Political Landscape – Page 7 – Public Policy Institute of California

2020 Census: Counting Imperial County

The decennial census plays an essential role in American democracy. Our series of blog posts examines what’s at stake for California and the challenges facing the 2020 Census, including communities that are at risk of being undercounted.

PPIC’s interactive census maps are an important tool for Californians working to ensure an accurate census count. Using estimates from the Census Bureau and the Federal Communications Commission, they highlight hard-to-count communities across the state and pinpoint reasons why certain areas may be hard to reach.

Home to nearly 200,000 people, Imperial County will likely be one of the hardest-to-count counties in California. According to Census Bureau estimates that draw on demographic characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, age, citizenship, and housing conditions) and historical trends, 43% of census tracts in the county will be very hard to count—the highest percentage of any county in the state. Households in these very hard-to-count areas—which are concentrated in the western half of the county, around the Salton Sea and El Centro—are the least likely to respond initially to census forms and are therefore at risk of being undercounted.

Some highlights:

Legislative districts representing Imperial County are among the hardest to count in California. Between 33% and 52% of census tracts are considered very hard to count in Congressional District 51 (Vargas), State Senate District 40 (Hueso), and State Assembly District 56 (Garcia). Undercounting residents of these districts could result in political representation shifting away from Imperial County and toward areas with higher population counts, since district lines will be redrawn based on the results of the 2020 Census.
Almost all residents belong to demographic groups that have been historically undercounted. In the past, the census has disproportionately undercounted African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans, as well as young children. The large majority of Imperial County’s population is Latino—with higher shares of Latinos in the western half of the county—and the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation is located in the southeast. Altogether, 86% of county residents are African American, Latino, or Native American (compared to 45% statewide). Noncitizens—who may be less likely to respond in 2020 due to the planned addition of a citizenship question and concerns about deportation and privacy—make up 17% of residents in this border county (compared to 14% statewide).
Imperial County has a high share of young children, particularly in its cities and towns. Children under five years old make up 8% of Imperial County residents, compared with 6.5% statewide. Most young children live in the Imperial Valley, along the corridor from the Salton Sea to Calexico, or outside Yuma, Arizona. In the more rural areas to the east and west, less than 3% of county residents are children under five.
Housing conditions could make it difficult to accurately count residents. Compared to the rest of the state, Imperial County has relatively high shares of renters (44%), overcrowded rental units (15%), and mobile homes (8%), all of which can make residents harder to count. Reaching residents at home will require strategies that vary by geography and reflect local understanding of how families make ends meet. In the eastern part of the county, for example, almost 60% of housing units are mobile homes, and about 20% are rentals, while in and around El Centro and Calexico less than 20% of units are mobile homes but more than 60% are rentals.
Much of the county lacks high-speed residential internet access. The Census Bureau plans to collect the majority of responses online in 2020—a change from previous practice. Imperial County has one of the lowest rates of internet access in the state: with the exception of only one neighborhood in El Centro, fewer than 800 households per thousand in the county have high-speed internet connections. In places with limited residential internet access, census participation may rely more heavily on paper forms, in-person census takers, or internet provided by local institutions.

We hope these maps serve as a starting point to help local, regional, and state leaders think about which activities, resources, and partnerships—including language assistance, awareness raising, and community outreach—might be most effective for accurately counting different parts of California. While this concludes our regional series on hard-to-count communities throughout the state, stay tuned for future posts on the decennial census as we near 2020.

2020 Census: Counting Orange and San Diego Counties

More than 6.5 million Californians live in Orange and San Diego Counties. In Orange County, the hardest-to-reach neighborhoods are found in Anaheim, Buena Park, Santa Ana, and Tustin. In San Diego County, the hardest-to-count areas include parts of Oceanside and Escondido in the northwest and, in the southwest, pockets of the cities of San Diego and Chula Vista. Altogether, San Diego County has a higher share of these very hard-to-count areas (18% of census tracts) than Orange County (11%), according to Census Bureau estimates that draw on demographic characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, age, citizenship, and housing conditions) and historical trends. Both counties have higher shares of these areas than 60% of counties, statewide. Households in these very hard-to-count areas are the least likely to respond initially to census forms and are therefore at risk of being undercounted.

