Category: Political Landscape

Testimony: Building Trust in State Government

Today California’s Little Hoover Commission held its first public hearing on the nature and quality of interactions between state government and the public. The commission invited Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO, to testify about the public’s trust in government. Here are his remarks.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your important and timely discussion about improving the delivery of public services and better engaging Californians with their state government. I have been asked in my testimony to set the stage for your work by helping you to better understand current public sentiment toward state government.

Last year, voter turnout in California reached a historic low: 30.9 percent of eligible adults in the November general election and 18.4 percent in the June primary. Millions of Californians who could register to vote did not, and millions of Californians who could vote opted out. These numbers clearly point to a California public that is disconnected from their state government today.

This is consistent with what we have observed in the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) Statewide Survey since we began monitoring Californians’ attitudes toward government in the late 1990s. We have been asking questions about government trust focused on effectiveness, responsiveness, and efficiency at the local, state, and federal levels. And we have found that Californians’ distrust in state government predates the low voter turnouts of the 2014 election.

My purpose is to provide information on the magnitude of public distrust in state government today, the differences among demographic groups, and how current levels of distrust compare with the past. I will also contrast opinions about government at the local, state, and federal levels. Lastly, I will talk about the implications of our findings for state government leaders.

The source of most of my comments about trust in state government today is the PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Future report from December 2014, which I coauthored with PPIC colleagues Dean Bonner, Renatta DeFever, Lunna Lopes, and Jui Shrestha. Our latest findings on trust in state government are based on interviews with 1,704 adult residents throughout California from November 10 to November 17, conducted in English or Spanish and by landline or cell phone with a sampling error of ± 3.7 percent.

We asked our tracking question on government effectiveness, “How much of the time do you think you can trust the state government in Sacramento to do what is right?”—and only one in three Californians said just about always (7%) or most of the time (25%). Two in three Californians said that you can trust the state government to do what is right only some of the time (61%), or volunteered that they trust it none of the time (5%). These perceptions are shared across regional and demographic groups. Republican and independent voters express more distrust in state government than Democratic voters do. In our polling a decade ago, the results for this question were similar. However, perceptions have improved somewhat since October 2010 (3% always, 15% most of the time, 67% most, 12% none).

Responding to our tracking question on government responsiveness, 67 percent of California adults said “the state government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves,” while only 28 percent said that “it is run for the benefit of all of the people.” Majorities across regional and demographic groups perceive the state government as pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, and Republican and independent voters are more likely to express this negative view than Democratic voters are. Again, the results were similar a decade ago, while perceptions have improved somewhat since October 2010 (75% big interests, 17% all of the people).

In our tracking question on government efficiency, 54 percent of adults said they “think the people in state government waste a lot of the money that we pay in taxes,” 35 percent said “people in state government waste some of it,” and 8 percent said they “don’t waste very much of it.” Majorities across most regional and demographic groups hold the perception that the people in state government waste a lot of money, while Republican (78%) and independent voters (60%) hold this view much more often than Democratic voters (46%) do. Once again, the results were similar in our polling a decade ago, while perceptions have improved somewhat since October 2010 (66% a lot, 26% some, 6% don’t waste very much).

We asked the same three questions on effectiveness, responsiveness, and efficiency about the federal government in our May 2014 poll and about local government in our May 2011 poll. State government fares only slightly better than the federal government in ratings of trust. Local government fares the best of all levels. Californians are much less likely to say their local governments “waste a lot of the money paid in taxes” or are “pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves.” They are slightly less likely to say that they can trust their local governments “to do what is right only some of the time or none of the time.”

In summary, the negative perceptions about the effectiveness, responsiveness, and efficiency of state government are consistent over time and widely held in the public today. What are the implications of our findings for state government leaders? First, Californians will continue to value the citizens’ initiative process as they seek to have a say in the major decisions made by their state government. Second, many Californians will be skeptical about the need for higher state taxes and more state revenues, given their level of distrust in their state government. Third, proposals to move authority and control to the local level will resonate with Californians, given their higher levels of distrust in state government. Last but not least, civic disengagement will continue to be a problem. We may reach new lows in voter participation given the level of distrust in government.

I’d like to close on a more hopeful note. This commission’s work comes at a time when we are seeing some improvements in all three indicators of trust in state government. In the wake of a growing economy and better fiscal situation, the approval ratings of the governor and state legislature are also on the rise, as our survey results show. The voters have also approved a series of major legislative and fiscal reforms in recent elections. In our polling, the public is signaling their early support for local control of school funding and state-local corrections realignment.

