Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

S 1106MBS

Authors

S 1106MBS

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3742 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(13) "S_1106MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "995576" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(103952) "NOVEMBER 2006 The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns: California in the global economy; demography; education; employment and income; environment, growth, and infrastructure; government and public finance; health and social policy; immigrants and immigration; key sectors in the California economy; and political participation. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens—William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller—recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political candidates for public office. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Thomas C. Sutton is Chair of the Board of Directors. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 phone: 415.291.4400 fax: 415.291.4401 www.ppic.org survey@ppic.org TABLE OF CONTENTS About the Survey Press Release State Political Context November General Election Californians and the Future Regional Map Methodology Questionnaire and Results 1 3 7 15 23 30 31 33 ABOUT THE SURVEY The PPIC Statewide Survey series provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with objective, advocacy-free information on the perceptions, opinions, and public policy preferences of California residents. Inaugurated in April 1998, this is the 73rd PPIC Statewide Survey in a series that has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 152,000 Californians. The current survey is the fourth in a series on the topic of “Californians and the Future,” supported by funding from The James Irvine Foundation. California has 37 million residents today and is expected to add about 10 million more people over the next 20 years, according to the Department of Finance. On November 7th, California voters made important decisions about the state’s future in a statewide election that involved the selection of a governor and members of other executive branch offices, 100 members of the California Legislature, one U.S. senator, and 53 members of the House of Representatives. The state ballot also presented the voters with 13 state propositions on various topics. This ballot included five state bond measures, placed there through the legislative and initiative process and totaling about $43 billion, for surface transportation, education facilities, water and flood controls, affordable housing, and water and parks. The voters passed all five of the bond measures, and rejected all four of the citizens’ initiatives that involved tax and spending increases in other areas. The four election surveys we conducted before and after November 7th are designed to provide information on Californians’ attitudes towards the future, their perceptions of the November election, their support for the state bond measures, and the role of trust in government in shaping ballot choices and attitudes towards the future. This survey series seeks to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussion about the state’s future, current governance and fiscal systems, and various proposals for governance and fiscal reform. The November 7th election provided a unique opportunity to observe how voters view, react to, and approach information-gathering and making ballot choices involving California’s future. This report presents the responses of 2,000 election voters throughout the state on a wide range of issues: „ The state political context, including the overall mood of the electorate, approval ratings of Governor Schwarzenegger and the state legislature, distrust in state government, confidence in ballot-box policymaking by California voters and in policymaking by their state elected representatives, and attitudes about participating in the November 7th election. „ The November 7th election, including interest levels, information sources, and reasons for vote choices on Proposition 1B (transportation), Proposition 1C (affordable housing), Proposition 1D (education facilities), and Proposition 1E (flood controls). We also asked the voters if they thought that the level of state funding that is now available is enough to prepare for the future. „ Californians and the future, including perceptions of the future, the perceived effects of the passage of the infrastructure bonds, opinions of the initiative process, perceptions of the state propositions on the November 7th ballot, and support for initiative and campaign reforms. „ The extent to which voters differ in their perceptions, attitudes, and policy preferences, based on party affiliation, demographics, race/ethnicity, and region of residence. Copies of this report may be ordered online (www.ppic.org) or by phone (415-291-4400). For questions about the survey, please contact survey@ppic.org. 1 PRESS RELEASE Para ver este comunicado de prensa en español, por favor visite nuestra página de internet: http://www.ppic.org/main/pressreleaseindex.asp SURVEY ON CALIFORNIANS AND THE FUTURE What a Difference a Year Makes: Optimistic Voters Take Leap of Faith, Have High Hopes for Bipartisanship in Sacramento BUT VOTERS STILL WARY OF GOVERNMENT, NERVOUS ABOUT STATE’S FUTURE SAN FRANCISCO, California, December 6, 2006 — One year ago, angry voters delivered a vote of no confidence to Sacramento, rejecting the governor’s political reform package and condemning the performance of state leaders. But last month, optimistic voters carried the day, approving the largest bond package in state history and raising their ratings of those same elected leaders. Why the attitude adjustment? Recent bipartisan action in Sacramento and deep concern about California’s future were key factors in November’s election outcome, according to a post-election survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), with funding from The James Irvine Foundation. The new survey – which polled 2,000 voters in the 12 days following the election – finds that, by a wide margin, voters were more likely to say that November’s election made them feel better about California politics (30% to 14%), although for 54 percent it made no difference. That is a long and large difference from PPIC’s 2005 post-election survey when 38 percent of voters said the special election made them feel worse and only 21 percent said that it made them feel better about state politics. The bipartisan nature of this election’s infrastructure bond package may have contributed to voters’ positive feelings about the election. After a year in which Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state legislature shared a number of major legislative accomplishments, including passage of the bonds, voters give them an enthusiastic thumbs up: A majority (53%) approve of the way that the governor and the legislature are working together. A year ago, 76 percent disapproved of their working relationship. This sea change has helped reverse the political fortunes of state leaders, most notably Governor Schwarzenegger, who won reelection by a wide margin. Sixty percent of general election voters approve of his performance in office, a 21-point improvement over his approval rating one year ago (39%). Although only 36 percent approve of the state legislature’s job performance, this is significantly higher than it was following the 2005 special election (20%). Besides better feelings about politics and leadership, voters apparently brought something else with them to the polls on November 7th that may help explain the ultimate outcome – a good mood. About half (53%) say that things in the state are generally going in the right direction, compared to only 23 percent one year ago. And about a half (51%) expect good economic times in the coming year. A year ago, only 35 percent predicted good economic times. But this heady atmosphere should not make state leaders complacent. “Voters are happy, but not satisfied,” says PPIC survey director Mark Baldassare. “Their expectations are extremely high, especially when it comes to getting the job done in Sacramento. If state leaders cannot sustain a bipartisan atmosphere – or if the economy lags – voters could be quick to turn on them.” Fifty-eight percent of voters – including majorities of Democrats (56%), Republicans (62%), and independents (62%) – expect that the governor and legislature will be able to work together and accomplish a lot in the next year. Adding to the challenge, voters have only a little more faith in state government than they had a year ago. Only 28 percent say they can trust officials in Sacramento to do what is right just about always (3%) or 3 Californians and the Future most of the time (25%), compared to 17 percent in November 2005. Sixty-eight percent say the state government is run by a few big interests, down from 78 percent one year ago. And a majority (57%) believe state government wastes a lot of their tax dollars, similar to the response one year ago (61%). CONCERN ABOUT CALIFORNIA’S FUTURE DRIVES SUPPORT FOR BONDS Before the election, it was very uncertain how voters would respond to the massive $37.3 billion infrastructure bonds package. In pre-election surveys, six in 10 likely voters said that it was a good idea to issue state bonds to pay for public works projects. Nevertheless, six in 10 also said that the amount of money for bonds on this ballot was too much. Still, when push came to shove on November 7th, voters not only passed the bond package, they seemed happy doing it. Sixty-one percent of general election voters say it was a good idea for the governor and legislature to place the bond package on the ballot. Six in 10 voters also say they were at least somewhat happy about voting on all 13 ballot propositions. But voter interest in ballot measures did not translate into passage on Election Day. Proposition 87 (energy/oil tax) generated the greatest interest among voters (21%) but lost, while all four of the infrastructure bonds combined were cited as most interesting by only 14 percent of voters. So why did the vote go the way it did for the four bond measures? A common thread: Concern about the future. ƒ Proposition 1B ($19.9 billion transportation bond): Top reasons for voting yes: belief that the measure is important for the future of the state, belief that roads are in need of repair, and concern about traffic congestion. Majorities of Democrats (69%), Republicans (54%), and independents (63%) voted in favor of Proposition 1B. Those who approve of the job performance of the governor and state legislature strongly supported this measure (70%). ƒ Proposition 1C ($2.85 billion affordable housing bond): Top reasons for voting yes: it helps people in need, it is important for California’s future, the cost of housing is too high, and emergency shelters are needed. Seven in 10 Democrats (69%) and nearly six in 10 independents (57%) supported this measure, while 60 percent of Republicans opposed it. Support was higher among Latinos than whites (67% to 54%) and among renters than homeowners (75% to 51%). ƒ Proposition 1D ($10.4 billion education facilities bond): Top reasons for voting yes: belief that it is important to the future of the state, belief in always supporting education, and belief that schools are too crowded. Most Democrats (71%) and 57 percent of independents voted yes on this measure, while 59 percent of Republicans voted no. Seventy-four percent of Angelides voters – compared to 49 percent of Schwarzenegger voters – supported it. „ Proposition 1E ($4.1 billion water and flood control bond): Top reasons for voting yes: flood control and disaster preparedness are important, the measure is important to California’s future, and the state’s levees and dikes need repair. Democrats (74%), Republicans (54%), and independents (61%) united in support of this proposition. Women were more likely than men to have voted yes (67% to 60%). Seventy-four percent of those who approve of the legislature and 65 percent of those who approve of Governor Schwarzenegger voted yes on Proposition 1E. Despite the billions in bonds, many general election voters believe that the state needs to invest more in infrastructure to prepare for the future. Significant proportions of voters think that the levels of state funding for surface transportation (47%), affordable housing (53%), school facilities (50%), and water systems and flood controls (39%) are still not adequate. “California voters view these bonds as a down payment rather than mission accomplished,” says Baldassare. “Because they are so concerned about the future, they were willing to take a leap of faith that state government will do the right thing with this investment. They will be watching to see if this faith is justified or if state government deserves the distrust so many of them still feel.” So far, voters are not convinced that the bond package will make a big difference in the future direction of the state. Although one in three voters (34%) say they feel more optimistic after the passage of the 4 PPIC Statewide Survey Press Release bonds, half (51%) say they feel about the same about California’s future, and 14 percent are more pessimistic. A majority of voters continue to believe that the state will be a worse place to live in 2025 than it is today (51%) and that the anticipated population growth of 10 million residents over the next two decades is a bad thing (60%). One reason for the pessimism? The lack of confidence in government’s ability to plan for the future: Only 7 percent of general election voters have a great deal of confidence in that ability, while 46 percent have only some confidence. Among those with little or no trust in state government’s ability to plan, 70 percent think the state’s population increase is a bad thing. One bright spot: Voters are optimistic about Governor Schwarzenegger’s plans and policies for the state’s future (56% approve, 32% disapprove). VOTERS REMAIN OPEN TO INITIATIVE PROCESS REFORMS Despite the fact that 47 percent of general election voters say they have not too much confidence or none at all in their fellow voters’ ability to make policy at the ballot box, the initiative process remains extremely popular. Indeed, more voters today than after the special election one year ago say they are satisfied with that process (69% to 53%). Still, a strong majority (67%) believes that major (35%) or minor (32%) changes need to be made. Some specific criticisms of recent initiatives: Ballot wording was complicated and confusing (63%), there were too many initiatives on the ballot (60%), and too much money was spent to finance the campaigns (78%). Given these concerns, what reforms are voters willing to support? Strong majorities of general election voters support allowing for a period of time in which the initiative sponsor and the legislature could meet to attempt to forge a compromise (80%). And, on the heels of an election in which vast sums were spent to finance initiative campaigns, a huge majority (84%) favor increasing public disclosure of funding sources for initiative campaign and signature-gathering efforts. MORE KEY FINDINGS ƒ Immigration top issue for voters — Page 8 Voters in November’s election rank immigration (20%) as the most important issue facing the state, followed by the economy (14%) and education (13%). ƒ Voters did not view bonds as a package deal — Page 17 Many voters were selective in their voting when it came to the infrastructure bond measures. Fewer than three in 10 (28%) say they voted yes on all of the bond measures and only 15 percent voted no on all bonds. ƒ Internet a major source of election information — Page 21 More than one-third of voters (35%) say they got election information from the Internet this fall. However, when asked what was most helpful in deciding how to vote on state propositions, voters named more traditional sources of political information. The official voter information guide and sample ballot (42%) were viewed as most helpful, followed by advertisements (17%) and news coverage (11%). ƒ Moderates key to Schwarzenegger victory — Page 22 Self-described moderate voters supported Governor Schwarzenegger over challenger Phil Angelides by a double-digit margin (57% to 39%). Schwarzenegger also enjoyed majority support among both men and women (59% and 54%, respectively), and was helped by the backing of 30 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of independents. ƒ Public funding for campaigns losing steam… — Page 29 Voter support for a system in which taxpayers would help pay for state and legislative campaigns has declined sharply in the past four years, from 57 percent in November 2002 to 38 percent today. November 2006 5 Californians and the Future „ … But voters warming to idea of required debates — Page 29 Sixty-seven percent of voters say they would support an initiative that required gubernatorial candidates to participate in five prime-time publicly broadcasted debates. That is much higher than the 56 percent of likely voters who favored this idea in November 2002. ABOUT THE SURVEY This edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey – a post-election survey about Californians and the future – is the final in a series of four surveys supported by funding from The James Irvine Foundation. This survey is intended to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussions about Californians’ attitudes toward the future and the November 2006 election. Findings are based on a telephone survey of 2,000 California voters in the November 7th election interviewed between November 8 and November 19, 2006. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. For more information on methodology, see page 31. Mark Baldassare is research director at PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has directed since 1998. PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to improving public policy through objective, nonpartisan research on the economic, social, and political issues that affect Californians. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. This report will appear on PPIC’s website (www.ppic.org) after 10 p.m. on December 6. 6 PPIC Statewide Survey STATE POLITICAL CONTEXT KEY FINDINGS „ Majorities of voters in the November election say the state is headed in the right direction. Six in 10 express approval overall for the way the governor is handling his job; similar proportions are optimistic that the governor and legislature can work together in the next year. (pages 8, 9) „ A majority of voters approve of the way the governor and legislature are working together, yet about half disapprove of both the legislature’s overall job performance and the job they are doing in planning for the future. Still, legislative approval ratings show improvement. (page 10) „ Distrust in state government is high, despite higher approval ratings for state elected officials, and over six in 10 voters who voted for Governor Schwarzenegger say they distrust state government. (page 11) „ When it comes to making public policy, voters have the same level of confidence in the state’s voters at the ballot box as they do in the state’s elected officials. (page 12) „ In a sharp reversal from the 2005 special election, six in 10 voters feel happy about voting on the November ballot measures, and voters are more likely to feel better about California politics as a result of this year’s election. (page 13) Approval of How the Governor Is Handling Plans and Policies for California's Future 12 32 56 General election voters Approve Disapprove Don't know Approval of the Way the Governor and Legislature Are Working Together 80 Approve Disapprove 60 53 52 55 53 40 36 35 34 38 Percent general election voters 20 0 All voters Dem Rep Ind 7 Californians and the Future OVERALL MOOD The majority of California voters who participated in the November 7th election are upbeat about the state of the state. About half (53%) say that things in the state are generally going in the right direction, while about four in 10 (39%) say they are going in the wrong direction. Majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents say that the state is headed in the right direction, and half or more across all regions agree. The mood this fall is in stark contrast to a year ago, when 68 percent of voters in our post-election survey said that things in California were going in the wrong direction, and only 23 percent said things were going in the right direction. At that time, negative perceptions were found across major political parties, state regions, and demographic groups. “Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction?” Right direction Wrong direction Don’t know General Election Voters 53% 39% 8% Democrat 51 38 11 Party Republican 55 37 8 Independent 57 39 4 Central Valley 55 37 8 Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 50 50 41 9 40 10 Other Southern California 55 37 8 In another sign of optimism, half (51%) expect good economic times in the next year, including 62 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of both Democrats and independents. Of those who voted for Schwarzenegger, 62 percent think the state is on the right path and 62 percent expect good economic times. A year ago, 50 percent of voters predicted bad economic times. Voters in November’s election rank immigration (20%) as the most important issue facing the people of California today, followed by the economy (14%) and education (13%). Fewer than one in ten voters mention health care (7%) or the state budget and taxes (7%), while transportation, housing, and water and flood controls are named even more rarely. Immigration is mentioned much more often by Republicans than Democrats and independents, and more frequently in Southern California than in the San Francisco Bay Area and the Central Valley. The economy and education were the most important issues for voters after the 2005 special election. “What do you think is the most important issue facing people in California today?” Top 5 issues mentioned Immigration, illegal immigration Jobs, economy Education, schools Health care, State budget, health costs deficit, taxes General Election Voters 20% 14% 13% 7% 7% Democrat 11 15 15 10 5 Party Republican 32 13 9 39 Independent 21 18 13 7 7 Central Valley 14 16 12 5 9 San Francisco Bay Area 11 16 18 10 8 Region Los Angeles 24 15 13 6 4 Other Southern California 31 11 10 5 6 8 PPIC Statewide Survey State Political Context GOVERNOR’S APPROVAL RATINGS Six in 10 voters who went to the polls in November approve of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s job performance, while just one in three voters disapprove. His current ratings reflect an 8-point increase from his