Category: Political Landscape

The Drought and Californians’ Views on Climate Policy

The California Legislature is considering bills that would expand state efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. One, SB 32, would require that California reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Another, SB 350, would require that petroleum use in cars be reduced by 50 percent, half of the state’s electricity come from renewable energy sources, and buildings double their energy efficiency—all by 2030.

Our July statewide survey examined support for the goals of these bills. We found that strong majorities of Californians favored each of these proposals but that support varied among partisans, with Democrats and independents more likely than Republicans to be in favor. However, a closer look reveals that party registration is not the only driver of these views.

Within the parties and among independents, registered voters who think global warming has contributed to the drought are far more likely to support the ideas in these bills than those who don’t. Among Republicans, solid majorities of those who think global warming has contributed to the drought also support SB 32 and SB 350. Meanwhile, among Democrats and independents who do not think global warming has contributed to the drought, support for SB 350 drops to about half or less.

By the same token, Californians who think climate change is having an impact today are more likely to support these policies than those who don’t think it will have an impact until sometime in the future—and much more likely than those who think climate change will never have an impact.

These findings suggest that Californians who make a connection between climate change and their daily lives are much more likely to support policies to address it. They also suggest that attitudes toward ambitious climate and energy goals are not simply partisan, but that they are related to individual beliefs about the impact of climate change.

Californians and Climate Change

It’s been nine years since the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” had its debut and AB 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006” was passed by the Democratic-controlled legislature and signed by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Since then, Republicans and Democrats at the federal level have sparred over the scientific evidence on global warming, the government’s role in regulating greenhouse gases, and energy policies that will promote economic growth and well-being. Still, California likely voters’ strong support of AB 32—through good economic times and bad—has barely budged (66% PPIC July 2006, 63% PPIC July 2015).

The July 2015 PPIC poll finds that Californians’ economic fears are part of the reason for their steady support for AB 32—which requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020. Among California’s likely voters, 69 percent say global warming is a threat to California’s economy and quality of life.

Another reason for likely voters’ support for AB 32 is their hope that it may improve the jobs outlook. Asked about the economic impact of state actions to reduce global warming, they are more likely to say the result will be more jobs for people in the state (34%) than to say that the result will be fewer jobs (24%) or that there will be no impact on jobs (29%).

Our polling finds a strong link between likely voters’ fears about the impact of climate change and hopes about state action to address it. Among those in favor of AB 32 today, the overwhelming majority say that global warming is a serious threat to the state’s economy. And a plurality of the supporters of AB 32 say the state’s actions to reduce global warming would lead to more jobs (44%). Less than a third (30%) say these actions would have no effect on job numbers. Just 14% say the result would be fewer jobs.

Californians have not only expressed consistent support for the state’s current goals to curb greenhouse gas emissions, they favor expanding those efforts. Solid majorities of likely voters strongly support three ideas proposed by Governor Brown earlier this year and reflected in SB 350, which is under consideration in the legislature: reducing petroleum use in cars and trucks by 50% by 2030, increasing the use of renewable energy for the state’s electricity to 50% by 2030, and doubling the energy efficiency in existing buildings by the year 2030. Most likely voters also support the proposal in another bill, SB 32, which would require the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Once again, strong support of these more ambitious climate goals is tied to the perceived economic effects of both climate change and the state’s actions to address it. Overwhelming majorities of likely voters who favor the new proposals say that global warming is a very serious or somewhat serious threat to the economy (88% reduce petroleum use; 82% increase renewable energy; 85% double energy efficiency; 87% reduce greenhouse gas emissions). Among likely voters who favor these new proposals, pluralities say that California’s actions to reduce global warming will lead to more jobs. Small minorities who favor the new climate change proposals say there would be fewer jobs as a result of actions to reduce global warming.

To reach California’s goals to curb emissions, the state will need to find ways to drastically reduce its greenhouse gases and reliance on fossil fuels. On this topic, the poll finds strong majority support for policies that encourage more electric vehicles and solar power. Overwhelming majorities who favor these policies also view global warming as a serious threat to the economy. Pluralities of those who favor these proposals expect that actions to reduce global warming would lead to more jobs.

