PPIC's Commentary RSS Feed

Real Workplace Enforcement, and Realistic Flows of Authorized Immigrants

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:00:00 PDT

By Magnus Lofstrom, research fellow, Public Policy Institute of California

This commentary was published April 30, 2013, on Z�calo Public Square in response to the question, "How can immigration reform best avoid attracting another wave of undocumented immigrants to Los Angeles?� To read the full discussion, visit Fixing Immigration, Again at Z�calo Public Square.

California and Los Angeles undoubtedly have much at stake in the efforts to reform our flawed immigration system. One of the most important considerations is how we handle unauthorized immigration. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which offered amnesty to undocumented workers at the time, addressed but did not solve this issue�as the presence today of 2.6 million unauthorized immigrants in California (nearly one million residing in Los Angeles alone) makes clear. What lessons can we learn from IRCA and what are the key reforms necessary to manage unauthorized immigration?

One thing IRCA got right was granting a pathway to legal status for the unauthorized immigrant population of the time. Policymakers designing the reform also correctly recognized that jobs are the primary draw for most unauthorized immigrants, and hence instituted employer sanctions for hiring unauthorized immigrant workers. However, the sanctions were barely enforced and the lure of jobs and higher wages continued to attract numerous immigrants. At the same time, increased border enforcement made crossing the border more dangerous and more expensive. Those who crossed successfully ended up staying in the U.S. longer because of the increased difficulty and expense of crossing�which led to even greater increases in the unauthorized resident population.

So here�s what we learned: Controlling our border is a priority but to successfully manage future immigrant flows, a real fix to the system requires an accurate and effective employment verification system. This could mean mandating the use of the federal government�s E-Verify program for all new hires, as well as ensuring actual enforcement of sanctions for employers. At the same time, to prevent economic activity from simply shifting to the underground economy, we need to take two critical steps. First, we should establish a pathway to legal status for the current unauthorized population. Second, we need to implement flexible temporary worker visa programs that can adjust to economic conditions, allowing both low- and high-skilled workers to fill vacant jobs and meet the labor demands of a growing economy.

Parents Weigh School Funding�and Goals

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 PDT

By Sonja Petek, research associate, Public Policy Institute of California

April 29, 2013

Governor Brown has proposed changing the way the state�s K�12 public schools are funded by directing additional resources to districts that have more low-income and English Learner (EL) students. PPIC�s April Statewide Survey reveals some important differences among public school parents on this concept, on aspirations for their children�s future, and on priorities for K�12 education.

How do public school parents view Brown�s proposal? PPIC�s April survey found much higher support among Latino, lower-income, and less educated public school parents. These groups are also much more likely to believe that targeted funding would have a significant impact on lower-income and EL students. For instance, Latino public school parents are four times as likely as white public school parents (63% to 15%) to say that the academic achievement of these students would improve "a lot� if they received extra funding.

Looking into the future, the vast majority of public school parents express high hopes: 39 percent would like their youngest child to eventually earn a four-year college degree, and another 41 percent hope that their child earns a graduate degree after college. But beneath this seemingly universal desire for higher education lie key differences. White parents are three times as likely as Latino parents to hope that their child obtains a graduate degree (59% to 21%). Similarly, parents with at least some college education themselves are more than twice as likely as those with only a high school education or less to want their child to earn a graduate degree (61% to 23%). The share hoping for advanced degrees increases sharply as income levels rise.

Given these findings, it is not surprising that strong majorities of public school parents across groups consider college preparation "very important� to the K�12 curriculum. However, when asked to choose the most important goal of the K�12 system from a list of five options, key differences emerged. A solid majority of Latino parents (60%) select college preparation�but just 25 percent of white parents do so. In fact, white parents are as likely to name "teaching students life skills� (25%) as the most important goal. College preparation is considered the top priority for majorities of both those with incomes under $40,000 (51%) and those with only a high school education or less (56%); among more affluent and more educated parents, fewer made it their top choice. Similarly, immigrant parents and those who took the survey in Spanish are far more likely than U.S.-born parents and those who took the survey in English to prioritize college preparation.

