elections – Public Policy Institute of California

New Term Limits Add Stability to the State Legislature

California Democrats are on track to add two seats to their majorities in both the state assembly and the state senate. Combined with Democrat Gavin Newsom’s win in the governor’s race, these flips give Democrats the supermajorities they need for unfettered pursuit of their legislative agenda. While this partisan shift is certainly important, the impact of a recent change in term limits tells a larger story of remarkable stability.

In 2012, California voters passed Proposition 28, which relaxed term limits by allowing legislators to serve up to 12 years in either or both chambers of the legislature. Under the previous rules, term limits for each chamber required anyone who wanted to spend the maximum 14 years in the legislature to move from one chamber to the other. And because the senate has half as many seats as the assembly, no more than half could serve the full 14 years.

Proposition 28 applies to legislators who were elected for the first time in 2012 or later. Most of these legislators have been sticking with the seats they originally won, where incumbency makes reelection most certain.

There has been a gradual adjustment to the new limits as the last few legislators covered by the old regime move through the system. Most of these members started in the assembly and moved to the senate, and their assembly seats were filled by legislators subject to the new limits. By 2018, only one assembly incumbent was covered under the old regime, down from 14 in 2016 and 37 in 2014. This incumbent, Anna Marie Caballero, was termed out and ran for the senate.

The impact of Proposition 28 has been significant, particularly in the assembly, where turnover has plummeted from a peak of 50% in the 2012 election to just 8% this cycle—a 30-year low. Senate terms are twice as long as assembly terms and only half of the chamber is up for reelection each cycle, so there is naturally less turnover there. Nonetheless, turnover in the senate shows signs of decline.

Proposition 28 has also led to a gradual increase in assembly expertise. The average member of the assembly next year will have spent almost five years in the legislature, longer than in any legislative term since the original term limits first began to force members out. Senate expertise, on the other hand, has declined from 18 years in 1995 to just 6.5 after the 2018 election, and may never increase much again. Under the old regime, most senators served a full 14 years by moving over from the assembly; though more will now spend their whole career in the senate, they can serve 12 years at most.

The growth in assembly expertise helps bring the two chambers closer to equality in the policymaking process. But this expertise necessarily comes at the price of lower turnover in some elections. Partisan changes may rightly receive most of the attention this election cycle, but broader changes in membership are the exception not the rule.

How Strong Is the Trump Effect in California?

Was the 2016 presidential election a sign of things to come—presaging an ever-bluer California? Or was it a one-off result driven by the personalities of the candidates? These are important questions in California, which voted more Democratic for president in 2016 than it had in 2012, even as the rest of the country moved in the opposite direction. Even more important, parts of the state that had been reliably Republican—most notably Orange County—suddenly shifted Democratic. Based in part on this result, California’s Democratic candidates fought hard in yesterday’s midterm for several US House seats held by Republicans.

Did the anti-Trump/pro-Clinton vote reliably predict the 2018 outcome? To answer this question, the figure below compares California’s 2016 presidential vote to the 2018 US House vote in all districts with both a Democrat and a Republican running. The solid black diagonal line marks the point where the 2016 presidential vote perfectly matches the 2018 US House vote. Points above the line mark seats where the Democrats outperformed the 2016 presidential vote, and points below show where they underperformed. The competitive seats mentioned above are identified in orange.

The first thing to note is that the 2016 presidential vote predicts the 2018 US House vote quite well. Higher Democratic presidential votes reliably translate into higher Democratic House votes, so knowing the presidential vote tells us a lot about how a district is going to vote for other offices. This is true even for the competitive races in which the 2016 presidential vote was a surprise.

At the same time, virtually every seat falls below the solid diagonal line. That means the Democratic House candidates in these districts consistently failed to match the support shown for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Though the Democrats are poised to pick up at least three House seats in California, support for the Democratic Party is softer in these races than it was two years ago.

On balance, however, the 2016 outcome was not a one-off: the areas that voted more Democratic than expected are continuing to vote more Democratic. At the same time, Democrats would have picked up more seats in the midterm had the US House vote this cycle matched the 2016 presidential vote exactly. Despite what was generally a good Democratic night, the overall outcome fell short of the 2016 benchmark.

Election Day Matters

It’s Election Day, and voters across the nation are choosing their leaders at a divided and contentious time. Although Californians are divided on many issues today, majorities of voters across party lines say they are more enthusiastic about voting than usual this year (October PPIC survey: 72% Democrats, 64% Republicans, 53% independents). This is welcome news after a 2014 statewide election that set a new record for the lowest voter turnout. It will be interesting to see how many Californians will actually follow through and cast their ballots for governor, state constitutional officers, and state legislators.