PPIC’s surveys have consistently shown that most Californians are aligned with the state’s current efforts and proposed policies, and that they have made up their minds about the perceived economic impacts of climate change and state actions to curb it. Still, the ongoing political debate over what steps to take relies on partisan talking points borrowed from the national arena. There is a shortfall of factual analysis to help leaders—and all Californians—understand the costs, benefits, and trade-offs they are being asked to make. Specifically, will climate change take a greater toll on poor and disadvantaged communities? How will climate change policies improve job prospects in these communities?

As one of the most important issues facing California’s future, climate policy is certainly deserving of a well-informed discussion and a thorough public hearing as new climate-oriented proposals make their way through the legislative process this summer.

Video: PPIC’s Annual Survey on the Environment

As California pursues its goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—and considers still more ambitious ones—PPIC’s annual survey on environmental issues asked the state’s residents their views on climate change and energy. At a recent event in the capital, PPIC researcher Lunna Lopes provided the survey findings. Among the key points:

  • Californians see global warming as a serious threat—and most do not think action to reduce global warming will lead to fewer jobs.
  • There is strong support for the greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements in AB 32 and SB 32.
  • Californians favor the energy goals in SB 350, and they also favor state support for solar power and electric vehicles.
  • Many say water is the state’s top environmental issue—but most do not know the reduction targets of their local water district.

Regulating Marijuana

In all likelihood, California voters will be asked to decide the legal status of marijuana on the 2016 ballot. Advocates of legalization are hoping to build on the momentum in four states (Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington) and the District of Columbia that made the recreational use of marijuana legal. Two national advocacy organizations—the Drug Policy Alliance and the Marijuana Policy Project—have made California a major focus for the 2016 election year.

Will a legalization initiative pass in California? Our May PPIC survey suggests that support is relatively high among likely voters: 56 percent said that marijuana should be legal. When we first began asking about legalization in May 2010, California voters were sharply divided. While support for marijuana legalization has fluctuated, since March 2014 we have seen an incremental trend toward support for legalization among likely voters. Among likely voters today, majorities of Democrats, independents, younger voters, and parents favor legalization. However, among some key electoral groups—including Latinos, Republicans, and older voters—legalization fails to get majority support. The success of any initiative aimed at legalizing the recreational use of marijuana is likely to depend on whether supporters can make inroads among these groups.

Would marijuana legalization be good public policy? That is an even more difficult question. This week a Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy—chaired by Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom—made a series of recommendations to consider in crafting an initiative. The list includes ways to limit children’s access, reduce illegal activity and regulate sales.

Should an initiative pass, a significant degree of implementing legislation and regulation are likely to follow. In short, the devil is in the details.

These details may not only determine whether legalization is good public policy—they may also affect the electoral fortunes of any marijuana legalization initiative on the 2016 ballot. In our March 2015 survey, Republican (51%) and Latino (56%) likely voters were among the most likely to say they would be bothered if a store selling marijuana opened up in their neighborhood. Similarly, in our May 2015 survey, Republican (58%) and Latino (55%) likely voters were among the most likely to say that they are very concerned about more underage people trying marijuana if it were made legal. The details of regulation and implementation are likely to play an important role in addressing some of these voters’ concerns.

In the coming months, PPIC plans to contribute to the discussion surrounding the legal status of marijuana in the state. As always, our aim will be to provide essential information and help frame the debate. By identifying some of the key issues the state will have to address, we hope to help policymakers—and, ultimately, the voters—improve California’s marijuana policies.

Tax Increases and Voter Distrust

The California budget passed on time and without much drama this June, as tax revenues once again exceeded expectations because of the improving economy. The new budget will increase education spending, restore some human services funding cuts, pay down the government’s debt, increase the rainy day fund for future recessions, and support drought emergency funding—all without any new taxes. Still, many lawmakers and advocacy groups argue that the state’s tax system must change in order to generate adequate revenues for current spending while making future investments. In this context, the governor has called for special legislative sessions to find new funding for rising health care costs and transportation projects. At the same time, several interests groups are preparing tax initiatives for the November 2016 ballot.

Many political experts believe that the upcoming general election will be the most opportune time in the next four years to ask California voters to raise their taxes. The presidential race is likely to produce a high voter turnout and, specifically, a more youthful and liberal electorate with pro-tax leanings. Voters are currently in a relatively good mood about state leaders and their own finances.

In our May poll, we tested support for five tax proposals that are being considered by the legislature and tax proponents. Support among likely voters for four of the five proposals was underwhelming (41% sales tax extension, 46% Proposition 30 tax extension, 47% oil and natural gas severance tax, 50% commercial property tax increase, 67% cigarette tax increase). What explains voters’ reluctance to increase state taxes?

