Category: Political Landscape

Video: John Chiang Looks to the Future

What are the top three issues that will make a difference to California’s future? That is the first question John Chiang—state treasurer and candidate for governor—was asked by PPIC’s president and CEO, Mark Baldassare.

Chiang’s response: education, economic security and opportunity, and the environment. He elaborated on these themes in the conversation before a San Francisco audience last week.

As treasurer, Chiang is the state’s banker, whose responsibilities include selling California’s bonds, investing its money, and managing its cash. He served two terms as state controller and was also on the Board of Equalization.

Baldassare said that he would sum up Governor Brown’s philosophy about taxes and spending as “fiscal restraint” and asked Chiang to sum up his own fiscal philosophy.

“Smart financial investment,” Chiang said.

“If you have the money, you invest it in education, you invest it in safety, you invest in infrastructure, make sure that you do the core issues correctly,” he elaborated.

PPIC invited Chiang as part of PPIC’s Speaker Series on the Future, which brings thought leaders from across the political and geographic spectrum to California audiences for conversations about the state’s pressing challenges. PPIC does not endorse, support, or oppose candidates for public office.

The End of the Post-Partisan Era?

Last week, a press release from the California Secretary of State touted the record number of 18.2 million California registered voters as a “major milestone.” The new numbers are impressive, but it’s also worth noting that California’s voter registration is in line with its current population trends. Both the number of registered voters and the number of adults who are eligible to vote have increased by about 1 million since September 2012.

What struck me as most significant about the September report—and what went largely without mention in the scant media coverage—is that a partisan shift that has been under way for several years has accelerated during the 2016 presidential election.

In 2004, a year after the recall of California governor Gray Davis, a Democrat, and the election of Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, there was an 8 point gap between Democratic and Republican registration (43% to 35%). In the 2006 general election, Governor Schwarzenegger was reelected and one other Republican won a statewide race (Steve Poizner for insurance commissioner). In other words, California was a Democratic-leaning state but Republicans could eke out a statewide victory, depending on the partisan turnout and candidates.

When Democrat Barack Obama was running for president in the fall of 2008, the gap between Democratic and Republican registration was 12 points (44% to 32%). During President Obama’s reelection campaign in the fall of 2012, there was similar registration gap between Democrats and Republicans (43% to 30%). Between 2004 and 2012, the Republicans lost about a quarter of a million voters and the Democrats gained about three-quarters of a million voters. The biggest registration increase was among independent (or decline-to-state) voters, whose number grew by a million. With many new voters eschewing party membership, California seemed to be entering a “post-partisan” era. Still, with a double-digit lead in voter registration, Democratic candidates defeated Republicans in all statewide races in 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014.

This September, the Democratic-Republican registration gap swelled to 18 points (45% to 27%). In a departure from recent trends, Democratic registration saw larger gains than independent registration over the past four years. Moreover, comparing the Secretary of State’s report for January 2016 with the September report, the biggest gain by far was in Democratic registration. This coincides with high interest in the Democratic primary between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and the unconventional candidacy of Republican Donald Trump. Is this a blip or does it signal the end of the post-partisan era? The Secretary of State’s report after the October 24 voter registration deadline will allow us to track registration trends amid debates, campaigning, and candidate news.

The growing partisan gap raises many questions. Since it’s easier to register than to vote, will new voters cast ballots this fall? With the latest PPIC Survey indicating a lack of competitive statewide races, will the growing Democratic advantage help to pass state propositions on taxes, corrections reform, and marijuana legalization? Will it allow the Democrats to reach their goal of a two-thirds majority in the state legislature? Looking beyond the 2016 election, the voter registration gap could have implications for the future of the Republican Party, the top-two primary, and California’s democracy.

Declining Satisfaction with Presidential Candidates

Satisfaction with the choice of presidential candidates is low—considerably lower than in the 2008 and 2012 elections, our most recent survey shows.

Unlike 2012—when satisfaction with the choice of candidates increased as the election approached—satisfaction has been declining. This is not a view unique to California. A recent report by the Pew Research Center found that only 33% of registered voters nationwide were very or fairly satisfied with the choices of presidential candidates.

Compared with the last two presidential elections, satisfaction with candidate choices is down by more than 20 percentage points among California Democratic, Republican, and independent likely voters. Indeed, today only 28% of California’s independent likely voters are satisfied with their choice of candidates.

Among California likely voters, supporters of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are equally likely to say they are not satisfied with the choices of presidential candidates—48% of Clinton supporters and 49% of Trump supporters express this view.

Who are these unsatisfied supporters? Notably, 30% of unsatisfied Clinton supporters are between 18 and 34 years old.

