Tag: voters

A Move to Raise Turnout in LA

Turnout in the most recent Los Angeles City Council election was almost impossibly low: slightly less than 9% of registered voters, or about 150,000, cast ballots. Governance of a city of almost four million was in the hands a group that could squeeze into the Rose Bowl.

And yet this same select club did something on Election Day that all but guaranteed their membership will grow. The days of the “Rose Bowl electorate” are numbered.

LA City Council races fall in the spring of odd-numbered years and don’t coincide with state and federal elections. The City Council races also have voter turnout that is 20 or 30% lower than in state and federal races in neighboring years. The explanation for the difference is not complicated. Visibility and excitement are powerful drivers of turnout. Elections that receive attention across multiple media outlets—such as those for Congress and the presidency—create a buzz that voters find harder to ignore. To expect a similar buzz for stand-alone local races is to require a volume of coverage that those races almost never receive.

What makes the most recent City Council election so unusual is that two extraordinary measures, City Charter Amendments 1 and 2, were also on the ballot. They proposed moving City Council and school district elections to coincide with the federal and state elections that draw more voters to the polls. Even more amazing, the small, dedicated group who voted on these measures passed them by a 3-1 margin, effectively taking a step to end their own privileged position in city and school district politics.

Will this actually increase participation in these local races, or will voters get “ballot fatigue” and opt out when they get to the end of longer ballots? In a 2002 Public Policy Institute of California report, Zoltan Hajnal, Paul Lewis, and Hugh Louch concluded that about half the difference between local and federal turnout can be attributed to election timing. That suggests that the timing change will prompt most voters to weigh in on local elections, even if they are drawn to the polls by higher profile congressional or presidential contests.

The problem of low turnout in LA will not be solved by this policy change. There are clearly other factors driving turnout down, factors that consistently place LA County near the bottom of the turnout list in all elections. But in passing Charter Amendments 1 and 2, voters in LA have taken an important step toward encouraging higher participation in city elections, one that deserves serious consideration by other cities as well.

Are Some Counties Bucking the Low-Turnout Trend?

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

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

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

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

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

California’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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

Is the Top-Two Primary to Blame for Low Turnout?

Turnout in California’s recent primary election was abysmal: the secretary of state is reporting that 21.5 percent of registered voters participated. This report doesn’t include many ballots yet to be counted but, according to educated guesses, those ballots won’t push turnout over 23 percent. This would be a record low for California.

Should we blame California’s new “top two” primary for this sad state of affairs? After all, turnout has been pretty low in both of the top-two primary elections California has had so far. Surely it’s part of the story?

This is an explanation in search of a theory. There is no clear reason why California’s new system would discourage people from voting. Many voters probably don’t even remember that we have a top-two system until they look at their ballot. When I examined this issue in a recent PPIC report, I found little evidence that open primaries affect turnout one way or the other. We can’t credit the top-two, but we can’t blame it, either.

The ups and downs of statewide turnout are driven by top-of-the-ticket competition: president, U.S. Senate, governor, and initiatives. An interesting race in one U.S. House, state assembly, or state senate district is going to engage only the voters in that district—often only a fraction of them.

For better or worse, top-of-the-ticket competition has been in short supply of late. In 2012, the presidential primary season was basically over by the time California had its primary, and Dianne Feinstein’s reelection to the U.S. Senate that year was all but a foregone conclusion. This time around, there is no presidential contest and no U.S. Senate race, and the gubernatorial contest has yet to catch fire. On top of all that, statewide citizen initiatives are now banned from the primary ballot. The legislature can place its own measures on the primary ballot (and did so in 2014), but these often lack the hot-button excitement of a citizen initiative campaign.

California does need to think seriously about how to improve primary turnout, which has been declining for decades. But we can’t pin this primary’s low participate rate on the top-two system. It was a predictable result of the statewide campaigns offered to voters. We had one of the highest primary turnouts on record in February 2008, when both the Republicans and Democrats had competitive presidential primaries and California had a say in deciding the outcome. If we get more competition in 2016 or 2018, we’ll probably see a different outcome than we did last week.

Are Voters Ready for the Primary?

All signs point to a low turnout in the primary next week. The most important factors that might bring voters to the polls are absent. California recently shifted all citizen initiatives to the fall ballot, depriving this year’s primary ballot of the draw that comes from those campaigns. And the race at the top of the ticket, for the governor’s seat, has not energized voters, as our latest PPIC Statewide Survey shows.