For one thing, despite improved fiscal conditions the widely-held perception that “the people in state government waste a lot of the money we pay in taxes” has hardly budged in four years (58% May 2011, 57% May 2015). Today, across all political and demographic groups, large proportions of likely voters say that there is a lot of wasted tax money.

Meanwhile, the perception that the state’s budget situation is a “big problem” is down sharply from four years ago (82% May 2011, 52% May 2015). Still, a majority holds this negative fiscal view even during these exceptionally good times. And there is an important connection between these two fiscal perceptions: among the likely voters who say the state’s budget situation is a big problem, 78% say that the people in state government waste a lot of tax money.

Notably, support for all five of the tax proposals is significantly lower among those who say that the state government wastes a lot of money. Even for the cigarette tax increase, two-thirds favor falls to 58% in this group, indicating that support for this popular tax proposal could erode in an election campaign. In sum, voter distrust will be a big hurdle for gaining majority support for new taxes in 2016.

Tax proponents may take solace in the fact that a majority of likely voters say that the state and local tax system is in need of major changes. However, support for making major tax changes has declined as the state’s budget situation has improved (65% January 2011, 54% May 2015). And the desire for major tax changes is tied to distrust: 70% with this view say that the state government wastes a lot of money.

Majority support for the Proposition 30 tax increase in November 2012 offers a textbook example of how the stars can align in a presidential election. But the PPIC poll tells us that voter distrust is a major obstacle even in good budget times. Voters will want assurances that current funds are well managed but inadequate—and that new taxes are needed for essential purposes. The special sessions could be a unique opportunity to begin a public dialogue about the fiscal ingredients necessary for creating a better future for all Californians.

Californians and Water Conservation

In our May statewide survey, we found that 60 percent of Californians think people in their part of the state aren’t doing enough to respond to the current drought. The prevalence of this belief varies somewhat across regions. It turns out that Californians’ assessments of their neighbors’ efforts generally align with their area’s water conservation levels.

Earlier this month, the State Water Resources Control Board released conservation statistics for April 2015, showing how much each of the state’s ten hydrologic regions reduced its monthly water use compared to April 2013. This data shows that statewide water use declined by 13.5 percent in April, and that reductions ranged widely across the state. The South Coast region, which includes Los Angeles and neighboring counties, had a reduction of 8.75 percent, while the northeastern North Lahontan region (on the Nevada border) had a reduction of 37.5 percent.

For our survey, we interviewed at least 80 residents in 5 of the state’s hydrologic regions (the Sacramento River, San Francisco Bay, San Joaquin River, Tulare, and South Coast). When we compared survey responses about water conservation efforts with the water use reductions in these regions, we found that perceptions and reductions are aligned in almost all areas.

In the Sacramento River region, which had the biggest cut in water use among the five regions considered, residents were most likely to say that people in their area are doing the right amount to respond to the drought. These residents were also least likely to say people in their area aren’t doing enough. Responses in the region were split about evenly between “the right amount” (41%) and “not enough” (40%).

In contrast, residents of the South Coast—the region with the smallest cut in water use—were most likely to say that people in their area aren’t doing enough to respond to the drought and the least likely to say people are doing the right amount. In this hydrologic region, residents were more than twice as likely to say people aren’t doing enough (63%) than they were to say that people are doing the right amount (25%).

This pattern holds across the state, with one exception. The San Francisco Bay hydrologic region’s conservation rate is second best, yet its residents are the second most likely to be critical of conservation efforts in the area. This contrast between satisfaction with conservation efforts and conservation results might be attributable in part to ideology. Statewide, liberals (67%) were more likely than moderates (60%) or conservatives (52%) to say people in their area aren’t doing enough, and the San Francisco Bay region has a relatively high concentration of residents who identify themselves as liberals (41%). Also, water use in the Bay Area is historically lower than in other parts of the state, so conservation may be a deeply ingrained positive value.

What this comparison of survey responses with water use statistics tells us is that many Californians seem to have a good sense of how well their communities are doing in addressing the drought. Whether this sense comes from observations of neighbors, knowledge of their own behavior, or signals from local government and agencies, it suggests that Californians know what is needed to combat the drought.

Chart note: Survey responses are sorted by county into hydrologic regions. Counties that fall into more than one hydrologic region are assigned to the region where most of the population lives.