The data tell an important story: those who have historically had less access to the higher education system want to get their children�s feet in the door and are leaning on the state�s K�12 public school system to facilitate this effort. White public school parents and those with greater levels of income and education express the highest hopes for their children�and yet they are less likely to view K�12 schools as critical to preparing their child for college. These parents are more likely than Latino, lower-income, and less educated parents to be "very confident� that they have the necessary resources and information to help their child reach their goals�and they appear to feel less dependent on the K�12 system to fulfill that role.

One of the central goals of directing extra funding to students with the greatest need is to close the persistent achievement gap that exists between the state�s disadvantaged students and others. The parents of disadvantaged students attach personal weight to this issue�the state�s public school system is the ticket to their child�s future.

What Lies in Store for the Water Bond?

Fri, 29 Mar 2013 00:00:00 PDT

By Ellen Hanak, co-director of research
and senior fellow, Public Policy Institute
of California

March 29, 2013

California has been struggling to manage its scarce water resources effectively for the benefit of competing needs: a growing population and urban economy, a highly productive agricultural sector, and many valuable but threatened watersheds. In the final months of 2009, the state legislature passed a comprehensive package of water bills�the first in many years�to address these challenges.

The package included new groundwater monitoring requirements, strengthened enforcement of surface water rights, stricter targets for water use efficiency, and a new governance structure for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta�a major hub for statewide water supplies and a troubled aquatic ecosystem. The package also included an $11.14 billion general obligation (GO) bond act supporting these and other areas, to be put before the state�s voters in November 2010. (The legislature can place bonds on the ballot, but ultimately California voters � who foot the bill through repayments out of the state�s general fund � must approve these measures.) Concerns about weak voter support in a slow economy have since led the legislature to twice delay putting the bond on the ballot, and it is now slated for the November 2014 general election.

Although this bond is large by historical standards, the 2009 legislature had reason to think voters might support it: from 2000 to 2006, voters had approved six GO bonds for water-related purposes, totaling more than $23 billion (in today�s dollars). And voters had also approved tens of billions in bonds for other purposes in the 2000s, including education, transportation, and stem cell research.

But the March PPIC Statewide Survey suggests that despite a strengthening economy, today�s voters are subject to sticker shock when presented with a new water bond. Since March 2012, when economic indicators like unemployment and the state budget were less favorable than they are today, support for the bond has actually declined: only 42 percent of likely voters indicated that they would vote for the bond if the election were held today, compared to 51 percent a year ago. Signs that the price tag is a factor? When those who would vote no were asked how they would vote if the bond were smaller, overall support increased to 55 percent of likely voters�a majority, but still not overwhelmingly strong support.

This message isn�t lost on the California Legislature. Indeed, prior to the March PPIC survey results, the senate had already held two informational hearings on the water bond, and their tone suggested a desire both to shrink the bond and to reconsider what it should contain. On February 26, a joint hearing of the Governance and Finance Committee and the Natural Resources and Water Committee examined broad questions about the state�s exposure to GO bond debt and the alternatives to bonds for the water sector, and on March 12, the Natural Resources and Water Committee followed up with a hearing examining what had changed in various areas covered by the bond since the legislature passed it in late 2009. I had the privilege of testifying at both hearings. In the first, I said that while state GO bonds are welcome budgetary supplements for water managers, they require tradeoffs with other important activities, such as education and health and social services, because they are paid back through general fund tax dollars. In the second, I talked about lessons learned from the recent drought�including the fact that utilities need to improve their rate structures to accommodate both droughts and long-term conservation.

Whatever shape and size the bond ultimately takes, California will need to find other ways to pay for water infrastructure and for critical improvements in aquatic habitat. Options include small additional fees on monthly water and wastewater bills (something we already do in the energy sector), higher local property assessments for flood control, and new surcharges on harmful chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides to help reduce their harmful effects on our waterways and groundwater reserves. Such fees are not likely to be especially popular, unless they come with a clear message that they are necessary for a healthy state economy and environment.

