admin – Page 41 – Public Policy Institute of California

Six Takeaways from the June Primary

For those of us involved in polling and election analysis at PPIC, the just-released California Secretary of State’s (SOS) Statement of the Vote offers a treasure trove of data about how our democracy is working. The latest SOS report also deserves close scrutiny because the top-two primary, which had its debut in June 2012, operated in statewide contests—such as the governor’s race—for the first time this year. My colleagues Eric McGhee and Daniel Krimm have provided an excellent analysis of the outcomes of legislative district races. Here, I’m going to focus on six election trends—regarding statewide offices, state propositions, and voter participation—that surfaced in my read of the final numbers.

Advantage Incumbents. The big winners in the statewide races were current officeholders: the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, insurance commissioner, school superintendent, and controller (now running for treasurer). The number two vote-getters trailed these state officials by wide margins in each race, even while PPIC’s polling indicates that half of likely voters say the state is headed in the wrong direction. These primary results underscore the uphill battle faced by political newcomers in statewide elections. This is best exemplified by first-time GOP candidate Neel Kashkari, who received just 839,767 votes or 19% of the vote—even after spending millions of his own dollars on his gubernatorial campaign. The six Democratic incumbents start out with huge numerical advantages in their statewide races in November.
Major Parties Rule. The top-two primary winners in the eight statewide races are all major party members. The November ballot includes seven statewide races in which Democratic and Republican candidates face off. Only the nonpartisan school superintendent’s race has a Democrat facing a Democrat. The candidates from minor parties—which used to have their own primaries—clearly have a harder time prevailing under top-two primary rules. But the statewide candidates with no party preference—also known as independents—were also shut out, even though they are members of a large voting bloc. The absence of minor party and no party preference candidates could result in a depressed voter turnout in November. In California, 28% of voters belong to a minor party or have declared as no party preference, and PPIC polling indicates that many likely voters have unfavorable views about the Democratic and Republican parties.
Legislature Wins Big. Two measures placed on the ballot by the legislature passed easily: State Proposition 41 (Veterans Housing and Homeless Bond Act), with 65 percent of the vote, and State Proposition 42 (Public Records, Open Meetings, Reimbursements), with 62 percent. These two measures attracted little discussion or media interest. Their success in June is consistent with the high pass rate for legislative ballot measures over time. Still, many likely voters say they disapprove of the legislature, making the easy passage of these measures rather surprising. At the same time, this trend bodes well for the legislature’s propositions on the November ballot, such as a rainy day fund proposal and a possible state water bond.
Knowledge Gaps Loom Large. State Senator Leland Yee, who was embroiled in a political scandal, accused of committing felony crimes, and withdrew his name as a candidate, still placed third in the secretary of state’s race. In fact, he received 380,361 votes or 9% of the vote. His surprising showing raises fundamental questions about the level of voter knowledge and the effectiveness of both the state’s media and the official voter guides in providing election information.
Voters Are Disengaged. The primary turnout this June fell to an all-time low of 25% for registered voters and 18% for eligible adults. Even more troubling: turnout among registered voters in Los Angeles (17%), San Bernardino (19%), Riverside (22%), and Orange (24%) Counties was even lower than the statewide average. Since the top-two candidates are chosen in the primary, low primary turnouts may undermine the legitimacy of November elections over time. Moreover, these numbers raise a larger question: Are low turnouts in four populous Southern California counties symptomatic of a deeper civic malaise?
Results Are Slow. A record 69.4% of primary voters mailed in their ballots this year. While this method is growing in popularity, we are learning that it results in a slow vote count that leaves the outcome of tight races in limbo for weeks. This year, the controller’s race was one of the closest in state history, with a 481-vote margin of victory, and the top-two winners were not known until the last day of June. In the future, we could be waiting for weeks to learn the winner in a tight governor’s race, or California’s outdated voting system could be exposed in a close presidential election. The 58 county registrars will need prodding and assistance by the SOS office to apply modern technology to speed up their vote-by-mail counts. Moreover, given the popularity of voting by mail, we should be looking for ways to make it easier for voters to do so—in part to increase voter participation.

Every election occurs in a unique political context. The 2014 primary results could be an anomaly rather than indicative of some flaws with the top-two primary system. The 2016 presidential year and the 2018 gubernatorial year may feature competitive statewide primary races that lead to different outcomes. Still, the six issues that surfaced in this primary also reflect longer-term trends that are worthy of serious consideration.

PPIC has invited California’s two secretary of state candidates to participate in a conversation with me about the future of California’s elections on September 11 in Sacramento. Stay tuned for more information about how you can attend or watch this PPIC event.