Some highlights:

Undercounting hard-to-reach areas could affect political representation in the region. Since the 2020 Census will be used to redraw legislative district lines, political representation could shift away from certain neighborhoods if they are undercounted relative to other areas. For example, in Assembly District 80 (Gonzalez Fletcher), which covers southern parts of the cities of San Diego and Chula Vista, as well as a stretch of the southern border with Mexico, 52% of households are predicted to not respond initially to the census—compared to 19% in the surrounding districts.
Knowledge of local population trends can help guide effective outreach. Some neighborhoods in the region have higher concentrations of African Americans, Latinos, or Native Americans—populations that have historically been undercounted in the census. Latinos make up the large majority of residents around Anaheim and Santa Ana in Orange County, as well as in parts of the cities of San Diego and Chula Vista in San Diego County. In some of these same neighborhoods, more than a quarter of residents are noncitizens, who may be less likely to respond in 2020 due to the planned addition of a citizenship question. Moreover, in central and eastern parts of San Diego County, working with tribal governments to reach Native Americans will be necessary to count all residents.
Housing conditions may present challenges to an accurate count, particularly in urban areas. Renters and people living in overcrowded conditions or mobile homes can be harder to count accurately. Hard-to-count housing in the region is concentrated in urban parts of Orange County and in urban and eastern San Diego County. For example, in several neighborhoods in Anaheim, Stanton, and Santa Ana in Orange County, more a quarter of rentals are overcrowded. The same is true for many neighborhoods in the southwest corner of San Diego County, which also often have high shares of mobile homes. San Diego County has hard-to-count housing in inland areas as well, including in Bostonia, El Cajon, and several tribal lands.
The region has small pockets of relatively low internet access. The Census Bureau plans to collect most responses online in 2020—a change from previous practice. Though urban areas generally have better internet access than rural areas do, a number of neighborhoods in the cities of San Diego and Chula Vista actually have fewer high-speed residential internet connections than the surrounding suburbs. Central and eastern San Diego County also have relatively low internet connectivity. In these places, it may be harder to collect responses online, and participation will rely more heavily on paper forms, in-person census takers, or internet provided by local institutions.

We hope these maps serve as a starting point to help local, regional, and state leaders think about which activities, resources, and partnerships—including language assistance, awareness raising, and community outreach—might be most effective for accurately counting different parts of California. Stay tuned for future posts that examine hard-to-count communities in other regions of the state.

Video: Californians and Their Government

As Governor-Elect Gavin Newsom prepares for his first term, half of Californians think he should take a different policy direction than Governor Brown. Four in ten approve of Newsom’s plans and priorities—while three in ten don’t yet know enough to have an opinion. These and other key findings of the latest PPIC Statewide Survey were outlined by Dean Bonner at a Sacramento briefing last week.

The survey asked Californians about four major policy areas that were highlighted in the governor’s campaign. Most see universal health coverage and free community college as top priorities, while fewer see universal preschool as a high or very high priority and only one in four prioritize high-speed rail.

The survey also asked how the state should use the projected surplus in the next budget year. A majority of Californians say they would prefer to use the surplus to increase funding for education and health and human services. Far fewer prefer to use it to pay down debt and build up a reserve or to spend on one-time funding for transportation, water, and infrastructure.

When asked to identify the state government’s highest priority in planning for the future, 39% name improving jobs and the economy, 20% say protecting the environment, and 15% say updating water and transportation infrastructure. Improving jobs and the economy is the highest priority across all parties and demographic groups.