Getting the water bond right is an important item on the current policy agenda, but public policy discussions also need to consider a broader range of funding options to address our critical needs.

Californians and Immigration

Mon, 25 Mar 2013 00:00:00 PDT

By Mark Baldassare, president and CEO,
Public Policy Institute of California

March 25, 2013

Comprehensive immigration reform is near the top of President Obama�s to-do list for his second term, and Republicans in Congress have also made immigration reform a key priority in the wake of the November election. In the PPIC Statewide Survey in March, 52 percent of Californians�including half of Democrats and Republicans�also say that passing major legislation about immigration is essential this year. Our surveys indicate that Californians are more supportive of a path to citizenship and less in favor of stricter border controls than Americans as a whole, while the trend over time is increasing favor of a path to legal status for illegal immigrants.

In our March survey, two in three Californians (64%) support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Support for providing illegal immigrants with a path to citizenship is higher among Californians in our survey (64%) than among adults nationwide (55%) in a late January-early February survey by the Washington Post/ABC News. In our survey, Democrats (73%) are much more likely than independents (58%) and Republicans (40%) to express support.

Stricter border control is also widely supported among Californians in our March survey (74%). It is even more popular among adults surveyed nationwide (83%) in the Washington Post/ABC News poll. In our survey, support is higher among Republicans (91%) than independents (74%) and Democrats (70%).

When asked in our January survey what they think should happen to most illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the United States for at least two years, a record-high 76 percent say these immigrants should be given a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status. A record-low 21 percent of Californians say they should be deported back to their native country. Since we first asked this in 2007, at least 65 percent have said working immigrants should have a chance to keep their jobs. In our most recent survey, majorities of Democrats (85%), independents (68%), and Republicans (59%) say immigrants should be given a chance to keep their jobs.

What accounts for Californians� support for a path to citizenship? In our January survey, a record-high 63 percent of Californians say immigrants are a benefit to California because of their hard work and job skills, while a record-low 31 percent view immigrants as a burden to California because they use public services. Seven in 10 Democrats (72%) and half of independents (52%) view immigrants as a benefit, while six in 10 Republicans (60%) view them as a burden. Among those who view immigrants as a benefit, 92 percent say they should be able to apply for legal status, while those who view immigrants as a burden are divided (47% keep jobs, 49% be deported).

The demographic profile of California is also contributing to immigration attitudes and policy preferences. Latinos are far more likely than whites and immigrant residents are much more likely than those born in the U.S. to say that immigrants are a benefit. Eighty-four percent of Latinos and 78 percent of immigrants support a path to citizenship, compared to 49 percent of whites and 57 percent of U.S.-born residents. As Congress and the president work through the details of comprehensive immigration reform, a plurality of Californians (44%) today support both a path to citizenship and stricter border controls. Of those who say it is essential to pass immigration legislation this year, 70 percent favor a path to citizenship and 75 percent favor stricter border controls.

Californians and Gun Controls

Mon, 25 Mar 2013 00:00:00 PDT

By Mark Baldassare, president and CEO,
Public Policy Institute of California

March 25, 2013

In the wake of the mass shooting in Newtown, President Obama has made gun control a central issue for his second term. Congress is now discussing several proposals to further regulate firearms and ammunitions. How do Californians weigh in on this federal policy topic? PPIC Statewide Surveys find that most residents want their government to do more to regulate guns, while partisan divisions surface here, as they have in Washington.

Two in three Californians (65%) in our January survey say that government does not do enough to regulate access to guns, and three in 10 (31%) say government goes too far in restricting the rights of citizens to own guns. An overwhelming majority of Democrats (80%) and a majority of independents (54%) say government does not do enough, while 57 percent of Republicans say government goes too far. The perception that government does not do enough has significantly increased since March 2012 (53%).