approval level among likely voters in October (52%) and a 21-point improvement over his job ratings in the 2005 post-election survey (39%). Among voters today, about eight in 10 Republicans have a positive opinion of the governor, compared to about six in 10 independents, while Democrats are divided. Half or more approve of the governor across age, education, gender, and income groups, and across regions. The governor receives less favorable marks from Latinos (44% approve) than whites (67% approve). “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California?” Approve Disapprove Don’t know General Election Voters 60% 32% 8% Democrat 45 47 8 Party Republican 82 13 5 Independent 61 31 8 Central Valley 66 25 9 San Francisco Bay Area 54 39 7 Region Los Angeles 51 41 8 Other Southern California 69 23 8 Governor Schwarzenegger receives ratings that are almost as high as his overall job performance scores when voters are asked to rate his performance in making plans and policies for the state’s future (56% approve, 32% disapprove, 12% don’t know), with more voters approving than disapproving across age, education, gender, and income groups, and regions of the state. Nearly six in 10 voters (58%) are optimistic that the governor and legislature will be able to work together in the next legislative session. In a year in which the governor and legislature reached agreement on several bills and placed an infrastructure spending package on the November ballot, majorities of voters across political parties, regions of the state, and demographic groups now expect to see the governor and legislature accomplishing a lot together. Expectations for working together were lower among likely voters in January (41%) and March (31%). Of those who voted for Schwarzenegger, 69 percent think the governor and legislature will accomplish a lot in 2007. “Do you think that Governor Schwarzenegger and the state legislature will be able to work together and accomplish a lot in the next year or not?” Yes No Don’t know General Election Voters Democrat Party Republican Independent Central Valley Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California 58% 56 62 62 56 56 57 60 31% 11% 34 10 27 11 31 7 33 11 33 11 34 9 27 13 November 2006 9 Californians and the Future LEGISLATURE’S APPROVAL RATINGS The state legislature receives much lower job performance ratings than the governor does from November’s voters (36% approve, 49% disapprove). Still, voters are much more generous in their evaluations of the state’s legislative body now than were the likely voters in our October survey (26% approve) or the voters in the 2005 post-election survey (20% approve). Today, 43 percent of Democrats give the legislature favorable marks overall, compared to 37 percent of independents and 29 percent of Republicans. The legislature has more favorable job approval ratings from Latinos (45%) than whites (35%), and among renters (42%) than homeowners (35%). “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling its job?” Approve Disapprove Don’t know General Election Voters Democrat Party Republican Independent Central Valley Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California 36% 43 29 37 33 36 38 38 49% 15% 41 16 58 13 51 12 54 13 46 18 47 15 48 14 Voters’ opinions of the way that the legislature is handling plans and policies for the state’s future closely mirror their overall ratings of its performance. Trends for this specific rating are similar to those for the overall ratings, across political and demographic groups, and state regions. Ratings for future planning are higher now than in August (23% approve). “Overall, from what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling plans and policies for California’s future?” Approve Disapprove Don’t know General Election Voters Democrat Party Republican Independent Central Valley Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California 33% 40 27 33 29 34 36 34 49% 18% 41 19 57 16 53 14 56 15 46 20 46 18 48 18 A majority of voters (53%) approve of the way that the governor and legislature are working together. By contrast, in the 2005 post-election survey 14 percent approved and 76 percent disapproved of how they worked together. Today, majorities of Democratic, Republican, and independent voters express this positive view of the governor and legislature. About half or more of the voters across age, education, income, regional, and race/ethnic groups hold this view. Of those who voted for Schwarzenegger, 61 percent approve of the way that the governor and legislature are now working together. 10 PPIC Statewide Survey State Political Context TRUST IN STATE GOVERNMENT The voters who went to the polls in November continued a long-term trend of expressing little faith in state government, despite the rising approval ratings and improving expectations for elected officials in Sacramento. Only 28 percent say they can trust officials in Sacramento to do what is right just about always (3%) or most of the time (25%), while seven in 10 voters have this trust only some or none of the time. Still, this shows an increase in confidence from the low levels found in the 2005 post-election survey (17%) and our August survey (23%). Today, about three in 10 Democrats, Republicans, and independents say that the government in Sacramento can be trusted either always or most of the time. Latinos (37%) are more likely than whites (28%) to express this level of confidence. Trust in state government is somewhat higher in Los Angeles and the Other Southern California region than it is elsewhere, and among lowerincome and less-educated voters than upper-income and college-educated voters. “Next, how much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Sacramento to do what is right?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Just about always Most of the time Only some of the time None of the time (volunteered) Don’t know 3% 25 66 4 2 4% 24 68 3 1 3% 28 63 6 0 Ind 1% 26 69 3 1 Nearly seven in 10 voters in the November election say that the state government is run by a few big interests. Still, this marks a decrease from the 78 percent of voters in the 2005 post-election survey and the 73 percent of likely voters in our August survey who expressed this perception. Today, solid majorities of voters---across political and demographic groups, state regions, and whites (67%) and Latinos (69%)---believe that state government is run by a few big interests. “Would you say the state government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, or that it is run for the benefit of all of the people?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind A few big interests 68% 70% 63% 73% Benefit of all people 23 22 26 19 Don’t know 9 8 11 8 Nearly six in 10 voters believe the state government is wasting a lot of the money they pay in taxes, which is similar to the response in our 2005 post-election survey (61%) and among the likely voters in our August survey (61%). Today, Republicans (64%) and independents (57%) hold this view more so than Democrats (51%), and half or more across regions and demographic groups, and Latinos (61%) and whites (56%), also hold this view. Of those who voted for Schwarzenegger, majorities lack trust in state government: 64 percent say they can trust the state government only some or none of the time, 60 percent believe the state government is run by a few big interests, and 60 percent think the state government wastes a lot of taxpayer money. November 2006 11 Californians and the Future CONFIDENCE IN POLICYMAKING California voters were divided when asked how much they trust the state’s elected officials in making public policy. Half (52%) say they trust them a great deal or fair amount, while almost as many (46%) say not too much or not at all. Still, confidence in this area has improved since the post-election surveys of voters in November 2005 (41%) and November 2004 (48%). Today, a solid majority of Democrats and about half of Republicans and independents say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in policymaking by the state’s elected officials. Half or more voters in the state’s regional, age, and income groups hold this view, as do 55 percent of whites and 48 percent of Latinos. Of those voting for Schwarzenegger, 57 percent say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in the state’s elected officials when it comes to making public policy. “In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the state’s elected officials when it comes to making public policy?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind A great deal 3% 4% 3% 3% A fair amount 49 53 49 44 Not too much 37 35 36 45 None at all 9 7 10 8 Don’t know 2 1 2 0 Californians are similarly divided when asked how much confidence they have in their fellow voters when making policy at the ballot box: 52 percent have a great deal or fair amount of confidence, while 47 percent say they have not too much or no confidence. Opinions today are similar to the 2005 post-election survey (50% great deal or fair amount) and the 2004 post-election survey (55% great deal or fair amount). Fifty-seven percent of Democrats say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in California’s voters, while about half of Republicans (47%) and independents (49%) say they have these levels of confidence in the voters. About half or more across all regional, age, education, gender, income, and homeownership groups, and 49 percent of Latinos and 51 percent of whites, express at least a fair amount of confidence in voters in making public policy at the ballot box. Of those who voted for Schwarzenegger, 53 percent say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in voters when it comes to making public policy. “How much trust and confidence do you have in California’s voters when it comes to making public policy at the ballot box?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind A great deal A fair amount Not too much None at all Don’t know 11% 13% 41 44 37 34 10 8 11 8% 39 41 11 1 10% 39 37 12 2 12 PPIC Statewide Survey State Political Context VOTING IN THE ELECTION How did California voters feel about having to vote on the 13 state propositions on the November ballot? Six in 10 voters feel happy about having voted (18% very, 42% somewhat), while one in three feel unhappy (10% very, 25% somewhat). By comparison, our 2005 post-election survey found that only 46 percent of voters were happy while 51 percent were unhappy about having to vote in the special election. About six in 10 Republicans (63%), independents (63%), and Democrats (58%) are happy about having to vote on the 13 state propositions this year, and independents are the most likely to say they are very happy. Solid majorities across all regions and demographic groups are happy about voting on the November ballot measures, including 63 percent of Latinos and 60 percent of whites. Of those voting for Schwarzenegger, 63 percent are either very happy or somewhat happy about having to vote on the 13 state propositions. “Overall, how did you feel about having to vote on the 13 propositions in the November 7th general election?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Very happy Somewhat happy Somewhat unhappy Very unhappy Neither (volunteered) Don’t know 18% 42 25 10 2 3 18% 40 27 11 2 2 16% 47 23 10 2 2 Ind 26% 37 23 9 2 3 Voters are more likely to say that November’s election made them feel better about California politics (30% to 14%), although for 54 percent it made no difference. By comparison, in our 2005 post-election survey, 38 percent of California voters said the special election made them feel worse about California politics and only 21 percent said that it made them feel better. Democrats (36%) and independents (37%) are more likely than Republicans (22%) to say that the November election made them feel better about state politics. Across regions and demographic groups, more voters say the election made them feel better. Latinos (40%) are more likely than whites (29%) to say they feel better about California politics as a result of the election. Among those who voted for Schwarzenegger, 31 percent say that the election made them feel better about state politics, 16 percent say it made them feel worse, and 51 percent say they feel no different. “Overall, would you say the November 7th general election has made you feel better, worse, or no different about California politics?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Better Worse No different Don’t know 30% 36% 22% 37% 14 9 20 12 54 53 56 51 22 2 0 November 2006 13 NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION KEY FINDINGS „ Six in 10 voters agree that the package of four infrastructure bonds placed on the ballot by the governor and legislature was a good idea, but just 14 percent mention the bonds as the state propositions that interested them most. (page 16) „ Majorities of voters who supported each of the infrastructure bonds also approve of the job performance of the governor and legislature. Many voters cite the future of California as one of the reasons they voted for the bonds. (pages 17-20) „ Despite passage of the four bond measures, many voters still believe there is not enough funding for transportation, affordable housing, school facilities, and water and flood controls to prepare for the state’s future. (pages 17-20) „ Nearly eight in 10 voters were closely following news about the state propositions, and four in 10 turned to the state voter information guide to make decisions. Many young, college educated, and upper-income voters used the Internet for election information. (page 21) „ Governor Schwarzenegger won reelection with the overwhelming support of GOP and conservative voters, and with solid backing from moderates and independents, men and women, and voters with positive perceptions of the state. (page 22) Transportation Housing Infrastructure Bonds Package 6 2 31 61 General election voters Good idea Bad Idea Neither (vol) Don't know After Passage of Bonds, Percent Saying the Level of Funding Is Not Enough 80 Percent general election voters 60 47 53 50 39 40 20 0 Disaster,Scflhooooldss 15 Californians and the Future VOTERS’ INTERESTS Before the election, a major uncertainty was how the voters would respond to the massive $37.3 billion package of four infrastructure bonds that the governor and legislature placed on the ballot. In our pre-election surveys, six in 10 likely voters said that it was a good idea to issue state bonds to pay for public works projects; however, six in 10 also said the amount of money for bonds on this ballot was too much. The four infrastructure bonds on the ballot (1B, 1C, 1D, 1E) each passed by comfortable margins. Today, six in 10 voters say it was a good idea for the governor and legislature to place the infrastructure bond package on the ballot. Majorities in all political groups, regions, and demographic groups hold this positive view. Of those who voted for Schwarzenegger, 61 percent think of the bond package as a good idea. “Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislature placed the infrastructure bonds package-–Propositions 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E—on the November 7th ballot for Californians to vote on transportation, affordable housing, schools, and flood control bonds. In general, do you think the infrastructure bonds package was a good idea or a bad idea?” Good idea Bad Idea Neither (vol) Don’t know General Election Voters Democrat Party Republican Independent Central Valley Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California 61% 67 53 64 61 64 62 59 31% 24 40 31 30 28 29 34 2% 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 6% 7 5 2 6 5 7 5 How interested were voters in the four infrastructure bond measures that received such positive reviews? When asked which of the 13 propositions interested them the most, about half mentioned either Proposition 87 (energy/oil tax 21%), Propositions 1B through 1E (infrastructure bonds 14%) and Proposition 85 (advance parental notification of a minor’s abortion 14%). Several other propositions on the ballot generated lower levels of voter interest, including Proposition 86 (cigarette tax 7%) and Proposition 83 (sex offender reform 5%). Post-election, voter interest in the four bond measures is about three times as high as it was in the pre-election surveys. While the proposition with the highest voter interest, the oil tax for alternative energy research, was defeated, all of the bond measures passed. “Which one of the 13 state propositions on the November 7th ballot were you most interested in?” Proposition 87 Propositions 1B to 1E Proposition 85 Proposition 86 Proposition 83 General Election Voters 21% 14% 14% 7% 5% Democrat 26 14 12 7 3 Party Republican 15 14 19 8 7 Independent 24 14 12 6 5 Central Valley 14 18 16 5 6 San Francisco Bay Area 28 12 12 Region Los Angeles 22 14 14 7 7 2 6 Other Southern California 21 13 14 8 8 16 PPIC Statewide Survey November General Election INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS The governor and legislature placed a historic $37.3 billion bond package on the November ballot for funding of transportation, affordable housing, education facilities, and water and flood control projects. All four of the measures passed, with support ranging from 57 to 64 percent. Did voters view these bonds as a package or as individual measures? Many voters were selective: Fewer than three in 10 say they voted yes on all of the bond measures and only 15 percent voted no on all of the bonds. PROPOSITION 1B: SURFACE TRANSPORTATION Proposition 1B, the “Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006,” authorizing nearly $20 billion in funding, was approved by a 22-point margin (61% yes, 39% no). Why did people vote this way? Among those who voted yes, the top reasons mentioned are that this bond measure is important to the future of California, that the roads need to be fixed, and that traffic is a problem. Those who voted no state that the bond amount was excessive, that the state wastes too much money, that the state’s bond indebtedness is too great already, that the bond measure is not the solution to transportation problems, and that they vote no on all bonds. Proposition 1B was supported by more Democrats (69%) and independents (63%) than Republicans (54%). Those who approve of the job performance of the governor and legislature strongly supported the transportation bond measure. Of those who voted to re-elect Governor Schwarzenegger, 60 percent voted yes on Proposition 1B. Latinos were more in favor of Proposition 1B than whites (71% to 62%), while majority support for the measure was found across age, education, gender, and income groups. “Proposition 1B was called the ‘Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006’ for $19,925,000,000 in state bonds. Did you vote yes or no on this measure?” Dem Party Rep Governor Legislature approval approval Ind Voted yes Voted no 69% 54% 63% 65% 74% 31 46 37 35 26 Even after the passage of Proposition 1B, nearly half of all voters (47%) think that the level of state funding for surface transportation is still not enough to prepare for the future. Eleven percent of voters think that the level of funding is more than enough, and one in four state that it is just enough. Nearly half of the voters who voted both for and against Proposition 1B think there is not enough transportation funding to prepare for the future. Forty percent or more across regions, parties, and demographic groups believe that the level of funding for surface transportation is not enough. “As you may know, Proposition 1B passed. Do you think that the level of state funding for surface transportation that is available now will be more than enough, just enough, or not enough to prepare for the future?” General Election Voters Proposition 1B Yes No More than enough Just enough Not enough Don’t know 11% 7% 18% 25 30 21 47 49 46 17 14 15 November 2006 17 Californians and the Future PROPOSITION 1C: AFFORDABLE HOUSING Proposition 1C, the “Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006,” authorizing almost $3 billion in funding was approved by voters by a 16-point margin (58% yes, 42% no). The top reasons given for voting yes on this measure are that it addresses a good cause that helps people in need, that the measure is important to the future of California, that the cost of housing is too high, and that emergency shelters are needed. The main reasons given for voting no are that the bond amount is too large, that the state wastes too much money already, that this measure is not the solution to housing problems, and that these voters oppose all bonds. Support for Proposition 1C was impacted greatly by partisan affiliation. Seven in 10 Democrats (69%), and nearly six in 10 independents (57%) supported the measure, while 60 percent of Republicans opposed it. Majorities of voters who approve of the governor’s and legislature’s overall job performances voted yes on Proposition 1C. About seven in 10 Angelides voters supported Proposition 1C, compared to just 49 percent of those who voted for Schwarzenegger. Support was higher among women than men (60% to 53%), Latinos than whites (67% to 54%), renters than homeowners (75% to 51%), and among those earning less than $40,000 than those earning $80,000 or more (64% to 51%). “Proposition 1C was called the ‘Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006’ for $2,850,000,000 in state bonds. Did you vote yes or no on this measure?” Dem Party Rep Governor Legislature approval approval Ind Voted yes Voted no 69% 40% 57% 54% 68% 31 60 43 46 32 The majority of California voters (53%) think the level of state funding for affordable housing available now, after the passage of Proposition 1C, is still not enough to prepare for the future. One in three voters perceives available state funding as either just enough or more than enough. Republicans (22%) are the most likely to state that the level of funding is more than enough, while Democrats (59%) are the most likely to think that there is not enough funding to prepare for the future. The belief that the level of funding is not enough is lowest among residents of the Central Valley (47%) and greatest among residents of the San Francisco Bay Area (56%) and Los Angeles (55%). The belief that there is not enough funding is somewhat higher among renters than homeowners (58% to 52%). While 56 percent of those who voted yes on Proposition 1C believe the level of funding for affordable housing available now is not enough to prepare for the future, 49 percent of those who voted no on Proposition 1C also say that the amount of funding is not enough to prepare for the future. “As you may know Proposition 1C passed. Do you think that the level of state funding for affordable housing