Other survey highlights:

Two-thirds of Californians say the state is divided into two economic groups: the “haves” and the “have nots.” Four in ten characterize themselves as haves and 45% say they are have nots.
While more than half of Californians think the state is generally headed in the right direction, only about a third are satisfied with the way things are going in the nation. Half have no confidence that President Trump will make the right decisions for the country’s future.
Only two in ten likely voters approve of Congress; more than half see the shift in control of the US House from the Republicans to the Democrats as a good thing.
Two-thirds of state residents continue to see immigrants as a benefit, and there is still bipartisan support for allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the US legally if certain requirements are met.

What Approval Ratings Say about Jerry Brown’s Legacy

Perhaps Governor Jerry Brown’s most important contribution—rooted in the higher approval ratings for the executive and legislative branches—was to restore public confidence in state government.

That’s my conclusion after we at the Public Policy Institute of California have taken 64 surveys since Brown took office in January 2011 asking the same question: “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Jerry Brown is handling his job as governor of California?”

For most of the time since 2011, political gridlock stymied Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Congress.

But in California, Brown and the state legislature were solving problems. Survey results show that the public responded. Brown’s latest (and our final) approval rating stands at 51 percent. That’s 10 points higher than his approval rating in our January 2011 survey. Brown’s approval rating surpassed 60 percent twice—after his 2014 reelection and after Trump’s election, when our January 2017 survey had the governor at a 62 percent approval rating. Not surprisingly, Brown’s highest approval ratings today are among Democrats and self-identified liberals, 68 percent and 69 percent, respectively, and is least popular among Republicans at 18 percent and self-identified conservatives at 36 percent.

Notably, his canoe theory of politics—paddle to the left, and then paddle to the right—seems to have worked well. About half of independents and moderates approve of the governor. Brown’s approval rating has never dipped below 47 percent since the voters passed his Proposition 30 tax increase in October 2012. The recent campaign for the Proposition 6 gas tax repeal and the race for his successor apparently had no effect on Brown’s popularity.

Brown steered through troubled fiscal waters that damaged other political careers. The approval rating for Gray Davis hit 31 percent in the September 2003 PPIC survey as he faced the recall that ended his time in office. His replacement, Arnold Schwarzenegger, had a 25 percent approval rating in the November 2010 PPIC survey, as the state suffered from massive budget deficits and he and the legislature struggled with unpopular spending and tax decisions.

The state legislature had been mired in low approval ratings for years. Perhaps the legislature rode the coattails of Brown’s success—its approval rating increased by 21 points, from 26 percent in the January 2011 PPIC survey to 47 percent in December. California’s fiscal recovery was certainly tied to more positive views of the governor and legislature. The perception that the state budget situation “is a big problem” fell by 25 points, from 68 percent in January 2011 to 43 percent in January 2018. At the same time, during Brown’s time in office, the belief that the state is generally going in the right direction grew by 16 points to 54 percent in December 2018.

Brown and the legislature took the drama out of the annual budget process, passed popular laws on education funding and climate change, responded to crises such as drought and wildfire, and maintained a united front against Trump’s unpopular policies.

Will Brown be be a hard act to follow for Gavin Newsom?

Maintaining fiscal stability and an effective partnership with the state legislature will be the key ingredients. Jerry Brown will be leaving office with Californians in a better state of mind than they were in eight years ago. His tenure offers a successful model for governing the state in the future.

Election Takeaways: Golden State of Mind

With the release of California’s official Statement of the Vote, the state’s final tally is in for the November 2018 election. This midterm election will mostly be remembered for California’s role in changing party control of Congress. But several other statewide results also stand out:

High turnout. A record-setting 19,696,371 Californians—78% of eligible adults—were registered to vote by the deadline for the general election. An increase of 1,892,548 registered voters since the 2014 general election represents the biggest surge in voter registration between midterm elections in the past 20 years, according to California’s Secretary of State. The 12,712,542 voters who cast ballots is an all-time high for a midterm and, at 65% of registered voters and 50% of eligible adults, this is the highest midterm turnout in the past 30 years. These increases follow record low turnout in 2014. Many factors were at work in heightening political engagement this fall, including intense media interest in California congressional races that carried over from the June primary; voter participation that was stoked by disapproval of President Trump and dislike of his immigration, environment, and tax policies; and new state laws that are being implemented to make it easier for Californians to register to vote and cast ballots.