Among Trump supporters, there is a difference when it comes to views on immigration policy. Unsatisfied Trump supporters are much more likely than satisfied supporters to say that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the country legally if certain requirements are met (59% to 43%).

These low levels of satisfaction with the candidates could have repercussions on voter turnout in California. We will have to wait and see if the two remaining debates make voters feel more satisfied with the choices before them or if they choose to voice their dissatisfaction by avoiding the ballot box.

Learn more

Read the September PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government
Visit the PPIC Statewide Survey

Video: A High-Interest Election

By many measures, this is an unusual election year. In the presidential race between a businessman/reality TV star and the first woman nominated by a major party, most likely voters have made up their minds, the latest PPIC Statewide Survey shows. Yet interest in the election is high and satisfaction with the choice of candidates is low.

Two candidates from the same party are vying for an open US Senate for the first time since the state adopted the top-two primary system. About a quarter of likely voters say they won’t vote for either Democrat, and 19 percent are still undecided.

These are just two of the consequential choices Californians are being asked to make. There are 17 statewide initiatives on the ballot and in many communities, a number of local measures.

This all adds up to an election worth watching.

Dean Bonner, associate survey director, presented key findings from the survey to a Sacramento audience last week.

Commentary: Coping with 17 State Ballot Propositions


This commentary was published in the Los Angeles Times today. Thursday, August 18, 2016.

This fall, Californians will face the daunting task of determining the fate of 17 state propositions. Local ballots will add their own initiatives to this burden. It’s been a dozen years since a ballot was as challenging. How will voters respond?

Read the full commentary on latimes.com.

Learn more

PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government (May 2016) 

Climate Change and Partisanship

Ten years ago, California led the nation in climate change policy when it passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, landmark legislation that required the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. While passed largely along partisan lines, Assembly Bill (AB) 32 was signed into law by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Notably, the law enjoyed the support of a strong majority of Californians—including two in three adults across parties—in our July 2006 Statewide Survey.

Today, the state is prepared to meet the reduction targets set forth in AB 32. As policymakers debate how to further reduce emissions, a strong majority of Californians continue to favor these targets. But now there is a wide partisan divide. An overwhelming majority of Democrats (80%) are in favor, compared to a majority of independents (56%) and fewer than half of Republicans (44%).

The evolving partisanship can also been seen in Californians’ views about the state’s role as a leader in global warming policy. In 2006, solid majorities of Californians across parties were in favor of California making its own global warming policies separate from the federal government. Today, a solid majority of adults are still in favor, but the partisan divide has widened. Democratic support has held steady (73% in 2006, 70% today), but support among Republicans (62% in 2006, 49% today) and independents (70% in 2006, 55% today) has declined by double digits.

What’s changed since 2006? In California, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has been replaced by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, who has been a vocal leader on climate change and made the issue a major component of his agenda. At the national level, there is a contentious debate about global warming, as well as a growing partisan and ideological divide.

Democrats and Republicans in our surveys have also become more ideologically divided. Democrats describing themselves as “very liberal” made up 14% of Democrats in our July 2006 survey, while that group encompasses 30% of Democrats today. Similarly, Republicans describing themselves as “very conservative” made up 21% of Republicans in July 2006. The “very conservative” constitute 31% of Republicans today.

Despite a widening partisan divide, Californians’ support for state policies to address global warming has been consistent in the 10 years since passing AB 32. Indeed, a strong majority of Californians (68%) favor a proposal to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40% of 1990 levels by 2030. An overwhelming majority of Democrats (78%) support the proposed goals, compared to fewer than half of Republicans (39%). Independents are in the middle, with 59% in favor of the expanded goals.

Does the partisan divide on global warming policy mean that there is intraparty cohesiveness? Not necessarily. Among Democrats, there is strong majority support regardless of ideology and other demographics. But Republicans as a group are less cohesive. In fact, support for further reducing greenhouse gases exceeds 50 percent among nonwhite Republicans. Among independents, support for global warming policy mirrors that of the party that these nonpartisans lean toward.

Further reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be a real test for California as it seeks to address climate change. The ongoing political debate over global warming may well continue, and once more, the nation will be watching to see what California does next.

Video: Assessing California’s Global Warming Law

Ten years ago, California enacted a law to combat global warming that set an ambitious goal: reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Today, the state is poised to reach this target, and policymakers are discussing aiming for a new one.

Each year since the law—AB 32—took effect, the PPIC Statewide Survey has examined Californians’ views on climate change and the state’s actions to address it. The survey has consistently found that most Californians believe that the effects of global warming have begun and that majorities support the state taking action to address it.