that is available now will be more than enough, just enough, or not enough to prepare for the future?” General Election Voters Proposition 1C Yes No More than enough Just enough Not enough Don’t know 14% 6% 27% 20 26 14 53 56 49 13 12 10 18 PPIC Statewide Survey November General Election PROPOSITION 1D: SCHOOL FACILITIES Of the four bonds, Proposition 1D, the “Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006,” authorizing about $10.4 billion in bond sales, received the least support from the voters. However, this measure still passed by a 14-point margin (57% yes, 43% no). Among yes voters, the main reasons given for supporting Proposition 1D are that it is important to the future of California, that they always support education, and that schools are too crowded. The main reasons given by those voting against 1D are that the state wastes too much money already, that the bond amount is too much, that the schools waste too much money, and that this measure is not the solution for the state’s school facility problems. Proposition 1D had the largest partisan divide in support for any of the four bond measures. Seven in 10 Democrats (71%) and nearly six in 10 independents (57%) voted yes on this measure, while six in 10 Republicans (59%) voted no. Latinos are more likely than whites to have voted yes (74% to 55%), and those under 35 are more likely than those 35 and older to have supported it (73% to 56%). Seventy-four percent of Angelides voters—compared to 49 percent of Schwarzenegger voters—voted yes on this bond measure. Still, 55 percent of those who approve of the governor and 71 percent of those who approve of the legislature voted yes on Proposition 1D. “Proposition 1D was called the ‘Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006’ for $10,416,000,000 in state bonds. Did you vote yes or no on this measure?” Dem Party Rep Governor Legislature approval approval Ind Voted yes Voted no 71% 41% 57% 55% 71% 29 59 43 45 29 Even though Proposition 1D passed, the belief that there is still not enough funding for school facilities is held by 50 percent of voters. Four in 10 believe that there is more than enough funding (16%) or just enough funding (25%). More than half of Democrats (54%) and independents (53%) think the level of funding for school facilities is not enough, while half of Republicans think the level of funding is just enough (25%) or more than enough (25%). Forty-four percent of those who approve of the governor, and 49 percent of those who approve of the legislature, believe that there is not enough funding for school facilities. Nearly six in 10 (58%) of those voting yes on Proposition 1D believe that the level of funding for school facilities is not enough to prepare for the future, while half of those who voted no on the measure think that level is more than enough (31%) or just enough (19%). “As you may know, Proposition 1D passed. Do you think that the level of state funding for school facilities that is available now will be more than enough, just enough, or not enough to prepare for the future?” General Election Voters Proposition 1D Yes No More than enough Just enough Not enough Don’t know 16% 6% 31% 25 30 19 50 58 42 9 68 November 2006 19 Californians and the Future PROPOSITION 1E: WATER AND FLOOD CONTROLS Proposition 1E, the “Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006,” enjoyed the highest level of support among the four bond measures placed on the ballot as part of the infrastructure package. The measure passed by 28 points (64% yes, 36% no). Why did Proposition 1E receive the largest amount of support? The top reasons for supporting this measure are that flood control and disaster preparedness are important, that the measure is important to the future of California, and that the state’s levees and dikes need repair. The main reasons for opposing it are that that state wastes too much money already, that the bond amount is excessive, that they vote no on all bonds, and that this measure is not the solution for these problems. The greatest support for Proposition 1E is found among Democrats (74%), followed by independents (61%), while Republicans are more divided (54% yes, 46% no). Women are more likely than men to have voted yes (67% to 60%), and renters more likely than homeowners to have supported Proposition 1E (69% to 62%). Among Schwarzenegger voters, 60 percent voted yes on Proposition 1E, while 73 percent of Angelides voters did. Seventy-four percent of those who approve of the legislature and 65 percent of those who approve of Governor Schwarzenegger voted yes on Proposition 1E. “Proposition 1E was called the ‘Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006’ for $4,090,000,000 in state bonds. Did you vote yes or no on this measure?” Dem Party Rep Governor Legislature approval approval Ind Voted yes Voted no 74% 54% 61% 65% 74% 26 46 39 35 26 Even after the passage of Proposition 1E, four in 10 California voters (39%) think that the current level of funding for water facilities and flood control is not enough to prepare for the future. Just under half say there is more than enough (15%) or just enough funds (32%). There are no major differences across parties, but regional differences are apparent, with Central Valley residents being the most likely to state there is not enough funding (46%) and residents of Los Angeles being the least likely (36%). The belief that there is not enough funding is similar among homeowners and renters, and Latinos and whites. Of those who voted yes or no on Proposition 1E, four in 10 say there is not enough funding. “As you may know Proposition 1E passed. Do you think that the level of state funding for water systems and flood controls that is available now will be more than enough, just enough, or not enough to prepare for the future?” General Election Voters Proposition 1E Yes No More than enough Just enough Not enough Don’t know 15% 8% 29% 32 38 22 39 41 39 14 13 10 20 PPIC Statewide Survey November General Election VOTER INFORMATION SOURCES Seventy-seven percent of voters in the November election were very closely (32%) or fairly closely (45%) following news about the 13 state propositions on the November 7th ballot. By contrast, 85 percent of voters were following news about the 2005 special election ballot very or fairly closely, with 44 percent of these very closely. Attention to election news this year was at more than 70 percent across parties, demographic groups, and regions. Those who voted by absentee ballot are as likely as those who voted at a local polling place to say they had closely watched the news about the state propositions (78% to 76%). “And regardless of how you voted, before deciding how to vote on the 13 state propositions, how closely were you following news about these measures?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Very closely 32% 31% 32% 33% Fairly closely 45 45 47 44 Not too closely 17 17 16 14 Not at all closely 5 5 5 8 Don’t know 1 2 0 1 Voters are most likely to name the official voter guide when asked for the information source that was most helpful in deciding how to vote on the state propositions. Democrats, Republicans, and independents are equally as likely to say the voter guide was their major source of information. Paid advertising ranked above news and media coverage, and 8 percent say that the Internet was most helpful to them. Independent voters are more likely than major party voters to name the Internet as the most helpful source in deciding how to vote. In a separate question, 35 percent of voters say they used the Internet for election information this fall. The largest users of the Internet for election information are voters under 35 (50%), those with incomes of $80,000 or more (46%), college graduates (42%), and San Francisco Bay Area voters (42%). “People learned about the ballot propositions a number of different ways. Which way did you find the most helpful in deciding how to vote on the 13 state propositions?” Top five sources mentioned General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Official voter information guide and sample ballot Advertisements— radio/television/newspaper/mail News and media coverage— radio/television/newspaper Internet Newspaper endorsements— columns/editorials 42% 40% 44% 43% 17 18 18 14 11 12 11 10 8 6 9 13 8879 Eight in 10 voters say they were very satisfied (34%) or somewhat satisfied (47%) with the amount of information available to make choices on the ballot propositions—consistent with the responses of voters in our post-election survey of 2005. Only 17 percent say they were not too satisfied (13%) or not at all satisfied (4%). Voters across party groups were similarly satisfied, and strong majorities of voters across regions and in all racial/ethnic and demographic categories report satisfaction with the amount of information available. November 2006 21 Californians and the Future GOVERNOR’S ELECTION In a “blue” state, how did GOP Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger manage to achieve victory over Democratic State Treasurer Phil Angelides by a 17-point margin (56% to 39%)? This post-election survey points to the same patterns of voter support that we found in three monthly pre-election surveys. Reflecting their strong partisan preferences in the governor’s race, nine in 10 Republicans voted for Schwarzenegger, while just 5 percent of GOP voters supported Angelides. By contrast, 66 percent of Democrats supported Angelides, but three in 10 said they voted for Schwarzenegger. Independents favored Schwarzenegger over Angelides by 19 points, 54 percent to 35 percent. Self-described liberal voters supported Angelides over Schwarzenegger by a wide margin (67% to 26%). However, Schwarzenegger easily won this election because he had solid majority support of moderate voters (57%) and he was the overwhelming favorite among conservative voters (80%). California elections often reflect a gender gap in which Republican candidates enjoy more support among men while Democratic candidates have more among women, but Schwarzenegger had majority support among both men and women. Schwarzenegger was also favored over Angelides across all education groups. Angelides had more support among voters under 35, while majorities of voters 35 and older favored Schwarzenegger. Union members favored Angelides, but nonunion households supported Schwarzenegger by a large margin. We noted earlier that the governor’s approval ratings increased significantly from a year ago, as have voters’ perceptions of the state’s direction and economy. Schwarzenegger won by large margins among the majority of voters who approve of his job performance in office, who perceive the state heading in the right direction, and who expect good economic times in the next year (62% to 26%). “For governor, did you happen to vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican, Phil Angelides, the Democrat, or someone else?” General Election Voters Arnold Schwarzenegger Phil Angelides Other Candidates General Election Results 56% 39% 5% Democrat 30 66 4 Party Republican 92 5 3 Independent 54 35 11 Liberal 26 67 7 Ideology Middle-of-the-road 57 39 4 Conservative 80 16 4 Gender Men Women 59 35 54 42 6 4 Race/Ethnicity Latinos Whites 34 61 63 33 5 4 Approve Governor’s job approval Disapprove 81 16 13 79 3 8 Direction of state Right direction Wrong direction 65 45 31 48 4 7 22 PPIC Statewide Survey CALIFORNIANS AND THE FUTURE KEY FINDINGS „ Six in 10 voters say that the population growth of 10 million people expected in California by 2025 is a bad thing for their families, and nearly half say they have very little or no confidence in the state government’s ability to plan for the future. (page 24) „ Half of California voters predict that the state will be a worse place to live in the future than it is today, with whites expressing more pessimism than Latinos. One in five believes that the state will be a better place in the future. (page 25) „ Most voters say the passage of the infrastructure bonds has not changed their views of California’s future. One in three is more optimistic about the future as a result of the election outcome, with Democrats more upbeat than Republicans in their future outlook. (page 25) „ Seven in 10 voters are at least somewhat satisfied with the way the initiative process is working. However, when asked about the fall ballot propositions, two in three think they were too confusing and that there were too many of them, while three in four say there was too much money spent on them. (pages 26, 27) „ Two in three voters would like to see changes in the initiative process. There is strong support for two initiative reforms: allowing time to reach a legislative compromise and increasing the public disclosure of funding. (pages 26, 28) „ Majorities are opposed to public funding for state and legislative campaigns. After a campaign which featured only one debate, a solid majority of voters support a proposal calling for a series of gubernatorial debates. (page 29) Confidence in State Government's Ability to Plan for the Future 17 14 46 32 General election voters A great deal Only some Very little None at all Don't know Percent general election voters Outlook on State's Future After Passage of Infrastructure Bonds More optimistic More pessimistic Feel about the same 100 80 34 41 26 35 60 14 8 21 13 40 51 20 50 52 51 0 All voters Dem Rep Ind 23 Californians and the Future PERCEPTIONS OF THE FUTURE California’s future population growth is a major concern of election voters, even in the wake of passing a massive infrastructure bond package on November 7th. With the state expected to gain about 10 million residents over the next two decades, reaching a population of 47 million by 2025, six in 10 voters view this rate of growth as a bad thing. Only 12 percent say the state’s population growth will have a good effect on themselves and their families. The views in this post-election survey echo those expressed by likely voters in our August survey (11% good thing, 62% bad thing). Majorities in all political groups say this level of growth is a bad thing (65% Republicans, 58% Democrats, 57% independents). About six in 10 voters across regions believe that the state’s future population growth will have negative consequences for themselves and their family. Whites (65%) are more negative than Latinos (47%) about the state’s population growth, although negative perceptions of future growth are evident across all age, education, gender, and income groups. “Between now and 2025, California’s population is estimated to increase by about 10 million people from 37 million to about 47 million. On balance, do you think this population growth is a good thing or a bad thing or does it make no difference to you and your family?” General Election Voters Central Valley Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California Good thing 12% 11% 12% 13% 11% Bad thing 60 57 58 60 63 No difference 23 30 24 20 21 Don’t know 5 2675 Confidence in the state government’s ability to plan for the state’s future and growth has not increased since the bonds passed in November. Today, only 7 percent of election voters have a great deal of confidence, while 46 percent have some confidence, and 46 percent have little or no confidence. In our August survey, likely voters expressed more confidence in the state’s planning abilities: 7 percent had a great deal of confidence, 53 percent had only some, and 40 percent expressed little or no confidence. Today, at least four in 10 voters across all regions and in every age, education, homeownership, income, and racial/ethnic category have very little or no faith in the state government’s ability to plan for growth. More than four in 10 in the major parties express little or no confidence, and a majority of independents (53%) hold this view. Confidence in government is related to pessimism about the future: Among those with little or no trust in the state government’s ability to plan, 70 percent think the state’s population increase is a bad thing. A great deal Only some Very little None at all Don’t know “How much confidence do you have in the state government’s ability to plan for the state’s future and growth?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep 7% 7% 7% 46 50 44 32 31 14 11 11 32 17 0 Ind 5% 40 39 14 2 24 PPIC Statewide Survey Californians and the Future PERCEPTIONS OF THE FUTURE (CONTINUED) A majority of voters (51%) believe the state will be a worse place to live in 2025 than it is now, while 20 percent think it will be a better place and 22 percent think there will be no change. In August, likely voters expressed similar views about the state’s future (51% worse, 21% better, 23% no change). Across the state’s regions, pessimism about the future is highest in the Central Valley (55% worse) and lowest in the San Francisco Bay Area (47% worse). The belief that the state will be a worse place to live in 2025 is greater among Republicans (57%) than among independents (51%) or Democrats (47%). Whites are more pessimistic than Latinos (55% to 43%) and homeowners are more pessimistic than renters (53% to 44%) about the state’s future. Majorities of voters age 35 and older, of those with incomes of $40,000 or more, and of those who have at least some college education are pessimistic about the future. Once again, attitudes towards government are related to future perceptions: Among those with little or no confidence in the state government’s ability to plan, 69 percent believe that California will be a worse place to live in 2025. “Overall, do you think that in 2025 California will be a better place to live than it is now or a worse place to live than it is now or there will be no change?” General Election Voters Central Valley Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California Better place 20% 17% 21% 21% 19% Worse place 51 55 47 52 52 No change 22 22 23 19 23 Don’t know 7 6986 We also asked general election voters specifically how the passage of $37.3 billion in state infrastructure bonds has affected their view of the state’s future. Half of voters (51%) say they feel about the same about the future as they did before the election, while 14 percent are more pessimistic in the wake of the election. One in three voters (34%) say they feel more optimistic after the passage of the bonds. Democrats (41%) are more optimistic than independents (35%) or Republicans (26%) as a result of the approval of the bonds, although most in all parties say they feel about the same. By region, voters in the San Francisco Bay Area (40%) and Los Angeles (37%) are more positive about the effect of the bonds’ passage than those in the Central Valley (33%) or the Other Southern California region (28%). Half or more in all age and income groups say this election outcome makes no difference. “In the November election, California voters passed the state infrastructure bonds for transportation, affordable housing, school facilities, and water and flood control bonds. Does this overall outcome make you more optimistic about the state’s future, more pessimistic, or do you feel about the same as you did before the election?” More optimistic General Election Voters 34% Central Valley 33% Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 40% 37% Other Southern California 28% More pessimistic 14 12 10 13 18 Feel about the same 51 54 48 49 53 Don’t know 1 1211 November 2006 25 Californians and the Future THE INITIATIVE PROCESS After facing a November ballot with 13 state propositions, seven in 10 voters say they are at least somewhat satisfied with the way the initiative process is working in California today, with two in 10 voters saying they are very satisfied. The proportion of voters who express satisfaction with the initiative process is the same now as it was among likely voters in our August survey (10% very satisfied, 61% somewhat satisfied). In comparing the election this year to the special election last year, more voters today say they are satisfied with the initiative process (69% to 53%) and fewer say they are not satisfied (27% to 44%). Across political groups, Democrats (32%) are more likely than independents (28%) and Republicans (20%) to say they are not satisfied. Voters in the San Francisco Bay Area are the least likely to say they are satisfied with the process (17% very satisfied, 44% somewhat satisfied) while voters in the Other Southern California region are the most likely to say they are satisfied (21% very satisfied, 55% somewhat satisfied). “Generally speaking, would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, or not satisfied with the way the initiative process is working in California today?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Very satisfied 19% 17% 22% 19% Somewhat satisfied 50 47 55 49 Not satisfied 27 32 20 28 Don’t know 4 4 3 4 Although most voters express satisfaction with the initiative process, 67 percent believe that major (35%) or minor (32%) changes need to be made. Our results after the election are similar to reports from likely voters before the election: 37 percent wanted major changes and 31 percent wanted minor changes. The perceived need for changing the initiative process was slightly higher among voters in the 2005 special election (38% major, 34% minor) than among voters in the general election this year. Strong majorities across political parties think major or minor changes are needed in the initiative process. Democrats (40%) and independents (37%) are more likely than Republicans (27%) to say major changes are needed. Across racial/ethnic groups, Latinos (43%) are more likely than whites (32%) to say major changes are needed. Among voters who say they are not satisfied with the initiative process, 75 percent say major changes are needed. “Do you think the citizens’ initiative process in California is in need of major changes or minor changes or that it is basically fine the way it is?