It will take time to see whether these reforms and changes satisfy a distrustful public. I’m optimistic that we are poised to make gains in trust in state government over the next few years, and this is an area where California could lead the nation. New efforts toward building trust in state government will pay dividends in the form of citizen engagement. They are important for the future of all Californians.

California’s Future: Optimists vs. Pessimists

Californians begin the new year divided in their view of the state. According to the December 2014 PPIC Statewide Survey, half of California adults think the state is headed in the right direction (50%) and a similar proportion (52%) expect the state to have good economic times in the next 12 months. More than a third (37%) think California will be a better place to live in 2025, and a similar proportion (37%) believe children growing up in the state will be better off financially than their parents.

While most Californians responded to these questions with a mix of optimism and pessimism, we found some interesting differences between the 14% of Californians who gave positive responses to all four questions—let’s call them the optimists—and the 13% who expressed consistently negative views—the pessimists.

Demographically speaking, the optimists tend to be younger, less educated, and have lower incomes than the pessimists. Optimists are also less likely to have been born in the United States.

Politically, optimists are more likely to be Democrats and pessimists more likely to be Republicans. Optimists are spread across the ideological spectrum, while pessimists tend to be ideologically conservative. Optimists are also far less likely to be registered voters than their pessimistic counterparts.

The differences between the state’s optimists and pessimists are particularly stark when we examine their attitudes toward government. Even though optimists are less likely to be registered to vote, they are more trusting of government than pessimists: 63% of optimists believe that state government is run for the benefit of all the people, while 93% of pessimists think it is run by a few big interests. Moreover, optimists would prefer to pay higher taxes and have a state government that provides more services (71%), while pessimists favor lower taxes and fewer services (69%). More specifically, optimists are more likely than pessimists to support extending Proposition 30 tax increases (68% of optimists favor an extension, 67% of pessimists oppose) and are more likely to say they would be willing to pay more taxes to fund higher education (61%, compared to 23% of pessimists).

Will California’s trusting optimists become more electorally involved? Or is the record-low voter turnout in last November’s election a sign of increasing disengagement? Certainly, one of the state’s key challenges is to get more voters—both optimists and pessimists—to the polls.

Are Some Counties Bucking the Low-Turnout Trend?

A record-low 31% of Californians eligible to vote cast ballots in the November election, according to data finalized by the secretary of state Friday. (I prefer to use the share of residents eligible to register rather than the share of registered voters because it better captures the true potential electorate. But my use of this share does not affect the conclusions I draw here.)

But turnout was not so low everywhere. In fully 35 of California’s 58 counties, turnout was above the previous statewide low (36%, in 2002). And in two very small counties—Alpine and Sierra—turnout was actually higher than 50%.

The high-turnout counties were generally rural. Total turnout in the 20 smallest counties in the state was 39%, compared to just 27% in the 5 largest. Also, turnout tended to be lower in Southern California and the Central Valley. All 12 counties with turnout below the statewide average—Fresno, Imperial, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Merced, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare, and Yuba—are in one of those two areas.

All the same, it would be a mistake to see low turnout as a regional problem. In every single county, turnout was at least 4 and as many as 17 percentage points lower in 2014 than in 2010. In fact, since 1990, turnout in gubernatorial elections has declined in every county except those same two outliers, Alpine and Sierra.

In short, whatever has been depressing turnout in California’s gubernatorial elections seems to have a fairly broad geographic scope. Participation is better in some counties than others, but turnout has been sliding in all areas of the state.

California Politics and the Future

Jim Brulte, chair of the California Republican Party, says Governor Brown is “clearly the master of Sacramento.”

Jennifer Medina, national correspondent for the New York Times, says the governor hasn’t talked much about poverty or income inequality— an issue his Republican opponent used in the election this year.

And Garry South, longtime Democratic strategist, says the governor needs to take on the tough issue of fiscal reform because this can only be done by a Democrat.

These are a sample of comments from a panel of experts speaking at a briefing hosted by PPIC in Sacramento this week. The discussion focused on the challenges and opportunities ahead for the governor and legislature. The event began with a presentation of the results of the new PPIC Statewide Survey by Dean Bonner, associate survey director. The survey included a wide range of topics, including tax reform, health care, climate change, and the approval ratings of state leaders.

 

California’s Future Challenges and Opportunities

PPIC hosted a day-long series of conversations this week about creating a better future for our state and highlighting the choices we need to make today to do so. After a keynote address by Nancy McFadden from the governor’s office, panelists from government, business, and philanthropy discussed California’s challenges and opportunities before a large audience in Sacramento and online. They tackled difficult topics, such as improving economic opportunity and increasing citizen engagement in government. And they discussed ways the state can build on its strengths—an improving economy, a diverse population, and a history of reform and innovation.

