Tag: voters

California’s 4.5 Million Trump Voters

In the November election, California voters passed several ballot initiatives acting on liberal priorities, and votes for Hillary Clinton in the state exceeded votes for Donald Trump by a two-to-one margin. Nevertheless, 4.5 million Californians voted for Donald Trump—7% of his total support across the country. California’s Trump voters stand apart from other voters—both those who supported past Republican presidential nominees and Clinton supporters—in important ways. But many Trump voters align with California’s Democratic majority on issues of taxation and undocumented immigrants.

California Trump voters’ low level of trust in the federal government is one of the major ways that they differ from other voters. The October PPIC Statewide Survey found that 81% of Trump voters say the federal government is run by a few big interests, wastes a lot of taxpayer money, and only does what is right sometimes (or never), compared to only 24% of Clinton voters. The large gap on these questions between Trump and Clinton voters in 2016 stands in sharp contrast to 2008, when McCain and Obama voters were about equally likely to express distrust (55% and 57%, respectively).

Yet there are some areas of overlap between Trump and Clinton voters. In California’s US Senate race between two Democrats, PPIC surveys indicate that about half of Trump voters decided not to participate. Of those who indicated they would vote, though, Trump voters were about evenly split between Kamala Harris—preferred by most Clinton voters (58%)—and Loretta Sanchez. In October, we found a noteworthy 22% of Trump voters saying they would vote for Harris, who was ultimately the winner of the seat.

Another winner in November was Proposition 55, which extended a tax on high incomes in California. While Clinton voters were far more likely than Trump voters (75% to 24%) to say they favored the tax extension, a quarter of Trump voters said they would vote yes. It’s likely that many of them contributed to the success of the measure, which passed with 63% support.

Immigration is another policy area with some notable overlap in opinions between Trump and Clinton supporters. Although Trump voters were far more likely than Clinton voters to support building a wall along the border with Mexico (82% to 7%), a majority of Trump voters (52%) agreed with the 95% of Clinton voters who said undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the country if certain requirements are met. As California policymakers consider potential responses to a change in federal immigration policy, it will be interesting to see how Trump’s voters feel about new federal and state action.

Though California remains a Democratic-majority state, millions of Californians voted for the president-elect in November. While there are large differences in opinion between them and Clinton supporters, neither group is monolithic, and our survey findings suggest some potential areas of cooperation between them.

Learn more

Find out more about the PPIC Statewide Survey

The Turnout Turnaround

Voter turnout in California was dismal in 2014—record lows in the primary and general elections prompted serious concern about how to turn the problem around. The state has been aggressive in adopting reforms to promote turnout—including a system for registering online, “conditional” registration, which allows people to vote after registering as late as election day, and a system to register voters mostly by default via the DMV.

The Secretary of State recently certified the vote count for the November election, and the results suggest the state is heading in the right direction. Turnout was 58.7% among those eligible to vote, easily higher than the 30.9% showing in the midterm election two years ago, but also higher than the presidential election four years ago (55.5%) and almost as high as the notably high-turnout election in 2008 (59.2%).

In fact, while low turnout in the 2014 general election put California farther behind other states, this year’s turnout almost brought the state up to the national average. As the graph shows, turnout in presidential elections has been climbing in all states since about 2000. But this is the first time that the upward trend has been stronger in California than elsewhere.

Some of this upward surge may reflect higher registration rates: the share of eligible residents who are registered rose this election year to a 20-year high. The state’s recent reforms can’t explain this increase because most of them have not been implemented yet. The exception is online registration, which went live during the 2012 presidential election cycle and has proved popular. Early evidence suggested that the new system’s overall impact on registration was small, but this could have changed over time. In any case, the higher registration rate this year might lead to higher levels of participation in the future.

There are reasons to think that the higher turnout and registration were driven by a more mobilized Latino population. Certainly, Latino registration increased this year, perhaps in response to the tone and content of the presidential campaign. And Californians voted at even higher rates for Hillary Clinton than they did for Barack Obama, something many have also attributed to increased Latino engagement. However, there is little support for this story in the county-level results. The size of each county’s eligible Latino population explains almost none of the variation in turnout this year. In fact, the higher turnout this year was evenly distributed across the state.