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Major changes 35% 40% 27% 37% Minor changes 32 31 33 37 Fine the way it is 26 20 33 21 Don’t know 7 9 7 5 26 PPIC Statewide Survey Californians and the Future THE INITIATIVE PROCESS (CONTINUED) Voters may hold the initiative process in a positive light and express happiness overall about voting on the 13 propositions this year, but their opinions turn negative when asked about the particulars. A solid majority of voters (63%) agree strongly (33%) or somewhat (30%) that the wording of propositions on the November ballot was too complicated and confusing. Before the election, 79 percent of likely voters agreed with this point of view in our September survey. After the special election in 2005, fewer voters (55%) agreed that the ballot wording for the propositions was complicated and confusing. Across parties today, 66 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of Republicans, and 59 percent of independents agree that the ballot language of the propositions was complicated and confusing. Majorities of voters across age, education, income, and racial/ethnic groups agree with this statement. How did voters feel about the number of propositions on the state ballot after the election? Sixty percent strongly (35%) or somewhat agree (25%) that there were too many, which is similar to the 58 percent of likely voters who held this perspective in our September survey (29% strongly, 29% somewhat). By comparison, eight propositions may be more palatable – only 41 percent of voters in the November 2005 special election agreed that there were too many propositions on the state ballot. Today, solid majorities of voters in all political parties and regions and across all education, gender, income, and racial/ethnic groups agree that there were too many propositions on the November ballot. An overwhelming majority of voters (78%) also agrees that there was too much money spent by initiative campaigns, with over half (56%) strongly agreeing. Despite the fact that a record amount of money was spent by initiative campaigns this year – primarily on Propositions 86 (cigarette tax for health programs) and 87 (oil tax for alternative energy) – a slightly higher percentage of voters (83%) felt this way last year. There is broad consensus however, that too much money was spent this year, with at least 70 percent in all parties, regions, and demographic groups agreeing with this statement. Even among those who are very satisfied with the way the initiative process is working and among those who do not believe the process needs to be changed, seven in 10 agree that spending was too high this November. General Election Voters The wording of propositions on the state ballot was too complicated and confusing There were too many propositions on the state ballot There was too much money spent by the initiative campaigns Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know 33% 30 22 13 2 35 25 23 15 2 56 22 9 5 8 Dem 37% 29 20 12 2 40 25 21 13 1 58 20 9 5 8 Party Rep 31% 29 24 15 1 33 26 25 15 1 51 25 10 6 8 Ind 24% 35 28 13 0 30 27 19 20 4 62 21 8 5 4 November 2006 27 Californians and the Future INITIATIVE REFORMS Although voters express overall satisfaction with the initiative process, we found a high level of support for certain reforms. Eight in 10 voters favor having a period of time in which the initiative sponsor and the legislature could meet to discuss compromise solutions before an initiative is placed on the ballot. In our October survey, 75 percent of likely voters said they favored this idea. A similar high percentage of voters in last year’s special election (83%) voiced support for this reform. At least three in four voters across party lines favor having a period of time for the initiative sponsor and legislature to try to work out a compromise solution before initiatives go to the ballot. Democrats (84%) and independents (82%) are more likely than Republicans (76%) to support this reform, as are residents in the Central Valley (84%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (83%) compared to those in Los Angeles and the Other Southern California region (77% each). At least three in four voters across age, education, gender, income, homeownership, and racial/ethnic groups support this reform. Support is higher among those who believe the initiative process needs major (85%) or minor (84%) changes than among those who say it is fine the way it is (71%). “Would you favor or oppose having a period of time in which the initiative sponsor and the legislature could meet to see if there is a compromise solution before initiatives go to the ballot?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Favor 80% 84% 76% 82% Oppose 15 11 21 13 Don’t know 5 5 3 5 Reflecting their concern about campaign spending on initiatives, more than eight in 10 voters (84%) would also favor increasing public disclosure of funding sources for signature gathering and initiative campaigns. Support for this proposal was nearly identical among likely voters in our October survey (82%) and among voters in last year’s special election (85%). Although current support for this reform is high among Democrats (82%) and Republicans (86%), it is even higher among independents (90%). Across regions, at least eight in 10 voters in the San Francisco Bay Area (89%), Central Valley (85%), the Other Southern California region (83%), and Los Angeles (80%) favor increasing public disclosure of initiative funding sources. At least seven in 10 voters across all age, education, and income groups favor this idea. Support is higher among whites than Latinos (88% to 70%). Whether or not voters are satisfied with the way the initiative process is working, and whether or not they believe the process needs change, over eight in 10 favor increasing public disclosure of funding sources. Favor Oppose Don’t know “Would you favor or oppose increasing public disclosure of funding sources for signature gathering and initiative campaigns?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind 84% 82% 86% 90% 11 12 56 11 3 9 1 28 PPIC Statewide Survey Californians and the Future CAMPAIGN REFORMS Most voters stop short of supporting efforts to reform the state’s campaign finance system with their own money. In the wake of the defeat of Proposition 89 (public funding for campaigns), 55 percent of voters say they are opposed to creating a system in which taxpayers would help pay for state and legislative campaigns. Likely voters expressed similar views in September (53% opposed the idea). Voter support for this reform has declined sharply in the past four years. In our November 2002 survey, 57 percent of likely voters favored and 39 percent opposed this proposal. Today, Republicans (69%) are far more likely to oppose this idea than independents (50%) or Democrats (46%). While majorities of conservatives (69%) and moderates (55%) oppose this proposal, a majority of liberals (55%) favors the idea. Half of San Francisco Bay Area residents (50%) support the idea of public funding for campaigns, while majorities in all other regions oppose it. At least half of voters across age, education, gender, income, and racial/ethnic groups oppose this proposal for public funding of state campaigns. “Would you favor or oppose having a system of public funding for state and legislative campaigns in California if it cost each taxpayer a few dollars a year to run?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Favor 38% 47% 26% 44% Oppose 55 46 69 50 Don’t know 7 7 5 6 The gubernatorial election this year featured one Saturday evening debate between Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic State Treasurer Phil Angelides. In our post-election survey, a solid majority of voters (67%) expresses support for a hypothetical initiative that would require gubernatorial candidates to participate in five prime-time publicly broadcasted debates. Voter support for this proposal appears to be growing: Only 56 percent of likely voters favored this idea in our November 2002 survey. Today, independents (75%) are the most likely to favor this idea, although support is also high among Democrats (71%) and Republicans (60%). Liberals (75%) are more likely than moderates (66%) or conservatives (62%) to favor this proposal. At least six in 10 voters across all regions of the state favor having five prime-time debates between candidates for governor. Support is higher among voters under age 35 (77%) and those age 35 to 54 (73%) than among those age 55 and older (60%). Still, solid majorities across all education, gender, income, and racial/ethnic groups support this debate proposal. Those who voted for Schwarzenegger (63%) and Angelides (77%) in the November election both favor requiring more debates between the candidates for governor. “Would you favor or oppose an initiative that would require candidates for governor to participate in five prime-time publicly broadcasted debates?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Favor 67% 71% 60% 75% Oppose 28 24 35 22 Don’t know 5 5 5 3 November 2006 29 REGIONAL MAP 30 METHODOLOGY The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, research director and survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California, with assistance in research and writing from Dean Bonner, project manager for this survey, and survey research associates Jennifer Paluch and Sonja Petek. The survey was conducted with funding from The James Irvine Foundation and benefited from discussions with foundation staff, grantees, and state experts; however, the survey methods, questions, and content of the report were solely determined by Mark Baldassare. The findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,000 California voters in the November 7th election who were interviewed between November 8 and November 19, 2006. Interviewing took place mostly on weekday and weekend evenings, using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted numbers were called. All telephone exchanges in California were eligible for calling. Telephone numbers in the survey sample were called as many as six times to increase the likelihood of reaching eligible households. Once a household was reached, an adult respondent (age 18 or older) was randomly chosen for interviewing by using the “last birthday method” to avoid biases in age and gender. Eligible respondents were those who reported that they had voted in the November election either at their local polling place or by absentee ballot. Interviews took an average of 19 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English or Spanish. Accent on Languages translated the survey into Spanish with assistance from Renatta DeFever. Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. conducted the telephone interviewing. We used data from the PPIC Statewide Surveys, media exit polls, and voter statistics from the California Secretary of State to compare with the demographic characteristics of election voters in this survey sample. The survey sample of voters’ characteristics was comparable to the PPIC Statewide Survey statistics and other state figures. Statistical weighting of the data to account for any demographic differences did not significantly change any of the findings in this report. The sampling error for the total sample of 2,000 voters is +/- 2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 2 percentage points of what they would be if all voters in California were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject, and results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. Throughout the report, we refer to four geographic regions accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state’s population. “Central Valley” includes Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba Counties. “SF Bay Area” includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. “Los Angeles” refers to Los Angeles County, and “Other Southern California” includes the mostly suburban regions of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. Voters from other regions are included in the results reported for all voters; the sample sizes for these less populated areas are too small for separate analysis. We present specific results for Latino voters because Latinos account for about 30 percent of the state’s adult population and constitute one of the fastest growing voter groups. The sample sizes for African Americans and Asian Americans are not large enough for separate statistical analysis. We do compare the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The “independents” category includes those who are registered to vote as “decline to state.” To analyze time trends, we compare this survey’s responses to responses recorded in earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys of likely voters, and to election voters in our November 2004 and November 2005 surveys. 31 QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS CALIFORNIANS AND THE FUTURE November 8-19, 2006 2,000 California Voters in the November 7th Election English, Spanish MARGIN OF ERROR +/- 2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 1. First, thinking about the state as a whole, what do you think is the most important issue facing people in California today? [code, don’t read] 20% immigration, illegal immigration 14 jobs, economy 13 education, schools 7 health care, health costs 7 state budget, deficit, taxes 5 environment, pollution 3 crime, gangs, drugs 3 housing costs, housing availability 2 electricity costs, energy supply 2 gasoline prices 2 population growth, too much development, sprawl 2 traffic, transportation 14 other 6 don’t know 2. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? 60% approve 32 disapprove 8 don’t know 3. Overall, from what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling plans and policies for California’s future? 56% approve 32 disapprove 12 don’t know 4. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling its job? 36% approve 49 disapprove 15 don’t know 5. Overall, from what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling plans and policies for California’s future? 33% approve 49 disapprove 18 don’t know 6. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature and the governor are working together in making public policy? 53% approve 36 disapprove 11 don’t know 7. Do you think that Governor Schwarzenegger and the state legislature will be able to work together and accomplish a lot in the next year, or not? 58% yes, will be able to work together 31 no, will not be able to work together 11 don’t know 8. Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? 53% right direction 39 wrong direction 8 don’t know November 2006 33 Californians and the Future 9. Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times? 51% good times 36 bad times 13 don’t know 10.Next, how much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Sacramento to do what is right? 3% just about always 25 most of the time 66 only some of the time 4 none of the time (volunteered) 2 don’t know 11.Would you say the state government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, or that it is run for the benefit of all of the people? 68% a few big interests 23 benefit of all of the people 9 don’t know 12.Do you think the people in state government waste a lot of the money we pay in taxes, waste some of it, or don’t waste very much of it? 57% a lot 35 some 5 don’t waste very much 3 don’t know 13.In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the state’s elected officials when it comes to making public policy? 3% a great deal 49 a fair amount 37 not too much 9 none at all 2 don’t know 14.How much trust and confidence do you have in California’s voters when it comes to making public policy at the ballot box? 11% a great deal 41 a fair amount 37 not too much 10 none at all 1 don’t know Now, thinking about the November 7th election, the ballot included 13 state propositions, five measures placed on the ballot by the governor and legislature— Propositions 1A through 1E—and eight citizens’ initiatives—Propositions 83 through 90. 15.Overall, how did you feel about having to vote on the 13 propositions in the November 7th general election—would you say you were very happy, somewhat happy, somewhat unhappy, or very unhappy? 18% very happy 42 somewhat happy 25 somewhat unhappy 10 very unhappy 2 neither (volunteered) 3 don’t know 16.Overall, would you say the November 7th general election has made you feel better, worse, or no different about California politics? 30% better 14 worse 54 no different 2 don’t know 34 PPIC Statewide Survey 17.Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislature placed the infrastructure bonds package—Propositions 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E—on the November 7th ballot for Californians to vote on transportation, affordable housing, schools, and flood control bonds. In general, do you think the infrastructure bonds package was a good idea or a bad idea? 61% good idea 31 bad idea 2 neither (volunteered) 6 don’t know 18. And regardless of how you voted, before deciding how to vote on the 13 state propositions, how closely were you following news about these measures? 32% very closely 45 fairly closely 17 not too closely 5 not at all closely 1 don’t know 19.People learned about the ballot propositions a number of different ways. Which way did you find the most helpful in deciding how to vote on the 13 state propositions? [code, don’t read] 42% official voter information guide and sample ballot 17 advertisements— radio/television/newspaper/mail 11 news and media coverage— radio/television/newspaper 8 Internet 8 newspaper endorsements— columns/editorials 4 opinions of friends/family/ coworkers 3 endorsements—interest groups/politicians/celebrities 2 forum/debate/meeting 3 something/someone else 2 don’t know Questionnaire and Results 19a.Did you happen to get any news or information about the November election on the Internet or through email? 35% yes 65 no 20.Overall, how satisfied were you with the information you had to make choices on the ballot propositions? 34% very satisfied 47 somewhat satisfied 13 not too satisfied 4 not at all satisfied 2 don’t know 21.Which one of the 13 state propositions on the November 7th ballot were you most interested in? [code, don’t read] 5% Proposition 1A 4 Proposition 1B 3 Proposition 1C 5 Proposition 1D 2 Proposition 1E 5 Proposition 83 3 Proposition 84 14 Proposition 85 7 Proposition 86 21 Proposition 87 2 Proposition 88 1 Proposition 89 5 Proposition 90 4 none of them 3 all equally 2 other answer 14 don’t know November 2006 35 Californians and the Future For each of the following, please tell me if you voted yes or no on the measure. First, 22.Proposition 1B was called the “Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006” for $19,925,000,000 in state bonds. Did you vote yes or no on this measure? [*actual vote] 61% voted yes 39 voted no [q23a asked of those who say they voted yes] 23a.And why did you vote yes? [code, don’t read] 32% important to the future of California/needed/good idea 28 roads need to be fixed 10 traffic is a problem/reduce congestion 4 port security is important/ports need to be secured 3 air pollution is a problem 3 endorsed by group/public figure I trust 3 governor/legislature supported it 3 increases money for mass transit/public transportation 2 friends/family supported it 7 other 5 don’t know [skip to q23c] [q23b asked of those who say they voted no] 23b.And why did you vote no? [code, don’t read] 24% bond amount is too much 11 state wastes too much money already/budget deficits 10 bond debt is too high already 10 this is not the solution/will not fix the problem 9 I vote no on all bonds 6 mortgages our future/should use pay-as-you-go approach 2 already spend too much money on transportation 2 friends/family opposed it 1 governor/legislature supported it 19 other 6 don’t know 23c.As you may know Proposition 1B passed. Do you think that the level of state funding for surface transportation that is available now will be more than enough, just enough, or not enough to prepare for the future? 11% more than enough 25 just enough 47 not enough 17 don’t know 24.Proposition 1C was called the “Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006” for $2,850,000,000 in state bonds. Did you vote yes or no on this measure? [*actual vote] 58% voted yes 42 voted no 36 PPIC Statewide Survey [q25a asked of those who say they voted yes] 25a.And why did you vote yes? [code, don’t read] 35% it’s a good cause/people in those circumstances need help 27 important to the future of California/needed/good idea 12 cost of housing is too high/ affordability of housing 9 emergency shelters are needed 2 endorsed by group/public figure I trust 2 governor/legislature supported it 1 bond amount is small/lowest of all bond amounts 1 friends/family supported it 6 other 5 don’t know [skip to q25c] [q25b asked of those who say they voted no] 25b.And why did you vote no? [code, don’t read] 18% bond amount is too much 16 state wastes too much money already/budget deficits 10 this is not the solution/will not fix the problem 9 I vote no on all bonds 8 bond debt is too high already 6 housing is an individual responsibility/state should not subsidize housing 4 mortgages our future/should use pay-as-you-go approach 1 friends/family opposed it 1 no need for emergency shelters 21 other 6 don’t know Questionnaire and Results 25c.As you may know Proposition 1C passed. Do you think that the level of state funding for affordable housing that is available now will be more than enough, just enough, or not enough to prepare for the future? 14% more than enough 20 just enough 53 not enough 13 don’t know 26.Proposition 1D was called the “Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006” for $10,416,000,000 in state bonds. Did you vote yes or no on this measure? [*actual vote] 57% voted yes 43 voted no [q27a asked of those who say they voted yes] 27a.And why did you vote yes? [code, don’t read] 29% important to the future of California/needed/good idea 20 I always support education/ schools doing poorly/I’m a teacher/student 14 schools too crowded/replaces portable classrooms/improves teacher-pupil ratio 8 schools need fixing/earthquake protection 7 new facilities needed 2 endorsed by group/public figure I trust 2 friends/family supported it 2 governor/legislature supported it 12 other 4 don’t know [skip to q27c] November 2006 37 Californians and the Future [q27b asked of those who say they voted no] 27b.And why did you vote no? [code, don’t read] 17% state wastes too much money already/budget deficits 15 bond amount is too much 13 schools waste funds/money goes to administration, not kids 11 this is not the solution/will not fix the problem 9 I vote no on all bonds 6 bond debt is too high already 4 mortgages our future/should use pay-as-you-go approach 2 should not pay for immigrants to go to school 1 friends/family opposed it 1 opposed by group/public figure I trust 17 other 4 don’t know 27c.As you may know Proposition 1D passed. Do you think that the level of state funding for school facilities that is available now will be more than enough, just enough, or not enough to prepare for the future? 