Tag: elections

Primary Takeaways

With the release of the official Statement of the Vote on Friday, the 2016 California primary is now in the history books. The final tally by the Secretary of State offers many new insights for those of us who closely follow elections and polling in California. This year’s results deserve a particularly close look because of the extraordinary presidential primaries and the first-ever top-two primary for an open US Senate seat.

My colleague Eric McGhee has provided an excellent analysis of primary turnout and the outcomes of top-two legislative district races in two earlier PPIC blog posts. I’m going to focus on some trends that caught my attention in the final numbers regarding the presidential primaries, the top-two US Senate primary, the state ballot measure, voter engagement, and turnout in key regions. 

  • Presidential primaries. Secretary Hillary Clinton (2.75 million) and US Senator Bernie Sanders (2.38 million) were the top-two vote-getters in the state’s presidential primaries. These two Democrats had much more support in their party’s open primary than businessman Donald Trump (1.67 million) had in a closed Republican primary with no active opposition. In addition to facing a sizeable disadvantage in voter registration (45% Democrat, 27% Republican), the presumptive Republican nominee starts the fall election season with one million fewer voters in the state’s primary than the presumptive Democratic nominee. For Republicans, this raises questions about their presidential selection process and whether to have an open primary in the future that invites independent voters to participate. For Democrats, the immediate issue is how many of those devoted, young Sanders supporters will show up to vote this fall.
  • US Senate top-two primary. Attorney General Kamala Harris won more votes (3.00 million) in the primary for the open US Senate seat than Clinton did at the top of the ballot. US Representative Loretta Sanchez finished a distant second (1.42 million) to Harris, setting up the first single-party race for US Senate in the top-two era. As a group, the 12 Republican candidates received more votes (2.15 million) than the second-place Democratic finisher. For Republicans, this raises questions about future strategies to ensure that their party’s voters have a candidate who can qualify for a top-two spot in November. And the question of how many Republicans will opt out of voting for a US Senator this fall will ultimately affect both parties.
  • State ballot measure. Proposition 50 was the biggest vote-getter (5.60 million votes, 76% yes) on the June ballot. A byproduct of recent political scandals, it allows the legislature, with a two-thirds vote, to suspend members without salary and benefits. The legislature placed it on the June ballot with bipartisan support. Proposition 50 received scant media mention and little organized opposition. Its success is consistent with the historically high pass rate for legislative ballot measures found in a recent PPIC report. This trend bodes well for state bonds to fund parks and housing that the legislature may place on the ballot in the fall. Citizens’ initiatives and referenda have been moved to the November general election, and these types of state propositions have a much lower pass rate. That means voters face a cluttered ballot this fall that includes 14 citizens’ initiatives, two legislative initiatives, and one referendum, in addition to local measures. How many will voters decide are worthy of their interest and support? 

In Los Angeles and two of the state’s fastest-growing areas, turnout among registered voters was lower than the state average.

  • Voter engagement. There was a surge in online voter registration as Californians waited for their say in the presidential primaries. Voter engagement was a welcome development after primary turnout reached a new low in June 2014 (4.46 million, 25% registered voters, 18% eligible adults). Turnout this June (8.55 million, 47.7% registered voters, 34.5% eligible adults) reflected a turnaround, although it was well short of the record-setting February 2008 presidential primary (9.07 million, 58% registered voters, 40% eligible adults). Turnout was probably depressed by two events: the elimination of Trump’s competition weeks earlier and the declaration on the day before the primary that Clinton was the presumptive Democratic nominee. Once again, there will be questions about whether it’s in California’s best interests to vote at the end of the primary season in the presidential sweepstakes.
  • Turnout in key regions. Five major counties had lower registered voter turnout than the state average: Los Angeles (41%), Fresno (41%), Kern (41%), Riverside (44%), and San Bernardino (43%). Five less populous counties in the Central Valley also had below-average turnout (41% Kings, 42% Merced, 42% San Joaquin, 44% Stanislaus, 45% Tulare). Moreover, fewer than one in three eligible adults voted in the primary in all 10 of these counties. In sum, these are troubling trends in the state’s most populous county (Los Angeles) and its two fastest-growing areas (the Central Valley and Inland Empire). Are there practical impediments to voting in these regions or is this a symptom of a deeper civic malaise? Until they are fully addressed, these regional disconnects will seriously limit the size and diversity of the state’s electorate.

The 2016 primary results point to several trends to watch in the November general election and beyond. Furthermore, the issues that surfaced this June will likely have longer-term reverberations on the primary process and civic engagement going forward.