We will post videos of all of the sessions soon. In the meantime, we want to share the opening remarks prepared by PPIC researchers. They set the context each session:

We hope their insights will pique your interest and inspire you to watch the conference videos when they become available.

Timely Talk About California’s Future

Californians are feeling more optimistic about the state’s immediate economic future than they have in years, our December PPIC Statewide Survey shows. Today, 52 percent expect California to have good times financially for the next year. The last time more than half of residents expressed this view was in January 2001. But when Californians are asked to take the longer view, worries about their own economic futures emerge. Most residents—55 percent—think that when California’s children grow up they will be worse off financially than their parents.

The time is right to both build on Californians’ new optimism and address the nagging concerns about the future. After years of economic turmoil, the state has entered a period of reform and reinvention. How can we Californians ensure that the changes will bring about a better future for the state?

With the new legislature sworn in and state leaders developing policy agendas for the months ahead, PPIC is hosting a wide-ranging conversation tomorrow about the choices we need to make today to create a future that benefits all Californians. Registration for the conference, California—State of Change, is closed, but I invite you to watch the live webcast of this full-day event.

Event panels will cover a variety of topics, including the economic, political, and demographic trends driving change in the state; how leaders can best respond to them; and how government can be a partner in the kind of innovation that has made our state a leader in so many areas.

Please join us for a series of timely discussions about our future.

California’s Voter Turnout Problem

Voter turnout in California’s 2014 midterm election was awful. It looks to have hit a new low, with about 42 percent of registered voters deciding to cast a ballot. The previous low came in a 2002 race between Bill Simon and Gray Davis that everyone at the time agreed marked a low point for engagement and interest.

But are these numbers really so bad? Can we put them in some broader context that makes them look better? We can try, but it turns out that when we do, it only makes them look worse.

First, turnout as a share of registered voters tells only half the story. It ignores all the Californians who were legally eligible to vote but didn’t even bother to get registered in the first place. If we’re worried about citizen engagement, then ignoring these people is a problem. When they are included in the calculation, turnout drops to 31 percent—5 percentage points below the previous low and 17 points below the average for midterm elections since 1922.

The problem is still more dire when we stack California against the rest of the country. The graph below shows midterm turnout among eligible voters in California and the United States as a whole (the U.S. numbers come courtesy of Michael McDonald and his United States Elections Project).

As the graph indicates, national turnout was low this year (about 36%), but it wasn’t too far out of line with the trend since the 1970s, which has been a little low but flat. California’s midterm turnout, by contrast, has been in a fairly steady decline since the mid-1950s. Our recent turnout is 5 points below the national number, despite the fact that many other states did not have any statewide election (and the national average includes California itself).

Before we conclude this is a California problem, it’s useful to see the same graph for presidential elections.

It looks about the same—fairly flat national turnout and falling California turnout since the 1970s—until roughly the last 20 years. During this most recent period, California’s decline has stopped, and turnout in both California and the nation has even increased a little.

Taken together, these graphs rule out some explanations. The problem is not California’s political reforms like the redistricting commission or the top-two primary, because the gubernatorial decline predates those changes (which came in 2012). But it’s not something immutable about California, either, because it’s nothing a few exciting presidential elections can’t fix. In fact, what’s interesting is how good California’s turnout used to be compared to the rest of the country, and therefore how new it is to have a California with turnout that is actually below the national average.

To get at the answer, we will need to understand what has been different about recent presidential elections in California, and why higher turnout for them has not extended to gubernatorial races. Is turnout decline the natural state of things, from which presidential contests have departed? Or is higher turnout the more reasonable expectation, from which gubernatorial turnout is an aberration? Both accounts seem reasonable, but it’ll take further study to pull the two apart.

New Era for Initiatives?

California’s exceptional nature was on display again last Tuesday, as Democratic candidates swept the statewide races while Republicans scored big victories in the national midterm elections. An analysis by my PPIC colleagues Eric McGhee and Daniel Krimm shows that the state’s legislative races were closer this time around and a few competitive seats switched parties. In the end, though, the California Legislature and U.S. House delegation remain firmly in the Democratic column.

The exit polls confirmed what we reported in 2014 PPIC pre-election surveys and analyses of likely voters’ profiles. The 15 point voter registration gap between Democrats and Republicans (43% to 28%) narrowed somewhat in this midterm election but not by enough to challenge the deep-blue nature of California politics. The final voter tally is still weeks away, but this election year will likely stand out in California history for record-low turnouts in both the June primary and the November general election.