16% more than enough 25 just enough 50 not enough 9 don’t know 28.Proposition 1E was called the “Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006” for $4.09 billion in state bonds. Did you vote yes or no on this measure? [*actual vote] 64% voted yes 36 voted no [q29a asked of those who say they voted yes] 29a.And why did you vote yes? [code, don’t read] 43% flood control and disaster preparedness is important/ Hurricane Katrina, earthquakes, storms 25 important to the future of California/needed/good idea 17 levees/dikes need repair 2 endorsed by group/public figure I trust 2 governor/legislature supported it 2 water/clean drinking water important to California 1 friends/family supported it 4 other 4 don’t know [skip to q29c] [q29b asked of those who say they voted no] 29b.And why did you vote no? [code, don’t read] 17% state wastes too much money already/budget deficits 16 bond amount is too much 11 I vote no on all bonds 10 this is not the solution/will not fix the problem 7 bond debt is too high already 4 mortgages our future/should use pay-as-you-go approach 3 I do not live near water or levees 2 people should not live/build on/near flood plains 1 friends/family opposed it 1 levees/dikes do not need repairs 22 other 6 don’t know 38 PPIC Statewide Survey 29c.As you may know Proposition 1E passed. Do you think that the level of state funding for water systems and flood controls that is available now will be more than enough, just enough, or not enough to prepare for the future? 15% more than enough 32 just enough 39 not enough 14 don’t know 30.Between now and 2025, California’s population is estimated to increase by about 10 million people from 37 million to about 47 million. On balance, do you think this population growth is a good thing or a bad thing or does it make no difference to you and your family? 12% good thing 60 bad thing 23 no difference 5 don’t know 31.How much confidence do you have in the state government’s ability to plan for the state’s future and growth? 7% a great deal 46 only some 32 very little 14 none at all 1 don’t know 32.Overall, do you think that in 2025 California will be a better place to live than it is now or a worse place to live than it is now or there will be no change? 20% better place 51 worse place 22 no change 7 don’t know Questionnaire and Results 33.In the November election, California voters passed state infrastructure bonds for transportation, affordable housing, school facilities and water and flood control bonds. Does this outcome make you more optimistic about the state’s future, more pessimistic, or do you feel about the same as you did before the election? 34% more optimistic 14 more pessimistic 51 feel about the same 1 don’t know California uses the direct initiative process, which enables voters to bypass the legislature and have issues put on the ballot—as state propositions—for voter approval and rejection. 34.Generally speaking, would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, or not satisfied with the way the initiative process is working in California today? 19% very satisfied 50 somewhat satisfied 27 not satisfied 4 don’t know 35.Do you think the citizens’ initiative process in California is in need of major changes, minor changes or that it is basically fine the way it is? 35% major changes 32 minor changes 26 fine the way it is 7 don’t know In thinking about the November 7th election, please say if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements. November 2006 39 Californians and the Future [rotate questions 36 to 38] 36.The wording of propositions on the state ballot was too complicated and confusing. 33% strongly agree 30 somewhat agree 22 somewhat disagree 13 strongly disagree 2 don’t know 37.There were too many propositions on the state ballot. 35% strongly agree 25 somewhat agree 23 somewhat disagree 15 strongly disagree 2 don’t know 38.There was too much money spent by the initiative campaigns. 56% strongly agree 22 somewhat agree 9 somewhat disagree 5 strongly disagree 8 don’t know Reforms have been suggested to address issues that arise in the initiative process. Please say whether you would favor or oppose each of the following reform proposals. [rotate questions 39 and 40] 39.Would you favor or oppose having a period of time in which the initiative sponsor and the legislature could meet to see if there is a compromise solution before initiatives go to the ballot? 80% favor 15 oppose 5 don’t know 40.Would you favor or oppose increasing public disclosure of funding sources for signature gathering and initiative campaigns? 84% favor 11 oppose 5 don’t know Reforms have also been suggested to address issues that arise in candidate campaigns. [rotate questions 41 and 42] 41.Would you favor or oppose having a system of public funding for state and legislative campaigns in California if it cost each taxpayer a few dollars a year to run? 38% favor 55 oppose 7 don’t know 42.Would you favor or oppose an initiative that would require candidates for governor to participate in five prime time publicly broadcasted debates? 67% favor 28 oppose 5 don’t know 43.Are you registered to vote as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 47% Democrat [skip to q43b] 37 Republican [skip to q43c] 2 another party (specify) [skip to q44] 14 independent [ask q43a] 43a.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 23% Republican party 49% Democratic party 25 neither (volunteered) 3 don’t know [skip to q44] 40 PPIC Statewide Survey 43b.Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 58% strong 38 not very strong 4 don’t know [skip to q44] 43c.Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 58% strong 39 not very strong 3 don’t know 44.On another topic, would you consider yourself to be politically: [read list, rotate order top to bottom] 12% very liberal 20 somewhat liberal 28 middle-of-the-road 24 somewhat conservative 15 very conservative 1 don’t know 45.Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics? 34% great deal 47 fair amount 17 only a little 2 none Questionnaire and Results 46.How often would you say you vote? 84% always 14% nearly always 2 part of the time 47.Did you vote at your local polling place or by absentee ballot? 59% local polling place 41 absentee ballot 48.For governor, did you happen to vote for [rotate] Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican, Phil Angelides, the Democrat, or someone else? [*actual vote] 56 Arnold Schwarzenegger 39 Phil Angelides 5 someone else (specify) 49.And are you or is anyone in your immediate family a member of a labor union? [if yes, ask: Is that person you or another person in your family?] 11% yes, respondent 10 yes, another person in family 3 yes, both 72 no 3 former member (volunteered) 1 don’t know November 2006 41 PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Angela Blackwell Founder and Chief Executive Officer PolicyLink Paul Brest President The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Mollyann Brodie Vice President Kaiser Family Foundation Bruce E. Cain Director Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Berkeley James E. Canales President The James Irvine Foundation Matthew K. Fong President Strategic Advisory Group William Hauck President California Business Roundtable Dennis A. Hunt Vice President Communications and Public Affairs The California Endowment Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Carol S. Larson President and Chief Executive Officer The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Monica Lozano Publisher and Chief Executive Officer La Opinión Donna Lucas CEO Lucas Public Affairs Dan Rosenheim News Director KPIX-TV Carol Stogsdill President Stogsdill Consulting Cathy Taylor Vice President and Editorial Commentary Director Orange County Register Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center The PPIC Statewide Survey Advisory Committee is diverse group of experts who provide advice on survey issues. However, survey methods, questions, content, and timing are determined solely by PPIC. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Thomas C. Sutton, Chair Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Pacific Life Insurance Company Linda Griego President and Chief Executive Officer Griego Enterprises, Inc. Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Gary K. Hart Founder Institute for Education Reform California State University, Sacramento Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities ADVISORY COUNCIL Stuart A. Gabriel Director and Lusk Chair Lusk Center for Real Estate University of Southern California Clifford W. Graves Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Hilary W. Hoynes Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis Andrés E. Jiménez Director California Policy Research Center University of California Office of the President Norman R. King Director, University Transportation Center California State University, San Bernardino David W. Lyon President and Chief Executive Officer Public Policy Institute of California Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Dean Misczynski Director California Research Bureau Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Manuel Pastor Professor, Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Peter Schrag Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND Corporation PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 phone: 415.291.4400 fax: 415.291.4401 www.ppic.org survey@ppic.org" } ["___content":protected]=> string(104) "

S 1106MBS

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(107) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-the-future-november-2006/s_1106mbs/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8579) ["ID"]=> int(8579) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:38:50" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3807) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(9) "S 1106MBS" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(9) "s_1106mbs" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(13) "S_1106MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "995576" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(103952) "NOVEMBER 2006 The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns: California in the global economy; demography; education; employment and income; environment, growth, and infrastructure; government and public finance; health and social policy; immigrants and immigration; key sectors in the California economy; and political participation. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens—William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller—recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political candidates for public office. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Thomas C. Sutton is Chair of the Board of Directors. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 phone: 415.291.4400 fax: 415.291.4401 www.ppic.org survey@ppic.org TABLE OF CONTENTS About the Survey Press Release State Political Context November General Election Californians and the Future Regional Map Methodology Questionnaire and Results 1 3 7 15 23 30 31 33 ABOUT THE SURVEY The PPIC Statewide Survey series provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with objective, advocacy-free information on the perceptions, opinions, and public policy preferences of California residents. Inaugurated in April 1998, this is the 73rd PPIC Statewide Survey in a series that has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 152,000 Californians. The current survey is the fourth in a series on the topic of “Californians and the Future,” supported by funding from The James Irvine Foundation. California has 37 million residents today and is expected to add about 10 million more people over the next 20 years, according to the Department of Finance. On November 7th, California voters made important decisions about the state’s future in a statewide election that involved the selection of a governor and members of other executive branch offices, 100 members of the California Legislature, one U.S. senator, and 53 members of the House of Representatives. The state ballot also presented the voters with 13 state propositions on various topics. This ballot included five state bond measures, placed there through the legislative and initiative process and totaling about $43 billion, for surface transportation, education facilities, water and flood controls, affordable housing, and water and parks. The voters passed all five of the bond measures, and rejected all four of the citizens’ initiatives that involved tax and spending increases in other areas. The four election surveys we conducted before and after November 7th are designed to provide information on Californians’ attitudes towards the future, their perceptions of the November election, their support for the state bond measures, and the role of trust in government in shaping ballot choices and attitudes towards the future. This survey series seeks to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussion about the state’s future, current governance and fiscal systems, and various proposals for governance and fiscal reform. The November 7th election provided a unique opportunity to observe how voters view, react to, and approach information-gathering and making ballot choices involving California’s future. This report presents the responses of 2,000 election voters throughout the state on a wide range of issues: „ The state political context, including the overall mood of the electorate, approval ratings of Governor Schwarzenegger and the state legislature, distrust in state government, confidence in ballot-box policymaking by California voters and in policymaking by their state elected representatives, and attitudes about participating in the November 7th election. „ The November 7th election, including interest levels, information sources, and reasons for vote choices on Proposition 1B (transportation), Proposition 1C (affordable housing), Proposition 1D (education facilities), and Proposition 1E (flood controls). We also asked the voters if they thought that the level of state funding that is now available is enough to prepare for the future. „ Californians and the future, including perceptions of the future, the perceived effects of the passage of the infrastructure bonds, opinions of the initiative process, perceptions of the state propositions on the November 7th ballot, and support for initiative and campaign reforms. „ The extent to which voters differ in their perceptions, attitudes, and policy preferences, based on party affiliation, demographics, race/ethnicity, and region of residence. Copies of this report may be ordered online (www.ppic.org) or by phone (415-291-4400). For questions about the survey, please contact survey@ppic.org. 1 PRESS RELEASE Para ver este comunicado de prensa en español, por favor visite nuestra página de internet: http://www.ppic.org/main/pressreleaseindex.asp SURVEY ON CALIFORNIANS AND THE FUTURE What a Difference a Year Makes: Optimistic Voters Take Leap of Faith, Have High Hopes for Bipartisanship in Sacramento BUT VOTERS STILL WARY OF GOVERNMENT, NERVOUS ABOUT STATE’S FUTURE SAN FRANCISCO, California, December 6, 2006 — One year ago, angry voters delivered a vote of no confidence to Sacramento, rejecting the governor’s political reform package and condemning the performance of state leaders. But last month, optimistic voters carried the day, approving the largest bond package in state history and raising their ratings of those same elected leaders. Why the attitude adjustment? Recent bipartisan action in Sacramento and deep concern about California’s future were key factors in November’s election outcome, according to a post-election survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), with funding from The James Irvine Foundation. The new survey – which polled 2,000 voters in the 12 days following the election – finds that, by a wide margin, voters were more likely to say that November’s election made them feel better about California politics (30% to 14%), although for 54 percent it made no difference. That is a long and large difference from PPIC’s 2005 post-election survey when 38 percent of voters said the special election made them feel worse and only 21 percent said that it made them feel better about state politics. The bipartisan nature of this election’s infrastructure bond package may have contributed to voters’ positive feelings about the election. After a year in which Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state legislature shared a number of major legislative accomplishments, including passage of the bonds, voters give them an enthusiastic thumbs up: A majority (53%) approve of the way that the governor and the legislature are working together. A year ago, 76 percent disapproved of their working relationship. This sea change has helped reverse the political fortunes of state leaders, most notably Governor Schwarzenegger, who won reelection by a wide margin. Sixty percent of general election voters approve of his performance in office, a 21-point improvement over his approval rating one year ago (39%). Although only 36 percent approve of the state legislature’s job performance, this is significantly higher than it was following the 2005 special election (20%). Besides better feelings about politics and leadership, voters apparently brought something else with them to the polls on November 7th that may help explain the ultimate outcome – a good mood. About half (53%) say that things in the state are generally going in the right direction, compared to only 23 percent one year ago. And about a half (51%) expect good economic times in the coming year. A year ago, only 35 percent predicted good economic times. But this heady atmosphere should not make state leaders complacent. “Voters are happy, but not satisfied,” says PPIC survey director Mark Baldassare. “Their expectations are extremely high, especially when it comes to getting the job done in Sacramento. If state leaders cannot sustain a bipartisan atmosphere – or if the economy lags – voters could be quick to turn on them.” Fifty-eight percent of voters – including majorities of Democrats (56%), Republicans (62%), and independents (62%) – expect that the governor and legislature will be able to work together and accomplish a lot in the next year. Adding to the challenge, voters have only a little more faith in state government than they had a year ago. Only 28 percent say they can trust officials in Sacramento to do what is right just about always (3%) or 3 Californians and the Future most of the time (25%), compared to 17 percent in November 2005. Sixty-eight percent say the state government is run by a few big interests, down from 78 percent one year ago. And a majority (57%) believe state government wastes a lot of their tax dollars, similar to the response one year ago (61%). CONCERN ABOUT CALIFORNIA’S FUTURE DRIVES SUPPORT FOR BONDS Before the election, it was very uncertain how voters would respond to the massive $37.3 billion infrastructure bonds package. In pre-election surveys, six in 10 likely voters said that it was a good idea to issue state bonds to pay for public works projects. Nevertheless, six in 10 also said that the amount of money for bonds on this ballot was too much. Still, when push came to shove on November 7th, voters not only passed the bond package, they seemed happy doing it. Sixty-one percent of general election voters say it was a good idea for the governor and legislature to place the bond package on the ballot. Six in 10 voters also say they were at least somewhat happy about voting on all 13 ballot propositions. But voter interest in ballot measures did not translate into passage on Election Day. Proposition 87 (energy/oil tax) generated the greatest interest among voters (21%) but lost, while all four of the infrastructure bonds combined were cited as most interesting by only 14 percent of voters. So why did the vote go the way it did for the four bond measures? A common thread: Concern about the future. ƒ Proposition 1B ($19.9 billion transportation bond): Top reasons for voting yes: belief that the measure is important for the future of the state, belief that roads are in need of repair, and concern about traffic congestion. Majorities of Democrats (69%), Republicans (54%), and independents (63%) voted in favor of Proposition 1B. Those who approve of the job performance of the governor and state legislature strongly supported this measure (70%). ƒ Proposition 1C ($2.85 billion affordable housing bond): Top reasons for voting yes: it helps people in need, it is important for California’s future, the cost of housing is too high, and emergency shelters are needed. Seven in 10 Democrats (69%) and nearly six in 10 independents (57%) supported this measure, while 60 percent of Republicans opposed it. Support was higher among Latinos than whites (67% to 54%) and among renters than homeowners (75% to 51%). ƒ Proposition 1D ($10.4 billion education facilities bond): Top reasons for voting yes: belief that it is important to the future of the state, belief in always supporting education, and belief that schools are too crowded. Most Democrats (71%) and 57 percent of independents voted yes on this measure, while 59 percent of Republicans voted no. Seventy-four percent of Angelides voters – compared to 49 percent of Schwarzenegger voters – supported it. „ Proposition 1E ($4.1 billion water and flood control bond): Top reasons for voting yes: flood control and disaster preparedness are important, the measure is important to California’s future, and the state’s levees and dikes need repair. Democrats (74%), Republicans (54%), and independents (61%) united in support of this proposition. Women were more likely than men to have voted yes (67% to 60%). Seventy-four percent of those who approve of the legislature and 65 percent of those who approve of Governor Schwarzenegger voted yes on Proposition 1E. Despite the billions in bonds, many general election voters believe that the state needs to invest more in infrastructure to prepare for the future. Significant proportions of voters think that the levels of state funding for surface transportation (47%), affordable housing (53%), school facilities (50%), and water systems and flood controls (39%) are still not adequate. “California voters view these bonds as a down payment rather than mission accomplished,” says Baldassare. “Because they are so concerned about the future, they were willing to take a leap of faith that state government will do the right thing with this investment. They will be watching to see if this faith is justified or if state government deserves the distrust so many of them still feel.” So far, voters are not convinced that the bond package will make a big difference in the future direction of the state. Although one in three voters (34%) say they feel more optimistic after the passage of the 4 PPIC Statewide Survey Press Release bonds, half (51%) say they feel about the same about California’s future, and 14 percent are more pessimistic. A majority of voters continue to believe that the state will be a worse place to live in 2025 than it is today (51%) and that the anticipated population growth of 10 