At PPIC, the race for US Senate stands out as uniquely worthy of public attention. We invited the two candidates to participate in a conversation with me about the future of California on September 16. Stay tuned for more information about whether the candidates accept our invitation and how you can attend or watch this PPIC event.

Commentary: New Law Could Change California’s Electorate

This commentary was published in the Washington Post’s “Monkey Cage” blog today, Monday, July 11, 2016.

Supporters of California’s New Motor Voter Act are right to see its great promise, but how the law is implemented will be far more important than many have suggested.

Read the full commentary on washingtonpost.com.

Commentary: Why We Expect Sanders Voters to Have Impact in November


This commentary was published in the Sacramento Bee on Sunday, July 3, 2016.

What’s next for Bernie Sanders supporters in the wake of a disappointing loss? They will find ballot initiatives – and one in particular – of great interest in California’s November election. For this reason, we expect to see the Sanders voters return to the polls and have a broad impact on election outcomes.

Read the full commentary on sacbee.com.

Video: Rolling Out the New Motor Voter Law

California’s New Motor Voter Act has the potential to change the composition of the electorate, making it younger, less educated, more mobile, and poorer—in other words, more representative of the state’s population as a whole.

These are among the key findings of a new PPIC report by research fellow Eric McGhee and Mindy Romero, founder and director of the California Civic Engagement Project at the UC Davis Center for Regional Change. McGhee presented the report, What to Expect from California’s New Motor Voter Law, in Sacramento last week. Passed to address the state’s lagging voter participation rates, the new law simplifies the registration process.

When it takes effect next year, all Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) customers who attest to being eligible to vote and do not opt out—that is, do not actively decline to register—will be added to the voter rolls. Because of the sheer volume of DMV customers, the law has the potential to increase registration very quickly—by more than 2 million people in the first year, McGhee said.

Its success depends on how many DMV customers agree to be registered, and that hinges on the way the system is designed, he said. The report recommends that customers be required to say whether they are eligible to vote before they are allowed to complete their DMV transactions—rather than having the option of not answering the eligibility question at all.

“For the maximum impact, the solution is pretty straightforward: make the eligibility question required,” McGhee said.

He cautioned that even if implementation is highly successful, the New Motor Voter Act alone will not solve the state’s problem of low voter turnout. To significantly boost turnout—and ensure that voters are more representative of the state’s population—targeted and ongoing efforts to reach out to newly registered voters will be needed.

Learn more

Read What to Expect from California’s New Motor Voter Law

Worlds Apart: California’s Partisan Divide and the 2016 Election

With the June 7 primary behind us, it’s time to reflect on what we have learned about California’s likely voters as we look ahead to the November 8 election.

The December 2015 PPIC Statewide Survey reported a profound schism between Republicans who wanted “new ideas and a different approach” and Democrats who favored “experience and a proven track record” in a presidential candidate. Last Tuesday’s election provided more evidence of these attitudes. Donald Trump, a businessman with no political experience, won the Republican primary while Hillary Clinton, with a long record of public service, won the Democratic primary. It is now obvious that Californians’ candidate preferences are just one example of a deep partisan fissure that has emerged in the 2016 PPIC Statewide Surveys.

We found another example of this divide when we asked about the mood of the California electorate in 2016. Most Republican likely voters (78%) said the state is going in the wrong direction while most Democratic likely voters (67%) said it is going in the right direction in our May PPIC Statewide Survey. We found a similar divide in views about the direction of the US and about whether California and the US are headed into good economic times or bad ones next year.

The job approval ratings of elected officeholders also largely depend on one’s partisan stripes. President Obama has an 84% approval rating among Democratic likely voters and an 85% disapproval rating among Republican likely voters. This party split is also clear in the approval ratings of the US Supreme Court, California US Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, Governor Jerry Brown, the California Legislature, and even local House members and state legislators. The only area of consensus is the overwhelming disapproval of the US Congress (84% Republican, 81% Democrat).

There are also large and consistent partisan divides over the role of government. The vast majority of Republicans—83%— want a smaller government with fewer services, while a strong majority—69%—of Democrats say they prefer a bigger government with more services.

Similar partisan differences are evident when Californians are asked about gun laws, government regulation, and economic inequality. While 64% of Republicans say the government goes too far regulating guns, 79% of Democrats say it does not do enough. A majority of Republicans—66%—say government regulation does more harm than good, while 76% of Democrats say government regulation is necessary to protect the public. And 68% of Republicans say the government should not be doing more to reduce the gap between the rich and poor, while 79% of Democrats say it should be.