Despite the signs of increased engagement, it is too early to say the state has come out of its turnout slump. As the figure makes clear, turnout in presidential elections is not the state’s biggest problem. The challenge is and has been midterm turnout. A growing share of the voters who participate in presidential elections do not vote in the gubernatorial election two years later. The last two election cycles—which have seen exceptionally high presidential turnout and exceptionally low midterm turnout—have not departed from this pattern but exemplified it.

The state should be proud of the progress made this election, and there are grounds for optimism as the state rolls out its election reforms over the next few years. But the positive signs from this election cycle should not make policymakers complacent about the challenges that lie ahead.

California’s Marijuana Majority


Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO and director of the PPIC Statewide Survey, spoke at the Pacific Chapter of the American Association of Public Opinion Research annual conference in San Francisco today, December 16, 2016. Here are his prepared remarks for a post-election panel discussion.

One of the most historic turnarounds in California initiative history has been largely overlooked in the wake of the stunning presidential election results. Californians passed a recreational marijuana initiative this fall after rejecting a similar effort six years ago. The 2010 initiative, Proposition 19, failed with 46.5 percent of the vote. This year, Proposition 64 passed with 57.1 percent. How did support grow by 10.6 points, allowing this controversial policy to move into the victory column? The answers are found in both national and state trends.

First, Americans’ views on marijuana legalization have shifted in recent years. When asked in Pew Research Center national surveys, “Do you think the use of marijuana should be made legal or not,” fewer than 50 percent said “yes” in 2010 and 2011 while a majority have said “yes” since 2013. Two key events happened in 2012: Washington and Colorado voters passed initiatives to legalize recreational marijuana. Alaska, Oregon, and Washington, DC, voters followed in 2014. This November, Massachusetts and Nevada—and perhaps Maine, depending on a recount underway—joined California voters in legalizing recreational marijuana.

California public opinion mirrors these changing national attitudes. PPIC surveys have been repeating the Pew Research Center’s question for six years. In our surveys, the percent of adults saying “yes” to legalizing marijuana was below 50 percent before November 2010, when Proposition 19 failed. Support for legalization edged up to the majority in 2013. Some Californians apparently changed their minds about marijuana legalization after other states passed initiatives.

Did California’s marijuana legalization pass because its base of support grew stronger? Or because its appeal expanded to more demographic groups? The answer is “both” when we analyze the final PPIC surveys before the November 2010 and November 2016 elections. These surveys were within close range of the election results (44% Proposition 19, 55% Proposition 64) with a comparable 11-point difference between 2010 and 2016. We compare the likely voters who said “yes” to Propositions 19 and 64 across parties, political, and demographic groups.

The only majority supporters of Proposition 19 in 2010 were Democrats, liberals, and Californians under 35 years old. This fall, there were double-digit increases in the yes vote for Proposition 64 among Democrats, liberals, and residents under age 35. The consolidation of support in these groups was important in the 2016 California election context. This presidential election attracted a larger electorate with liberal leanings than the 2010 gubernatorial election did. That is reflected in the passage of several progressive reform and tax initiatives this November, as noted in an earlier PPIC blog post.

Significantly, there were also double-digit increases in the yes vote for Proposition 64 in likely voter groups where Proposition 19 had previously fallen short. Notably, independents, moderates, and 35- to 54-year-olds joined Democrats, liberals, and younger voters to form a broader political and demographic coalition of Proposition 64 supporters this fall. Moreover, support grew from less than 50 percent in 2010 to include solid majorities in 2016 among men (47% to 64%), college graduates (47% to 61%), those earning $80,000 or more (46% to 60%), and whites (44% to 55%). In sum, Proposition 64 attracted more of a political mainstream following than Proposition 19 did.