million residents over the next two decades is a bad thing (60%). One reason for the pessimism? The lack of confidence in government’s ability to plan for the future: Only 7 percent of general election voters have a great deal of confidence in that ability, while 46 percent have only some confidence. Among those with little or no trust in state government’s ability to plan, 70 percent think the state’s population increase is a bad thing. One bright spot: Voters are optimistic about Governor Schwarzenegger’s plans and policies for the state’s future (56% approve, 32% disapprove). VOTERS REMAIN OPEN TO INITIATIVE PROCESS REFORMS Despite the fact that 47 percent of general election voters say they have not too much confidence or none at all in their fellow voters’ ability to make policy at the ballot box, the initiative process remains extremely popular. Indeed, more voters today than after the special election one year ago say they are satisfied with that process (69% to 53%). Still, a strong majority (67%) believes that major (35%) or minor (32%) changes need to be made. Some specific criticisms of recent initiatives: Ballot wording was complicated and confusing (63%), there were too many initiatives on the ballot (60%), and too much money was spent to finance the campaigns (78%). Given these concerns, what reforms are voters willing to support? Strong majorities of general election voters support allowing for a period of time in which the initiative sponsor and the legislature could meet to attempt to forge a compromise (80%). And, on the heels of an election in which vast sums were spent to finance initiative campaigns, a huge majority (84%) favor increasing public disclosure of funding sources for initiative campaign and signature-gathering efforts. MORE KEY FINDINGS ƒ Immigration top issue for voters — Page 8 Voters in November’s election rank immigration (20%) as the most important issue facing the state, followed by the economy (14%) and education (13%). ƒ Voters did not view bonds as a package deal — Page 17 Many voters were selective in their voting when it came to the infrastructure bond measures. Fewer than three in 10 (28%) say they voted yes on all of the bond measures and only 15 percent voted no on all bonds. ƒ Internet a major source of election information — Page 21 More than one-third of voters (35%) say they got election information from the Internet this fall. However, when asked what was most helpful in deciding how to vote on state propositions, voters named more traditional sources of political information. The official voter information guide and sample ballot (42%) were viewed as most helpful, followed by advertisements (17%) and news coverage (11%). ƒ Moderates key to Schwarzenegger victory — Page 22 Self-described moderate voters supported Governor Schwarzenegger over challenger Phil Angelides by a double-digit margin (57% to 39%). Schwarzenegger also enjoyed majority support among both men and women (59% and 54%, respectively), and was helped by the backing of 30 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of independents. ƒ Public funding for campaigns losing steam… — Page 29 Voter support for a system in which taxpayers would help pay for state and legislative campaigns has declined sharply in the past four years, from 57 percent in November 2002 to 38 percent today. November 2006 5 Californians and the Future „ … But voters warming to idea of required debates — Page 29 Sixty-seven percent of voters say they would support an initiative that required gubernatorial candidates to participate in five prime-time publicly broadcasted debates. That is much higher than the 56 percent of likely voters who favored this idea in November 2002. ABOUT THE SURVEY This edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey – a post-election survey about Californians and the future – is the final in a series of four surveys supported by funding from The James Irvine Foundation. This survey is intended to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussions about Californians’ attitudes toward the future and the November 2006 election. Findings are based on a telephone survey of 2,000 California voters in the November 7th election interviewed between November 8 and November 19, 2006. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. For more information on methodology, see page 31. Mark Baldassare is research director at PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has directed since 1998. PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to improving public policy through objective, nonpartisan research on the economic, social, and political issues that affect Californians. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. This report will appear on PPIC’s website (www.ppic.org) after 10 p.m. on December 6. 6 PPIC Statewide Survey STATE POLITICAL CONTEXT KEY FINDINGS „ Majorities of voters in the November election say the state is headed in the right direction. Six in 10 express approval overall for the way the governor is handling his job; similar proportions are optimistic that the governor and legislature can work together in the next year. (pages 8, 9) „ A majority of voters approve of the way the governor and legislature are working together, yet about half disapprove of both the legislature’s overall job performance and the job they are doing in planning for the future. Still, legislative approval ratings show improvement. (page 10) „ Distrust in state government is high, despite higher approval ratings for state elected officials, and over six in 10 voters who voted for Governor Schwarzenegger say they distrust state government. (page 11) „ When it comes to making public policy, voters have the same level of confidence in the state’s voters at the ballot box as they do in the state’s elected officials. (page 12) „ In a sharp reversal from the 2005 special election, six in 10 voters feel happy about voting on the November ballot measures, and voters are more likely to feel better about California politics as a result of this year’s election. (page 13) Approval of How the Governor Is Handling Plans and Policies for California's Future 12 32 56 General election voters Approve Disapprove Don't know Approval of the Way the Governor and Legislature Are Working Together 80 Approve Disapprove 60 53 52 55 53 40 36 35 34 38 Percent general election voters 20 0 All voters Dem Rep Ind 7 Californians and the Future OVERALL MOOD The majority of California voters who participated in the November 7th election are upbeat about the state of the state. About half (53%) say that things in the state are generally going in the right direction, while about four in 10 (39%) say they are going in the wrong direction. Majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents say that the state is headed in the right direction, and half or more across all regions agree. The mood this fall is in stark contrast to a year ago, when 68 percent of voters in our post-election survey said that things in California were going in the wrong direction, and only 23 percent said things were going in the right direction. At that time, negative perceptions were found across major political parties, state regions, and demographic groups. “Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction?” Right direction Wrong direction Don’t know General Election Voters 53% 39% 8% Democrat 51 38 11 Party Republican 55 37 8 Independent 57 39 4 Central Valley 55 37 8 Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 50 50 41 9 40 10 Other Southern California 55 37 8 In another sign of optimism, half (51%) expect good economic times in the next year, including 62 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of both Democrats and independents. Of those who voted for Schwarzenegger, 62 percent think the state is on the right path and 62 percent expect good economic times. A year ago, 50 percent of voters predicted bad economic times. Voters in November’s election rank immigration (20%) as the most important issue facing the people of California today, followed by the economy (14%) and education (13%). Fewer than one in ten voters mention health care (7%) or the state budget and taxes (7%), while transportation, housing, and water and flood controls are named even more rarely. Immigration is mentioned much more often by Republicans than Democrats and independents, and more frequently in Southern California than in the San Francisco Bay Area and the Central Valley. The economy and education were the most important issues for voters after the 2005 special election. “What do you think is the most important issue facing people in California today?” Top 5 issues mentioned Immigration, illegal immigration Jobs, economy Education, schools Health care, State budget, health costs deficit, taxes General Election Voters 20% 14% 13% 7% 7% Democrat 11 15 15 10 5 Party Republican 32 13 9 39 Independent 21 18 13 7 7 Central Valley 14 16 12 5 9 San Francisco Bay Area 11 16 18 10 8 Region Los Angeles 24 15 13 6 4 Other Southern California 31 11 10 5 6 8 PPIC Statewide Survey State Political Context GOVERNOR’S APPROVAL RATINGS Six in 10 voters who went to the polls in November approve of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s job performance, while just one in three voters disapprove. His current ratings reflect an 8-point increase from his approval level among likely voters in October (52%) and a 21-point improvement over his job ratings in the 2005 post-election survey (39%). Among voters today, about eight in 10 Republicans have a positive opinion of the governor, compared to about six in 10 independents, while Democrats are divided. Half or more approve of the governor across age, education, gender, and income groups, and across regions. The governor receives less favorable marks from Latinos (44% approve) than whites (67% approve). “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California?” Approve Disapprove Don’t know General Election Voters 60% 32% 8% Democrat 45 47 8 Party Republican 82 13 5 Independent 61 31 8 Central Valley 66 25 9 San Francisco Bay Area 54 39 7 Region Los Angeles 51 41 8 Other Southern California 69 23 8 Governor Schwarzenegger receives ratings that are almost as high as his overall job performance scores when voters are asked to rate his performance in making plans and policies for the state’s future (56% approve, 32% disapprove, 12% don’t know), with more voters approving than disapproving across age, education, gender, and income groups, and regions of the state. Nearly six in 10 voters (58%) are optimistic that the governor and legislature will be able to work together in the next legislative session. In a year in which the governor and legislature reached agreement on several bills and placed an infrastructure spending package on the November ballot, majorities of voters across political parties, regions of the state, and demographic groups now expect to see the governor and legislature accomplishing a lot together. Expectations for working together were lower among likely voters in January (41%) and March (31%). Of those who voted for Schwarzenegger, 69 percent think the governor and legislature will accomplish a lot in 2007. “Do you think that Governor Schwarzenegger and the state legislature will be able to work together and accomplish a lot in the next year or not?” Yes No Don’t know General Election Voters Democrat Party Republican Independent Central Valley Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California 58% 56 62 62 56 56 57 60 31% 11% 34 10 27 11 31 7 33 11 33 11 34 9 27 13 November 2006 9 Californians and the Future LEGISLATURE’S APPROVAL RATINGS The state legislature receives much lower job performance ratings than the governor does from November’s voters (36% approve, 49% disapprove). Still, voters are much more generous in their evaluations of the state’s legislative body now than were the likely voters in our October survey (26% approve) or the voters in the 2005 post-election survey (20% approve). Today, 43 percent of Democrats give the legislature favorable marks overall, compared to 37 percent of independents and 29 percent of Republicans. The legislature has more favorable job approval ratings from Latinos (45%) than whites (35%), and among renters (42%) than homeowners (35%). “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling its job?” Approve Disapprove Don’t know General Election Voters Democrat Party Republican Independent Central Valley Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California 36% 43 29 37 33 36 38 38 49% 15% 41 16 58 13 51 12 54 13 46 18 47 15 48 14 Voters’ opinions of the way that the legislature is handling plans and policies for the state’s future closely mirror their overall ratings of its performance. Trends for this specific rating are similar to those for the overall ratings, across political and demographic groups, and state regions. Ratings for future planning are higher now than in August (23% approve). “Overall, from what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling plans and policies for California’s future?” Approve Disapprove Don’t know General Election Voters Democrat Party Republican Independent Central Valley Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California 33% 40 27 33 29 34 36 34 49% 18% 41 19 57 16 53 14 56 15 46 20 46 18 48 18 A majority of voters (53%) approve of the way that the governor and legislature are working together. By contrast, in the 2005 post-election survey 14 percent approved and 76 percent disapproved of how they worked together. Today, majorities of Democratic, Republican, and independent voters express this positive view of the governor and legislature. About half or more of the voters across age, education, income, regional, and race/ethnic groups hold this view. Of those who voted for Schwarzenegger, 61 percent approve of the way that the governor and legislature are now working together. 10 PPIC Statewide Survey State Political Context TRUST IN STATE GOVERNMENT The voters who went to the polls in November continued a long-term trend of expressing little faith in state government, despite the rising approval ratings and improving expectations for elected officials in Sacramento. Only 28 percent say they can trust officials in Sacramento to do what is right just about always (3%) or most of the time (25%), while seven in 10 voters have this trust only some or none of the time. Still, this shows an increase in confidence from the low levels found in the 2005 post-election survey (17%) and our August survey (23%). Today, about three in 10 Democrats, Republicans, and independents say that the government in Sacramento can be trusted either always or most of the time. Latinos (37%) are more likely than whites (28%) to express this level of confidence. Trust in state government is somewhat higher in Los Angeles and the Other Southern California region than it is elsewhere, and among lowerincome and less-educated voters than upper-income and college-educated voters. “Next, how much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Sacramento to do what is right?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Just about always Most of the time Only some of the time None of the time (volunteered) Don’t know 3% 25 66 4 2 4% 24 68 3 1 3% 28 63 6 0 Ind 1% 26 69 3 1 Nearly seven in 10 voters in the November election say that the state government is run by a few big interests. Still, this marks a decrease from the 78 percent of voters in the 2005 post-election survey and the 73 percent of likely voters in our August survey who expressed this perception. Today, solid majorities of voters---across political and demographic groups, state regions, and whites (67%) and Latinos (69%)---believe that state government is run by a few big interests. “Would you say the state government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, or that it is run for the benefit of all of the people?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind A few big interests 68% 70% 63% 73% Benefit of all people 23 22 26 19 Don’t know 9 8 11 8 Nearly six in 10 voters believe the state government is wasting a lot of the money they pay in taxes, which is similar to the response in our 2005 post-election survey (61%) and among the likely voters in our August survey (61%). Today, Republicans (64%) and independents (57%) hold this view more so than Democrats (51%), and half or more across regions and demographic groups, and Latinos (61%) and whites (56%), also hold this view. Of those who voted for Schwarzenegger, majorities lack trust in state government: 64 percent say they can trust the state government only some or none of the time, 60 percent believe the state government is run by a few big interests, and 60 percent think the state government wastes a lot of taxpayer money. November 2006 11 Californians and the Future CONFIDENCE IN POLICYMAKING California voters were divided when asked how much they trust the state’s elected officials in making public policy. Half (52%) say they trust them a great deal or fair amount, while almost as many (46%) say not too much or not at all. Still, confidence in this area has improved since the post-election surveys of voters in November 2005 (41%) and November 2004 (48%). Today, a solid majority of Democrats and about half of Republicans and independents say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in policymaking by the state’s elected officials. Half or more voters in the state’s regional, age, and income groups hold this view, as do 55 percent of whites and 48 percent of Latinos. Of those voting for Schwarzenegger, 57 percent say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in the state’s elected officials when it comes to making public policy. “In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the state’s elected officials when it comes to making public policy?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind A great deal 3% 4% 3% 3% A fair amount 49 53 49 44 Not too much 37 35 36 45 None at all 9 7 10 8 Don’t know 2 1 2 0 Californians are similarly divided when asked how much confidence they have in their fellow voters when making policy at the ballot box: 52 percent have a great deal or fair amount of confidence, while 47 percent say they have not too much or no confidence. Opinions today are similar to the 2005 post-election survey (50% great deal or fair amount) and the 2004 post-election survey (55% great deal or fair amount). Fifty-seven percent of Democrats say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in California’s voters, while about half of Republicans (47%) and independents (49%) say they have these levels of confidence in the voters. About half or more across all regional, age, education, gender, income, and homeownership groups, and 49 percent of Latinos and 51 percent of whites, express at least a fair amount of confidence in voters in making public policy at the ballot box. Of those who voted for Schwarzenegger, 53 percent say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in voters when it comes to making public policy. “How much trust and confidence do you have in California’s voters when it comes to making public policy at the ballot box?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind A great deal A fair amount Not too much None at all Don’t know 11% 13% 41 44 37 34 10 8 11 8% 39 41 11 1 10% 39 37 12 2 12 PPIC Statewide Survey State Political Context VOTING IN THE ELECTION How did California voters feel about having to vote on the 13 state propositions on the November ballot? Six in 10 voters feel happy about having voted (18% very, 42% somewhat), while one in three feel unhappy (10% very, 25% somewhat). By comparison, our 2005 post-election survey found that only 46 percent of voters were happy while 51 percent were unhappy about having to vote in the special election. About six in 10 Republicans (63%), independents (63%), and Democrats (58%) are happy about having to vote on the 13 state propositions this year, and independents are the most likely to say they are very happy. Solid majorities across all regions and demographic groups are happy about voting on the November ballot measures, including 63 percent of Latinos and 60 percent of whites. Of those voting for Schwarzenegger, 63 percent are either very happy or somewhat happy about having to vote on the 13 state propositions. “Overall, how did you feel about having to vote on the 13 propositions in the November 7th general election?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Very happy Somewhat happy Somewhat unhappy Very unhappy Neither (volunteered) Don’t know 18% 42 25 10 2 3 18% 40 27 11 2 2 16% 47 23 10 2 2 Ind 26% 37 23 9 2 3 Voters are more likely to say that November’s election made them feel better about California politics (30% to 14%), although for 54 percent it made no difference. By comparison, in our 2005 post-election survey, 38 percent of California voters said the special election made them feel worse about California politics and only 21 percent said that it made them feel better. Democrats (36%) and independents (37%) are more likely than Republicans (22%) to say that the November election made them feel better about state politics. Across regions and demographic groups, more voters say the election made them feel better. Latinos (40%) are more likely than whites (29%) to say they feel better about California politics as a result of the election. Among those who voted for Schwarzenegger, 31 percent say that the election made them feel better about state politics, 16 percent say it made them feel worse, and 51 percent say they feel no different. “Overall, would you say the November 7th general election has made you feel better, worse, or no different about California politics?