election – Page 2 – Public Policy Institute of California

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.

Three Lessons About California’s Election Reforms

California got its second taste of two important reforms yesterday: legislative and congressional districts drawn by an independent redistricting commission, and a “top-two” primary system that allowed voters to choose any candidate in the primary, regardless of party, and advanced the top two vote-getters, also regardless of party, to the fall election. Both went into effect in 2012.

How did the reforms do this time around? This is really a question about the legislative and congressional races, since the statewide races weren’t affected by the redistricting and there were no same-party races at that level. The new districts were used for the first time only in the state senate races.

A first pass at the results (as they stand at the time of this writing) suggests three important conclusions:

Competition was higher. Races were more competitive this year than before the reforms, though they were a little less competitive than in 2012. Among races between candidates of opposing parties, 15% had a margin of victory of less than 10 points, compared to 18% in 2012 and just 7% in the decade before. There were 25 same-party races (compared with 28 in 2012), almost exclusively in districts that would have been uncompetitive under the old primary system. (The only possible exception was Congressional District 25 just north of Los Angeles, where two Republicans faced off against each other in a district that might have been competitive for a Democrat under the right circumstances). Roughly one-quarter of those same-party races were decided by less than 10 points, down slightly from 2012.

The establishment did pretty well. Despite the extra competition, most races turned out as they might have before the reforms. In other words, incumbents and candidates endorsed by their party fared well. All but seven of the 114 incumbents across state assembly, state senate, and U.S. House races won reelection, although fewer incumbents ran in the senate’s new districts (50%) compared to the assembly (70%) or Congress (89%). One incumbent in a same-party race is losing this cycle (Raul Bocanegra in Assembly District 39), compared to six who lost in 2012 (two of whom were running against another incumbent). The average margin of victory for incumbents (33%) was about the same as in 2012 (33%) and in the decade before (31%). In the same-party races where only one candidate was endorsed by the party, that candidate won 15 out of 18 times, compared to 12 of 16 in 2012.

Minor parties continued to struggle. One criticism of the top-two system is that minor-party and no-party-preference candidates find it more difficult to survive the first-round election to reach the fall runoff. This year, only seven such candidates managed it, four of them by running write-in campaigns in races where there was otherwise no formal major-party opposition. None of these candidates was elected on Tuesday (though such candidates rarely won before the reforms, either).

It will likely take more time for the impact of redistricting and election reforms to be clear, but for the time being, the results are falling into some predictable patterns. As voters, candidates, and campaign consultants wrap their heads around the idea of the top two, we may see further evolution of this system. But for now, the reforms have transformed certain aspects of California elections—such as increasing the number of competitive races and allowing same party runoffs in the fall—while leaving the broader landscape unchanged.

Voters More Optimistic, Less Engaged

A lot has changed since Californians cast ballots just four years ago.

Likely voters today are feeling much better about the direction and economic outlook of the state. In October 2010, most (77%) said that the state was headed in the wrong direction. In our latest survey, likely voters are much more positive about the state’s future—although they are still more likely to say wrong direction (54%) than right direction (40%). Similarly, in October 2010 less than a quarter of likely voters (20%) expected good economic times in the upcoming year and far more (65%) expected bad times. Today, the mood is decidedly different, with 42% expecting good times and 47% expecting bad times. In October 2010, most likely voters (59%) named jobs and the economy as the state’s most important issue. Today, just 30% name it as the top issue, which barely keeps it in first place, while 28% name water and the drought. Further, in September 2010 nearly all likely voters (90%) called the state budget situation a big problem—today, that number is 62%.

This year, likely voters are paying less attention to news about the candidates for governor than they did four years ago, when the race involved an open seat and a high-profile contest. In October 2010, an overwhelming majority were very (39%) or fairly closely (50%) paying attention to news about gubernatorial candidates. In our latest survey, just half of likely voters were doing so (18% very, 34% fairly). In addition, there is a big enthusiasm gap. Fewer voters today say they are “more enthusiastic about voting than usual” (53% 2010, 40% today).

In 2010, when many people were tuned into the top of the ticket race, nearly 60 percent of registered voters turned out to vote. With far fewer voters paying attention to the gubernatorial race—and with the lack of a Congressional senate race—what can we expect in 2014? Will concerns about the drought and the state budget drive people to the polls—and if so, how will this translate into votes on Proposition 1, the water bond, and Proposition 2, the establishment of a rainy day fund? Stay tuned to PPIC as we continue to follow the November 2014 election.

Video Highlights Survey’s Election Findings

The October PPIC Statewide Survey was the focus of a briefing last week in Sacramento, where research associate Jui Shrestha summarized the findings. After her presentation, David Lesher, PPIC’s director of government affairs, pointed to some survey findings to watch as the campaigns and election play out.

The governor’s race: Jerry Brown leads by 16 points among likely voters, but other findings are less overwhelmingly in his favor. Statewide, Brown has the support of just a slim majority of likely voters, 52 percent. And he trails Neel Kashkari among some groups of likely voters—those in Orange/San Diego Counties, for example.