Who will vote in the California election will be closely watched on election night since a handful of House races may well determine the party in control of the next US Congress. Democrats seem more energized than Republicans in voting for Congress this year (October PPIC survey: extremely/very enthusiastic: 57% Democrats, 40% Republicans, 35% independents). However, we also find an “enthusiasm gap” that favors white, older, and more affluent Californians who tend to be conservative voters. This raises questions about whether there will be a “blue wave” or merely a ripple this year.

In addition to electing their leaders, California voters play an outsize role in policymaking in our state. In another striking area of agreement across party lines, most Californians say that they like the initiative process and feel they make good decisions at the ballot box—despite reservations about the number and complexity of ballot measures. Because of the central role the initiative process plays in California policymaking, voters have a special obligation to weigh in on important choices facing the state. This election, Californians will vote on 11 state propositions, in addition to numerous local measures.

Still, many Californians who are eligible do not vote. We’ve found significant gaps between voters and non-voters in the state. Voters are much more likely to be older, white, and own their homes. They have higher education and income levels. And they are more likely to identify as one of the “haves” than the “have nots.” This means that important policy choices that affect the entire population are determined by voters who do not necessarily reflect the state’s social, political, or economic diversity.

The state has implemented several reforms to ease access to registration and voting, many of them quite recently. The jury is still out on the long-term effects of these efforts, but one thing is sure: voting matters. Elections have the power to change the direction of history.

So on this Election Day, it is critical for all eligible Californians to exercise their right to vote. For anyone in need of last-minute help on ballot choices, solid nonpartisan information is available in the state’s voter guide.

PPIC is keeping a close eye not only on the immediate outcome of the vote, but also on long-term trends and implications. Stay tuned to the PPIC blog for post-election thoughts and analysis of this year’s important midterms.

Is California Turning Even Bluer?

California is already a fairly Democratic state, but in the last two years many have wondered if it has become even more so. In the 2016 presidential election, California was one of a few states that did not shift away from the Democrats. In most of the country, Hillary Clinton garnered a smaller share of the vote than Obama received in either of his campaigns for president—but in California, Clinton improved on Obama’s 2012 vote share by 1.3%, while Donald Trump fell short of Mitt Romney’s share by 5.6%.

Some areas of the state, such as Orange County, have experienced long-term demographic trends that favor the Democrats, yet the swing to Clinton in these places outpaced these trends. Seven of California’s congressional districts are held by Republicans but were won by Clinton in 2016. Just two years earlier, five of those seats favored Republican Neel Kashkari for governor by at least 10 points—in a race that Democrat Jerry Brown won by 20 points statewide.

The 2016 presidential vote therefore marked a big change of fortune for California Democrats, particularly in some districts. Does this mean that these districts have become more Democratic for good, or was the 2016 result a reaction to the personalities on the ballot?

One way to answer this question is to compare the change in the Democratic presidential vote in each congressional district to the change in party registration. Party registration indicates a more enduring attachment—something closer to a permanent change in allegiance. If party registration changed to match the latest presidential vote, it might indicate that something longer-term is afoot.

The figure below compares the change in the Democratic presidential vote between 2012 and 2016 to the change in party registration in the state’s 53 congressional districts from 2014 to 2018. The blue dots indicate Democratic registration change, and the red dots indicate Republican change.

Statewide, the Democratic Party has mostly held steady in registration while the Republican Party has lost ground. We can see this pattern above: the blue Democratic dots are clustered around zero on the vertical axis, indicating little average change, while all the red dots are below zero, indicating a decline in Republican registration. However, our question is whether a larger 2016 surge led to a larger change in party registration by 2018. If this has happened, the blue dots should be higher toward the right side of the graph and the red dots should be lower. We can see such a pattern, but it is weak. Districts on the left have indeed seen both smaller increases in Democratic registration and smaller decreases in Republican registration. Likewise, those on the right have seen larger Democratic gains and larger Republican losses. But the difference is modest.