But a partisan split has emerged since the law took effect. AB 32’s goals no longer have the bipartisan support they did in 2006. Today, Democrats and independents are much more likely than Republicans to support the goals of AB 32. This divide is reflected in a number of findings in the 2016 Californians and the Environment Survey.

Research associate David Kordus presented the survey at a briefing in Sacramento last week.

“Sin” Taxes on the Ballot This Fall

Two measures have qualified for the November ballot that ask California voters to increase so-called “sin” taxes. One measure, the Healthcare, Research, and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act, will add an additional $2.00 per pack to cigarettes sold in the state. Currently, the tax is $0.87 per pack, which ranks lower than the cigarette tax in 33 other states. The other measure, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, proposes to legalize the recreational use of marijuana and impose a state tax on its sales.

States use sin taxes not only to raise revenue for state treasuries, but also to affect behavior. The notion is that as the price of a product goes up, consumption will drop, and with that drop, negative societal consequences—the rate of lung cancer, for instance—will decrease. In fact, revenue from sin taxes often fund related treatment or health care programs.

Though it is early on in the campaigns, Californians hold favorable views of both ballot measures. According to the May 2016 PPIC survey, 67% of likely voters favor an increase in the cigarette tax to fund health care and 60% favor marijuana legalization.

While there are a number of reasons voters may support or oppose these measures, our focus here is on the revenue implications.

How much more money could these taxes bring in?

Both measures hold promise for raising significant funds and represent an alternative source of revenue in a state that is heavily dependent upon personal income taxes. Together, they could bring in more than $2 billion in state revenue. This would be significantly more than the state’s other sin tax on alcohol, which raised about $350 million in 2014.

The state reported more than $800 million in tobacco tax revenue in 2014. An additional $2.00 per pack would more than triple the current tax, suggesting a significant jump in total revenue. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that an additional $1 billion to $1.4 billion would be raised should the proposition pass.

Why wouldn’t total tobacco revenue triple? Total revenue will be determined by both the tax rate and the amount of tobacco purchased. If the increase has the desired effect, cigarette smoking will decline in the future. That, combined with the fact that California recently raised its smoking age to 21, should have an impact on total consumption. Indeed, the share of individuals who smoke cigarettes has been declining in California, from 18.6% in 1996 to 12.8% in 2014. In comparison, alcohol consumption has decreased since 1977, but has remained consistent over the past 20 years.

Nationally, California had the second-lowest cigarette smoking rate in 2014 (after Utah). But it’s worth noting that e-cigarette use nearly doubled among California adults from 1.8% in 2012 to 3.5% in 2013, complicating estimates of future revenue. If passed, the tax would also apply to e-cigarettes. If Californians use e-cigarettes as a substitute for cigarettes, then the measure will also capture revenue due to increased e-cigarette use. As we noted in our recent report, the additional revenue generated by taxing marijuana could be as much as $1 billion a year for the state. In the first full year after legalizing recreational marijuana, Colorado raised just over $120 million in state revenue, and Washington collected slightly less than $130 million. Given California’s larger population, the $1 billion figure is in the right ballpark. But since much is still unknown about the marijuana market, any estimate should be treated with caution.

How does California compare with other states?

The proposed taxes would be comparable to those currently in place in other states. If the tobacco tax passes, it would boost per capita revenue from $21 per resident to $50 per resident. This would still be below the national average of $57 per resident, though it would be much closer. For marijuana, the estimate of $1 billion in revenue would translate to about $26 per resident. Though there isn’t a national reference point for marijuana taxes, this number would be higher than the per capita amounts raised in Colorado and Washington. Interestingly, California’s alcohol tax revenue is less than most other states. On a per capita basis, California ranks 40th of the 50 states in alcohol revenue collected. In 2014, California collected only $9 per resident in alcohol taxes compared to the rest of the country, which raised $21 per resident. Doubling this rate—which would still be below the national average—could add another $350 million to state revenues.

Sources: National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), US Census, Office of Attorney General (OAG), Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO).

Notes: Per capita alcohol consumption is taken from the NIAAA, which calculates consumption based on sales and a conversion of gallons in terms of pure alcohol (ethanol). Population data are drawn from the US Census. Cigarette smoking rates are from the CDC.

Primary Takeaways

With the release of the official Statement of the Vote on Friday, the 2016 California primary is now in the history books. The final tally by the Secretary of State offers many new insights for those of us who closely follow elections and polling in California. This year’s results deserve a particularly close look because of the extraordinary presidential primaries and the first-ever top-two primary for an open US Senate seat.