Last but not least is the partisan gulf on immigration and race. There are also different perspectives on the proposal to build a wall along the entire Mexico border (60% Republicans favor; 87% Democrats oppose) and whether immigrants are a burden (66% Republicans) or a benefit (78% Democrats) to California. Most Republican likely voters (58%) say there is equal treatment in the criminal justice system while most Democratic likely voters (80%) say that blacks and minorities do not get equal treatment.

Looking ahead to the November ballot, there are starkly different views on extending a temporary income tax on the wealthy, with 68% of Republicans opposing the extension of this Proposition 30 tax and 80% of Democrats in favor of it. The results are similar when our survey asked about a state school bond (50% Republicans no, 82% Democrats yes) and marijuana legalization (56% Republicans oppose, 69% Democrats favor).

How will California’s partisan divide impact the November election? Democrats now have an 18-point edge over Republicans in voter registration (45% to 27%).The PPIC Statewide Surveys this year also indicate that independent voters are leaning in the same direction as Democratic voters in their presidential, US Senate, and ballot choices, and their overall outlook, approval ratings, and policy preferences. In this context, the May PPIC Statewide Survey found that the state’s likely voters favor the presidential candidate who stands for experience and a proven track record over the presidential candidate who stands for new ideas and a different approach. Still, Republicans overwhelmingly support their party’s standard bearer and appear to be aligned with his perspectives and policies.

California seems poised to maintain its blue status this fall. However, the geo-political segregation of the state —with Republican pockets of strength in California’s northern, inland, and rural regions—means that federal and state legislators will be elected to represent the views of voters who are worlds apart. Indeed, the political polarization and antipathy of this year’s election may result in a California Congressional delegation that will contribute to Washington gridlock and a California Legislature that will struggle to find common ground on solutions to the many challenges facing California’s future.

A Turnaround for Voter Turnout?

The recent primary offered signs of improvement for California’s abysmally low voter turnout. Recent elections have seen some of the worst turnout in the state’s history. The 2014 election cycle was particularly dismal, but 2012 also set a new low for a presidential primary election. Moreover, California has been lagging behind other states in both registration and turnout.

However, there has been a large surge in new registrants over the last few months, and the California Secretary of State currently estimates that almost 9 million Californians participated in the 2016 presidential primary election, compared to only 4.5 million in 2014 and 5.3 million in 2012.

If we look at the share of voting-eligible residents who have registered in time for each of the last 18 primary elections, California’s registration rate has always fallen within a fairly narrow band—from a low of 66% in 1988 to a high of 75% in 1996. In this context, the 2016 registration rate might be seen as a disappointment. Compared to the same point in the 2012 primary election cycle, the registration rate has remained largely unchanged, though it is still comparatively high when viewed in the context of the past several decades.

How can we square this result with the reported surge in new registrants? The registration rate typically drops some between elections as county registrars purge voters who have moved or died from the registration rolls, and relatively few new voters sign up to take their place. This decline was especially large between fall 2014 and the beginning of the primary season this year. Given that baseline, a flat registration rate is consistent with a surge of new registrants, and must be considered something of a success.

More to the point, these registrants turned out to vote at a higher rate than we have seen in any primary since 2008. The estimated 8.9 million ballots translates to a turnout rate of about 50% among registered voters. That sits comfortably in the broad average of California’s presidential primary turnout, and marks a considerable improvement over 2012.

In fact, California’s presidential primary turnout now shows no clear sign of decline since 1984; it may even be holding its own relative to other states. But midterm turnout is a different story. There is a much longer downward trend for such elections, both viewed on their own and relative to trends in other states.

On balance, there are signs of recovery from the low turnout levels of 2012 and 2014, despite concerns that California’s late presidential primary would discourage participation. Whether this improvement will be sustained into the fall—and whether things will turn around for midterm elections in 2018—of course remains to be seen.

 

Assessing the Top Two Primary

With the voting this week, California has now entered its third election cycle with a “top two” primary. This system marks a radical departure from the “semi-closed” approach in place from 2002 through 2010. Under that system, those voters registered with a party could vote only for candidates of that party. By contrast, the top two gives all voters the same ballot so they can vote for whomever they choose, regardless of party, and the two candidates with the most votes (again regardless of party) advance to the fall.