We find that Governor Brown, with the support of 48 percent of primary likely voters, will likely advance to the November general election. In the contest to see who would meet Brown in November, Republicans Tim Donnelly and Neel Kashkari are locked into a close race (Donnelly 15%, Kashkari 10%). However, one in four primary likely voters (27%)—including 34 percent of Republicans and 35 percent of independents—are still unsure of who they will vote for (17% of Democrats are undecided). And there are other signs that point to voter malaise.

We asked primary likely voters how closely they are following news about the gubernatorial candidates, finding that just 46 percent of primary likely voters are following news about candidates very or fairly closely. By comparison, in May 2010, 67 percent of likely voters were closely following news about candidates. And while attention this year has dropped across parties, it is especially low among Republicans. Today, just 39 percent of Republicans report closely following news about gubernatorial candidates; in May 2010, 68 percent said they were doing so (Democrats: 52% today, 66% 2010; independents: 52% today, 66% 2010).

Looking elsewhere in the survey, we find that only half of primary likely voters (53%) say they are satisfied with their candidate choices in the primary election for governor, while one in three are not satisfied (32%). Democrats (65%) are by far the most satisfied with their choices, while fewer than half of Republicans (43%) and independents (48%) express satisfaction. Of particular note, among those who are not satisfied nearly half (46%) say they are undecided on who they would vote for.

So with the election just days away, it appears as though many Californians have yet to tune into the governor’s race. Time will tell whether future gubernatorial contests can capture the attention of California voters and reverse the state’s recent history of low turnout in its primary elections.

Who Likes Proposition 13?

One of the most remarkably stable trends in California public opinion is the strong majority support for Proposition 13, even as the state’s demographics and politics have changed dramatically. This historic citizens’ initiative had the immediate fiscal impact of lowering property tax rates, restricting annual property tax increases, and raising the bar for local special taxes to a two-thirds majority vote. It also fundamentally changed the state-local relationship in California and ushered in the national tax revolt. Its supporters are shaping our fiscal choices today—even though many were not old enough to vote when the measure passed 36 years ago.

Proposition 13 passed in June 1978—toward the end of Jerry Brown’s first term as governor—with a 65 percent yes vote. Our most recent poll finds that 63 percent of likely voters today say that Proposition 13 has been mostly a good thing—as majorities have said since we began asking this question in 2003.

Among Proposition 13’s supporters today, about half were not old enough to vote, and 14 percent were not even born in 1978. As a group, they are mostly whites and homeowners, with annual household incomes of $60,000 or more. But they are also politically diverse. Supporters are evenly divided along party lines, with four in 10 Democrats, four in 10 Republicans, and two in 10 independents or other party members in this camp. More than half describe themselves politically as middle-of-the-road or liberals, while 45 percent say they are conservatives. About half live in the San Francisco Bay Area or Los Angeles.

What unites Proposition 13 supporters? One of their signature features is their higher level of distrust in state government. Large majorities say that the state government wastes a lot of the taxpayer’s money, believe that the state government is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, and say that they trust the state government to do what is right only some time or none of the time. Six in 10 say that the state is headed in the wrong direction, disapprove of the way that the state legislature is handling its job, and rate the state budget situation in California as a big problem. Most say they would prefer to use the budget surplus to pay down the debt rather than restore social services. They are evenly divided when asked if they approve or disapprove of Governor Jerry Brown’s job performance—however, seven in 10 are in favor of his budget plans and approve of a rainy day fund plan that is going to the voters in November.

Proposition 13 supporters register the most consensus when asked about who should make choices for the state budget today: 83 percent want the California voters to make some of the decisions about spending and taxes at the ballot box, while only 13 percent want the governor and legislature to make all of the decisions.

Perhaps the most enduring contribution of Proposition 13 is that it has given the voters a significant and growing role in fiscal policymaking. Voters will decide the fate of the rainy day fund proposal, as well as a multibillion-dollar state water bond also scheduled for the November ballot.

When voters cast their ballots this year, it is important to be aware of the mindset of the sizable and politically diverse coalition of Proposition 13 supporters: a suspicious view of state government and a cautious approach to spending—even in the context of a strengthening fiscal and economic recovery in California.

May Survey Looks at Views on Budget, Drought

The May edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey, Californians and their Government, explores attitudes toward the governor’s latest proposed budget and gauges preferences in the gubernatorial primary. It also examines opinions on health care reform, the drought, poverty, and climate change.

PPIC research associate Dean Bonner presented the results of this wide-ranging survey at a lunch briefing in Sacramento last week.

Electoral Reforms Face New Test

California’s political reforms—redistricting and the top-two primary—were meant to shake up the status quo through radically redrawn voting districts and a primary system that let voters choose any candidate of any party, and advanced the top two candidates (also regardless of party) to the fall election.