My colleague Eric McGhee has provided an excellent analysis of primary turnout and the outcomes of top-two legislative district races in two earlier PPIC blog posts. I’m going to focus on some trends that caught my attention in the final numbers regarding the presidential primaries, the top-two US Senate primary, the state ballot measure, voter engagement, and turnout in key regions. 

  • Presidential primaries. Secretary Hillary Clinton (2.75 million) and US Senator Bernie Sanders (2.38 million) were the top-two vote-getters in the state’s presidential primaries. These two Democrats had much more support in their party’s open primary than businessman Donald Trump (1.67 million) had in a closed Republican primary with no active opposition. In addition to facing a sizeable disadvantage in voter registration (45% Democrat, 27% Republican), the presumptive Republican nominee starts the fall election season with one million fewer voters in the state’s primary than the presumptive Democratic nominee. For Republicans, this raises questions about their presidential selection process and whether to have an open primary in the future that invites independent voters to participate. For Democrats, the immediate issue is how many of those devoted, young Sanders supporters will show up to vote this fall.
  • US Senate top-two primary. Attorney General Kamala Harris won more votes (3.00 million) in the primary for the open US Senate seat than Clinton did at the top of the ballot. US Representative Loretta Sanchez finished a distant second (1.42 million) to Harris, setting up the first single-party race for US Senate in the top-two era. As a group, the 12 Republican candidates received more votes (2.15 million) than the second-place Democratic finisher. For Republicans, this raises questions about future strategies to ensure that their party’s voters have a candidate who can qualify for a top-two spot in November. And the question of how many Republicans will opt out of voting for a US Senator this fall will ultimately affect both parties.
  • State ballot measure. Proposition 50 was the biggest vote-getter (5.60 million votes, 76% yes) on the June ballot. A byproduct of recent political scandals, it allows the legislature, with a two-thirds vote, to suspend members without salary and benefits. The legislature placed it on the June ballot with bipartisan support. Proposition 50 received scant media mention and little organized opposition. Its success is consistent with the historically high pass rate for legislative ballot measures found in a recent PPIC report. This trend bodes well for state bonds to fund parks and housing that the legislature may place on the ballot in the fall. Citizens’ initiatives and referenda have been moved to the November general election, and these types of state propositions have a much lower pass rate. That means voters face a cluttered ballot this fall that includes 14 citizens’ initiatives, two legislative initiatives, and one referendum, in addition to local measures. How many will voters decide are worthy of their interest and support? 

In Los Angeles and two of the state’s fastest-growing areas, turnout among registered voters was lower than the state average.

  • Voter engagement. There was a surge in online voter registration as Californians waited for their say in the presidential primaries. Voter engagement was a welcome development after primary turnout reached a new low in June 2014 (4.46 million, 25% registered voters, 18% eligible adults). Turnout this June (8.55 million, 47.7% registered voters, 34.5% eligible adults) reflected a turnaround, although it was well short of the record-setting February 2008 presidential primary (9.07 million, 58% registered voters, 40% eligible adults). Turnout was probably depressed by two events: the elimination of Trump’s competition weeks earlier and the declaration on the day before the primary that Clinton was the presumptive Democratic nominee. Once again, there will be questions about whether it’s in California’s best interests to vote at the end of the primary season in the presidential sweepstakes.
  • Turnout in key regions. Five major counties had lower registered voter turnout than the state average: Los Angeles (41%), Fresno (41%), Kern (41%), Riverside (44%), and San Bernardino (43%). Five less populous counties in the Central Valley also had below-average turnout (41% Kings, 42% Merced, 42% San Joaquin, 44% Stanislaus, 45% Tulare). Moreover, fewer than one in three eligible adults voted in the primary in all 10 of these counties. In sum, these are troubling trends in the state’s most populous county (Los Angeles) and its two fastest-growing areas (the Central Valley and Inland Empire). Are there practical impediments to voting in these regions or is this a symptom of a deeper civic malaise? Until they are fully addressed, these regional disconnects will seriously limit the size and diversity of the state’s electorate.

The 2016 primary results point to several trends to watch in the November general election and beyond. Furthermore, the issues that surfaced this June will likely have longer-term reverberations on the primary process and civic engagement going forward.

At PPIC, the race for US Senate stands out as uniquely worthy of public attention. We invited the two candidates to participate in a conversation with me about the future of California on September 16. Stay tuned for more information about whether the candidates accept our invitation and how you can attend or watch this PPIC event.

Commentary: New Law Could Change California’s Electorate

This commentary was published in the Washington Post’s “Monkey Cage” blog today, Monday, July 11, 2016.

Supporters of California’s New Motor Voter Act are right to see its great promise, but how the law is implemented will be far more important than many have suggested.

Read the full commentary on washingtonpost.com.