Among other goals, supporters of the top two hoped that the relatively open nature of the system would encourage more candidates to run and would lead to closer outcomes. There was also a general hope that it would give a leg up to candidates who were not favored by the Democratic and Republican Party establishments. How has the system performed and what do the results indicate?

For the state senate and US House, far more candidates under the top two have faced at least one candidate from their own party, a trend that shows no sign of letting up in 2016. But intra-party challenges for the assembly have faded to the point where such competition is not much more common than before the reform. The top two has actually discouraged some major-party candidates in heavily partisan districts from running, since such candidates are no longer guaranteed a place on the fall ballot. The share of such races without major party competition has declined from the highs of 2012 for state senate and US House races (7% now, 13% 2014, 19% 2012), but it continues to be high for the assembly (25% now, 25% 2014, 14% 2012).

What about threats to the party establishment? Incumbents have had something of a bumpy ride under the top two. But most of that can be pinned on the immediate chaos of the 2011 redistricting. The new districts were drawn by an independent citizen commission with little or no regard for incumbency and prompted many incumbents to retire or run for another office in 2012. Things have settled down quickly since then. Sitting members of the assembly are actually less likely to step down now than before the era of the top two.

In fact, on average the top two has been fairly kind to establishment candidates. In 2012 and 2014, every incumbent advanced to the fall campaign, as did almost every non-incumbent endorsed by a major party (205 out of 225). This election cycle is no different: all incumbents, and 103 of 117 endorsed non-incumbents, have advanced. By contrast, just 2 of the 50 minor party or independent candidates on the ballot have advanced, and in both cases, they were running against an otherwise uncontested Democrat.

Finally, while outcomes have been closer under the top two, competition has dropped off over time. Under the semi-closed primary, the gap between the first- and second-place candidates averaged 32 points; it averaged 16 points between the second- and third-place candidates (a divide that decides the finalists in a top two system). Under the top two, the gap between first and second has grown from 22 points in 2012 to 27 in 2014 to 31 in 2016; the gap between second and third has remained flat, between 11 and 13 points. A large share of races this primary election—73%—have produced one candidate with more than 50% of the vote. This number is still lower than the 88% under the semi-closed primary, but it is similar to the 72% in 2014 and much larger than the 59% in 2012. In most cases these races will be uncompetitive in the fall.

Of course, such broad averages may not be the best way to evaluate the system, since specific races have undeniably been changed. This is most obvious for the same-party contests, which could never have occurred under the semi-closed primary. So far there will be 22 such races this election cycle, similar to but slightly lower than the 25 in 2014 and 28 in 2012. At least some of these same-party races will pit a moderate candidate against a more liberal or conservative one, and some of these moderate candidates might win.

In fact, moderate candidates might succeed despite a disengaged electorate. The best evidence suggests California voters under the top two have tremendous difficulty separating the moderate candidates from the rest, and they rarely cross party lines when voting. In fact, the total Democratic and Republican votes in the primary can be predicted well by looking at a district’s party registration. But a dramatic change in voter behavior may not be required. If moderate candidates are more willing to run, and if they have the means to promote themselves, some of them are likely to win. The result would not be a wholesale change in the state’s leadership, but it might cause an important shift at the margins.

Video: Survey Looks at Candidates & Issues

The most recent PPIC Statewide Survey found a tightening primary race between Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, and strong majority support for Donald Trump among Republican primary likely voters.

Dean Bonner, associate survey director, presented the findings at a Sacramento briefing last week. In addition to examining views of presidential candidates, the survey asked California likely voters for their choices in the election for US Senate—and it looked ahead at potential matchups for November in both races.

The survey offers a snapshot of Californians’ views on two key topics being widely debated nationally:

  • Immigration policy. A strong majority of likely voters oppose building a wall along the entire border with Mexico, as Trump has promised to do. There is a stark partisan divide: 86% of Democrats and 72% of independents oppose building a wall, while 59% of Republicans favor it. Asked whether or not undocumented immigrants living in the United States should be allowed to stay legally, 75% of likely voters favor allowing them to stay. Majorities across partisan lines say undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay.
  • US Supreme Court. At a time when the court has issued rulings on a number of polarizing topics, California likely voters are divided in how they rate the court: 46% approve of the way the court is handling its job and 44% disapprove. Should the Senate should confirm Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, to the court? About half of likely voters (51%) say yes, and 33% say no.
Learn more

Read the May 2016 PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government
Visit the PPIC Statewide Survey pages

Testimony: California’s Exclusive Electorate & the 2016 Election

Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO, testified before the Assembly Select Committee on Civic Engagement in Los Angeles today (May 13, 2016). Here are his prepared remarks.