Blue wave. Democratic candidates won every statewide race and gained enough state legislative seats to have well over a two-thirds majority in the state assembly (60 Democrats, 20 Republicans) and state senate (29 Democrats, 11 Republicans). Democrats also increased their grip on the California congressional delegation (46 Democrats, 7 Republicans). What accounts for this one-party dominance? Midterm elections are often described as a referendum on the president, and President Trump’s approval rating was at 39 percent in the October PPIC survey. PPIC surveys also found an “enthusiasm gap” in voting for congressional candidates, which further skewed the partisan turnout in favor of Democrats. But the difficulties facing Republican candidates go beyond this fall’s political headwinds. The November ballot did not even include Republican candidates for US senator, lieutenant governor, or insurance commissioner—no Republicans made it past the top-two June primary for these offices. The Republicans have not won a statewide race since 2006 and, in this time, their share of the electorate has declined by 10 points (34% to 24%) while their ranks have also diminished (5.4 million to 4.7 million), according to the Secretary of State.
Diverse officeholders. Gavin Newsom was elected governor in the only statewide race featuring two white men. California’s other statewide winners were four women, three Latinos, two Asian Americans, one African American, and one openly gay man. Notably, women candidates won all their races while all those who lost—five Republican candidates, the sole No Party Preference candidate, and a nonpartisan candidate—were white men. However, regional diversity was missing, with six successful candidates from the San Francisco Bay Area and three from the Los Angeles region. There were none representing the populous regions of the Central Valley, the Inland Empire, and the South Coast (Orange/San Diego)—or the more sparsely settled central coast and far north.
Words matter. Propositions 1 and 2, placed on the November ballot by the legislature, passed—consistent with the historically high pass rate for legislative ballot measures. However, just three of the eight citizens’ initiatives passed, consistent with the historically low pass rate for these types of initiatives. Among the most notable failures were the Proposition 6 gas tax repeal and the Proposition 10 rent control measure. The September PPIC Survey found that about half of likely voters favored the general idea of both the gas tax repeal (50%) and rent control (52%), but only four in ten said they would vote yes when they were read the ballot titles and labels. The defeat of Proposition 6 (56.8% no) and Proposition 10 (59.4% no) once again demonstrates that the devil is in the details when it comes to voter support for citizens’ initiatives on the ballot.

It’s no coincidence—given what PPIC studies say about the profiles of likely voters and nonvoters—that rising political participation in California means that the Democratic Party is becoming more dominant and that statewide officeholders are more likely to reflect the state’s diversity. And it is important to note that Californians continue to be highly selective about making public policy at the ballot box as more and more voters engage with the citizens’ initiative process. Still, millions of Californians are not registered to vote and don’t cast ballots. These residents tend to identify as “have nots” and are often most in need of government services. For this reason, the PPIC Statewide Survey will continue to provide a voice—for all adults in addition to likely voters—on state and national issues. Tracking policy preferences across the broadest swath of Californians is especially critical today, as newly elected state officeholders and state and federal legislators switch from campaign mode to policymaking.

Money Measures and the November Ballot

Earlier this year, we looked at how voters responded to the 107 money measures on the June ballot. The November election featured a considerably larger number of taxes, bonds, and fees: local governments asked voters to make decisions on 397 money-related questions, by our count. Most of these measures passed (314 or 79%), though success rates varied across types of taxation or borrowing.

Overall, most bonds passed (98 of 128), but the share of successful bonds for K–12 schools and community colleges (92 of 116, or 79%) was higher than the share of general obligation bonds in other spending areas (6 of 12, or 50%). Since Proposition 39 (which passed in 2000) lowered the passage threshold for school bond measures to 55%, more than 1,400 school bonds have been placed on ballots, and voters have approved more than 80% of them. Of the 92 school bonds that passed this year, 65 met the 55% threshold but fell short of a two-thirds majority.