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Better Worse No different Don’t know 30% 36% 22% 37% 14 9 20 12 54 53 56 51 22 2 0 November 2006 13 NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION KEY FINDINGS „ Six in 10 voters agree that the package of four infrastructure bonds placed on the ballot by the governor and legislature was a good idea, but just 14 percent mention the bonds as the state propositions that interested them most. (page 16) „ Majorities of voters who supported each of the infrastructure bonds also approve of the job performance of the governor and legislature. Many voters cite the future of California as one of the reasons they voted for the bonds. (pages 17-20) „ Despite passage of the four bond measures, many voters still believe there is not enough funding for transportation, affordable housing, school facilities, and water and flood controls to prepare for the state’s future. (pages 17-20) „ Nearly eight in 10 voters were closely following news about the state propositions, and four in 10 turned to the state voter information guide to make decisions. Many young, college educated, and upper-income voters used the Internet for election information. (page 21) „ Governor Schwarzenegger won reelection with the overwhelming support of GOP and conservative voters, and with solid backing from moderates and independents, men and women, and voters with positive perceptions of the state. (page 22) Transportation Housing Infrastructure Bonds Package 6 2 31 61 General election voters Good idea Bad Idea Neither (vol) Don't know After Passage of Bonds, Percent Saying the Level of Funding Is Not Enough 80 Percent general election voters 60 47 53 50 39 40 20 0 Disaster,Scflhooooldss 15 Californians and the Future VOTERS’ INTERESTS Before the election, a major uncertainty was how the voters would respond to the massive $37.3 billion package of four infrastructure bonds that the governor and legislature placed on the ballot. In our pre-election surveys, six in 10 likely voters said that it was a good idea to issue state bonds to pay for public works projects; however, six in 10 also said the amount of money for bonds on this ballot was too much. The four infrastructure bonds on the ballot (1B, 1C, 1D, 1E) each passed by comfortable margins. Today, six in 10 voters say it was a good idea for the governor and legislature to place the infrastructure bond package on the ballot. Majorities in all political groups, regions, and demographic groups hold this positive view. Of those who voted for Schwarzenegger, 61 percent think of the bond package as a good idea. “Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislature placed the infrastructure bonds package-–Propositions 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E—on the November 7th ballot for Californians to vote on transportation, affordable housing, schools, and flood control bonds. In general, do you think the infrastructure bonds package was a good idea or a bad idea?” Good idea Bad Idea Neither (vol) Don’t know General Election Voters Democrat Party Republican Independent Central Valley Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California 61% 67 53 64 61 64 62 59 31% 24 40 31 30 28 29 34 2% 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 6% 7 5 2 6 5 7 5 How interested were voters in the four infrastructure bond measures that received such positive reviews? When asked which of the 13 propositions interested them the most, about half mentioned either Proposition 87 (energy/oil tax 21%), Propositions 1B through 1E (infrastructure bonds 14%) and Proposition 85 (advance parental notification of a minor’s abortion 14%). Several other propositions on the ballot generated lower levels of voter interest, including Proposition 86 (cigarette tax 7%) and Proposition 83 (sex offender reform 5%). Post-election, voter interest in the four bond measures is about three times as high as it was in the pre-election surveys. While the proposition with the highest voter interest, the oil tax for alternative energy research, was defeated, all of the bond measures passed. “Which one of the 13 state propositions on the November 7th ballot were you most interested in?” Proposition 87 Propositions 1B to 1E Proposition 85 Proposition 86 Proposition 83 General Election Voters 21% 14% 14% 7% 5% Democrat 26 14 12 7 3 Party Republican 15 14 19 8 7 Independent 24 14 12 6 5 Central Valley 14 18 16 5 6 San Francisco Bay Area 28 12 12 Region Los Angeles 22 14 14 7 7 2 6 Other Southern California 21 13 14 8 8 16 PPIC Statewide Survey November General Election INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS The governor and legislature placed a historic $37.3 billion bond package on the November ballot for funding of transportation, affordable housing, education facilities, and water and flood control projects. All four of the measures passed, with support ranging from 57 to 64 percent. Did voters view these bonds as a package or as individual measures? Many voters were selective: Fewer than three in 10 say they voted yes on all of the bond measures and only 15 percent voted no on all of the bonds. PROPOSITION 1B: SURFACE TRANSPORTATION Proposition 1B, the “Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006,” authorizing nearly $20 billion in funding, was approved by a 22-point margin (61% yes, 39% no). Why did people vote this way? Among those who voted yes, the top reasons mentioned are that this bond measure is important to the future of California, that the roads need to be fixed, and that traffic is a problem. Those who voted no state that the bond amount was excessive, that the state wastes too much money, that the state’s bond indebtedness is too great already, that the bond measure is not the solution to transportation problems, and that they vote no on all bonds. Proposition 1B was supported by more Democrats (69%) and independents (63%) than Republicans (54%). Those who approve of the job performance of the governor and legislature strongly supported the transportation bond measure. Of those who voted to re-elect Governor Schwarzenegger, 60 percent voted yes on Proposition 1B. Latinos were more in favor of Proposition 1B than whites (71% to 62%), while majority support for the measure was found across age, education, gender, and income groups. “Proposition 1B was called the ‘Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006’ for $19,925,000,000 in state bonds. Did you vote yes or no on this measure?” Dem Party Rep Governor Legislature approval approval Ind Voted yes Voted no 69% 54% 63% 65% 74% 31 46 37 35 26 Even after the passage of Proposition 1B, nearly half of all voters (47%) think that the level of state funding for surface transportation is still not enough to prepare for the future. Eleven percent of voters think that the level of funding is more than enough, and one in four state that it is just enough. Nearly half of the voters who voted both for and against Proposition 1B think there is not enough transportation funding to prepare for the future. Forty percent or more across regions, parties, and demographic groups believe that the level of funding for surface transportation is not enough. “As you may know, Proposition 1B passed. Do you think that the level of state funding for surface transportation that is available now will be more than enough, just enough, or not enough to prepare for the future?” General Election Voters Proposition 1B Yes No More than enough Just enough Not enough Don’t know 11% 7% 18% 25 30 21 47 49 46 17 14 15 November 2006 17 Californians and the Future PROPOSITION 1C: AFFORDABLE HOUSING Proposition 1C, the “Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006,” authorizing almost $3 billion in funding was approved by voters by a 16-point margin (58% yes, 42% no). The top reasons given for voting yes on this measure are that it addresses a good cause that helps people in need, that the measure is important to the future of California, that the cost of housing is too high, and that emergency shelters are needed. The main reasons given for voting no are that the bond amount is too large, that the state wastes too much money already, that this measure is not the solution to housing problems, and that these voters oppose all bonds. Support for Proposition 1C was impacted greatly by partisan affiliation. Seven in 10 Democrats (69%), and nearly six in 10 independents (57%) supported the measure, while 60 percent of Republicans opposed it. Majorities of voters who approve of the governor’s and legislature’s overall job performances voted yes on Proposition 1C. About seven in 10 Angelides voters supported Proposition 1C, compared to just 49 percent of those who voted for Schwarzenegger. Support was higher among women than men (60% to 53%), Latinos than whites (67% to 54%), renters than homeowners (75% to 51%), and among those earning less than $40,000 than those earning $80,000 or more (64% to 51%). “Proposition 1C was called the ‘Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006’ for $2,850,000,000 in state bonds. Did you vote yes or no on this measure?” Dem Party Rep Governor Legislature approval approval Ind Voted yes Voted no 69% 40% 57% 54% 68% 31 60 43 46 32 The majority of California voters (53%) think the level of state funding for affordable housing available now, after the passage of Proposition 1C, is still not enough to prepare for the future. One in three voters perceives available state funding as either just enough or more than enough. Republicans (22%) are the most likely to state that the level of funding is more than enough, while Democrats (59%) are the most likely to think that there is not enough funding to prepare for the future. The belief that the level of funding is not enough is lowest among residents of the Central Valley (47%) and greatest among residents of the San Francisco Bay Area (56%) and Los Angeles (55%). The belief that there is not enough funding is somewhat higher among renters than homeowners (58% to 52%). While 56 percent of those who voted yes on Proposition 1C believe the level of funding for affordable housing available now is not enough to prepare for the future, 49 percent of those who voted no on Proposition 1C also say that the amount of funding is not enough to prepare for the future. “As you may know Proposition 1C passed. Do you think that the level of state funding for affordable housing that is available now will be more than enough, just enough, or not enough to prepare for the future?” General Election Voters Proposition 1C Yes No More than enough Just enough Not enough Don’t know 14% 6% 27% 20 26 14 53 56 49 13 12 10 18 PPIC Statewide Survey November General Election PROPOSITION 1D: SCHOOL FACILITIES Of the four bonds, Proposition 1D, the “Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006,” authorizing about $10.4 billion in bond sales, received the least support from the voters. However, this measure still passed by a 14-point margin (57% yes, 43% no). Among yes voters, the main reasons given for supporting Proposition 1D are that it is important to the future of California, that they always support education, and that schools are too crowded. The main reasons given by those voting against 1D are that the state wastes too much money already, that the bond amount is too much, that the schools waste too much money, and that this measure is not the solution for the state’s school facility problems. Proposition 1D had the largest partisan divide in support for any of the four bond measures. Seven in 10 Democrats (71%) and nearly six in 10 independents (57%) voted yes on this measure, while six in 10 Republicans (59%) voted no. Latinos are more likely than whites to have voted yes (74% to 55%), and those under 35 are more likely than those 35 and older to have supported it (73% to 56%). Seventy-four percent of Angelides voters—compared to 49 percent of Schwarzenegger voters—voted yes on this bond measure. Still, 55 percent of those who approve of the governor and 71 percent of those who approve of the legislature voted yes on Proposition 1D. “Proposition 1D was called the ‘Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006’ for $10,416,000,000 in state bonds. Did you vote yes or no on this measure?” Dem Party Rep Governor Legislature approval approval Ind Voted yes Voted no 71% 41% 57% 55% 71% 29 59 43 45 29 Even though Proposition 1D passed, the belief that there is still not enough funding for school facilities is held by 50 percent of voters. Four in 10 believe that there is more than enough funding (16%) or just enough funding (25%). More than half of Democrats (54%) and independents (53%) think the level of funding for school facilities is not enough, while half of Republicans think the level of funding is just enough (25%) or more than enough (25%). Forty-four percent of those who approve of the governor, and 49 percent of those who approve of the legislature, believe that there is not enough funding for school facilities. Nearly six in 10 (58%) of those voting yes on Proposition 1D believe that the level of funding for school facilities is not enough to prepare for the future, while half of those who voted no on the measure think that level is more than enough (31%) or just enough (19%). “As you may know, Proposition 1D passed. Do you think that the level of state funding for school facilities that is available now will be more than enough, just enough, or not enough to prepare for the future?” General Election Voters Proposition 1D Yes No More than enough Just enough Not enough Don’t know 16% 6% 31% 25 30 19 50 58 42 9 68 November 2006 19 Californians and the Future PROPOSITION 1E: WATER AND FLOOD CONTROLS Proposition 1E, the “Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006,” enjoyed the highest level of support among the four bond measures placed on the ballot as part of the infrastructure package. The measure passed by 28 points (64% yes, 36% no). Why did Proposition 1E receive the largest amount of support? The top reasons for supporting this measure are that flood control and disaster preparedness are important, that the measure is important to the future of California, and that the state’s levees and dikes need repair. The main reasons for opposing it are that that state wastes too much money already, that the bond amount is excessive, that they vote no on all bonds, and that this measure is not the solution for these problems. The greatest support for Proposition 1E is found among Democrats (74%), followed by independents (61%), while Republicans are more divided (54% yes, 46% no). Women are more likely than men to have voted yes (67% to 60%), and renters more likely than homeowners to have supported Proposition 1E (69% to 62%). Among Schwarzenegger voters, 60 percent voted yes on Proposition 1E, while 73 percent of Angelides voters did. Seventy-four percent of those who approve of the legislature and 65 percent of those who approve of Governor Schwarzenegger voted yes on Proposition 1E. “Proposition 1E was called the ‘Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006’ for $4,090,000,000 in state bonds. Did you vote yes or no on this measure?” Dem Party Rep Governor Legislature approval approval Ind Voted yes Voted no 74% 54% 61% 65% 74% 26 46 39 35 26 Even after the passage of Proposition 1E, four in 10 California voters (39%) think that the current level of funding for water facilities and flood control is not enough to prepare for the future. Just under half say there is more than enough (15%) or just enough funds (32%). There are no major differences across parties, but regional differences are apparent, with Central Valley residents being the most likely to state there is not enough funding (46%) and residents of Los Angeles being the least likely (36%). The belief that there is not enough funding is similar among homeowners and renters, and Latinos and whites. Of those who voted yes or no on Proposition 1E, four in 10 say there is not enough funding. “As you may know Proposition 1E passed. Do you think that the level of state funding for water systems and flood controls that is available now will be more than enough, just enough, or not enough to prepare for the future?” General Election Voters Proposition 1E Yes No More than enough Just enough Not enough Don’t know 15% 8% 29% 32 38 22 39 41 39 14 13 10 20 PPIC Statewide Survey November General Election VOTER INFORMATION SOURCES Seventy-seven percent of voters in the November election were very closely (32%) or fairly closely (45%) following news about the 13 state propositions on the November 7th ballot. By contrast, 85 percent of voters were following news about the 2005 special election ballot very or fairly closely, with 44 percent of these very closely. Attention to election news this year was at more than 70 percent across parties, demographic groups, and regions. Those who voted by absentee ballot are as likely as those who voted at a local polling place to say they had closely watched the news about the state propositions (78% to 76%). “And regardless of how you voted, before deciding how to vote on the 13 state propositions, how closely were you following news about these measures?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Very closely 32% 31% 32% 33% Fairly closely 45 45 47 44 Not too closely 17 17 16 14 Not at all closely 5 5 5 8 Don’t know 1 2 0 1 Voters are most likely to name the official voter guide when asked for the information source that was most helpful in deciding how to vote on the state propositions. Democrats, Republicans, and independents are equally as likely to say the voter guide was their major source of information. Paid advertising ranked above news and media coverage, and 8 percent say that the Internet was most helpful to them. Independent voters are more likely than major party voters to name the Internet as the most helpful source in deciding how to vote. In a separate question, 35 percent of voters say they used the Internet for election information this fall. The largest users of the Internet for election information are voters under 35 (50%), those with incomes of $80,000 or more (46%), college graduates (42%), and San Francisco Bay Area voters (42%). “People learned about the ballot propositions a number of different ways. Which way did you find the most helpful in deciding how to vote on the 13 state propositions?” Top five sources mentioned General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Official voter information guide and sample ballot Advertisements— radio/television/newspaper/mail News and media coverage— radio/television/newspaper Internet Newspaper endorsements— columns/editorials 42% 40% 44% 43% 17 18 18 14 11 12 11 10 8 6 9 13 8879 Eight in 10 voters say they were very satisfied (34%) or somewhat satisfied (47%) with the amount of information available to make choices on the ballot propositions—consistent with the responses of voters in our post-election survey of 2005. Only 17 percent say they were not too satisfied (13%) or not at all satisfied (4%). Voters across party groups were similarly satisfied, and strong majorities of voters across regions and in all racial/ethnic and demographic categories report satisfaction with the amount of information available. November 2006 21 Californians and the Future GOVERNOR’S ELECTION In a “blue” state, how did GOP Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger manage to achieve victory over Democratic State Treasurer Phil Angelides by a 17-point margin (56% to 39%)? This post-election survey points to the same patterns of voter support that we found in three monthly pre-election surveys. Reflecting their strong partisan preferences in the governor’s race, nine in 10 Republicans voted for Schwarzenegger, while just 5 percent of GOP voters supported Angelides. By contrast, 66 percent of Democrats supported Angelides, but three in 10 said they voted for Schwarzenegger. Independents favored Schwarzenegger over Angelides by 19 points, 54 percent to 35 percent. Self-described liberal voters supported Angelides over Schwarzenegger by a wide margin (67% to 26%). However, Schwarzenegger easily won this election because he had solid majority support of moderate voters (57%) and he was the overwhelming favorite among conservative voters (80%). California elections often reflect a gender gap in which Republican candidates enjoy more support among men while Democratic candidates have more among women, but Schwarzenegger had majority support among both men and women. Schwarzenegger was also favored over Angelides across all education groups. Angelides had more support among voters under 35, while majorities of voters 35 and older favored Schwarzenegger. Union members favored Angelides, but nonunion households supported Schwarzenegger by a large margin. We noted earlier that the governor’s approval ratings increased significantly from a year ago, as have voters’ perceptions of the state’s direction and economy. Schwarzenegger won by large margins among the majority of voters who approve of his job performance in office, who perceive the state heading in the right direction, and who expect good economic times in the next year (62% to 26%). “For governor, did you happen to vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican, Phil Angelides, the Democrat, or someone else?” General Election Voters Arnold Schwarzenegger Phil Angelides Other Candidates General Election Results 56% 39% 5% Democrat 30 66 4 Party Republican 92 5 3 Independent 54 35 11 Liberal 26 67 7 Ideology Middle-of-the-road 57 39 4 Conservative 80 16 4 Gender Men Women 59 35 54 42 6 4 Race/Ethnicity Latinos Whites 34 61 63 33 5 4 Approve Governor’s job approval Disapprove 81 16 13 79 3 8 Direction of state Right direction Wrong direction 65 45 31 48 4 7 22 PPIC Statewide Survey CALIFORNIANS AND THE FUTURE KEY FINDINGS „ Six in 10 voters say that the population growth of 10 million people expected in California by 2025 is a bad thing for their families, and nearly half say they have very little or no confidence in the state government’s ability to plan for the future. (page 24) „ Half of California voters predict that the state will be a worse place to live in the future than it is today, with whites expressing more pessimism than Latinos. One in five believes that the state will be a better place in the future. (page 25) „ Most voters say the passage of the infrastructure bonds has not changed their views of California’s future. One in three is more optimistic about the future as a result of the election outcome, with Democrats more upbeat than Republicans in their future outlook. (page 25) „ Seven in 10 voters are at least somewhat satisfied with the way the initiative process is working. However, when asked about the fall ballot propositions, two in three think they were too confusing and that there were too many of them, while three in four say there was too much money spent on them. (pages 26, 27) „ Two in three voters would like to see changes in the initiative process. There is strong support for two initiative reforms: allowing time to reach a legislative compromise and increasing the public disclosure of funding. (pages 26, 28) „ Majorities are opposed to public funding for state and legislative campaigns. After a campaign which featured only one debate, a solid majority of voters support a proposal calling for a series of gubernatorial debates. (page 29) Confidence in State Government's Ability to Plan for the Future 17 14 46 32 General election voters A great deal Only some Very little None at all Don't know Percent general election voters Outlook on State's Future After Passage of Infrastructure Bonds More optimistic More pessimistic Feel about the same 100 80 34 41 26 35 60 14 8 21 13 40 51 20 50 52 51 0 All voters Dem Rep Ind 23 Californians and the Future PERCEPTIONS OF THE FUTURE California’s future population growth is a major concern of election voters, even in the wake of passing a massive infrastructure bond package on November 7th. With the state expected to gain about 10 million residents over the next two decades, reaching a population of 47 million by 2025, six in 10 voters view this rate of growth as a bad thing. Only 12 percent say the state’s population growth will have a good effect on themselves and their families. The views in this post-election survey echo those expressed by likely voters in our August survey (11% good thing, 62% bad thing). Majorities in all political groups say this level of growth is a bad thing (65% Republicans, 58% Democrats, 57% independents). About six in 10 voters across regions believe that the state’s future population growth will have negative consequences for themselves and their family. Whites (65%) are more negative than Latinos (47%) about the state’s population growth, although negative perceptions of future growth are evident across all age, education, gender, and income groups. “Between now and 2025, California’s population is estimated to increase by about 10 million people from 37 million to about 47 million. On balance, do you think this population growth is a good thing or a bad thing or does it make no difference to you and your family?” General Election Voters Central Valley Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California Good thing 12% 11% 12% 13% 11% Bad thing 60 57 58 60 63 No difference 23 30 24 20 21 Don’t know 5 2675 Confidence in the state government’s ability to plan for the state’s future and growth has not increased since the bonds passed in November. Today, only 7 percent of election voters have a great deal of confidence, while 46 percent have some confidence, and 46 percent have little or no confidence. In our August survey, likely voters expressed more confidence in the state’s planning abilities: 7 percent had a great deal of confidence, 53 percent had only some, and 40 percent expressed little or no confidence. Today, at least four in 10 voters across all regions and in every age, education, homeownership, income, and racial/ethnic category have very little or no faith in the state government’s ability to plan for growth. More than four in 10 in the major parties express little or no confidence, and a majority of independents (53%) hold this view. Confidence in government is related to pessimism about the future: Among those with little or no trust in the state government’s ability to plan, 70 percent think the state’s population increase is a bad thing. A great deal Only some Very little None at all Don’t know “How much confidence do you have in the state government’s ability to plan for the state’s future and growth?