The search for the cause of voter apathy has mainly focused on the governor’s race, but I would like to call attention to another exceptional feature of this election: the drop-off in state propositions and citizens’ initiatives, which have often captured media attention and voter interest in the past. It may mark the beginning of a trend with profound implications for voter engagement and state policymaking.

This year, there were only eight state propositions on the June and the November ballots, including four legislative measures, three citizens’ initiatives, and one referenda. Both legislative measures on the June ballot, Propositions 41 and 42, passed with more than 60 percent of the vote and little fanfare. On the November ballot, two legislative measures, Propositions 1 and 2, also garnered more than 60 percent of the vote. Governor Brown sold them as a package with a “Save Water, Save Money” campaign, tapping into concerns about the state drought and budget shortfalls. Proposition 47, a citizens’ initiative on criminal sentencing, passed with almost 60 percent at a time when fear of crime does not loom large among Californians. The three measures that failed—two citizens’ initiatives on health care, Propositions 45 and 46, and a referendum on Indian gaming, Proposition 48—faced well-funded opponents. Although money was clearly a factor in the outcomes on ballot measures, the $151 million in total spending represents a down year for the campaign consultants in the California initiative business.

To place this year in context, there were 100 state propositions on state ballots between 2003 and 2013, including 68 citizens’ initiatives, 25 legislative measures, 6 referenda, and the governor’s recall. Total spending for and against the 68 citizens’ initiatives was about $1.8 billion. In fact, since the Proposition 13 era began in 1978, the numbers of state propositions and citizens’ initiatives in midterm and presidential election years has never been lower than in the 2014 election cycle. Why the dramatic change in voter decision making at the ballot box?

One contributing factor is SB 202, which had the intended consequence of keeping citizens’ initiatives off the June primary ballot for the first time in decades. Passed by the legislature and signed by the governor in late 2011, this law limits citizens’ initiatives and referenda to the November election, when more voters typically cast ballots. A PPIC report pointed to another potential effect of the law: turnout could fall by 3 to 7 points without initiatives on the primary ballot. While the legislature can still place its proposals on the primary ballot, as it did with Propositions 41 and 42 this June, these measures can lack the sizzle and drama of initiative campaigns. In other words, SB 202 could have the unintended consequence of lower primary turnout.

SB 202 was expected to result in more initiatives on the November ballot, but that did not happen this year. It is possible that some interest groups shied away from the ballot because their causes were more likely to succeed in a primary with a smaller, older, and more conservative electorate. Others may have decided to wait until the presidential election in November 2016 because their causes are better aligned with a larger, younger, and more liberal electorate. Or maybe initiatives have simply become too expensive, even for the interest groups that operate in this arena. In any case, fewer initiative campaigns gave Californians fewer reasons—and fewer televised reminders—to vote this fall.

Because of another new law, SB 1253, we can expect further declines in the number of initiatives on state ballots. Passed by the legislature and signed by the governor this fall, the law offers proponents more opportunities to amend and withdraw their measures, and it requires the legislature to hold public hearings to review initiatives. These types of process changes have strong public support in PPIC Statewide Surveys. By allowing time for reconsideration and providing opportunities for collaboration between initiative proponents and the legislature, SB 1253 may result in fewer citizens’ initiatives and more legislative measures—which would be a throwback to the pre- term limits era before 1990. Such a trend might improve the initiative process, but it could also make elections less interesting for voters.

An early test of SB 1253 will be the marijuana legalization initiative that is on course for the November 2016 ballot. A previous marijuana legalization initiative failed with a 46 percent yes vote in 2010. The October 2014 PPIC Statewide Survey found that 50 percent of likely voters are in favor of legalizing marijuana, so it is far from certain that a 2016 initiative would pass.

Will legislators and proponents search for a compromise before the initiative goes to the voters? Legislators may want to find ways to connect with younger voters in 2016, while proponents may want to bypass costly and risky campaigns. Another reason to think there may be a compromise: the pass rate for legislative measures (71%) has been much higher than the pass rate for citizens’ initiatives (38%) over the past 40 years. If a deal is struck on this high-profile, controversial issue, initiative compromise leading to legislative measures could become the new hybrid model for making policy at the ballot box.

How will voters respond to primaries and general elections with fewer citizens’ initiatives on the ballot? It seems likely that presidential elections will still hold their interest, but primaries and midterm elections might be less compelling. In other words, tinkering with the citizens’ initiative process may unintentionally produce new historic lows in voter turnout. Looking for other tools to engage Californians in elections while improving the initiative process will keep secretary of state–elect Alex Padilla busy over the next four years.

