Montclair sat in a voter-less room at 1:30 p.m.

What's it been like today for her?

"Slow," she said.

About 80 ballots had been cast out of the 1,500 registered voters in the precint, coming out to 5 percent of registered voters.

There was a slight rush when the polls opened at 7 a.m., but that quickly died down. The polls close at 8 p.m.

"There have been others that have been slow like this," said Yarbarough, who has served as a pollworker for nearly 12 years. "It all depends on what's on the ballot."

What would it do?

•Temporarily redirect some Proposition 63 funding for services to the mentally ill to the general fund. Proposition 63, passed by voters in 2004, put a personal income tax surcharge of 1 percent on taxable income over $1 million to fund new and expanded mental health programs.

What is the objective?

•To help patch the budget deficit. The Proposition 63 account is running a surplus, and the governor and legislative leaders want to grab the money off the table for the general fund.

What does it cost taxpayers? Nothing.

What's the effect on the general fund? On the deficit?

• 1E would save the general fund about $230 million a year for two years, reducing the deficit by the same amount.

Who's for it? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, legislative leaders, California Chamber of Commerce, California Teachers Association.

Who's against it? Agencies that deliver mental health programs under Proposition 63, Mental Health Association in California, California Republican Party.

Interesting tidbit: State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Rusty Selix, executive director of the Mental Health Association in California, co-authored Proposition 63. Steinberg favors Proposition 1E and Selix opposes it.

What would it do?

•Redirect funds from the state and county First 5 commissions to the general fund. It would reduce the funding from tobacco taxes that, under Proposition 10, goes for First 5 programs like health access and school readiness.

What is the objective?

•To help patch the budget deficit. The First 5 account is running a surplus, and the governor and legislative leaders want to grab the money off the table for the general fund.

What does it cost taxpayers? Nothing.

What's the effect on the general fund? On the deficit?

• 1D would save the general fund up to $608 million in 2009-10 and $268 million annually for the following four years, reducing the deficit by the same amounts.

Who's for it? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, legislative leaders, California Chamber of Commerce, Association of Regional Center Agencies, California Teachers Association.

Who's against it? Agencies that deliver health services and school readiness programs in association with First 5, California Republican Party, Rob Reiner.

Interesting tidbit: Voters passed Proposition 10 in 1998 to direct tobacco tax money to early childhood development. Twenty percent of the revenue goes to the state commission and 80 percent goes to First 5 commissions in the 58 counties.

What would it do?

•Allow borrowing up to $5 billion from future lottery profits to help close the deficit.

•Allow bigger lottery payouts and more marketing to attract more play and more revenue.

•End payments to schools from lottery receipts.

•Direct about $1 billion from the general fund to schools to replace the lost lottery money. The first year, that would be in addition to the Proposition 98 funding guarantee for schools; in subsequent years it would be part of that guaranteed funding.

What is the objective?

•To reduce the current budget deficit by up to $5 billion.

What does it cost taxpayers?

•Nothing directly.

What's the effect on the general fund? On the deficit?

•The current deficit would be reduced by $5 billion. Effects on the general fund are difficult to predict. If lottery changes produce more revenue, the debt could be paid back with money left over for the general fund; if not, the general fund could be reduced due to debt payments. Education funding would probably grow faster than with the current lottery payments, possibly reducing the general fund and adding to future deficits.

Who's for it? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, legislative leaders, California Chamber of Commerce, California Teachers Association, California State Sheriffs' Association.

Who's against it? The California Republican Party.

Interesting tidbit: 1C allows the Legislature to borrow again against future lottery profits at any time.

•Extend the sales tax hike by one year and the income tax and vehicle license fee hikes by two years.

•Create a "rainy day" fund (replacing the ineffective one created under Proposition 58). Three percent of each year's projected revenues would be deposited in the fund until the fund reaches 12.5 percent of that year's estimated revenues. Money from the fund could be spent only for specified purposes.

•"Unanticipated" revenues, defined as those that exceed expectations based on the previous 10 years of actual revenues, adjusted for inflation and population growth, would go to paying off debts and filling out the rainy day fund. It's not a spending cap, per se, but it would restrict the overspending that generally results from "extra" revenues.

•Give the governor power to make midyear spending cuts when revenues fall short of projections.

What are the objectives?

•To smooth out future budgets, avoiding the boom-and-bust cycle that results in overspending in good times, and cuts and tax hikes in bad times.

•To gain more general fund revenue from the two-year tax hike extensions.

What does it cost taxpayers?

•About $16 billion over two years (from 2011-13).

What's the effect on the general fund? On the deficit?

•No immediate effect. Extending the taxes would increase two years' revenues and decrease the deficit. The rainy-day fund could reduce future deficits. The spending restrictions could reduce future expenditures, thereby reducing future deficits. The measure's complexity makes it difficult to predict its effects.

Who's for it? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican and Democratic legislative leaders, California Chamber of Commerce, California Teachers Association.

Who's against it? Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Federation of Teachers, California Faculty Association, California League of Women Voters, Health Access California.

Interesting tidbit: The governor could cut spending midyear in many areas, but not when it comes to collective bargaining agreements.

Associated Press

The special election called by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers in February also contains a pair of bonus races - one to fill the Southern California congressional seat vacated by U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and another to fill the seat in a Los Angeles-area state Senate district.

The election, just six months after a presidential contest that swelled voter rolls, is expected to generate little interest. Voters who have been paying attention have told pollsters they are likely to reject propositions assembled by the governor and lawmakers as they sought to close what had been a $42 billion deficit over two years.

The deficit has re-emerged despite that budget agreement and is projected to hit $15.4 billion in the fiscal year that begins in July. And that's if voters approve the ballot measures.

If they don't, the deficit will grow to $21.3 billion, according to a proposal released last week by the governor's office.

That choice between bad options, confusion over what the propositions would do and voter frustration with politicians - not to mention election fatigue - have set the stage for a potential landslide against the measures.

Voters are trying to decide on a mixture of reforms, higher taxes, borrowing and funding shifts that will determine the

The most contentious measure, Proposition 1A, would create a state spending cap and rainy day fund, which Schwarzenegger has promoted as necessary to smooth out California's budget cycles in the years ahead. But the measure also would extend income, sales and vehicle tax increases enacted earlier this year by one or two years, a provision that has stirred opposition from conservative groups.

Proposition 1B would restore more than $9 billion to schools.

To help fill the projected state deficit, Proposition 1C would authorize the state to borrow $5 billion and pay it back, with interest, from future lottery revenue. Two other measures would shift hundreds of millions from children's and mental health programs to the state's general fund.

A sixth measure would prevent lawmakers and other state elected officials from receiving pay raises during deficit years. Polls show it is the only one of the six measures that appears to have enough support to pass.

Local election officials say they the sense that California voters are simply burned out, especially after three statewide elections in 2008.

Gone are last November's endless supply of volunteers helping election officials get out the vote, said Santa Cruz County Clerk Gail Pellerin. Not that they would be needed for an election in which perhaps a third of California's 17.1 million registered voters are expected to turn out.

"We've tried to get creative," said Pellerin, who is vice president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials. "We're on Twitter. I'm doing e-mail blasts."

Despite generating apathy among many Californians and animosity among others, the special election will have immediate consequences no matter what happens.

If voters approve the propositions, spending cuts will be less severe but taxes will be raised by $16 billion. If voters reject them, lawmakers will have to convene immediately and consider a range of cost-cutting options that could include shortening the school year by seven days, laying off thousands of state employees and eliminating health care services for tens of thousands of low-income children.