Parcel taxes, California’s unique way of increasing property taxes in the Proposition 13 era, were the least successful type of taxes on the November ballot. However, voters did approve 60% of these measures (36 of 60), which is in line with their historical success rate. Most parcel taxes proposed by school districts passed (11 of 16, or 69%), while those placed on the ballot by fire districts were less successful (9 of 19, or 47%).

Through 2017, local governments had proposed 80 measures to tax cannabis businesses, generally based on gross receipts, size (measured in square footage), or some combination of the two. On the November ballot, there were 75 cannabis tax measures. As has been the case historically, voters approved the vast majority (69, or 92%).

Is California shedding its reputation as an anti-tax state? The fact that local measures have been successful nearly 80% of the time does not necessarily reflect voter support for taxes in general. According to recent PPIC Statewide Surveys, a majority of Californians feel that their tax burden is greater than it should be and see Proposition 13 as “mostly a good thing.” Also, savvy local leaders put money measures on the ballot only when polling or canvassing suggests the probability of passage is high.

A more precise interpretation of recent results might be that local governments have been very successful at identifying the type of taxes and purposes around which they can mount successful campaigns. Moreover, recent local measures have been put before voters during a period of economic growth. It will be interesting to see if they continue to succeed going forward.

2020 Census: Counting California’s Northern and Sierra Regions

Home to 1.4 million people, California’s northern and Sierra regions cover around 40% of the state, spanning 23 counties: Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Inyo, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Mariposa, Mendocino, Modoc, Mono, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity, and Tuolumne. The hardest-to-count areas in these regions are found in Arcata, Chico, and Mammoth Lakes in Humboldt, Butte, and Mono Counties, respectively. Households in these very hard-to-count areas are the least likely to respond initially to census forms, according to Census Bureau estimates that draw on local demographic characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, age, citizenship, and housing conditions) and historical trends.

Some highlights:

Follow-up from census workers will likely be needed across the north and Sierras. In most census tracts in California’s northernmost and rural Sierra counties, estimates suggest 19% to 29% of households would need in-person follow-up from census workers to be counted. Further, these estimates from the Census Bureau predate the Camp, Carr, and Mendocino Complex fires, which have likely made it more difficult to count residents.
Housing conditions could be an obstacle to counting residents in coastal areas as well as around the northern Sacramento Valley. In these areas, large shares of housing units are rentals, overcrowded rentals, and/or mobile homes—all of which can make residents harder to count accurately. For example, more than 20% of households live in mobile homes in much of Trinity and Tehama Counties, and one out of five rentals in northeastern Siskiyou County is overcrowd Recent wildfires have likely increased the share of households in hard-to-count housing, as displaced families seek shelter elsewhere.
Low internet access may pose a challenge throughout the regions. The Census Bureau plans to collect the majority of responses online in 2020—a change from previous practice. Northeastern and central Sierra counties have some of the lowest rates of internet access in the state: in Plumas County, for instance, fewer than 200 out of every 1,000 households have high-speed internet access, on average. In places with limited residential internet access, participation may rely more heavily on paper forms, in-person census takers, or internet provided by local institutions.
Undercounting Native Americans would disproportionately affect northern and Sierra counties. African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans have historically been undercounted in the census. There are tribal lands throughout these regions, which have a higher share of Native American residents than other parts of the state. Working with tribal governments to reach Native Americans will be an important part of accurately counting residents in the northern and Sierra regions.
Local knowledge is necessary for effective outreach. Colusa County has the regions’ highest share of residents from historically undercounted racial/ethnic groups (60%) and the highest share of noncitizens (15%). Noncitizens may be less likely to respond to the 2020 Census due to the planned addition of a citizenship question and concerns about deportation and privacy. Ensuring that these communities are counted in 2020 will require an understanding of the local landscape. For example, one area east of Susanville in Lassen County that includes two correctional facilities has a high share of people of color. However, incarcerated people, who are counted where they are held, are unlikely to be undercounted in the census.
Some northern counties have high shares of young children. Young children are historically underrepresented in the census. Along the I-5 corridor in the Sacramento Valley, and in parts of Lake, Mendocino, Humboldt, Del Norte, Siskiyou, and Lassen Counties, more than 8.5% of residents are children under five years old, compared to 6.5% statewide.