“If the trends in voting continue, we face the prospect of an electorate making policy choices that neglect the realities and problems facing large segments of California society.” I wrote these words in a 2006 PPIC report, California’s Exclusive Electorate. The report analyzed trends in the state’s electorate from 1990 through May 2006 and polling results from the PPIC Statewide Surveys from 2005 to 2006. It revealed the gulf in political preferences between the state’s voters and the majority of its adult population, and suggested that if California’s nonvoting adult population made their voices heard at the ballot box, the political status quo could change—dramatically. In other words, the choices that voters make do not necessarily represent the preferences—or the needs—of California’s broader population. These disparities could be a problem for any state and are not unique to California.1 However, for California, a state that calls on its voters not only to elect representatives but also to make so much policy through ballot initiatives, these disparities raise real concerns.

In the years since that report, voter participation has continued to fall while the state’s population has become larger and more diverse. This troubling trend, especially notable in primaries and midterm elections, has motivated a statewide conversation about advancing civic engagement and increasing voter participation in California. Compounding this concern is our finding that California’s likely voters—who decide the fate of candidates and ballot initiatives—do not represent the demographics or the policy preferences of the state’s adult population.

At a time when new approaches to boosting voter turnout are being implemented and proposed, and as we approach the 2016 presidential election, it seemed important to update our work on the electorate. Using PPIC Statewide Survey data from 2015—drawn from about 12,000 interviews during seven monthly surveys that included voting and nonvoting adult Californians—our 2016 PPIC report paints a comprehensive picture of likely voters and their nonvoting counterparts. Once again, we find that the people who go to the polls in California are very different from those who don’t; they have different demographic characteristics—such as age, education, homeownership, immigration, income, and race/ethnicity. They also have different political attitudes and policy preferences. As California’s population continues to expand and change, the voting rolls are not keeping pace, and the state’s voters remain unrepresentative of its population.

In our 2016 report, we found a strong connection between economic inequality and political inequality. Likely voters in California tend to be older, white, college educated, affluent, U.S. born, and homeowners. They tend to identify themselves as “haves”—rather than “have nots”—when asked to choose between these two economic categories. Nonvoters tend to be younger, Latino, renters, less affluent, less likely to be college educated, and not U.S. born—and they generally identify themselves as “have nots.” Voters and nonvoters differ noticeably in their views on the role of government, taxes and spending, ballot choices, and elected officials—all of which come into play during an election year and influence governing choices in the long term.

California’s recent steps to encourage voter participation are a step in the right direction, but the divide between voters and nonvoters is deep and persistent. Why has the exclusive electorate phenomenon that we identified 10 years ago been so difficult to change? State laws that make it easier to register to vote and cast ballots are helping to expand the electorate, but only to a limited degree. When eligible adults are asked why they are not registered to vote, most cite a lack of confidence or a lack of interest in elections, a lack of trust in government, and a lack of time to vote. When registered voters are asked why they do not always vote, their top reasons are a lack of interest and time and low levels of confidence and trust.2

More fundamentally, the broad demographic and economic shifts underway in the state are shaping the divide between California’s voters and nonvoters today. Immigration is one important factor. Millions of California adults are documented and undocumented noncitizens. The share of the adult population that is undocumented is on the decline, but it is still a large segment of California society. Public and private efforts are needed to encourage more noncitizens to become citizens and join the voter rolls. Comprehensive federal immigration reform that provides a path to citizenship is another key ingredient in creating a larger and more diverse electorate. Other powerful socioeconomic factors help determine political participation. A significant share of California’s population is living in poverty, housing costs in coastal regions are high, and the state economy is likely to face a shortage of college-educated workers in the near future. Efforts to increase economic opportunity through policies that produce high-paying jobs, provide affordable housing, and increase college graduation rates would also grow and diversify the electorate.3

How will these ongoing trends in political and economic inequality affect the 2016 election cycle? As is always the case, voter turnout will increase and demographic profiles will broaden for the November presidential election. Still, we expect to see a large divide between voters and nonvoters this year. Once again, California faces the prospect of an electorate making policy decisions that neglect the realities and problems facing large and growing segments of society.

What are the larger consequences of uneven participation rates and low voter turnout? First, the fact that a relatively small group of voters is making decisions about elected representatives and public policy raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the democratic system. Next, because the haves in society are the frequent voters, and so many of the have nots are not voting or are not registered to vote, our electoral process does not reflect the broad economic and political interests of all adults. Last, likely voters and nonvoters have different perspectives on the role of government, government spending, ballot choices, and the state’s elected officials.