In our March 2013 survey, Californians are much more likely to say that it is more important to control gun ownership (56%) than to protect the right of Americans to own guns (41%). Most Democrats (70%) say it is more important to control gun ownership, most Republicans (73%) say it is more important to protect the right to own guns, and independents are divided (50% control ownership, 45% protect the right). By comparison, opinions were divided in a recent Pew Research Center/USA Today national poll (50% control ownership, 46% protect the right).

Fifty percent of adult Californians in our 2013 survey also say that it is essential for the president and Congress to act on passing major legislation on gun policies this year. A majority of Democrats (60%) and a plurality of independents (47%) say it is essential this year, while a majority of Republicans (57%) say it should not be done.

What new gun laws are favored? Seven in 10 Californians favor (69%) creating a federal government database to track all gun sales. Overwhelming majorities of Democrats (80%) and independents (74%) favor this proposal, while Republicans are divided (48% favor, 51% oppose). Two in three Californians (65%) would support a law requiring a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons. Democrats (79%) and independents (55%) support this proposal, while Republicans are more divided (45% support; 52% oppose). Lastly, Californians are much more likely to favor (55%) than oppose (42%) a nationwide ban on high-capacity ammunition clips that hold more than 10 bullets. Democrats (70%) and independents (64%) are in favor. Republicans are divided (47% favor, 50% oppose).

Aside from the Democratic makeup of California, what are some other reasons for the strong support for gun regulations today? Just one in five Californians report having guns at home, and support for an increasing role for government and specific new gun regulations is much higher among the four in five adults who live in homes without guns. Six in 10 Californians say they worry a great deal (35%) or somewhat (26%) that a mass shooting could happen in their community. Concern is even higher among those without guns, rifles, or pistols in their homes.

Water Management Strategies Help State Deal With Dry Times

Thu, 29 Nov 2012 00:00:00 PDT

By Ellen Hanak, senior policy fellow, and Elizabeth Stryjewski, policy associate, Public Policy Institute of California

This commentary appeared in the Sacramento Bee on November 29, 2012

Two innovative water management tools�water marketing and groundwater banking�can help California manage its scarce water resources more flexibly and sustainably. California�s experience with them shows both their promise and what remains to be done to done to ensure their success.

Water marketing involves the temporary, long-term, or permanent transfer of water rights in exchange for compensation. Such transfers can lessen the economic and environmental costs of drought and also help accommodate longer-term shifts in the patterns of water demand. Groundwater banking is another cost-effective tool: it involves the deliberate storage of surface water in aquifers during relatively wet years, for retrieval in dry years.

During the late 2000s, California experienced a multiyear drought�the perfect opportunity to see whether the past few decades of state and federal encouragement of these tools has paid off. In our new study California�s Water Market, By the Number: Update 2012, we find some progress�but also some backsliding since the drought of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

That earlier drought jumpstarted California�s water market, thanks in large part to direct state actions. In the late 1980s, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) began purchasing water from a few irrigation districts to make it available to wildlife refuges and State Water Project contractors. By 1991, when faced with the prospect of draconian across-the-board rationing, DWR officials launched the state�s first drought water bank, a large-scale brokering program that acquired water from numerous willing sellers and resold it to those facing high costs from shortages. When the rains returned, the water market continued to grow, as many local districts got comfortable trading with each other.

Today, about 2 million acre-feet of water is traded annually�roughly 5 percent of all water used by the state�s businesses and residents. Water agencies in most counties now participate in this market. Farmers�the largest water-using sector�continue to be the primary providers. Recipients include other farmers, cities, and environmental programs supporting wildlife reserves and river flows for fish. Long-term and permanent trades�especially valuable for supporting shifts in patterns of water demand�now make up well over half of the market.