Drought Watch: Putting Some Myths to Rest

This commentary was first published by the Sacramento Bee on July 6, 2014. Drought Watch is a continuing series on the PPIC Blog.

As the effects of the drought worsen, two persistent water myths are complicating the search for solutions. One is that environmental regulation is causing California’s water scarcity. The other is that conservation alone can bring us into balance. Each myth has different advocates. But both hinder the development of effective policies to manage one of the state’s most important natural resources.

Let’s consider the first myth, that water shortages for farms are the result of too much water being left in streams for fish and wildlife.

Continue reading on Sacbee.com.

Big Policy Shift Leads to Small Change in Recidivism

A recent briefing in Sacramento focused on PPIC’s new report on recidivism rates since public safety realignment policy began. This policy—which took effect in 2011—shifted responsibility for more than 30,000 offenders from the state to the local level.

The report—Is Public Safety Realignment Reducing Recidivism in California?—found a mixed result. Arrest rates overall are down slightly from the period before realignment. But the proportion of offenders who are convicted after arrest is up about 3 percent. The proportion of those arrested multiple times is up noticeably, probably reflecting the increased time released offenders spend on the streets because of county jails’ limited capacity.

The number of released offenders who return to prison was down more than 30 percent. PPIC research fellow Magnus Lofstrom presented the findings. He was joined on the dais by his two co-authors—PPIC research fellow Ryken Grattet and UC Berkeley policy professor Steven Raphael—for audience questions.

Allow Water Rights Trading

This commentary was published by the New York Times on June 29, 2014, in a discussion of The Water Crisis in the West.

We have an outdated water rights system in the American West: Water goes to those who claimed it first, whether or not they are putting it to the best use.

This system originated out of practicality. The climate in the West is dry for much of the year, and with Western rivers few and far between, it’s often necessary to invest in storage and conveyance to get water to where it is needed. But the rights to use water were allocated many decades ago, when the region had far fewer people, and before it was widely recognized that the system often short-changed the environment. …

Continue reading on nytimes.com.

Drought Watch: Regional Solutions

This is part of a continuing series on the impact of the drought.

Across California, local water agencies are scrambling to apply for new state matching grants authorized under February’s emergency drought legislation. The program aims to accelerate the use of remaining state bond funds for integrated regional water management: activities in which local agencies team up to generate mutual benefits. One example—water suppliers and stormwater agencies that work together to incorporate captured stormwater into local water supplies. Such projects can simultaneously enhance water supply reliability and the quality of water in rivers and coastal areas.

Regional integration has already led to some significant successes, most notably the enhanced ability of urban water suppliers in Southern California and the Bay Area to cope with the current drought. Successes include ramping up water conservation and recycled wastewater storage to increase supplies in storage, and building new connections between local water systems to enable emergency sharing. Outside funds are often needed to jump start these collaborations, both to encourage innovation and to enable some partners—such as stormwater agencies – to participate even if they don’t have the necessary funds.

But as we showed in our study Paying for Water in California, integrated regional water management is on the brink of fiscal failure because state bond funds are running out. Both the legislature and local water agencies have pushed the idea that bonds should continue to provide these dollars, and the major bond proposals under consideration include substantial new funds for this purpose.

But there might be a better way: adding a small statewide surcharge on water use to support regional projects. Local water agencies have often rejected this idea, arguing that if they send money to Sacramento they won’t see it again. But what if the funds go directly to the regions?

Here’s how we think this could work. The legislature (or state voters) would pass the surcharge and set broad criteria for funding eligibility. The funds would be apportioned to the state’s 12 principal hydrologic regions—the large basins that are already used to divvy up bond funds. But rather than having state agencies award the grants, this task would go to new Regional Water Commissions—regional counterparts to the California Water Commission, the state body tasked with awarding matching grants for storage projects under most bond proposals.

Though more politically tricky to pass than a bond, the statewide water surcharge would have numerous advantages. The revenues would be more reliable than bond funds. And relying on Regional Water Commissions to allocate these dollars could encourage broader collaborations than we have seen from the state-sponsored grant program, which has nearly 50 planning regions, often too small to reap the real benefits of integration. Many groundwater basins, for instance, have different boundaries than the current planning regions, and groundwater agencies could use assistance from these regional funds to support better management.

Finally, this statewide option is preferable to creating local or regional surcharges, which can be difficult to raise without approval of two-thirds of local voters. To raise $200 million annually—the amount that’s been available through bonds—a surcharge 7.5 cents/1,000 gallons on urban water bills would suffice. This would increase the average cost of tap water by just 2.8 percent, while creating a valuable incentive fund that helps local water managers enhance the quality and reliability of regional water supplies. As part of a package with a new bond devoted to areas of true statewide need, a statewide water surcharge would help ensure that our water system can support a healthy economy, society, and environment.