The districts with the largest Democratic shifts—seen on the far right of the graph—display the expected pattern more clearly. In fact, most of the competitive congressional races mentioned above are represented here. Of the seven races considered most competitive by the Cook Political Report, four are in districts that shifted more than 6 percent toward the Democrats in the 2016 presidential race. All four districts are in or around Orange County: 39 (outgoing incumbent Ed Royce), 45 (incumbent Mimi Walters), 48 (incumbent Dana Rohrabacher), and 49 (outgoing incumbent Darrell Issa). Each of these districts also saw a Democratic registration gain of at least 1.4% and a Republican registration loss of at least 4.4%. So the districts with the most surprising results in 2016 are generally also the places with the biggest Democratic gains in registration.

Overall, these results do provide some support for the idea that the 2016 election marked a more permanent change in the state’s politics. But party registration tends to change slowly, and the patterns we are seeing suggest there may be years to go before any transition is complete.

Many Support Rent Control, but Prop 10 Lags

While most of California’s likely voters are satisfied with the way the initiative process is working in California, an overwhelming majority also think that the wording for citizens’ initiatives is often too complicated and confusing for voters to understand what happens if the initiative passes. This may be the case with Proposition 10, as our September survey findings suggest.

When read the ballot title and label of Proposition 10—which would expand the authority of local governments to enact rent control—about half of likely voters say they would vote no (48%) while far fewer (36%) would vote yes. However, when asked a general question about rent control by local governments, half of likely voters say it is a “good thing” (52%) while fewer (41%) say it is a “bad thing.” This translates to a 16-point gap between support for Prop 10 and support for the concept of rent control.

This gap widens when we dig a little deeper. For example, we find double digit differences in support for Prop 10 and for rent control in general across parties (Democrats 23 points, independents 14 points, Republicans 12 points).

Support for Prop 10 and for rent control in general varies across regions, but the gap in support remains.

Gaps in support also occur across demographic groups: likely voters who are white (20 points) and Latino (18 points), those age 18 to 44 (14 points) and those age 45 and older (17 points), those making less than $80,000 annually (19 points) and those making $80,000 or more (14 points). Support for Proposition 10 is also lower than the share saying rent control is a good thing among renters (24 points) and homeowners (13 points).

It’s not entirely clear why these differences exist or why they are so pervasive. Perhaps the wording of Proposition 10 is having an impact. The ballot title and label—which are read to our survey participants—describe repealing the current state law that restricts the scope of rent-control policies. (This is the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.) It also mentions the potential net reduction of tens of millions of dollars in state and local revenues.

Proposition 10 Ballot Language

Proposition 10 is called the “Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute.” It repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose on residential property. The fiscal impact is potential net reduction in state and local revenues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or considerably more. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 10?

Is this a case of confusing ballot language? Or are voters simply not interested in this particular approach to rent control? As Californians learn more about the propositions during the run up to November it will be interesting to see the impact on Proposition 10. Stay tuned to the PPIC Statewide Survey for timely coverage of this year’s election.

Video: A Conversation with Candidates for US Senate

As part of our Speaker Series on California’s Future, PPIC is inviting all major candidates in selected statewide races to participate in public conversations. The purpose is to give Californians a better understanding of how candidates would approach the challenges facing our state.

To give Californians a chance to hear directly from the two candidates for California’s US Senate seat, PPIC invited California state senator Kevin de León and US senator Dianne Feinstein to San Francisco on Wednesday to talk about their visions for California and the nation. PPIC president Mark Baldassare moderated a lively discussion that covered a range of topics.

The candidates, both Democrats, were in agreement on many state and national issues—including gun regulations, the Delta tunnel proposal, and comprehensive immigration reform. Both would support revisiting the allegations against Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh, and both feel that there are Republicans in Congress who want to reach across the aisle.

But while both candidates talked about the need for universal health care, they had different views on the way to proceed. As Feinstein put it, “I believe in universal health care. The question is how we get it.” She outlined an incremental approach—offering a public insurance option, lowering the age of eligibility for Medicare to 55, and allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. By contrast, de León characterized health care as a right: “I believe that health care is a human right. I believe in Medicare for all.” He also cited his leadership in creating the Covered California health care exchange, expanding access to the exchange to undocumented minors, and instituting drug price transparency in California.

The candidates’ views on health care epitomize their overall approaches to governing. For de León, the key is to bring his experience in California to Washington. Asked about the tensions between California and the federal government, he said, “California has been the leading voice for the entire nation. The world looks to California, not Washington, DC.” And he argued that Democrats in Congress need to elevate key issues, “even if we’re in the minority.” In response to a question about why he wants to be California’s US senator, de León said, “I’m running to give you a new voice, and a new approach.”