We hope these maps serve as a starting point to help local, regional, and state leaders think about which activities, resources, and partnerships—including language assistance, awareness raising, and community outreach—might be most effective for accurately counting different parts of California. Stay tuned for future posts that examine hard-to-count communities in other regions of the state.

2020 Census: Counting the Sacramento Area

The decennial census plays an essential role in American democracy. Our series of blog posts examines what’s at stake for California and the challenges facing the 2020 Census, including communities that are at risk of being undercounted.

Home to about 2.5 million people, the Sacramento area includes the counties of El Dorado, Placer, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba, in addition to Sacramento. Within this region, Yuba has the highest share of very hard-to-count areas (21%)—in the top fifth of hardest-to-count counties across the state—and Sacramento has the second highest (10%). Households in these very hard-to-count areas are less likely to respond initially to census forms and are therefore at risk of being undercounted, according to Census Bureau estimates that draw on local demographic characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, age, citizenship, and housing conditions) and historical trends.

Some highlights:

Legislative districts that include the fast-growing city of Sacramento will likely be the hardest to count. In Congressional District 6 (Matsui), Senate District 6 (Pan), and Assembly District 7 (McCarty), between 14% and 19% of neighborhoods are considered very hard to count. Other legislative districts in the region tend to cover more suburban or rural areas and have much smaller shares of very hard-to-count communities.
There are small pockets of hard-to-reach areas across the region. Within Sacramento County, hard-to-reach areas are concentrated in the city of Sacramento, as well as around Rancho Cordova and Folsom. In some neighborhoods, 30% or more of households are predicted to not respond initially to the census. Other relatively hard-to-reach areas include Yuba City and Marysville at the border of Sutter and Yuba Counties, Davis and Woodland in Yolo County, and the eastern border of Placer and El Dorado Counties, directly north and south of Lake Tahoe.
Local population trends can help guide effective outreach. African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans have historically been undercounted in the census. Overall, these groups make up a lower share of the population in the Sacramento area compared to the rest of the state. However, in much of the city of Sacramento, around Woodland and northwest Yolo County, and in South Yuba City and northeastern Sutter County, more than half of residents are from historically undercounted communities—primarily African American and Latino. Some of these areas have relatively high shares of noncitizens as well. Noncitizens may be less likely to respond to the 2020 Census because of the planned addition of a citizenship question and concerns about deportation and privacy.
Parts of the Sacramento area have high shares of young children. Young children are historically underrepresented in the census. In census tracts in the eastern parts of Sutter County and southern Yuba County, in the city of Sacramento and surrounding suburbs, and the southwestern tip of Placer County, 9% or more of residents are children under five years old, compared to 6.5% statewide.
Housing conditions may make an accurate count challenging. High shares of rentals, overcrowded rental units, and mobile homes can make it more difficult to count residents accurately. Around Yuba City and Marysville, all of these factors are prevalent: in some neighborhoods, more than 65% of housing units are rented, about a quarter of those are overcrowded, and 15% of households live in mobile homes. In the city of Sacramento, housing conditions vary, with some neighborhoods seeing high rates of overcrowding but low rates of mobile homes, while others see the reverse. Reaching residents in nontraditional housing will be critical to an accurate count—and will depend on local knowledge of how families make ends meet.
Limited internet access may be an issue in rural areas throughout the region. The Census Bureau plans to collect the majority of responses online in 2020—a change from previous practice. Each county in the region has some census tracts with minimal residential high-speed connectivity, with the lowest access outside of the city of Sacramento, Lake Tahoe, Yuba City, and Marysville. Outside of these areas, it may be harder to collect responses online, and participation will rely more heavily on in-person census takers or internet provided by local institutions.