Proposition 64 still did not win by a landslide even with these impressive gains in the depth and breadth of support. Fewer than 50 percent in key demographic groups supported the initiative. They include Republicans (33%), conservatives (31%), Californians age 55 and older (45%), Latinos (47%), women (48%), and the non-college educated (49%). Obviously, many Californians did not jump on the bandwagon and vote for marijuana legalization this year.

Finally, it is worth noting that when we asked voters if the outcome of the vote on Proposition 64 was very important to them, opponents of legalization were more likely to say “yes” than supporters were (60% to 50%). These views could play a critical role because marijuana legalization still faces many hurdles. Will the deep divisions among political and demographic groups surface in local communities when it’s time to implement the new law? Will California lawmakers side with the voters who passed marijuana legalization if the Republican president and Congress change direction on federal enforcement? As always in the initiative process, voters were the deciders but they are not the last word. Now many issues are left to local, state, and federal government officials to sort out.

Learn more

Find out more about the PPIC Statewide Survey

Medi-Cal and the Fall Election

Lost in the sound and fury of the national election are the results of four statewide ballot initiatives that aimed to bolster financing of the Medi-Cal program. Medi-Cal is California’s version of Medicaid, which pays for the health care of low-income families, many elderly who live in nursing homes, and—with the passage of the Affordable Care Act—single low-income adults. The state spends nearly $19 billion annually from the General Fund (and $87 billion from all sources) to provide medical coverage for 13.5 million Californians through Medi-Cal.

Three of the four initiatives passed on November 8, providing up to $3 billion in additional funds for Medi-Cal each year. But it will take a while for Californians to see the concrete outcomes of their votes. And, as is often the case with initiatives, the impact of these measures will depend on questions that have yet to be answered. The three measures that passed include:

  • Proposition 52: This initiative permanently extends the fees hospitals pay to the state, which the state then uses to get federal matching funds to support Medi-Cal. This translates to about $1 billion in state General Fund savings annually – providing this system continues to be allowed under federal law. There wasn’t much doubt that the state would seek to extend these fees past the sunset date of January 1, 2018, since they reduce pressure on the General Fund. But the initiative makes it more difficult for the legislature to modify the hospital fee program.
  • Proposition 55: Extending the tax on high-income earners will generate between $4 billion and $9 billion each year to pay for K–12 education and community colleges, Medi-Cal, and other budget priorities. For Medi-Cal, this is expected to provide up to $2 billion annually starting in 2018. But the amount may vary significantly from year to year for several reasons. First, K–12 education gets first call on the new revenue. In addition, the amount of new revenue will be affected by the volatility in what high-income taxpayers earn. Thus, the governor and legislature will have to learn to cope with an undependable funding source for Medi-Cal.
  • Proposition 56: Higher tobacco taxes will generate up to $1 billion for Medi-Cal in 2017–18. Revenue from tobacco taxes has generally fallen each year as the number of smokers in California has declined, and the new tax may accelerate that trend. While building these funds into the Medi-Cal budget may strengthen the program now, the state’s General Fund could face increasing pressure in the future if this source of funding declines. The state legislature and governor will determine how to use these funds as part of budget discussions next spring.

The fourth initiative affecting the Medi-Cal program, Proposition 61, failed to garner a majority of votes. Perhaps not surprisingly, more questions were raised about the impact of this initiative than the other three. Proposition 61 prohibited the state from paying more for prescription drugs than the federal US Department of Veterans Affairs, which typically pays the lowest prices of any public or private entity. The measure’s intent was to reduce the cost of prescription drugs in California, but the fiscal analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office suggested that the savings were uncertain.

While the new funds for Medi-Cal will be welcome, it remains to be seen whether they will provide reliable support for the program. Plus, there are questions about how the new president and Congress will alter the Affordable Care Act and how that will affect the state’s program. For instance, the law allowed California to extend Medi-Cal coverage to single low-income adults. In the 2016–17 state budget, coverage for this group cost about $15 billion annually, with the federal government picking up 95% of the tab. If the federal government significantly reduces or eliminates this enhanced funding rate, the $3 billion in new revenues generated by the three initiatives will not be enough to operate California’s expanded Medi-Cal program without other fiscal support.

