Category: Fiscal & Governance Reform

The Power of the Primary Voter

Voters are starting to think seriously about whether or not to vote on June 3—in fact, the first vote-by-mail ballots are already being returned. And because of a recent change to California’s primary system, this decision about voting will be more important than ever.

The voters who turn out in California’s primary elections have typically been different than the ones who vote in the fall. They have been older and less diverse, with a smaller share of Latinos and Asian-Americans. They have also tilted Republican in most cases. In short, the primary electorate is the California we once were, not the California we have become.

These differences mattered in the past, but not as much as they might have. Any party that placed a candidate on the primary ballot would be guaranteed to have a candidate on the ballot in the fall. Indeed, that was the point of the primary: to choose one person to represent each party in the general election. Now California has a radically open “top two” primary. Voters can vote for any candidate they like, and the top two candidates, regardless of party, advance to the fall election. That means a party is no longer guaranteed a spot in the final round.

Before the top two, the differences between the primary and the general electorate could affect the kind of candidate nominated by each party, but not whether the party nominated a candidate at all. Today, the primary electorate has much more say over what the general election will look like.

When the state first used this system in 2012, almost one-fifth of the races ended up with same party contests in the fall. This included Congressional District 31, where two Republicans faced off in a competitive district that otherwise leaned Democratic. If the general electorate had turned out in the primary, it almost certainly would have been enough to change District 31 into a race between a Democrat and a Republican—and the Democrat would have had a decent chance of winning. That’s a problem. Of course, this was just one district. But a bias in the primary electorate could create—or prevent—a same-party contest in a statewide race as well.

What’s the solution? Every primary system runs some risk of strange results, but the top two is especially aggressive at closing off alternatives. It might make sense to offer a sort of “safety valve”—the option of a third candidate in the fall in cases where there was enough demand for one. California used to allow both independent and write-in candidacies in the fall, but the top two banned both. The legislation removing these options was passed with a simple majority in the legislature, so it would be relatively easy to change. The bar for such safety-valve candidacies could be set high enough to ensure they would remain rare. (Of course, there could always be legal challenges, but the merits of that approach are better left to lawyers to determine.)

The top two offers a lot more choices to those who show up to vote in the primary. We should be careful about giving these voters too much power to then dictate the choices for everyone else.

Engaging Parents in School Funding Decisions

A policy enacted last year—the Local Control Funding Formula—changes the way the state allocates money for K–12 schools. The new system is designed to address the needs of disadvantaged students. It also gives local districts more authority over spending decisions and holds them accountable for results. Beginning this year, school districts must develop accountability plans every three years describing how they will meet the goals and priorities of the new system.

Districts are required to seek input from parents while developing their accountability plans, the first of which must be adopted by July 1. The requirement to involve parents is loosely defined. At a minimum, districts must hold a public hearing prior to plan approval and convene a parent advisory committee. And districts are supposed to ensure parent representation of the groups the new formula is designed to help—English Learners, foster children, and lower-income students. But the policy does not outline how the feedback will be gathered and used.

In the latest PPIC Statewide Survey, the vast majority of Californians, including 85 percent of public school parents, consider parent involvement in the development of these plans very important.

How effective have districts’ outreach efforts been so far?

Many districts have already held meetings and forums to seek parent input, but according to our survey, 45 percent of public school parents say they have not received information from their child’s school or school district about how to become involved (52% say they have received information). This is despite nearly all saying they are at least somewhat interested in becoming involved (53% very interested, 38% somewhat interested).

Still, there is some evidence in these early stages that outreach attempts to parents of disadvantaged students are working. Latino public school parents (67% of whom took the survey in Spanish) are much more likely than whites to say they have received information about how to become involved (61% to 42%). Similarly, immigrant parents (61%) are much more likely than U.S.-born parents (43%) to say they have received information. And the share reporting that they received information grows as household income levels decline.

An overwhelming majority of parents would like their youngest child to earn a college degree or graduate degree, including at least seven in 10 Latinos (70%), immigrants (77%), and parents earning less than $80,000 annually (75% under $40,000, 82% $40,000 to under $80,000). These parent groups are also among the most likely to believe the Local Control Funding Formula will improve the academic achievement of English Learners and lower-income students. Engaging these key groups in designing ways to meet the central goal of the Local Control Funding Formula (namely, to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and others) is critical—especially given the educational hopes they express for their children.