We hope these maps serve as a starting point to help local, regional, and state leaders think about which activities, resources, and partnerships—including language assistance, awareness raising, and community outreach—might be most effective for accurately counting different parts of California. Stay tuned for future posts that examine hard-to-count communities in other regions of the state.

Videos: Higher Education Priorities

Last week in Sacramento, PPIC researcher Lunna Lopes outlined key findings from the latest PPIC Statewide Survey, which focuses on higher education. The following day in San Francisco, PPIC president Mark Baldassare and Monica Lozano, president of the College Futures Foundation, talked about the survey’s implications for governor-elect Gavin Newsom.

The survey finds that most Californians think public higher education should be a high priority for the next governor. For Monica Lozano, this is a key takeaway: “Overwhelmingly, Californians said that a four-year degree is essential to the economic vitality of the state. And, as much as we have considered Jerry Brown a real progressive on lots of issues, there is a sense that he did not do enough on higher education.”

Lozano also noted that Californians are focused on helping students succeed. Their concerns are less about access and enrollment capacity and more about student support: student debt, financial aid, and academic and other kinds of support. “The public is putting students at the center of this equation,” she said.

A majority of Californians see affordability as a big problem. In a state with one of the highest costs of living in the country, residents are divided on whether tuition and fees or housing and living expenses are the bigger burden: 45% say tuition and fees, 34% say housing and living expenses, and 17% volunteer that the two are equally burdensome. As Baldassare put it, “There’s more to affordability than tuition and fees.”

Noting that governor-elect Newsom has an ambitious agenda for “cradle to career” education, Baldassare asked how higher education advocates and experts could help the new administration move forward.

Lozano replied, “Our challenge is to actually help them think about the fundamental issues that surfaced in this survey.” For example, most Californians think state higher education funding is inadequate and many support a funding guarantee for UC and CSU. “If the system of financing higher education has to change so that it’s more predictable—so that there’s some sort of a dedicated revenue stream that’s tied to some accountability measures—how would you actually do that?”

More generally, Lozano and Baldassare agreed that the survey shows how highly Californians value higher education; as Lozano put it, “This survey gives the next governor permission to be bold.”

Californians’ Priorities for the Next Governor

Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO and director of the PPIC Statewide Survey, spoke to the Sacramento Press Club on November 19, 2018 in a post-election discussion with Mark DiCamillo, director of the Berkeley IGS Poll. Here are his prepared remarks.

While we are still counting votes in California, the 2018 election can be called a sweeping success for Democratic candidates in the statewide races. Democrats also won the coveted two-thirds majorities in the state senate and state assembly, and increased their dominance of the California congressional delegation. The Republican Party’s efforts to stem their losses by getting behind what they hoped would be a popular gasoline tax repeal stalled as Proposition 6 fell short (57% no).

In the governor’s race, Democrat Gavin Newsom defeated Republican John Cox by a double-digit margin that was similar to the re-election win of Governor Jerry Brown over Neil Kashkari in 2014 (60% to 40%). Newsom was the leader in eight PPIC Statewide Surveys on the governor’s race conducted since last December. Cox surged to second place after President Trump endorsed him in the June primary, but he was unable to expand his base much beyond the president’s approval rating (39%, October PPIC survey).