What’s Next for Legalized Marijuana?

The morning after Election Day, California appeared to be on a very different path than much of the nation. But in voting to legalize recreational marijuana, Californians were very much in step with the rest of the country. In addition to California’s Proposition 64—which passed relatively easily, with 56% of the vote—measures were passed in Nevada and Massachusetts that legalized recreational marijuana. Measures that legalized or expanded medical marijuana passed in Florida, Arkansas, North Dakota, and Montana. So far, Arizona is the only state to have rejected a recreational marijuana measure. Maine also passed a measure legalizing recreational use, though the vote was close and is subject to a recount.

While marijuana remains illegal under federal law and continues to be classified as a Schedule I drug (meaning it has a high risk for abuse and has no accepted medical value), 63% of Americans now reside in states that have medical or full legalized use, including 21% with legalized recreational use.

Now comes the difficult part. Proposition 64 sets in motion a number of steps and procedures designed to create a regulated market for recreational marijuana. Many of these can be modeled on last year’s legislation regulating California’s medical marijuana market. And the states that have legalized marijuana so far have created a competitive but regulated market structure. But regulatory experience—in California and other states—is in short supply. As one state regulator opined at a recent PPIC event, “Right now, science is lagging policy.”

Marijuana regulation cuts across many areas. Earlier this year, we outlined several key regulatory areas, including cultivation, production, and processing; sales, consumption, and possession; taxes and finance; and public health and safety. The challenge facing California and other states is to implement regulations that can achieve multiple, sometimes conflicting policy goals: limiting the impact of the illegal market, preventing youth drug use, reducing harm to public health and safety, preventing diversion of legal marijuana into illegal markets, and raising revenue. This requires a comprehensive regulatory approach that would document and control the cultivation, production, processing, and sale of legal marijuana.

Our report recommended that California err on the side of caution and adopt a relatively restrictive regulatory model for both the recreational and medical markets. We still maintain that a tight, single market will make marijuana laws easier to enforce and reduce diversion to under-age Californians and to other states. To be sure, a highly regulated legal market will be accompanied by a robust illegal market. But it will be easier to loosen a tight market than to tighten a loose one.

Given the apparent national interest in legalizing marijuana—and the lack of knowledge about this new industry—California is positioned to be a leader in answering difficult questions about how best to regulate it. To play a leadership role, California regulators should collect data on marijuana sales, prices, revenue, and use. Basic market information would play a significant role in closing this knowledge gap and inform better future policy for both our state, and the rest of the country.

Finally, we should note that there is some uncertainty about the future of marijuana regulation across the country. As noted above, federal law still classifies marijuana as an illegal substance. The relatively benign approach that the federal government has taken to enforcing federal law regarding marijuana has been based on three memos written by second-tier cabinet members and some language in an annual appropriation bill. Though President-elect Trump has not explicitly stated his policy on marijuana, it would be relatively simple for the new administration to alter the current federal approach.

Learn more

Read the report Regulating Marijuana in California

California Is Different

Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO and director of the PPIC Statewide Survey, spoke to the Sacramento Press Club today (November 16, 2016). Here are his prepared remarks before a post-election discussion with Mark DiCamillo, senior vice president of Field Research Corporation and director of the Field Poll.

With the stunning victory of Donald Trump in the presidential election, it is easy to overlook the significance of the California vote. The political experience here was starkly different from the US in ways that went beyond our normal “blue state” election performance. I’m going to focus on election and polling trends that caught my attention—including citizen engagement, presidential preference, the state ballot measures, the role of government, and voter turnout. My colleague Eric McGhee has an excellent analysis of the top-two legislative races in another PPIC blog post. I’ll close with a look toward next year and the 2018 California election in light of the changing political landscape in California and the US.

Citizen engagement. The California voter rolls grew by 2.15 million in 2016 to reach a historic high of 19.4 million before the November 8 election. According to the California Secretary of State, the voter registration surge was largely a Democratic Party phenomenon, resulting in a 19-point gap between the Democrats and Republicans (45% to 26%)—the largest since 1976. Clearly, online registration and social media brought in new voters. But Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump shaped those voters’ party choices. One of the Republican candidate’s main messages—on immigration—simply did not resonate here. The 2016 PPIC Statewide Surveys consistently found that most Californians viewed immigrants as a benefit, favored a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and opposed building a wall on the US–Mexico border.

