Reader: I'm calling regarding the paper's coverage of the run-up to the November election and I'm wondering why in the Election Notebook and in articles, the paper appears to note the political party of candidates in the nonpartisan races -- particularly I've noticed Republicans.

I don't remember seeing anyone listed as a Democrat and I note the Republicans who are supported by Mark Abernathy's consulting firm appear to be more prominent in the paper. I was wondering what the paper's policy is, why they're designating political parties and who is their consultant for the nonpartisan offices of school board members, board of supervisors, and city council. Thank you.

-- Sue Jennings

Jenner: At one point earlier in the race, we included party registrations because editors thought such affiliations might give readers some meaningful information about the candidates.

However, after we received calls of complaint, we reconsidered our practice, and decided that in fact these affiliations are not relevant in nonpartisan races. Since then, we've not mentioned them.

The reason Republican candidates seem to dominate these races is probably a reflection of the fact that Kern County is heavily Republican.

When prominent consultants are handling campaigns, we have mentioned those associations, and will continue to do that when we feel it's relevant.

We have not intentionally given preferential treatment to candidates associated with consultant Mark Abernathy.

Reader: I would like someone to explain what the difference is between the Sunnis and the Shiites. I have never seen an explanation and I don't know if we readers are just expected to know. Why do they hate each other and why do they kill each other? Why can't they get along? Surely it is more than just for political power.

Can someone tell the difference between them, such as by the color of their skin, or how they dress? How do they know who to kill?

I think if we had an explanation, we might be able to better understand what the problem is.

Sincerely,

-- Joanne Frantz

Jenner: Great questions, Joanne.

I'm not sure anyone has the answers to all of them, but we've provided an explanation of the differences, based on the reporting of our wire services. You may find this explainer on Page A21.

Reader: I can't honestly say I was surprised at Marylee Shrider's me-too lunge at California Democrats (Aug. 1). After all, nothing's more likely to score points with conservative readers, even two years after the fact, than to express opposition to a Dem-dominated Assembly that celebrates everything except American veterans, God and the Fourth of July. But Shrider does not mention that a special waiver of normal rules was required to hold a July Fourth ceremony; it's not something the Assembly can do anytime it feels a surge of patriotism.

Nor does she mention that those rules were waived at the behest of some Republican assemblymen, but that the Assembly put the skids on the affair because the organizers of the celebration overplayed their hand. Nick Velasquez, spokesman for Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, noted at the time that Republican organizers "added several unauthorized elements to the ceremony, including color guards, musical numbers, more guests than could be accommodated in the Assembly chambers, and a lengthy speech by a very controversial individual, Jeremiah Denton."

Now, is there anything wrong with the Assembly hearing from a member of the Religious Right? No, of course not. Or at least, there shouldn't be. But there is something decidedly wrong with turning July Fourth into a dog-and-pony show for what seem to me entirely partisan reasons. If Assembly Republicans didn't know Dems would object to someone like Denton, then they've been asleep at the wheel for some time. Even many conservatives object to Denton. My guess is that they not only knew; they planned on it.

I don't fault Adm. Denton's religious faith or his commitment to his own political views. He's an American citizen, after all, and he should enjoy the same rights the rest of us enjoy, no more and no less. But neither do I fault Assembly Democrats for opposing what was clearly an attempt by some Assembly Republicans to link the Fourth of July and American Independence with the Religious Right.

If anyone should apologize to Adm. Denton, it is Assemblyman Campbell and his gang, for using the war veteran and former senator as a stalking horse.

With all due respect to Ms. Shrider, it's that kind of political publicity stunt that I find "unbelievably un-American."

Regards,

-- Neal Stanifer

Jenner: You have your opinion that it was going to be a right-wing dog-and-pony-show, and you're certainly entitled to that point of view.

But the issue of waiving rules to allow this is not correct.

According to San Diego Assemblyman Jay LaSuer (who had been appointed by Kevin McCarthy to coordinate the July Fourth event), the same rule applies to everybody. The only rule is that organizers of such celebrations have to clear it with the floor speaker, who has absolute control of what takes place on the floor.

As for your contention that the organizers of the celebration "overplayed their hand," Shrider says the only issue was a time crunch. No other element, such as the color guard, was an issue until they learned that Adm. Jeremiah Denton was going to be the featured guest.

Finally, when Shrider called Nunez's office, his spokesman, Richard Stapler, never mentioned these other issues. He only said Rep. Nunez and others felt Denton's selection as a speaker was inappropriate. And Marylee mentioned that in the column.