What are Californians’ priorities for Governor-elect Newsom? California voters mentioned health care, immigration, the economy, the environment, and gun policy when asked to choose the most important issues facing the country in the exit polls (CNN poll, Fox poll). This list covers most, though not all, of the most important state issues mentioned in 2018 PPIC surveys. It also offers a good starting point for identifying issues that will shape the Newsom era. Here is what the 2018 PPIC surveys have to say about each one:

Health Care. A record-high 59 percent of Californians have a favorable view of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the October PPIC survey. While 65 percent think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure that all Americans have health coverage, just 34 percent say it should be provided via a single government program instead of the current mix of private and public programs. While 64 percent of adults favor a single-payer state government health plan, support drops to 41 percent if it means raising taxes, according to the May PPIC survey. In the wake of ACA repeal and replace efforts, California’s health insurance exchange and MediCal expansion seem to be generating more public support, while the desire for wholesale change are tempered by concerns about choices and costs.

Immigration. Seventy-four percent of Californians believe that immigrants are a benefit to the state, while 85 percent say that there should be a way for undocumented immigrants to stay in the country legally, according to the May PPIC survey. About three in four (74%) oppose building a wall along the border with Mexico in the October PPIC survey. Nearly six in 10 (58%) favor state and local governments taking action, separate from the federal government, to protect the legal rights of undocumented immigrants in California in the October PPIC survey. Given the large immigrant population and strongly held public views, the next governor will be expected to lead the resistance against federal policies.

The Economy. About half of Californians say they expect good times financially for the state (48%) and the nation (48%) over the next 12 months, according to the October PPIC survey. Still, jobs and the economy tops their list when asked to name the most important issue facing the state in the September PPIC survey. Related to this concern, 60 percent say that the state government should be doing more to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor in California. At least half across demographic groups and regions say the state should do more. The next governor’s challenge in meeting this expectation will be the ambivalence about footing the bill. Fifty percent say they prefer to pay higher taxes and have a state government that provides more services, and 77 percent of them say the state should do more. But of the 44 percent of Californians who would rather pay lower taxes and have fewer services, just 42 percent hold this view.

Environment. A record-high 56 percent of likely voters say that the gubernatorial candidates’ positions on the environment are very important in determining their vote, according to the July PPIC survey. Many Californians say they are concerned about the personal impact of global warming in the wake of a prolonged drought and in the face of growing evidence that extreme weather from climate change is resulting in more severe wildfires. As the federal government has dramatically changed course on environmental issues, most Californians say they want the state government to make its own policies to address global warming, and many say that it is important for California to act as a world leader in fighting climate change. Californians will be looking to the next governor to build on the work in progress, while dealing with environmental crises like the wildfires this fall and with legal challenges from the Trump Administration.

Gun Policy. Most Californians (64%) say the laws covering the sale of guns should be made stricter, according to the October PPIC survey. The belief that gun laws should be stricter was at a record-high 73 percent in the March PPIC survey, shortly after the devastating high school shooting in Parkland, Florida. In the wake of the recent tragic shooting in a bar in Thousand Oaks, California, the public’s belief that gun laws should be made stricter may climb higher. And with the absence of new federal legislation to address gun violence, the governor-elect will be asked to find ways to improve the current laws restricting guns in California.

Californians’ priorities also include big-ticket items such as universal preschool and tuition-free community college that would add up to “cradle to career” education, initiatives to tackle housing affordability and homelessness, and adequate water and transportation infrastructure. The next governor will also be tested by a Democratic-controlled legislature with pent-up demand for spending after eight years of fiscal caution under Governor Brown. The October PPIC survey offers this guidance if voter approval is needed: a majority of California adults prefer a bigger government with more services to a smaller government with fewer services (54% to 39%); however, a majority of likely voters prefer a smaller government with fewer services to a bigger government with more services (53% to 41%).

As the priorities, plans, and programs of the new governor take shape in the next year, the mission of the PPIC Statewide Survey— to provide a voice for all adults and likely voters— is one that we take very seriously during this critical moment of policy development. And as we look to 2020, it’s important to remember that California will be playing an early and outsized role in the presidential election, with an early March 3 primary. PPIC will host a series of one-on-one public forums next year with state and national leaders, to discuss their leadership style and to explore their vision for the state’s and nation’s future.