However, the market did not perform so well during the latest drought. Our study estimates that transfers provided a total of 500,000 to 600,000 acre-feet in drought-oriented supplies between 2007 and 2010, above and beyond transfers that would likely have occurred anyway. The market slowdown began in the early 2000s. This slowdown reflects a variety of infrastructure and institutional constraints, including more complicated approval procedures and pumping restrictions introduced in 2007 to protect endangered native fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Groundwater banking did a better job mitigating the drought. Our study focused on a new form of banking in which local groundwater managers store water for parties located elsewhere in the same county or in other regions. From the mid-1990s to 2006, these water banks�located in Kern County and Southern California� had built up reserves of nearly 3.4 million acre-feet. Between 2007 and 2010, they returned nearly 1.9 million acre-feet to their depositors, considerably more than the drought-related water market sales.

What lessons can be drawn from this experience? Despite its good showing, groundwater banking still faces obstacles. More comprehensive local basin management�a common practice in Southern California and Silicon Valley�would prevent unsustainable pumping and long-term declines in groundwater levels. Outside pressure�with a credible threat that the state would step in if local agencies fail to do so�might be the best way to proceed, ideally accompanied by positive financial incentives.

To strengthen the water market, the state needs to clarify and simplify the institutional review process, while continuing to ensure that transfers do not harm the environment or other water users. Both marketing and banking depend on addressing infrastructure weaknesses in the Delta, which have already limited both the market�s ability to furnish water supplies in dry years and the availability of supplies to replenish groundwater banks in wet years. Because routinizing marketing and banking transactions will require risk-taking, high-level state and federal officials should be involved, perhaps through a coordinating committee to facilitate decisions.

Attending to these and other priorities will help ensure the success of two of the state�s most critical strategies for efficiently managing its water resources.

Building California�s Future

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 00:00:00 PDT

By Mark Baldassare, president and CEO,
Public Policy Institute of California

This blog post appeared on The James Irvine Foundation's website on September 10, 2012

With fiscal crisis and a fragile economy the focus of concern in California, it is easy to overlook the state�s other challenges. But three troubling trends deserve attention because they threaten the well-being of Californians and the state�s prosperity for years to come. These threats also present opportunities�for state leaders and residents to step up and forge a new vision for California.

First, the state�s education system is failing to keep up with the changing demands of the state�s economy. California�which built the most admired public higher education system in the country� now lags other states in the production of college graduates. This is happening at a time when changes across industries require more highly educated workers than ever and as the Baby Boom generation�a relatively well-educated one�is being replaced by demographic groups with historically low rates of college completion. Projections suggest that, if current trends continue, the state economy will require one million more college graduates in 2025 than the state can produce. If we fail to change this trend the result is likely to be a less productive economy and less tax revenue for the state.

California also faces growing challenges in managing its natural resources. Managing water has always been difficult. After all, this is a state where much of the state�s population relies on water brought in from distant rivers or Sierra Nevada watersheds. Today, population growth and the fragility of the water system�s hub in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta compound the challenges. Climate change is expected to amplify them further, increasing the risks of flooding and the frequency of droughts. Climate change poses threats throughout the state�to air quality and public health from hotter inland temperatures and to coastal homes and habitat from rising sea levels.

As difficult as these challenges are, we can meet them. In higher education, for example, our work at PPIC has demonstrated that modest investments can yield significant results. Gradually increasing college enrollment rates, community college transfer rates and graduation rates could, together, reduce the workforce skills gap by half in 2025. This won�t be a tough sell for the state�s residents: the PPIC Statewide Survey finds that nearly 60 percent of Californians believe that a college degree is critical for success, and 73 percent of Latinos�who will soon replace whites as the largest ethnic group in the state�hold this view.

In water management, the state has the tools to secure a safe, reliable water supply and improve conditions for fish and wildlife. They include water marketing, "banking� water underground and reusing highly treated wastewater. California has been a leader in implementing policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions�an effort the state�s residents supported even through the Great Recession. Policymakers will need to tap into that enthusiasm to do the hard work of preparing for some of the effects of climate change that are inevitable.