Chart source: PPIC Statewide Survey: April 2014.

Trouble Ahead for Local School Ballot Measures?

This commentary first appeared on EdSource.org on April 30, 2014.

The elections this year offer the first statewide look at Californians’ willingness to raise revenue for their local schools since passage of Proposition 30, the tax initiative to benefit education that voters passed in November 2012. While it’s too early to know how many local school districts will test the waters by placing a construction bond or parcel tax on the ballot, there are undercurrents in our new survey that spell trouble ahead for local school ballot measures. In short, the public’s sense that schools are in crisis has diminished.

Our annual PPIC Statewide Survey on Californians and Education shows that likely voters view fiscal conditions in education as generally improving. The proportion who say that the state budget situation is a “big problem” for California’s K–12 public education has dropped by 10 points—from 72 percent to 62 percent—between April 2012 and today. More importantly, the proportion of likely voters saying that the level of current state funding for their local public schools is “not enough” has also dropped by 10 points between April 2012 and today—from 59 percent to 49 percent. In other words, the likely voters who currently view state funding of their local schools as problematic now make up less than a majority.

In our recent poll, 55 percent of likely voters would vote yes if there was a local school bond on the ballot—just barely meeting the minimum passage level. By contrast, 48 percent of likely voters would vote yes on a local school parcel tax—falling far short of the two thirds needed to pass.

It is important to note that likely voters who are public school parents are bucking these statewide trends: a majority of them view state funding for their local public school as inadequate, and over 60 percent say they would support a local school bond and a local school parcel tax this year. But our poll finds that public school parents make up less than 30 percent of the likely voters who will determine the ballot outcomes.

Since 2001, the statewide passage rate for local school bonds has been 81 percent and for local school parcel taxes, 60 percent, as noted by CaliforniaCityFinance.com and EdSource. This year, those rates may fall. Alternatively, there may be fewer local school ballot measures this year as funding proponents focus on a smaller set of school districts with voter profiles that offer favorable odds for passing these measures. For instance, our poll finds majority support for local school bonds and local school parcel taxes among Democratic, Latino, lower-income, and Bay Area likely voters.

Meanwhile, some legislators have proposed lowering the vote threshold needed to pass these taxes from two-thirds to 55 percent, which requires changing Proposition 13. But since the Democrats lost their supermajority when three of their senators were suspended, the legislature is much less likely to send this change to the voters for approval. Californians are not inclined to make this change anyway. The proportion of likely voters who say that this change to Proposition 13 is a good idea has declined—from 46 percent in April 2011 to just 39 percent today.

It is possible that voter concern about school funding needs will surface later this year, as school districts implement two dramatic changes: the Common Core Standards in the classroom and the Local Control Funding Formula, which provides more money for districts with higher proportions of English Learners and lower-income students. These changes could offer two new avenues to engage voters about the need for local school funding. For now, though, we will be watching for signs that Proposition 30’s passage will make it harder for local school ballot measures to succeed in 2014.

Survey Focuses on Historic Changes in California Schools

PPIC’s 10th annual survey on K–12 education focused on two historic changes in California schools: the transition to the Common Core math and English standards and the Local Control Funding Formula.

Sonja Petek, project manager for the survey, talked about the key findings last week at a lunchtime briefing at the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament in Sacramento.

As our recent report, Implementing the Common Core State Standards in California shows, Common Core is off to a challenging start so far in the state. However, the PPIC survey found that most Californians and public school parents support the standards—which have sparked controversy in other states. But most are also concerned that teachers are unprepared to implement the new standards.

While most Californians had heard at least a little about the Common Core standards, awareness of the new funding formula was much lower. After they were read a description, most Californians said they supported the Local Control Funding Formula, which gives school districts increased flexibility over spending and provides extra money for disadvantaged students.

The survey also asked whether the state should fund voluntary preschool for all 4-year-olds (73% said yes) and whether likely voters would support a local bond measure to benefit school construction bonds (55% would) or a local school parcel tax for schools (48% would).