Voter enthusiasm: Likely voters paid much more attention to news of the gubernatorial candidates in 2006—the last election in which there was an incumbent—than they are doing today. Likely voters overall are also showing lower levels of enthusiasm today than in the 2010 or 2012 elections. These findings suggest that low voter turnout is likely, which will color the results.

Proposition 2: Placed on the ballot in a bipartisan vote of the legislature and endorsed by both the California Republican Party and by Governor Brown, this constitutional amendment to create a rainy day fund is struggling for majority support. While support has increased since September, just 49 percent of likely voters favor it today. Less than half of those who live in the San Francisco Bay Area and of those with incomes of $80,000 or more say they would vote yes on Proposition 2.

PPIC’s Role in a Changing State

California is changing quickly and in ways that touch the lives of all of its residents. The state has enrolled millions of people in health insurance under the federal Affordable Care Act. It is moving ahead to expand the cap-and-trade program that is a cornerstone of AB 32, the landmark law mandating a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

In K–12 education, California is implementing two sweeping policy changes at the same time. New English and math standards, called the Common Core, require big changes in what is taught in the classroom. A new school funding formula, the Local Control Funding Formula, gives districts increased flexibility over spending and provides extra money for disadvantaged students.

Historic changes are playing out in the corrections system as well. Realignment, which shifted responsibilities for many offenders from the state to the local level, has had a significant impact on the state, counties, and communities.

Amid these policy shifts, California is coping with a major drought that has focused attention on the state’s need to improve its water management.

These changes are also taking place in an election year—and California’s elections have also undergone major changes. This is the first election in which state constitutional officers, such as governor and controller, will be elected under the top-two primary system.

At PPIC we are focused on monitoring and analyzing the impact of these changes—both short and long term—and examining other steps the state can take to meet its critical challenges. In recent months, we have delivered objective, nonpartisan research on all of these topics. We plan to release many more publications in the months ahead. Our PPIC Statewide Survey will continue to give California residents a voice in the policy changes that affect them, as it has since 1998. The PPIC blog provides regular updates on the impact of the drought, as well as news and analysis on a range of policy topics from our experts.

Through our extensive outreach, we have hosted discussions on these important topics and more. We invited California’s two top legislative leaders to share their priorities for the upcoming session. At another recent event, the two secretary of state candidates talked about how they would improve elections and increase voter participation, if elected. Both of these events were webcast live to engage Californians from all over the state.

We encourage you to sign up for our announcements to learn about future events. We hope you’ll stay up to date with our publications and videos by signing up for our monthly e-bulletin, following us on social media, and subscribing to the PPIC blog.

As always, we welcome your comments and suggestions.

Majorities Favor State Government Downsizing

The recent PPIC Statewide Survey offers an early snapshot of voters’ choices as we enter the November election cycle. The majority support for Governor Jerry Brown’s reelection and the Proposition 1 state water bond was widely cited in the media last week. But the poll also reveals surprising news about the voters’ overall mood this year: by a wide margin, likely voters would rather pay lower taxes and have a state government that provides fewer services (53%) than pay higher taxes and have a state government that provides more services (41%).

What is so special about this finding? We have been observing a slow but steady rise in the preference for lower taxes and fewer services since November 2012—when voters approved the Proposition 30 tax increase. In the 24 times since we first asked this question in our February 2003 poll, the preference for lower taxes and fewer services has usually been below 50 percent. Moreover, this preference has never exceeded 55 percent, placing the current reading close to the historic high.

This finding seems to run counter to the strong support we found for the Democratic governor and the multi-billion dollar state water bond on the November ballot. It is also seems at odds with another Golden State mega-trend: the steady decline in the number of Republican voters. The secretary of state recently reported that Republicans now account for just 28 percent of the electorate.

While a preference for smaller government has long been expressed by Republicans, the 53 percent of California likely voters who want lower taxes and fewer services are a politically mixed group. Forty- eight percent are registered Republicans and 55 percent are self-described conservatives—which means that many who hold this view are Democratic and independent voters, and see themselves as political moderates. They are predominantly homeowners (81%), and most are white (66%). But only a slight majority are age 55 and older (54%), and less than half are college graduates (41%) or have annual household incomes above $80,000 (44%). So, this likely voter group has a diverse demographic profile.

What do they have in common? Seven in 10 say the state is headed in the wrong direction. Three in four say that the state budget situation—that is, the balance between government spending and revenues—is a big problem for the people of California. Eight in 10 say that major changes are needed in the state budget process in terms of both revenues and spending. In sum, they are the core audience for fiscal restraint and reform.

Governor Brown’s emphasis on fiscal prudence, including the downsizing of the state water bond, seems to have struck a chord here. Among those who prefer a smaller role for state government, one in three are supporting Jerry Brown in the governor’s race. This trend helps to explain the Democratic candidate’s sizable 21-point lead over Republican challenger Neel Kashkari. This group is also leaning toward support for the Proposition 1 state water bond (46% yes, 37% no), helping this multi-billion dollar spending measure to now have a commanding two-to-one lead.