What might happen if voters were more representative of California’s adult population? There could be more voter support for policies that increase spending for health care and education, and for an expansion of the government’s role in improving the lives of immigrants and the less economically advantaged. If large numbers of new voters continue to register with “no party preference” and the proportion of major party voters continues to shrink, the power of independent voters in determining election outcomes could be bolstered. Finally, growth and change in the electorate could initially produce more political instability, as elected officials, candidates, political parties, and initiative campaigns reach out to a larger and more diverse electorate.4

In the long run, having a larger and more engaged electorate that is more representative of the people of California would be a source of political stability for a state that increasingly relies on the ballot box to make its major policy decisions.

1. Raymond E. Wolfinger and Steven J. Rosenstone, Who Votes? (Yale University Press, 1980); Eric Plutzer, “Becoming a Habitual Voter: Inertia, Resources, and Growth in Young Adulthood,” American Political Science Review 96 (1): 41-56, 2002; Karthick Ramakrishnan, Democracy in Immigrant America, (Stanford University Press, 2005); Mark Baldassare, At Issue: Improving California’s Democracy (Public Policy Institute of California, October 2012); Jan E. Leighley and Jonathan Nagler. Who Votes Now? (Princeton University Press, 2014).
2. Mark Baldassare, Dean Bonner, David Kordus, and Lunna Lopes, “Voter Participation in California,” Just the Facts (Public Policy Institute of California, September 2015).
3. Laura Hill and Joseph Hayes, “Undocumented Immigrants,” Just the Facts (Public Policy Institute of California, June 2015); Sarah Bohn, Caroline Danielson, and Monica Bandy, “Poverty in California,” Just the Facts (Public Policy Institute of California, December 2015); Hans Johnson, Marisol Cuellar Mejia, and Sarah Bohn, Will California Run Out of College Graduates?, (Public Policy Institute of California, October 2015); Hans Johnson and Marisol Cuellar Mejia, California’s Future: Housing, (Public Policy Institute of California, February 2015).
4. Jack Citrin, Eric Schickler, and John Sides, “What If Everyone Voted?” American Journal of Political Science 47 (1) 75-90, 2003; Mark Baldassare, At Issue: Improving California’s Democracy, (Public Policy Institute of California, October 2012); Jan E. Leighley and Jonathan Nagler, Who Votes Now? (Princeton University Press, 2014).

Video: Broadening California’s Exclusive Electorate

Californians who vote tend to be older, white, college educated, affluent, and homeowners. When asked to choose, these “likely voters” identify themselves as “haves” rather than “have nots.” Nonvoters tend to be younger, Latino, less likely to be college educated and less affluent than likely voters, and renters; they generally identify with the have nots.

This divide has particular significance in California, where voters make important policy decisions through the initiative process—and at a time when economic inequality is a major theme, according to Mark Baldassare, author of a new report, California’s Exclusive Electorate: Who Votes and Why It Matters. Baldassare is PPIC president, CEO, and director of the PPIC Statewide Survey. He presented an overview of his report before a Sacramento audience this week.

The report concludes that, in addition to electoral process reforms that will make voting easier, broader changes are needed to expand the electorate. Among them: citizenship drives to engage foreign-born residents, increased economic mobility, and changes in federal immigration policies.

An expert panel took up these issues in a discussion moderated by John Myers, Sacramento bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times. Myers asked if there a ’secret sauce’ to motivate people to vote.”

Mindy Romero, founder and director of the California Civic Engagement Project at UC Davis, said that there’s no single solution. But civics education is important, she said, and so is targeted outreach that recognizes the unique experiences and needs of underrepresented groups.

Matthew Harper, state assembly member, used his involvement in Junior State to illustrate the importance of nonprofit organizations in showing young people how they can affect government.

Ben Allen, state senator, noted the shrinking number of reporters in Sacramento and said that more engaged media coverage would help bring issues home to voters.

Myers pointed out the vicious cycle at work in many elections. Campaigns spend their resources targeting the relatively small pool of likely voters, who will reliably turn out to support them. A much broader group of potential voters is not engaged and—as expected—this group fails to vote.

But, Allen said, in this presidential election we could be seeing the flip side of the low-turnout election that draws only the most involved voters. “Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are driving new people to the polls that folks have not traditionally reached out to and engaged with,” he said. This presents “a scary but exciting set of possibilities” for reaching out to new sections of the electorate.