The Future of Online Education in Public Colleges

Policymakers and educators have a lot of questions these days about whether new communication technologies can be helpful in higher education. Will they lower the cost of teaching, provide access to those who are otherwise left out, or provide more effective individualized instruction? With encouragement from Sacramento, California’s three public higher education segments are pursuing new initiatives in online education. On Tuesday, PPIC hosted a lunch event on this topic.

Hans Johnson, PPIC Bren Fellow, talked about his recent study, co-authored with PPIC research associate Marisol Cuellar Mejia, about online education in the state’s community colleges. The study found that participation in online courses has soared in the last decade but that success rates—in terms of course completion and passing grades—are lower for online students.

An expert panel expanded the discussion, with Joseph Moreau, executive sponsor of the Online Education Initiative at the California Community Colleges; Ashley Skylar, quality assurance manager for academic technology services at the California State University; and Arnold Bloom, who teaches an online course in climate change at UC Davis. Panelists talked about efforts to improve the quality of online instruction—the course materials and training of instructors. They also said it is too soon to tell whether online education may save money, but the size of California’s higher education systems provides opportunities for collaboration among campuses, which may produce more cost-effective education.

The Vanishing Line-Item Veto

California officially has a budget for the coming fiscal year. The state plans to spend $156 billion, about 7.5% more than last year.

As in most other states, in California the governor has line-item veto power. After the budget passes, he can remove or reduce individual provisions without the legislature’s approval. That’s a lot of potential authority over the budget.

What did Jerry Brown do with such tremendous power? Not much. He removed or reduced only 10 budget items, cutting a total of $37.9 million. In the context of a $156 billion budget, that’s a rounding error.

And that’s par for the course with this governor. Brown made his highest number of vetoes (42) in the first budget after his election in 2011; these cuts amounted to one-fifth of one percent of the $267.4 million ultimately spent that year. Last year, he vetoed 30 items that added up to only $40.7 million—that’s like a typical California household reducing its annual spending by about $17.

Many governors have gone light on line-item vetoes, but Brown’s veto numbers are low even in historical context. His vetoes have averaged about a tenth of one percent of each year’s final budget. By contrast, Schwarzenegger (2004–2010) averaged two-thirds of a percent, Davis (1999–2003) and Wilson (1991–1998) about three-quarters of a percent, and Deukmejian (1983–1990) a whopping 2.5 percent. Brown himself, when he was governor in the late 1970s and early 1980s, averaged about three-quarters of a percent in line-item vetoes (we do not have data for 1975, his first year).

There are a number of reasons for the recent harmony between the governor and the legislature. But an important one is likely the new threshold for passing the budget. It used to take a two-thirds vote in each chamber, which required at least some members from each party to sign on. As of 2011, only a simple majority of each chamber is required, so Brown has been able to conduct all the negotiations within his own party. In today’s polarized political environment, that simplifies the process enormously—it also helps explain why each of Brown’s budgets has been approved roughly on time, ending a decades-long trend of budgets passing later and later.

Of course, this streamlining of the process entails sidelining Republicans from budget negotiations. Whether that is too high a price to pay depends very much on one’s perspective. But for better or worse, we may be settling into a new budget status quo.

Fulfilling the Promise of Online Education

Online learning has become a topic of great debate in higher education. Its advocates have high hopes that it will expand opportunities and rein in costs. Policymakers in Sacramento have taken note. The new state budget provides tens of millions of dollars to support online learning.

When most people think of on online education, they think of MOOCs—massive open online courses—which provide free access to classes taught by faculty from the nation’s top universities. MOOCs have garnered headlines and been the subject of much debate about their potential to reinvent higher education. Meanwhile, California’s community colleges have quietly created an extensive set of offerings in online education. They now provide more online credit courses than any other public higher education institution in the country—a testament to the community colleges’ willingness and ability to innovate.

Enrollment has soared from just a few thousand students a dozen years ago. By 2012, online course enrollment in the state’s community colleges totaled almost one million, representing about 11 percent of total enrollment. Among students taking credit courses in 2011–12, one of every five took at least one online course. Indeed, practically all of the community college enrollment increases over the past ten years have occurred in online courses.

The Public Policy Institute of California has completed an analysis of student success in these courses that points out both the opportunities and challenges in providing online education. We found that online courses are providing some students with an important and useful tool that helps them achieve their community college goals. For example, students who take at least one online course are more likely to earn a degree, transfer to a four-year college, or earn a certificate than students who take only traditional courses.

But there are significant problems. First, the digital divide is evident. Latino students are less likely than students from other ethnic groups to take online courses. Moreover, the achievement gap is exacerbated in online settings. African Americans and Latinos have lower success rates in traditional classes than Asians and whites, and the achievement gaps are even wider in online courses.