Video: Mark Baldassare & John Myers Discuss the PPIC Survey

For the first time since the start of the PPIC Statewide Survey, Californians ranked the drought as the most important issue facing the state. And that was not the only “first” for this survey. PPIC presented it in Sacramento Thursday in a new format. Mark Baldassare—PPIC’s president, CEO, and survey director—was interviewed onstage about the findings by John Myers, senior editor of KQED’s California politics and government desk.

In addition to the drought, Baldassare and Myers covered a long list of topics that were raised in the survey, including taxes, vaccinations, marijuana, University of California tuition, distrust in government, and voter turnout. Myers also raised a theme he explored in his report on the survey for KQED: Despite an improving economy and Californians’ support for the governor’s ideas about the budget, their outlook on the direction of the state remains gloomy.

Automatic Voter Registration Is No Panacea

This commentary was published on Tuesday, May 5, 2015, in the Sacramento Bee.

California voter turnout has reached record lows. Only 18 percent of 24 million eligible adults cast ballots in the June 2014 primary and only 31 percent last November. As a result, state lawmakers and good government groups are searching for new ways to increase participation in elections.

One proposal that is gaining traction—and was discussed at a recent Public Policy Institute of California event with Secretary of State Alex Padilla and other officials—is to import an automatic voter registration system from Oregon.

There’s no question that such a system would swell California’s voter rolls. But would it significantly increase turnout? That’s much less clear.

(continue reading at sacbee.com)

Local School Funding & the Exclusive Electorate

State funding for K-12 public education has been rising, but 70 percent of public school parents say it is “not enough” in our April PPIC Survey. Are California voters likely to heed these parents’ calls and support local ballot measures for school funding?

It doesn’t look likely. To begin with, likely voters are much less likely (54%) than public school parents to say that the state’s funding for their local schools is not enough. More important, in our recent poll likely voters and public school parents have starkly different views about specific ways to increase funding—local bonds and local parcel taxes—for their local public schools. Specifically:

  • When it comes to local school bonds, 75 percent of public school parents would vote yes if their local school district had a bond measure on the ballot to pay for school construction projects. But only 53 percent of likely voters would do so—lower than the 55 percent required to pass a local school bond.
  • As for funding schools through local parcel taxes, 61 percent of public school parents would vote yes. But just 49 percent of likely voters would. A two-thirds majority yes vote is needed to pass a local parcel tax for schools.
  • What about lowering the majority needed to pass local parcel taxes—from two-thirds to 55 percent? This tax reform is rated as a good idea by 57 percent of public school parents. Only 44 percent of likely voters agree—less than the majority required to make this change.

The poll’s findings reflect the fact that California’s “exclusive electorate” controls the fate of ballot measures for local school funding. Today, many public school parents are nonvoters. And most likely voters are not public school parents. According to a PPIC report, likely voters are disproportionately white and tend to be homeowners, older, college graduates, and affluent.

Latinos, renters, and the younger, less educated, and less affluent are strong supporters of local bonds and local parcel taxes for local schools. They also favor lowering the vote threshold for passing local taxes. But these groups are outnumbered among those who cast ballots in elections.

It’s not impossible to pass local bonds and parcel taxes for school funding. CaliforniaCityFinance.com reported last December that eight in 10 local bonds and 6 in 10 local parcel taxes for local public schools have passed since 2001. But funding advocates have to carefully pick and choose the timing and location of these local school funding measures in deference to the higher vote thresholds required and the propensities of California’s exclusive electorate. A PPIC study concludes that the overall fiscal impact of parcel taxes has been fairly limited statewide.

School funding proponents want a state bond measure on the November 2016 ballot. The presidential election will attract the largest and most diverse electorate. It would take a simple majority vote to pass a state school bond. Our poll finds that 55 percent of likely voters and 77 percent of public school parents would vote yes on a state bond for school construction projects.

Meanwhile, the governor has stated that local voters should be deciding if they want more local school funding and that state voters should not be asked to pass state school bonds. This idea of local control resonates with Californians, who generally distrust the decisions made in Sacramento. But as our survey suggests, likely voters are unwilling to lower the local two-thirds threshold for passing local parcel taxes, leaving it easier to pass school funding measures at the state level than at the local one.

In other words, the state is likely to continue to play an oversized role in local school funding—until the California electorate reflects the will of the people who are relying on local public schools to improve their children’s futures.