This likely voter group may be a major hurdle for a Democratic Party seeking to regain a supermajority in the state legislature. Seven in 10 of these likely voters say they disapprove of the way that the state legislature is handling its job. Six in 10 say it would be a “bad thing” for the Democrats to gain a two-thirds majority in the legislature in the November election. Only 18 percent say that this would be a “good thing.”

Our poll’s findings on the preferred role of state government suggest that the election is unlikely to result in a mandate for expanding services and raising taxes—they also point to an opening next year to discuss fiscal reforms that the state needs for the 21st century economy.

Briefing Focuses on Survey Election Findings

Less than two months before the election, PPIC’s latest survey looked at Californians’ views on the governor’s race and four statewide ballot measures. Dean Bonner, associate survey director, presented the findings at a briefing in Sacramento on Wednesday. As most of the media coverage noted, the survey found that Governor Brown is doing well in his reelection bid and that the water bond he approved is fairly popular.

The survey found that Proposition 2, labeled the Budget Stabilization Act in the ballot statement but known elsewhere as the rainy day fund, does not currently have majority support among likely voters. Proposition 45, which would regulate health insurance premiums, has a similar level of support, but Proposition 47, which would reduce sentences for some crimes, is favored by 62 percent of likely voters. The survey also found high levels of concern about the drought and mixed feelings about the Affordable Care Act and immigration policy priorities.

California’s Secretary of State Candidates in Conversation

The two candidates running for California secretary of state bring different resumes to the campaign but found much to agree on in a conversation sponsored by PPIC Thursday. Alex Padilla, California state senator, and Pete Peterson, executive director of the Davenport Institute at Pepperdine University, talked about their priorities in a question-and-answer session moderated by Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO.

Both candidates advocated improving the use of technology—to engage voters and improve the voting experience, speed up the disclosure of campaign contributions, and improve the business registration process. Both advocated better use of data and research from outside organizations—from civic engagement groups to the U.S. Census to think tanks and universities—to more proactively register and inform voters. Some of the research PPIC has done on voter participation figured into the discussion of voter engagement, including Voter Turnout in Primary Elections and Expanding California’s Electorate: Will Recent Reforms Increase Voter Turnout?

Each candidate listed a number of goals for their term in office, if elected. Asked to reduce their voter turnout goals to a number, Padilla said he was committed to the addition of 1 million more active voters to the rolls and Peterson said he expected to generate an increase in turnout of 5 or 10 percent.

The event was part of PPIC’s 2014 Speaker Series on California’s Future. PPIC does not support, endorse, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office.

Improving the Vote-by-Mail System

For the first time in eight years, there is no incumbent running for California secretary of state. This offers a great opportunity to step back and consider where California’s elections are, and where they ought to go next. (You can hear what the candidates have to say about the future of elections at a PPIC event on Thursday, September 11.)

Any such assessment must take a hard look at voting by mail. We see more voters using this option in every passing election, with the growth actually accelerating in recent primaries. If the trend continues, about 57 percent of the ballots in this fall’s election will be cast this way.

The question is no longer whether vote-by-mail is a sensible way to run our elections; it is now how best to manage the vote-by-mail elections we already have. This has put a number of critical issues on the table:

Signature verification. The signature on a vote-by-mail ballot must be compared to the one on file to ensure that the appropriate person cast the ballot. This slows down the process, leaving the outcomes of a few races in doubt for weeks after Election Day. Some counties have been moving to verification by computer to deal with the backlog, but the standards for this sort of verification are murky. The new secretary of state can help clarify which technology is permissible and how this technology should be used.

Late ballots. In a recent PPIC report, we noted that, while the vast majority of vote-by-mail ballots arrive on time, thousands of ballots arrive late and are not counted at all. The legislature has passed a bill (SB 29) that would allow most of these late ballots to be counted. If Governor Brown signs this bill, the next secretary of state will need to monitor the new status quo as it unfolds. In particular, county registrars may face a surge in late ballots as more voters take advantage of the new relaxed standard.

Shrinking postal service. As email and the Internet have grown in popularity, the U.S. Postal Service has been forced to lay off staff and consolidate processing centers. Our PPIC analysis suggests that these changes have not yet created problems for vote–by-mail, but it is a development that deserves constant monitoring.

All vote-by-mail? When 70 percent of the ballots in an election are vote-by-mail, one wonders whether it’s time to abandon the old polling place approach and mandate the vote-by-mail system for everyone. Colorado, Oregon, and Washington use such a system, and it has generally worked well. There are a number of arguments for the change. The persistence of a dual system may add to the complexity of counting ballots, especially with yet another system—same-day registration—coming on-line in the next few years. Moreover, while the evidence for vote-by-mail’s effect on voter turnout is mixed, it generally suggests a small but positive effect. Finally, given the fact that county registrars continue to struggle with small budgets and increasing demands, an all vote-by-mail system would offer a much-needed cost savings.

We will probably never reach a point where every voter voluntarily votes by mail. There will always be some, both young and old, who prefer to show up at a polling place. But we must think carefully about accommodating the new reality of a mostly vote-by-mail system, and how best to make it work for everyone.