Presidential preference. Democrat Hillary Clinton is currently defeating Republican Donald Trump by a 29-point margin in California. Clinton’s margin is higher than President Barack Obama’s in 2008 (+24) and 2012 (+23), while Trump’s support (33%) is lower than every Republican presidential candidate since 1992. Clinton is running up big margins in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area, while Trump is running behind even in Republican-leaning Orange County and “purple” areas of the state such as Fresno, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. This was occurring in California even as blue areas turned red in the nation’s swing states. The margin for the presidential race in the October PPIC survey was 26 points, indicating that polls were accurate in accounting for Trump and Clinton supporters here.

State ballot measures. California also distinguished itself from the rest of the nation by asking voters to be the deciders on 17 state propositions. The September PPIC survey found satisfaction with the initiative process but unhappiness with the scale and complexity of state measures, and the oversized role of special interests in the process. Would voters just say no to all measures or skip this portion of the ballot? They did neither. They are currently approving 12 of the 17 state propositions and, in saying yes to at least 9 of the 14 citizens’ initiatives, exceeding the historical pass rate. Apparently, and in line with PPIC reports, California voters are up to the challenge of making policy at the ballot box.

Role of government. The big surprise in the 2016 California election is a sea change in voter preferences for the role of government. Californians reversed course in terms of their own previous decisions and stood apart from a number of national trends.

  • Californians passed both a cigarette tax increase (64%, Proposition 56) and marijuana legalization (56%, Proposition 64), both of which failed at the ballot earlier.

  • Years after they instituted a tough-on-crime three strikes law and mandated that schools teach only in English, the state’s voters passed criminal sentencing reform (64%, Proposition 57) and bilingual education (73%, Proposition 58).

  • While second-amendment rights were a litmus test for presidential candidates in other states, Californians expanded firearms restrictions (63%, Proposition 63).

  • Voters may be known for their distrust in state government, but they endorsed the plastic bag ban that was passed earlier by the legislature, at the same time reinforcing their “green” credentials (53%, Proposition 67).

  • Californians showed a generous streak by passing state school bonds (54%, Proposition 51), Medi-Cal funding (70%, Proposition 52), and a tax extension (62%, Proposition 55).

Notably, voter support for tax and spending propositions that we tracked in the September and October surveys were both stable and close to the election results, indicating that opinions were unmoved by the “no” campaigns. “Calexit” has become shorthand for the idea of California leaving the US. Instead, it may end up referring to Californians leaving behind the tax revolt that started here.

Voter turnout. The California Secretary of State is reporting a record-setting 15.18 million counted and unprocessed ballots in the November election. This vote count also reflects gains in the turnout among registered voters and eligible adults compared to the 2012 presidential election. Turnout rates were somewhat higher in the 2008 election. The October PPIC survey showed a high level of interest in the presidential election, and California seems to have bucked the national trend of depressed turnout. Still, only about half of the approximately 30 million California adults voted in this election. As noted in a recent PPIC report, nonvoters are mostly Latino, immigrants, lower-income, and young adults. In other words, those who don’t vote are among the most affected by changes in the role of government.

The voters have spoken and the awkward result is a conflicting policy agenda for the state government and the federal government. How will Governor Brown and the state legislature respond when the Republican president and US Congress shift gears on immigration, the Affordable Care Act, climate change, and abortion rights policies favored by California residents?

As the priorities, plans, and programs of the new president and Congress take shape, the mission of the PPIC Statewide Survey—­­to provide a voice for both adults and likely voters—takes on even greater importance.

And as we look further ahead, the next California governor will play a challenging role in managing the federal and state relationship. PPIC will invite the 2018 gubernatorial candidates to public forums next year to learn what we can about their leadership style and their vision for the state’s future in the changing political landscape in California and the US.