Drought Watch: Essential Elements for a Water Bond

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

In both houses of the California Legislature, multiple versions of a new water bond are being amended and debated to make the June deadline for replacing the $11.1 billion bond now slated for the November election. Originally intended for the November 2010 ballot, the bond has been twice delayed due to concerns it would not pass. The March 2014 PPIC Statewide Survey showed a bump in public approval since last year, with 50 percent of likely voters now saying they would approve it, up from 42 percent in March 2013. Survey responses to other questions about water suggest that this rise in support likely reflects concerns over the drought. For example, a record share of residents (15%) named water as the most important issue facing the state (up from 2% a year earlier).

As the legislature considers the final size and shape of this new bond, it is worth reviewing how bond funds have been used in the past and the areas that most need bond support in the future.

The 2000s were a big decade for water bonds, with approved funds totaling almost three times as much as the three previous decades combined. Even so, bond funds currently only contribute about $1 billion a year to the water sector, a small portion of the $30 billion that is spent annually on the state’s water system.

Moving forward, new bond funds are likely to be more limited (as shown by the current bond’s bumpy road to approval), so it makes sense to focus them on areas that lack sustainable and reliable funding sources. As we show in our report Paying for Water in California, these areas include small water systems in rural, low-income communities, flood protection, stormwater pollution management, aquatic ecosystem recovery, and integrated water management. The bond funds approved in the 2000s have been spent overwhelmingly in these areas, yet the need is still great.

For activities that more readily raise funds from local ratepayers—such as water supply and wastewater management—future bond support should be limited to projects that generate broad public benefits. This might include water supply projects that promote better integration of our water system (e.g., by capturing stormwater, which can improve both water supply and prevent pollution) or ecosystem recovery (e.g., by improving the quality or quantity of water to support fish and wildlife).

Even if a new water bond passes this fall, California will need to find other ways to pay for small system drinking water quality, critical improvements to flood protection, stormwater management, aquatic ecosystems, and integrated water management. As part of its deliberations, the legislature will need to think beyond bonds, and consider new statewide fees or special taxes—such as a small surcharge on water use or a small increment on the sales tax—to help fill these gaps with a reliable revenue stream.

Chart Source: Paying for Water in California.

State Leaders: More Data Needed on Rehabilitation Efforts

As Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) put it, the odyssey of California’s corrections system during the past decade would be a wonderful topic for a Ph.D. thesis: it would cover the separation of powers, the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and the evolution of one of the nation’s largest prison systems. Steinberg’s comments were made Monday during a PPIC Speaker Series on California’s Future event at the Sheraton Grand in Sacramento, which drew an audience of several hundred in person and online.

Steinberg was joined by Assemblymember Melissa Melendez (R-Lake Elsinore), the vice chairwoman of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, and Matthew Cate, the director of the California State Association of Counties. The discussion was moderated by PPIC President Mark Baldassare.

This event occurred at a time when California is working to comply with a court order to reduce the prison population by February 2016. The state has recently directed more than $1 billion toward new jail beds at the local level. But state policymakers are also focusing on alternatives to incarceration that will reduce recidivism, deter criminal behavior, and save money.

“I maintain very strongly that unless we begin significantly redirecting resources from leasing prison and jail space to substance abuse and mental health care and treatment that we may reach that magic number at one point in time, but we will not maintain it,” Steinberg said.

The bipartisan panel found considerable agreement on the need to increase rehabilitation efforts, particularly those aimed at youthful offenders or at-risk youth. Steinberg said he would like to see the $81 million in Governor Brown’s proposed budget doubled, and Melendez agreed that the amount in the proposed budget was insufficient. The state is also considering another $500 million for new jail beds in this year’s budget, and Steinberg suggested that counties should have discretion about whether those funds might be better spent on mental health beds or other intervention services.

The panel also gave a strong endorsement of better data collection on realignment-related programs—currently, not enough is known about how intervention programs are performing or which ones work best.

“We have a lot of programs out there, and no one seems to be able to tell me if they work,” Melendez said.

The panel also addressed identifying metrics for success—defining key measures, such as recidivism, can be a challenge. Cate said there are multiple measures of recidivism —arrest, conviction, prison—but each one can tell a different story.