The first time out the gate, in 2012, the reforms didn’t disappoint: numerous incumbents retired, many seats were open, and a lot more candidates threw their hats in the ring. It was the shot across the establishment’s bow that supporters had been looking for.

Things are calmer in this year’s legislative and congressional races. The most obvious sign: an unusually large number of candidates facing no formal opposition. There were eight such races in 2012 and an average of 7 under the previous primary system. Today there are 20.

These candidates may not remain completely uncontested, since there are reasons to think we may see more write-in candidates this time around. The deadline for filing as a write-in—at least one whose votes are actually counted—comes after the normal candidate filing deadline. Under the top two, potential write-ins can wait to see whether a heavyweight ends up uncontested and then jump into the race for less money and effort. As the only other candidate, these write-ins will be guaranteed a spot in the fall campaign. This was not a popular approach in 2012, but candidates are still learning the system, so we may be seeing this strategy coming into its own. We will know more once the official write-in list is announced later this month.

In 2012, there were also a number of incumbents who faced challengers from within their own party. This was a sign, in part, of the better odds facing those challengers under the top two system: so long as they finished at least in second place, they would get another chance to topple the incumbent in the fall campaign. Nonetheless, only a handful of these challenged incumbents lost. Perhaps as a result, fewer incumbents overall face an intra-party challenge this time: 28% this year compared to 42% in 2012. And with only a couple exceptions, even those incumbents facing an intra-party contest are in a dominant financial position.

Finally, there are fewer open seats this year. In 2012, an extraordinarily large number of incumbents chose to retire or run for another office, leaving nine seats open for the U.S. House and 35 open for the state assembly (open seats for the state senate were more in line with past experience). This year, there are six open seats for the U.S. House—still high by historical standards, but less so. And the 23 open seats for the assembly aren’t all that many, at least in the era of term limits.

However, the seats that have come open are hotly contested, as open seats usually are. The great majority of these races feature at least three candidates, and a few have far more than that—with the prize going to Congressional District 33, where no fewer than 18 candidates are vying to replace retiring incumbent Henry Waxman. Moreover, fundraising in these races is much more evenly distributed across a range of candidates.

We are still early in the election cycle, and between the primary and the general there are still plenty of opportunities for surprises. But so far, it looks like the revolution, such as it was, is coming to a close, and a new status quo may be settling into place.

The Power of the Primary Voter

Voters are starting to think seriously about whether or not to vote on June 3—in fact, the first vote-by-mail ballots are already being returned. And because of a recent change to California’s primary system, this decision about voting will be more important than ever.

The voters who turn out in California’s primary elections have typically been different than the ones who vote in the fall. They have been older and less diverse, with a smaller share of Latinos and Asian-Americans. They have also tilted Republican in most cases. In short, the primary electorate is the California we once were, not the California we have become.

These differences mattered in the past, but not as much as they might have. Any party that placed a candidate on the primary ballot would be guaranteed to have a candidate on the ballot in the fall. Indeed, that was the point of the primary: to choose one person to represent each party in the general election. Now California has a radically open “top two” primary. Voters can vote for any candidate they like, and the top two candidates, regardless of party, advance to the fall election. That means a party is no longer guaranteed a spot in the final round.

Before the top two, the differences between the primary and the general electorate could affect the kind of candidate nominated by each party, but not whether the party nominated a candidate at all. Today, the primary electorate has much more say over what the general election will look like.

When the state first used this system in 2012, almost one-fifth of the races ended up with same party contests in the fall. This included Congressional District 31, where two Republicans faced off in a competitive district that otherwise leaned Democratic. If the general electorate had turned out in the primary, it almost certainly would have been enough to change District 31 into a race between a Democrat and a Republican—and the Democrat would have had a decent chance of winning. That’s a problem. Of course, this was just one district. But a bias in the primary electorate could create—or prevent—a same-party contest in a statewide race as well.

What’s the solution? Every primary system runs some risk of strange results, but the top two is especially aggressive at closing off alternatives. It might make sense to offer a sort of “safety valve”—the option of a third candidate in the fall in cases where there was enough demand for one. California used to allow both independent and write-in candidacies in the fall, but the top two banned both. The legislation removing these options was passed with a simple majority in the legislature, so it would be relatively easy to change. The bar for such safety-valve candidacies could be set high enough to ensure they would remain rare. (Of course, there could always be legal challenges, but the merits of that approach are better left to lawyers to determine.)

The top two offers a lot more choices to those who show up to vote in the primary. We should be careful about giving these voters too much power to then dictate the choices for everyone else.