The Road Ahead for Superintendent Torlakson

In what was thought to be one of the most closely contested statewide races, incumbent Tom Torlakson defeated challenger Marshall Tuck to retain the job of state schools chief. In the post mortems, much will be made of the money that was spent on perhaps the most expensive race in this cycle. The conversation, undoubtedly, will focus in part on the significance that national groups attached to this race, which pitted the powerful teachers’ union against the “reformers.” Though there is some value to attempting to unpack the past, it is more important to look forward to the impact Torlakson could have on education in California in his second term.

Leading up to election day, commentators routinely described the state superintendent position as “powerless” or even “obscure.” And it is true that when it comes to making policy the state education chief plays a limited role. A great deal of policy has already been made, and what lies ahead is the difficult job of implementation. The superintendent could play a major part in deciding how these policies roll out. The California Department of Education (CDE) that Torlakson heads has more than 1,500 employees and a budget of $250 million dollars. How he chooses to allocate those resources could make a real contribution to supporting schools and districts as they grapple with major changes.

California has made more significant changes to K–12 education policy in the past four years than it made in the previous two decades:

  • In 2010, the state adopted the Common Core State Standards, a decision that affects nearly every element of what happens in the classroom.

  • In 2013, California scrapped its old system of distributing funds to schools and opted for a formula that directs additional dollars to districts with higher numbers of needy students. One consequence of this change was to put much more power in the hands of local decisionmakers.

  • Accompanying the new funding strategy is a new approach to holding districts accountable for the performance of their schools.

  • And if that isn’t enough, California has begun a new statewide testing regime that has, as yet, only been piloted. The first real round of tests will begin this spring, with results due out in the summer.

As my colleague Paul Warren and I recently observed, CDE has played a minimal role in guiding implementation of the new standards but there are several things it could do to ease the transition. There are also challenges ahead for the state when it comes to the new accountability requirements. Because the new rules were written broadly, they have probably raised more questions than they answered about what accountability looks like going forward. Finally, somebody needs to help students and parents prepare for the new test results. On average, scores are likely to be lower. That doesn’t mean that California’s children somehow became less smart over the past two years; it means that the tests are harder. This is an important distinction that will need to be communicated.

Policy implementation isn’t sexy. It is hard, roll up-your-sleeves work. If the superintendent embraces his role, he could have an impact on California education that goes far beyond symbolism.

The Election Was Hard on California Democrats, Too

It’s pretty obvious that Democrats had a bad night nationally in last Tuesday’s election. They lost most of the close gubernatorial contests, lost control of a number of state legislative chambers, lost seats in the House of Representatives, and lost control of the U.S. Senate.

On the surface, it would appear that California stood against this tide. At the time of this writing, the Democrats have lost a few seats in the legislature and the congressional delegation, but they once again swept the statewide offices, from governor to secretary of state. Unlike the rest of the country, where the conversation is about which party controls the legislature, in California the conversation is about whether the Democrats will have a supermajority.

But scratch just beneath the surface, and it turns out California is not so different after all. A clean statewide sweep is not the best measure of performance, since those races can hinge more on candidate personalities or other idiosyncrasies than the lower-profile contests down-ballot do.

A better test is to compare Democratic performance in assembly and congressional races to races in the same districts two years ago. (State senate races can’t be compared this way because these districts were drawn differently this year.) The graph below shows the relationship between the Democratic vote share in this year’s assembly and congressional elections and the same two years ago, for races contested by both parties in both years (which means none of the same-party contests made possible by the new “top two” primary are included). The diagonal line marks no change: points above the line are districts where the Democrats did better, and points below are districts where they did worse. In the overwhelming majority of races, the Democratic candidate did worse this year. Moreover, this was true whether the Democrat won a large share of the vote in 2012 (farther to the right on the graph) or a small share (farther to the left).

Democrats in California’s congressional races also performed about as well as Democrats in other states. The second graph below compares California House races to others. The cloud of grey circles represents House races in other states, and as we can see, the California races fall well within it. This shows that Democrats in California did about as badly this year as Democratic candidates everywhere else.

It was a tough cycle for Democrats for a lot of reasons—their president is unpopular, the economy’s growth has not reached a broad swath of the electorate, and the president’s party is usually punished at least a little bit in midterm elections. But the story that California Democrats somehow avoided the fate of the rest of their party, at least for down-ballot races, doesn’t receive much support from the data.