Of course, the difficulty in reversing these trends is that they require tough tradeoffs�and public trust in the leaders charged with making those tradeoffs. This raises the third and most difficult challenge for the state�s future: Californians deeply distrust state government. While they are deeply divided along partisan lines on many key issues, Californians are united in their pessimism about the state of the state and its governance system. This lack of faith in government leads residents to be suspicious of potential solutions their leaders offer, especially when tax dollars are involved.

There is no simple way to rebuild the civic contract. It requires a sustained campaign�one led by a broad range of leaders across the state in business, labor, education, civic, philanthropic and nonprofit organizations�to engage Californians in answering the question: What kind of government do we need and what are our obligations in achieving this vision?

The task is enormous, but there is reason for optimism. Californians are in a mood for change. They approved two electoral reforms�an open primary and newly drawn districts�that saw their first test in June. In that election, voters approved another reform, one in the term limits law for state legislators. It will take time to see how this reform spirit will play out. But California has long been a state on the cutting edge of change. If leaders across all sectors team up with residents committed to building a better future, we can change these troubling trajectories, too.

UC, CSU Enrollments Fall with Budget Cuts

Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:00:00 PDT

By Hans Johnson, Bren policy fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California

This commentary appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on June 24, 2012

More than ever before, California's high school students are qualifying for attendance at the state's public four-year universities. This surprising fact is contrary to conventional wisdom�but a wealth of statistics backs it up. For example, over the past 10 years, the share of high school students taking calculus, a college-level math course, has increased more than 50 percent. At the University of California, a record 16.5 percent of high school graduates met the minimum eligibility criteria and applied for admission, up from only 12.4 percent in 1994. And, once in a public university, students are more likely to succeed now than in the past: Completion rates have increased at both UC and the California State University system.

This news should be a welcome indication of the state's future prosperity. California's economy requires more college-educated workers than it is producing. The Boomer generation�a relatively well-educated one�is retiring, and groups with historically low rates of college graduation are entering the state's working-age population.

But here's the rub: Despite students' gains in college readiness and the state's need for more college graduates, enrollment rates in the state's public universities are declining. New research from the Public Policy Institute of California shows that over the past four years, enrollment rates of recent high school graduates to UC and CSU have fallen from 22 to 18 percent.

The decline in enrollment rates is especially severe in the nine-county Bay Area. It is no surprise that here, in the state's most educated region, high school graduates are more likely to meet the college preparatory requirements for admission to UC or CSU.

In 2010, almost half�47 percent�of Bay Area students had completed those requirements, compared with just over a third�35 percent�of graduates in the rest of the state. Yet college enrollment rates of recent Bay Area high school graduates to UC and CSU fell from 31 percent in 2007 to 26 percent in 2010.

Why the decline? The state's budget crisis has played a major role, as state support of higher education has dropped dramatically. Over the past 10 years, general-fund allocations for higher education fell by $1.6 billion dollars (inflation adjusted). These huge budget cuts have taken a toll.

In response, UC and CSU have sharply increased tuitions and established enrollment caps at major urban campuses, including UC Berkeley, UC Davis, San Francisco State, San Jose State, and Sacramento State. Tuitions at UC are now among the highest in the country for public research universities, and at both UC and CSU tuition increases have been about twice as great as in comparable public universities in other states. The enrollment caps mean that students are increasingly denied admission to their preferred campuses even though they meet systemwide eligibility standards.

What happens to these students? Some go to community college, but increased enrollment at community colleges accounts for at most a quarter of the decline. Moreover, community colleges have also undergone cutbacks that can make it difficult for students to get the classes they need.

Other students are going out of state - and in increasing numbers. Maybe these young people leave just to attend college, but problematically for the state's future, they may settle outside of California for good. Still others opt not to attend college at all after high school graduation.

What can be done about it? Steps could and should be taken to ensure that funds for higher education are spent as efficiently as possible. For example, funding the state's universities is currently based on enrollment. Funding them, at least in part, on graduation rates should lead to an increased emphasis on improving outcomes for students. Policies and practices that improve transfer rates and certificate or degree completion rates at the community colleges would be particularly cost-effective because this system serves a majority of the state's lower-division undergraduates.