California’s Taxing Dilemma

As the April 15 deadline for filing taxes looms, we asked Californians in the latest PPIC Statewide Survey how they view their state and local tax burden. Their responses point to a disconnect between public opinion and the views of many fiscal reformers.

A record-high 60 percent say that they pay more than they feel they should in state and local taxes. Just two years ago, 46 percent held this view. Today, six in 10 Californians also have the perception that California currently ranks above average or near the top in state and local tax burden per capita. And they are correct: A Tax Policy Center report recently ranked California’s 2011 state and local tax burden as the 11th highest in the nation.

Further, a record-low 50 percent of Californians say that the present state and local tax system is very or moderately fair. In contrast, 57 percent said it was at least moderately fair two years ago. Across income categories today, perceptions of the fairness hover around 50 percent.

What changed in the last two years? For one thing, voters passed Proposition 30, temporarily raising the state sales tax, as well as state income taxes on wealthy residents.

Today, eight in 10 Californians say that major or minor changes are needed in our state and local tax system. But their views of change don’t necessarily match those of fiscal reformers, who have argued for years that our state budget is too dependent on wealthy individuals with volatile income tax payments. Some reformers have argued that broadening the sales tax base to include services would be an effective way to avoid the extreme ups and downs in state revenues that play havoc with state and local government budgets.

But Californians appear to have little interest in changing the tax system in ways that may impact their pocketbooks. Among four types of state taxes that we asked about in our March 2014 survey, six in 10 oppose extending the sales tax to services that are not currently taxed, and fewer than half favor extending the sales tax to services even if it means lowering the overall state sales tax rate. However, six in 10 would support raising income taxes on the wealthy, while about half favor raising state taxes paid by California corporations.

Voter opposition to extending the sales taxes to services is higher among those who feel that they are already paying more than they should in taxes. Even the more popular proposals—raising corporate taxes and income taxes on the wealthy—are favored by fewer than half of the voters who feel they are paying more taxes than they should.

Meanwhile, voters are saying that they want more state funding for education and health and human services. Some state and local elected officials would also like to raise more state revenues to restore funding for services that were cut during the Great Recession, or pay for new state and local programs. Others are thinking about how to maintain revenues after the sunset of Proposition 30’s temporary taxes.

If tax reform proponents ask voters to raise taxes or to make changes to the state and local tax system any time soon, they will need to be mindful of voters’ current views on these issues.

Video Highlights New Survey’s Key Findings

The March PPIC Statewide Survey examines several major issues in California, including water, high-speed rail, marijuana legalization, and taxes. The survey also finds that three months before the primary, Governor Jerry Brown remains a strong favorite for re-election this year.

The wide-ranging survey also looks at Californians’ views on national issues—such as immigration and health care reform, and abortion —and provides approval ratings on federal elected officials.

PPIC research associate Jui Shrestha presented the results of the survey at a luncheon briefing in Sacramento.

Reforming Proposition 13

In the current legislative session there has been a movement toward making changes in the Proposition 13 tax limits that voters approved in 1978. Democratic legislators have been emboldened to take on some key elements of the so-called “third rail of California politics” after the surprisingly easy passage of the Proposition 30 tax initiative in November 2012.

Voters have already been making changes to the laws that govern the state. Recently, they changed their legislators’ term limits and the legislative redistricting process, lowered the threshold for state budget passage from a two-thirds vote to a simple majority, and changed the partisan primary to a top-two primary. Surprisingly, they also voted to change the once highly popular Three Strikes Law. So, will reforming Proposition 13 be the next big thing?

One Proposition 13 tweak that is a perennial favorite among tax reformers is lowering the two-thirds vote that is needed to pass local special taxes. Proponents argue that this change would allow local governments to more easily raise needed revenues for schools, public safety, transportation, and water projects.

However, the backers of this particular Proposition 13 reform would face substantial opposition among the electorate today. In our January PPIC Statewide Survey, just 44 percent of voters were in favor of lowering the vote threshold from two-thirds to 55 percent, while 51 percent were opposed. These findings are consistent with most of our polling over time.