Feinstein often focused on what her years of experience in the Senate have taught her about the complexities and difficulties of governing. She reminded the audience more than once that Democrats are in the minority: “When you have both houses and the White House controlled by one party, it is extraordinarily difficult.” Explaining why she’s running in 2018, she focused on the work that needs to be done: “In terms of American public policy domestically, we can achieve a great deal . . . if we’re smart in how we go about it.”

Partisan Loyalty Trumps Gender Solidarity in California

A month until the midterm elections, California’s voters are gearing up for decisions that will have ramifications across the nation. Much has been discussed of a potential “blue wave,” with Democrats eyeing to flip seven Republican congressional seats in California—nearly one-third of the 23 seats needed to shift party control in the US House of Representatives. Concurrently, there are a record number of women running for US Congress and statewide executive offices, including 37 in California. With women comprising 54% of the state’s likely voters, how large a role will they play in the upcoming election?

According to PPIC’s September Statewide Survey, 50% of female likely voters say the upcoming election is more important to them than past midterms; just 3% say it is less important and 46% say it is about the same. Yet when looking at the partisan breakdown among female likely voters there are notable differences: 63% of Democratic women say the upcoming election is more important while 37% of Republican women say the same (sample sizes for independent female likely voters are too small for separate analysis).

In the generic ballot for the US House of Representatives, California’s female likely voters prefer the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate (58% to 34%). Nearly all partisan female likely voters say they would vote for their own party. When asked about qualities they prefer in a candidate, six in ten Democratic women (60%) prefer those who have experience in politics to those who are new at it, while Republican women are divided (41% experience, 41% new to politics).

Recent prominent events at the national level may impact women’s preferences and turnout in the midterms. Our September survey was fielded following the initial Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court but prior to the additional hearing on sexual abuse allegations featuring Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Nonetheless, nearly all female likely voters in our September survey view the choice of the next Supreme Court justice as either very (74%) or somewhat (18%) important to them personally. Across parties, Democratic women are much more likely than Republican women to say the choice is personally very important (82% to 62%).

Meanwhile, President Trump’s approval rating reflects sizable partisan differences among California’s female likely voters: 91% of Democratic women disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president, while 80% of Republican women approve.

With women poised to play a pivotal role in the upcoming election, we may see the emergence of a “pink wave” that rivals the “Year of the Woman” associated with the 1992 election. Stay tuned to the PPIC Statewide Survey as we continue to monitor the preferences and attitudes of Californians, with a particular interest in female likely voters, leading up to the midterm.

Tectonic Shifts in Orange County

Orange County has evolved from a Republican stronghold to a credible target of opportunity for the Democrats seeking to take control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the November election.

Until the most recent presidential election, Republican candidates had won in every top-of-the-ticket statewide race in Orange County for 20 years. In fact, the last time that a Democratic presidential candidate carried Orange County was in 1936. But in 2016, Democrat Hillary Clinton defeated Republican Donald Trump by 51 to 42 percent, a margin of 102,813 votes. Moreover, Clinton received more votes than Trump in each of the four Orange County House seats now held by Republicans.

Tectonic shifts in Orange County’s demographics and voter registration set the stage for the surprising 2016 presidential outcome and the competitive 2018 House races. First, Orange County’s population is transitioning. Since 2000, the proportion of whites has declined from 51 percent to 41 percent of the population. Latinos now make up to 34 percent and Asian Americans make up 21 percent of the population. Most Latino and Asian American likely voters are registered Democrats today.

Second, Orange County’s political stripes have changed from red to purple. Since 2000, the proportion of registered Republican voters has declined from 49 percent to 36 percent. Registered Democrats have increased to 34 percent and independents have increased to 27 percent. Today, most independent likely voters lean toward the Democratic Party. In sum, Republicans’ electoral clout is diminishing in Orange County.

Since this midterm election is a referendum on the president, how is Donald Trump viewed by Orange County voters? The Public Policy Institute of California’s Statewide Survey has been tracking President Trump’s popularity by asking the following question, “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Donald Trump is handling his job as president of the United States?” In five 2018 PPIC surveys, 40 percent approve and 56 percent disapprove of President Trump when combining the results for registered voters in Orange County.

Approval of Trump’s presidency in Orange County varies widely by party: 79 percent of Republicans, 30 percent of independents, and 13 percent of Democrats. Half of whites approve of his performance, while 28 percent of nonwhites approve. Overall, Trump’s approval rating in Orange County of 40 percent in 2018 closely mirrors his 2016 vote total, which was 42 percent. This indicates his political base in Orange County has not grown during his time in office.