The Top-Two System and Election 2016

This election marked the third outing for the state’s “top two” primary system. The system allows voters to choose any candidate they like in the primary, with the top two vote getters advancing to the fall. One of the reform’s major goals is to promote moderation by removing the partisan barriers that structure candidate and voter choices. What has this election suggested about the reform?

The two candidates who advance to the fall election can be—and often are—from the same party. The most visible example this year was the US Senate race between Democrats Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez. It was the first statewide same-party race, and many did not know what to expect. Of the two candidates, Kamala Harris was seen as a traditional liberal Democrat, while Loretta Sanchez made more efforts to appeal to Republicans. In the end, Kamala Harris won by a wide margin—mirroring the substantial margins in most public opinion polls. Polling had also suggested that between a third and half of Republicans were likely to opt out of casting a ballot in this race. At the time of this writing, about 1.1 million more ballots have been cast for president than for US Senate, a number roughly consistent with these polling estimates.

There were also 27 down-ballot same-party races in this cycle, in line with 25 in 2014 and 28 in 2012. These races continue to be a lot closer than cross-party contests: this year, an average of 32 points separated the candidates in cross-party races, compared to 25 points for candidates of the same party. About a quarter of this year’s same-party races were decided by less than 10 points, also similar to previous years.

At the same time, the share of cross-party races decided by narrow margins has been falling over time—from 18% in 2012 to 15% in 2014 to just 11% this year—and is rapidly approaching the average share during the previous redistricting cycle (7%). This most likely reflects the aging of the redistricting plan, which was drawn by an independent commission in 2011. At the beginning the plan was very disruptive to established patterns, but as candidates have come to understand which seats are likely to be competitive and which are a stretch, the level of cross-party competition overall has declined.

Establishment candidates did well this year, as they have on average under the top-two reform. Just 6 out of 123 incumbents lost, and the average margin of victory for incumbents was the same as before the reform. This is not to say that the top-two primary has not altered the playing field in some cases. In fact, three of the six losing incumbents ran in same-party races. But the broader field of play is similar to the past.

Same-party races were in part expected to promote contests between the moderate and liberal/conservative wings of each party. It is not clear that this has happened much on the Republican side, but there are typically several same-party contests that feature this dynamic on the Democratic side. In this election cycle, most of these contests were won by the more moderate, business-backed Democrat. Nonetheless, in at least two cases—Raul Bocanegra vs. Patty Lopez in Assembly District 39 (San Fernando Valley) and Eloise Reyes vs. Cheryl Brown in Assembly District 47 (San Bernardino County)—a less traditional Democratic incumbent lost to a more traditional Democratic challenger (Bocanegra was technically a challenger, but he was also a former incumbent).

In short, this year’s top-two outcomes mostly fit the post-reform pattern, but there were some interesting deviations. It is still early in this reform’s life, so it will be important to keep monitoring it to understand how it unfolds.

Video: The Mood Before Election Day

The final PPIC Statewide Survey before the November election found Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump by 26 points among California likely voters and Kamala Harris leading Loretta Sanchez by 22 points. It also found that majorities support measures to extend a tax increase on high incomes, increase cigarette taxes, and legalize marijuana. Research associate David Kordus presented these and other key findings at a briefing in Sacramento last week.

The survey also examined issues that are likely to linger past Election Day. It finds that Californians are divided on the direction of the state. Majorities say the nation is going in the wrong direction, and they express low levels of trust in the federal government. And most Californians say the two major political parties do such a poor job that a third major party is needed.

Learn more

Read the October PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government
Visit the PPIC Statewide Survey website

Changing Attitudes toward Marijuana Legalization

Six years ago, a California ballot initiative to legalize marijuana for recreational use fell short of a majority—46.5% voted yes. This November, Californians will vote on Proposition 64, another marijuana legalization initiative. Since the 2010 election, four other states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for recreational use, and, in California, the PPIC Statewide Survey series has found increased support for legalization among likely voters and within some key groups.