Looking more closely at the January survey findings, 50 percent of Democrats want to lower the vote threshold to pass local special taxes to 55 percent, but fewer than half of independents and Republicans favor it. Voter support falls below a majority among men and women, renters and homeowners, across age, education, and income groups and the state’s major regions. In other words, proponents of this change would start with less than majority support and need to run an expensive campaign to convince some “no” voters to vote yes. This would be an uphill battle, given that efforts to change Proposition 13 have always faced a well-organized anti-tax coalition in the past.

But there is a Proposition 13 change that has substantial voter support: creation of a “split roll” property tax. Under this proposal, commercial property would be taxed according to current market value and Proposition 13’s strict limits on property tax assessments and annual property tax increases would apply only to residential property. Advocates for this idea argue that business interests have reaped tax benefits that were supposed to be directed at homeowners and that a split roll would generate billions in new revenues for state and local programs.

This proposal has support among 60 percent of voters in our January PPIC Statewide Survey, with majority support among men and women, homeowners and renters, and across age, education, income, race/ethnic groups and the state’s regions. This reform has solid majority support among Democrats and independents, and 43 percent of Republicans also favor it. What gives the proponents pause for mounting an initiative campaign for a split-roll property tax? The likelihood that a campaign against it by well-funded business and commercial interests would succeed. Also, six in 10 voters say that Proposition 13 has been mostly a good thing for the state in our May 2013 PPIC Statewide Survey, making it easy for split-roll opponents to cast doubts about making changes to this popular initiative.

California voters started a national tax revolt when they approved Proposition 13 during Jerry Brown’s first term as governor—and he does not mention taking aim at Proposition 13 as a priority as he seeks a record fourth term. So what may be in store for change-minded voters? In our January poll, voters liked the governor’s plans for a rainy day fund and paying down the debt. We can expect to see legislation and ballot measures reflecting a desire to get the state’s fiscal house in order. In this election year, it seems unlikely that the state’s politicians will challenge the voters’ longstanding love affair with Proposition 13.

Rebooting California’s Congressional Delegation

We’ve just passed through retirement season in California politics: the weeks leading up to the candidate filing deadline when incumbents who have decided to step down often make their announcements. Six of California’s 53-member delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives have decided not to run; the latest is Democrat Gloria Negrete McLeod, who is leaving after only one term to run for the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors. Also retiring are John Campbell, Buck McKeon, Gary Miller, George Miller, and Henry Waxman.

Six retirements might seem like a lot, but California’s rate of open seats this year (11%) is only slightly above the national rate (9%) and in line with the national rate in other recent non-redistricting years. (The disruption caused by redrawn district lines usually increases the number of retirements.)

California had gotten used to low turnover in part because the districts drawn by the legislature in 2001 preserved the status quo. But the new independent redistricting commission and top-two primary have opened the floodgates. Fourteen incumbents either retired or were defeated for reelection in 2012. With this year’s retirements (not all of which can be traced to the reforms), more than a third of the delegation will have turned over by the time the dust settles this fall.

This turnover is having a dramatic impact. At the start of the 112th Congress in 2011, California’s delegation had served an average of 15.1 years, far higher than the national average of 9.8 years (this number comes from the Congressional Research Service). But by the start of the 113th Congress in 2013, California’s average had plummeted to 10.2 years, and with this year’s retirements it will fall to 9.7 (or lower if some incumbents are not reelected). In the context of congressional history, that’s like pressing the reset button.

This rapid change raises questions about what we need from our representatives. On the one hand, we want turnover in Congress. New members can bring new ideas and fresh perspectives. At the very least, we want to feel like we can kick members out of office if we get fed up with them.

On the other hand, experienced representation can be more effective for both the state and the nation as a whole, and even mediocre representatives gain influence over time. Incumbent retirements or losses since 2010 have included the top majority or minority member on eight committees and 10 subcommittees, some of them among the most influential in Congress. The state should expect a diminished profile on Capitol Hill as a result.

Which is better: experience or responsiveness? There’s no simple answer. Without passing judgment on the specific members who have retired, one might argue that the pre-reform delegation had gotten out of whack, with too many members serving too long. But if things shift too far the other direction we could lose all the benefits of experience.

The recent turnover puts California at the national average for the first time in decades. We’ll see what impact that has on both behavior and legislation.