Voter turnout will be the political wildcard in Orange County. Since 2000, Orange County’s voter turnout in midterms has been on average 21 points lower than in presidential elections. Low turnout this year would be a throwback to the “old” Orange County electorate—more Republicans and whites. A high turnout would reflect the “new” Orange County—more Democrats, independents, and nonwhites.

We’ll know in a month whether the new or old Orange County will prevail in 2018. But given the demographic and registration trends, the Orange County of the future will be very different from the one that consistently voted for Republicans.

Video: A Conversation with Candidates for State Superintendent of Public Instruction

In November, Californians will elect a new superintendent of public education. Education is by far the largest state spending area, and California’s public K–12 system—which educates more than 6 million children—is critical to the state’s future. What are the top priorities of the two candidates and what are their visions for California’s schools? PPIC president Mark Baldassare talked to Tony Thurmond, a member of the state assembly, and Marshall Tuck, a school improvement director, about how they would approach the job.

The candidates largely agreed on the need to increase state education funding and the importance of improving outcomes for low-income students, English Learners, and foster youth. Both are strong advocates for universal preschool. And both stressed the need to prepare all students not just for college and careers but also for civic engagement.

After noting that California currently ranks near the bottom among all states in per pupil funding, Tony Thurmond promised to prioritize moving the state into the top ten within his first four years—and to “take us to number one within eight years.” To help close achievement gaps, he would expand successful local approaches. He cited the Freedom School, an Afro-centric literacy program, and Footsteps to Brilliance, which focuses on immigrant families, as models.

Marshall Tuck emphasized the need to “start with equity.” His first priority would be to change the current funding policies to make sure state funding gets to kids with the greatest need. He would also work to streamline the state education code in order to “unlock the creativity of teachers and principals.”

While they agreed on many issues, Thurmond and Tuck emphasized differences in their backgrounds, each arguing that his experience makes him the better candidate.

Tuck argued that, while money is important, “implementation is key,” and cited his experience implementing successful policies in Los Angeles. After noting that the system has not been working, he argued that the next superintendent should be an education professional who can “fundamentally change the way we are approaching public education.”

Thurmond noted that the superintendent needs to be able to work with the county superintendents, the legislature, and the governor. He outlined his experience as an elected official and educator, as well as his “lived experience” as a student in California public schools—an experience, he said, that demonstrates how “education can save lives.”

Video: A Conversation with Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi

As part of our Speaker Series on California’s Future, PPIC is inviting elected leaders across the political spectrum to participate in public conversations. The purpose is to give Californians a better understanding of how our leaders are addressing the challenges facing our state.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and PPIC president Mark Baldassare had a wide-ranging conversation in San Francisco on Wednesday. They focused on the relationship between California and the federal government in a number of areas, including economic and tax policy, immigration, health care, and environmental issues.

Not surprisingly, Pelosi’s take on the state-federal relationship differs from that of her Republican counterpart, Kevin McCarthy, who fielded virtually the same questions from Baldassare in mid-August. In her view, this is an unusual time: “We haven’t had a time where the president has so targeted a state, in tax policy, environmental policy, trade policy.” Californians need to know about the statewide impact of these policies, and their elected leaders need to “try to work as much as possible in a bipartisan way to withstand that.”

She criticized the new federal tax law for significantly increasing the national debt without promoting growth. In fact, she continued, one of the best ways to promote economic growth is to enact comprehensive immigration reform. Asked what this would look like, she cited the bipartisan immigration bill that the Senate passed several years ago as one possible model. She deplored the current “uncivilized, inhumane” policy of separating families at the border. But she argued that while Trump-era ICE policies need to be changed, abolishing ICE is “not the answer.”

Pelosi, who played a major role in the passage of the Affordable Care Act, described health care reform as a “pillar of health and economic security for America’s working families.” She also characterized health care as a major issue in the November midterm elections. “The cost of health care is a very major issue in people’s lives, so we want to work in a bipartisan way, wherever possible, to reduce those costs.”

While she is concerned that Congress is not doing enough to ensure the integrity of the midterm elections, Pelosi is excited about the number of women who are running. “When I went to Congress, there were 12 Democratic and 11 Republican women.” Now, she added, “the majority of the people in our caucus are women, people of color, LGBTQ [. . .] and we want more!”

Why does she want to be Speaker? The short answer: “None of us is indispensable, but I think I’m probably the best person for the job.”