But it is important to be realistic: These steps would not make up for the severe cuts to higher education budgets. California policymakers must set goals for our higher education system that are consistent with the demands of a 21st century economy, and then find ways to fund those goals.

The need to act is urgent. Projections suggest that the state needs to produce an additional 1 million baccalaureates beyond its current pace if California is to meet the economic demand for educated workers in 2025. And, of course, the future of California's young people is at stake. The average college graduate earns almost twice as much as the average high school graduate. During the economic downturn, college graduates have fared far better than less-educated workers.

No one doubts that difficult fiscal decisions lie ahead as policymakers wrangle over the state budget. But California�which built the most-admired public higher education system in the country�needs to hold fast to the goal of providing opportunities for qualified students to get a college education. The future of the state and its residents depends on it.

California Electoral Reform a Work in Progress

Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:00:00 PDT

By Eric McGhee, policy fellow, and Daniel Krimm, policy associate,
Public Policy Institute of California

This commentary appeared in the
San Francisco Chronicle on June 24, 2012

When Californians voted in the recent primary election, they took their first steps into a brave new world of electoral reform.

They cast ballots in state legislative and congressional districts drawn by an independent commission of average citizens, rather than by the Legislature.

And they voted for any candidate they wanted, regardless of party, rather than only for candidates of one party or the other. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, will now participate in the fall campaign, which means candidates of the same party will run against each other in some places.

In the staid world of election law, this is as radical as it gets.

The reforms were meant to breathe new life into California democracy: to engage voters, and to encourage elected officials to tackle state and national problems more aggressively.

So how did they do? There were some notable successes. Elections were much more competitive: There were more open seats than usual, the incumbents who ran were more likely to face competition from within their own party, and the races were closer. The redistricting commission, for all its inexperience, also presided over one of the smoothest and most conflict-free redistricting cycles California has seen in 50 years.

There were failures, too. If the reforms were meant to rein in the political establishment, they have fallen short so far. Every incumbent who ran advanced to the fall campaign, and all but four came in first. Likewise, there were 113 nonincumbent candidates endorsed by one of the major parties, and 101 of them advanced to the fall.

The voters were also a disappointment. Supporters of reform had hoped that greater competition and choice would bring more voters to the polls, but turnout was low for a presidential primary. That said, the "top two" primary did make it much easier for independents who showed up at the polls to cast a vote in congressional and legislative contests, and it appears they took advantage of the opportunity.

More voters picked candidates in those down-ballot races than made a choice in the presidential contest, where the old primary system continues to be used.

There is at least one aspect of the reforms where a verdict is clearly premature. Many hoped the reforms would elect more moderate, "problem-solving" candidates, and the media had identified a number of viable candidates like this before the election. These candidates had mixed success: Some advanced to the fall, and others did not.

But frankly, we do not know whether these moderates - or even the supposedly partisan candidates they ran against - will actually govern as expected if they win. In most cases, we have little to go on but the language of their campaigns. This uncertainty is especially pronounced when the comparison is between two candidates of the same party, where the ideological distinctions probably will be quite fine.

The impact of the reforms will continue to play out as we approach the November election. The "top two" primary has extended several intra-party factional battles to the fall election, like the high-profile fight between Democratic Reps. Howard Berman and Brad Sherman in the San Fernando Valley. Yet in most seats, these fights are over, and attention now turns to the struggle between the two major parties.

In the Legislature, Democrats need two additional seats in each chamber to reach a two-thirds majority - which would allow them to pass tax increases without Republican votes - and the redistricting has made that outcome more likely, though by no means guaranteed. It has also left many incumbents in uncomfortable territory where their name recognition might be less valuable.

In recent years, the primary electorate has been somewhat more Republican than the one in the general election. If that trend holds in the fall, the dynamics of some races probably will change. Some seats that looked out of range for the Democrats based on the primary result probably will be more competitive.

Regardless of the outcome, the fall campaign will continue California's grand experiment in election reform. The stakes are high, and the whole country is watching.