In our September survey, after hearing the Proposition 64 ballot title and label, 60% of California likely voters said they would vote yes. That includes strong majorities of Democrats and independents and nearly half of Republicans.

  • Support has increased among likely voters. In response to a separate, more general question, a similar share (61%) of likely voters said that they think marijuana use should be legal. That’s a 10 point increase in support for legalization in general since September 2010, when about half of likely voters said they were in favor.

  • The partisan divide has narrowed. We have consistently found support for legalization in general to be lower among Republican likely voters than among Democrats or independents, but the gap is somewhat narrower today than it was in 2010. Then as now, at least 60% of Democratic and independent likely voters supported legalization. Among Republicans, though, support has increased from 32% in September 2010 to 45% in September of this year.

  • Support has grown among older Californians. Today, nearly three-fourths of California likely voters under age 35 favor legalization, and they are more likely than older Californians to do so—a pattern that has held since 2010. But support for marijuana legalization has increased among older Californians over the past six years. Today, nearly two-thirds of likely voters age 35 to 54 support legalization, compared to about half in 2010. A slight majority of likely voters age 55 and over are in favor today, while fewer than half favored it in 2010.

As with any election outcome, much will depend on who turns out to vote. Based on past election cycles, we can expect a larger—and younger—electorate in this presidential election year than we saw in the midterm election year of 2010. It remains to be seen, though, if Californians’ changing attitudes toward marijuana legalization will be reflected in the vote on Proposition 64.

Learn more

Read the September PPIC Statewide Survey
Visit the PPIC Statewide Survey website

The End of the Post-Partisan Era?

Last week, a press release from the California Secretary of State touted the record number of 18.2 million California registered voters as a “major milestone.” The new numbers are impressive, but it’s also worth noting that California’s voter registration is in line with its current population trends. Both the number of registered voters and the number of adults who are eligible to vote have increased by about 1 million since September 2012.

What struck me as most significant about the September report—and what went largely without mention in the scant media coverage—is that a partisan shift that has been under way for several years has accelerated during the 2016 presidential election.

In 2004, a year after the recall of California governor Gray Davis, a Democrat, and the election of Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, there was an 8 point gap between Democratic and Republican registration (43% to 35%). In the 2006 general election, Governor Schwarzenegger was reelected and one other Republican won a statewide race (Steve Poizner for insurance commissioner). In other words, California was a Democratic-leaning state but Republicans could eke out a statewide victory, depending on the partisan turnout and candidates.

When Democrat Barack Obama was running for president in the fall of 2008, the gap between Democratic and Republican registration was 12 points (44% to 32%). During President Obama’s reelection campaign in the fall of 2012, there was similar registration gap between Democrats and Republicans (43% to 30%). Between 2004 and 2012, the Republicans lost about a quarter of a million voters and the Democrats gained about three-quarters of a million voters. The biggest registration increase was among independent (or decline-to-state) voters, whose number grew by a million. With many new voters eschewing party membership, California seemed to be entering a “post-partisan” era. Still, with a double-digit lead in voter registration, Democratic candidates defeated Republicans in all statewide races in 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014.

This September, the Democratic-Republican registration gap swelled to 18 points (45% to 27%). In a departure from recent trends, Democratic registration saw larger gains than independent registration over the past four years. Moreover, comparing the Secretary of State’s report for January 2016 with the September report, the biggest gain by far was in Democratic registration. This coincides with high interest in the Democratic primary between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and the unconventional candidacy of Republican Donald Trump. Is this a blip or does it signal the end of the post-partisan era? The Secretary of State’s report after the October 24 voter registration deadline will allow us to track registration trends amid debates, campaigning, and candidate news.

The growing partisan gap raises many questions. Since it’s easier to register than to vote, will new voters cast ballots this fall? With the latest PPIC Survey indicating a lack of competitive statewide races, will the growing Democratic advantage help to pass state propositions on taxes, corrections reform, and marijuana legalization? Will it allow the Democrats to reach their goal of a two-thirds majority in the state legislature? Looking beyond the 2016 election, the voter registration gap could have implications for the future of the Republican Party, the top-two primary, and California’s democracy.