And finally, even though online students tend to be stronger academically, they are less likely to successfully complete online courses than traditional courses. This lower course success rate is true across all types of students, a wide set of subjects, and almost all colleges. Indeed, once we controlled for student characteristics—such as overall grade point averages and other factors such as colleges and course subject—students are at least 11 percentage points and as many as 14 points less likely to successfully complete an online course than otherwise similar students in traditional format classes.

California’s community colleges need both more information and a more strategic approach before online learning can fulfill its promise. Little is known about the cost of developing and providing online courses. We won’t know if online learning is less expensive than traditional course work—as some of its advocates believe—unless we begin to systematically collect cost information.

The colleges won’t be able to improve outcomes for the rich diversity of their students unless they take a number of steps. They need to evaluate the online courses being taught now, identify the most successful instructional and technological approaches, and provide professional development for faculty to create and deliver high-quality online learning. They need to provide services for online students to help improve success rates. And they can use the power of technology to track students’ progress in detail, and offer instruction that is more targeted and customized.

Once high quality courses are identified and developed, it will be a challenge to ensure that those courses are readily available to students across California’s vast community college system. The community college’s Online Education Initiative is an important step in the right direction. Its goals are consistent with our recommendations to identify best practices and implement them widely. Its success will depend on identifying and implementing effective policies and programs that improve student outcomes. Going forward, a strong strategic approach will help California to make the most of its investments in online learning.

Expanding Health Insurance—to Jail Inmates

The federal Affordable Care Act provides an opportunity for local governments to enroll jail inmates in health insurance programs that could lower costs and improve health conditions. Moreover, California has recently passed legislation that facilitates the use of jails as sites of health care enrollment.

PPIC researchers Mia Bird and Shannon McConville address this topic in a recent report titled Health Care for California’s Jail Population. The report, presented at a public event this week in Sacramento, finds that nearly 2.3 million health care visits were recorded in county jails statewide in 2012. Inmates have disproportionately high health needs and typically have had little access to health care prior to incarceration. Connecting inmates to health coverage before they are released from custody may help to reduce county costs, lower recidivism, and improve public health.

Local Water Funding in the June Primaries

Much of the current water talk in Sacramento surrounds a new state water bond for the November ballot. Yet as we show in our study Paying for Water in California, most water spending—84 percent—is actually raised locally. While passage rates on local water measures have been fairly high since 1995 (72 percent passing), few make it on the ballot (on average only six per year). This is largely because funding for many critical water services—including stormwater management, flood protection, and ecosystem and watershed improvements—often requires two-thirds of voters to approve, and local officials are reluctant to put such measures on the ballot unless they think they can win. In the June 3 primary election, only two local water measures were proposed. The results illustrate the challenges of funding water services that require direct voter approval.

In Contra Costa County, Orinda’s Road and Storm Drain Repair Bond passed with 75 percent approval. It authorizes the city to issue $20 million in general obligation bonds to fund the restoration and repair of roads and storm drains, plus a property tax increase to pay for the bonds. Broader funding measures like this—which include a water service along with something else—have generally been more successful than exclusively water-focused measures. Local governments seem to have recognized this reality and have increased these kinds of measures in recent years. Unfortunately, measures that fund multiple activities may generate less funding than is needed to fill water service gaps.

The second local water measure, the Lake County Healthy Lake Tax, failed with 64 percent approval (repeating an earlier failed attempt in 2012 that had 63 percent approval). It would have increased the local sales tax by one-half cent for 10 years to pay for the eradication of weeds, algae, and invasive mussels from Clear Lake, the restoration of wetlands, and the improvement of water quality.

As the Lake County example suggests, the two-thirds voter threshold for local special taxes and bonds is a significant obstacle. Orinda twice failed to pass measures in the mid-2000s, despite 64 percent approval. Since 1995, 65 percent of the measures requiring two-thirds approval passed, but 84 percent would have passed at the 50 percent threshold that is required for local general taxes and statewide fiscal measures. We can’t know how many more measures would have been put on the ballot had the voter threshold been lower.

Funding these essential water services through local tax and bond measures is a marked contrast to funding for water supply and sewer services, which are paid for with revenues from monthly customer bills. These services are generally in good fiscal shape because when new funds are needed, providers are required only to give customers the opportunity to protest rate increases.

To help address water funding gaps, California should consider treating flood and stormwater services like water and wastewater. It would also be helpful to treat local special taxes like local general taxes and statewide fiscal ballot measures—requiring a simple majority vote. Of course, this would require constitutional reforms. But without these changes, the state will need to provide much more support to local governments to pay for services that are essential to all Californians.