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep 7% 7% 7% 46 50 44 32 31 14 11 11 32 17 0 Ind 5% 40 39 14 2 24 PPIC Statewide Survey Californians and the Future PERCEPTIONS OF THE FUTURE (CONTINUED) A majority of voters (51%) believe the state will be a worse place to live in 2025 than it is now, while 20 percent think it will be a better place and 22 percent think there will be no change. In August, likely voters expressed similar views about the state’s future (51% worse, 21% better, 23% no change). Across the state’s regions, pessimism about the future is highest in the Central Valley (55% worse) and lowest in the San Francisco Bay Area (47% worse). The belief that the state will be a worse place to live in 2025 is greater among Republicans (57%) than among independents (51%) or Democrats (47%). Whites are more pessimistic than Latinos (55% to 43%) and homeowners are more pessimistic than renters (53% to 44%) about the state’s future. Majorities of voters age 35 and older, of those with incomes of $40,000 or more, and of those who have at least some college education are pessimistic about the future. Once again, attitudes towards government are related to future perceptions: Among those with little or no confidence in the state government’s ability to plan, 69 percent believe that California will be a worse place to live in 2025. “Overall, do you think that in 2025 California will be a better place to live than it is now or a worse place to live than it is now or there will be no change?” General Election Voters Central Valley Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California Better place 20% 17% 21% 21% 19% Worse place 51 55 47 52 52 No change 22 22 23 19 23 Don’t know 7 6986 We also asked general election voters specifically how the passage of $37.3 billion in state infrastructure bonds has affected their view of the state’s future. Half of voters (51%) say they feel about the same about the future as they did before the election, while 14 percent are more pessimistic in the wake of the election. One in three voters (34%) say they feel more optimistic after the passage of the bonds. Democrats (41%) are more optimistic than independents (35%) or Republicans (26%) as a result of the approval of the bonds, although most in all parties say they feel about the same. By region, voters in the San Francisco Bay Area (40%) and Los Angeles (37%) are more positive about the effect of the bonds’ passage than those in the Central Valley (33%) or the Other Southern California region (28%). Half or more in all age and income groups say this election outcome makes no difference. “In the November election, California voters passed the state infrastructure bonds for transportation, affordable housing, school facilities, and water and flood control bonds. Does this overall outcome make you more optimistic about the state’s future, more pessimistic, or do you feel about the same as you did before the election?” More optimistic General Election Voters 34% Central Valley 33% Region San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles 40% 37% Other Southern California 28% More pessimistic 14 12 10 13 18 Feel about the same 51 54 48 49 53 Don’t know 1 1211 November 2006 25 Californians and the Future THE INITIATIVE PROCESS After facing a November ballot with 13 state propositions, seven in 10 voters say they are at least somewhat satisfied with the way the initiative process is working in California today, with two in 10 voters saying they are very satisfied. The proportion of voters who express satisfaction with the initiative process is the same now as it was among likely voters in our August survey (10% very satisfied, 61% somewhat satisfied). In comparing the election this year to the special election last year, more voters today say they are satisfied with the initiative process (69% to 53%) and fewer say they are not satisfied (27% to 44%). Across political groups, Democrats (32%) are more likely than independents (28%) and Republicans (20%) to say they are not satisfied. Voters in the San Francisco Bay Area are the least likely to say they are satisfied with the process (17% very satisfied, 44% somewhat satisfied) while voters in the Other Southern California region are the most likely to say they are satisfied (21% very satisfied, 55% somewhat satisfied). “Generally speaking, would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, or not satisfied with the way the initiative process is working in California today?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Very satisfied 19% 17% 22% 19% Somewhat satisfied 50 47 55 49 Not satisfied 27 32 20 28 Don’t know 4 4 3 4 Although most voters express satisfaction with the initiative process, 67 percent believe that major (35%) or minor (32%) changes need to be made. Our results after the election are similar to reports from likely voters before the election: 37 percent wanted major changes and 31 percent wanted minor changes. The perceived need for changing the initiative process was slightly higher among voters in the 2005 special election (38% major, 34% minor) than among voters in the general election this year. Strong majorities across political parties think major or minor changes are needed in the initiative process. Democrats (40%) and independents (37%) are more likely than Republicans (27%) to say major changes are needed. Across racial/ethnic groups, Latinos (43%) are more likely than whites (32%) to say major changes are needed. Among voters who say they are not satisfied with the initiative process, 75 percent say major changes are needed. “Do you think the citizens’ initiative process in California is in need of major changes or minor changes or that it is basically fine the way it is?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Major changes 35% 40% 27% 37% Minor changes 32 31 33 37 Fine the way it is 26 20 33 21 Don’t know 7 9 7 5 26 PPIC Statewide Survey Californians and the Future THE INITIATIVE PROCESS (CONTINUED) Voters may hold the initiative process in a positive light and express happiness overall about voting on the 13 propositions this year, but their opinions turn negative when asked about the particulars. A solid majority of voters (63%) agree strongly (33%) or somewhat (30%) that the wording of propositions on the November ballot was too complicated and confusing. Before the election, 79 percent of likely voters agreed with this point of view in our September survey. After the special election in 2005, fewer voters (55%) agreed that the ballot wording for the propositions was complicated and confusing. Across parties today, 66 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of Republicans, and 59 percent of independents agree that the ballot language of the propositions was complicated and confusing. Majorities of voters across age, education, income, and racial/ethnic groups agree with this statement. How did voters feel about the number of propositions on the state ballot after the election? Sixty percent strongly (35%) or somewhat agree (25%) that there were too many, which is similar to the 58 percent of likely voters who held this perspective in our September survey (29% strongly, 29% somewhat). By comparison, eight propositions may be more palatable – only 41 percent of voters in the November 2005 special election agreed that there were too many propositions on the state ballot. Today, solid majorities of voters in all political parties and regions and across all education, gender, income, and racial/ethnic groups agree that there were too many propositions on the November ballot. An overwhelming majority of voters (78%) also agrees that there was too much money spent by initiative campaigns, with over half (56%) strongly agreeing. Despite the fact that a record amount of money was spent by initiative campaigns this year – primarily on Propositions 86 (cigarette tax for health programs) and 87 (oil tax for alternative energy) – a slightly higher percentage of voters (83%) felt this way last year. There is broad consensus however, that too much money was spent this year, with at least 70 percent in all parties, regions, and demographic groups agreeing with this statement. Even among those who are very satisfied with the way the initiative process is working and among those who do not believe the process needs to be changed, seven in 10 agree that spending was too high this November. General Election Voters The wording of propositions on the state ballot was too complicated and confusing There were too many propositions on the state ballot There was too much money spent by the initiative campaigns Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know 33% 30 22 13 2 35 25 23 15 2 56 22 9 5 8 Dem 37% 29 20 12 2 40 25 21 13 1 58 20 9 5 8 Party Rep 31% 29 24 15 1 33 26 25 15 1 51 25 10 6 8 Ind 24% 35 28 13 0 30 27 19 20 4 62 21 8 5 4 November 2006 27 Californians and the Future INITIATIVE REFORMS Although voters express overall satisfaction with the initiative process, we found a high level of support for certain reforms. Eight in 10 voters favor having a period of time in which the initiative sponsor and the legislature could meet to discuss compromise solutions before an initiative is placed on the ballot. In our October survey, 75 percent of likely voters said they favored this idea. A similar high percentage of voters in last year’s special election (83%) voiced support for this reform. At least three in four voters across party lines favor having a period of time for the initiative sponsor and legislature to try to work out a compromise solution before initiatives go to the ballot. Democrats (84%) and independents (82%) are more likely than Republicans (76%) to support this reform, as are residents in the Central Valley (84%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (83%) compared to those in Los Angeles and the Other Southern California region (77% each). At least three in four voters across age, education, gender, income, homeownership, and racial/ethnic groups support this reform. Support is higher among those who believe the initiative process needs major (85%) or minor (84%) changes than among those who say it is fine the way it is (71%). “Would you favor or oppose having a period of time in which the initiative sponsor and the legislature could meet to see if there is a compromise solution before initiatives go to the ballot?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Favor 80% 84% 76% 82% Oppose 15 11 21 13 Don’t know 5 5 3 5 Reflecting their concern about campaign spending on initiatives, more than eight in 10 voters (84%) would also favor increasing public disclosure of funding sources for signature gathering and initiative campaigns. Support for this proposal was nearly identical among likely voters in our October survey (82%) and among voters in last year’s special election (85%). Although current support for this reform is high among Democrats (82%) and Republicans (86%), it is even higher among independents (90%). Across regions, at least eight in 10 voters in the San Francisco Bay Area (89%), Central Valley (85%), the Other Southern California region (83%), and Los Angeles (80%) favor increasing public disclosure of initiative funding sources. At least seven in 10 voters across all age, education, and income groups favor this idea. Support is higher among whites than Latinos (88% to 70%). Whether or not voters are satisfied with the way the initiative process is working, and whether or not they believe the process needs change, over eight in 10 favor increasing public disclosure of funding sources. Favor Oppose Don’t know “Would you favor or oppose increasing public disclosure of funding sources for signature gathering and initiative campaigns?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind 84% 82% 86% 90% 11 12 56 11 3 9 1 28 PPIC Statewide Survey Californians and the Future CAMPAIGN REFORMS Most voters stop short of supporting efforts to reform the state’s campaign finance system with their own money. In the wake of the defeat of Proposition 89 (public funding for campaigns), 55 percent of voters say they are opposed to creating a system in which taxpayers would help pay for state and legislative campaigns. Likely voters expressed similar views in September (53% opposed the idea). Voter support for this reform has declined sharply in the past four years. In our November 2002 survey, 57 percent of likely voters favored and 39 percent opposed this proposal. Today, Republicans (69%) are far more likely to oppose this idea than independents (50%) or Democrats (46%). While majorities of conservatives (69%) and moderates (55%) oppose this proposal, a majority of liberals (55%) favors the idea. Half of San Francisco Bay Area residents (50%) support the idea of public funding for campaigns, while majorities in all other regions oppose it. At least half of voters across age, education, gender, income, and racial/ethnic groups oppose this proposal for public funding of state campaigns. “Would you favor or oppose having a system of public funding for state and legislative campaigns in California if it cost each taxpayer a few dollars a year to run?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Favor 38% 47% 26% 44% Oppose 55 46 69 50 Don’t know 7 7 5 6 The gubernatorial election this year featured one Saturday evening debate between Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic State Treasurer Phil Angelides. In our post-election survey, a solid majority of voters (67%) expresses support for a hypothetical initiative that would require gubernatorial candidates to participate in five prime-time publicly broadcasted debates. Voter support for this proposal appears to be growing: Only 56 percent of likely voters favored this idea in our November 2002 survey. Today, independents (75%) are the most likely to favor this idea, although support is also high among Democrats (71%) and Republicans (60%). Liberals (75%) are more likely than moderates (66%) or conservatives (62%) to favor this proposal. At least six in 10 voters across all regions of the state favor having five prime-time debates between candidates for governor. Support is higher among voters under age 35 (77%) and those age 35 to 54 (73%) than among those age 55 and older (60%). Still, solid majorities across all education, gender, income, and racial/ethnic groups support this debate proposal. Those who voted for Schwarzenegger (63%) and Angelides (77%) in the November election both favor requiring more debates between the candidates for governor. “Would you favor or oppose an initiative that would require candidates for governor to participate in five prime-time publicly broadcasted debates?” General Election Voters Dem Party Rep Ind Favor 67% 71% 60% 75% Oppose 28 24 35 22 Don’t know 5 5 5 3 November 2006 29 REGIONAL MAP 30 METHODOLOGY The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, research director and survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California, with assistance in research and writing from Dean Bonner, project manager for this survey, and survey research associates Jennifer Paluch and Sonja Petek. The survey was conducted with funding from The James Irvine Foundation and benefited from discussions with foundation staff, grantees, and state experts; however, the survey methods, questions, and content of the report were solely determined by Mark Baldassare. The findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,000 California voters in the November 7th election who were interviewed between November 8 and November 19, 2006. Interviewing took place mostly on weekday and weekend evenings, using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted numbers were called. All telephone exchanges in California were eligible for calling. Telephone numbers in the survey sample were called as many as six times to increase the likelihood of reaching eligible households. Once a household was reached, an adult respondent (age 18 or older) was randomly chosen for interviewing by using the “last birthday method” to avoid biases in age and gender. Eligible respondents were those who reported that they had voted in the November election either at their local polling place or by absentee ballot. Interviews took an average of 19 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English or Spanish. Accent on Languages translated the survey into Spanish with assistance from Renatta DeFever. Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. conducted the telephone interviewing. We used data from the PPIC Statewide Surveys, media exit polls, and voter statistics from the California Secretary of State to compare with the demographic characteristics of election voters in this survey sample. The survey sample of voters’ characteristics was comparable to the PPIC Statewide Survey statistics and other state figures. Statistical weighting of the data to account for any demographic differences did not significantly change any of the findings in this report. The sampling error for the total sample of 2,000 voters is +/- 2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 2 percentage points of what they would be if all voters in California were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject, and results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. Throughout the report, we refer to four geographic regions accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state’s population. “Central Valley” includes Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba Counties. “SF Bay Area” includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. “Los Angeles” refers to Los Angeles County, and “Other Southern California” includes the mostly suburban regions of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. Voters from other regions are included in the results reported for all voters; the sample sizes for these less populated areas are too small for separate analysis. We present specific results for Latino voters because Latinos account for about 30 percent of the state’s adult population and constitute one of the fastest growing voter groups. The sample sizes for African Americans and Asian Americans are not large enough for separate statistical analysis. We do compare the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The “independents” category includes those who are registered to vote as “decline to state.” To analyze time trends, we compare this survey’s responses to responses recorded in earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys of likely voters, and to election voters in our November 2004 and November 2005 surveys. 31 QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS CALIFORNIANS AND THE FUTURE November 8-19, 2006 2,000 California Voters in the November 7th Election English, Spanish MARGIN OF ERROR +/- 2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 1. First, thinking about the state as a whole, what do you think is the most important issue facing people in California today? [code, don’t read] 20% immigration, illegal immigration 14 jobs, economy 13 education, schools 7 health care, health costs 7 state budget, deficit, taxes 5 environment, pollution 3 crime, gangs, drugs 3 housing costs, housing availability 2 electricity costs, energy supply 2 gasoline prices 2 population growth, too much development, sprawl 2 traffic, transportation 14 other 6 don’t know 2. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? 60% approve 32 disapprove 8 don’t know 3. Overall, from what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Schwarzenegger is handling plans and policies for California’s future? 56% approve 32 disapprove 12 don’t know 4. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling its job? 36% approve 49 disapprove 15 don’t know 5. Overall, from what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling plans and policies for California’s future? 33% approve 49 disapprove 18 don’t know 6. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature and the governor are working together in making public policy? 53% approve 36 disapprove 11 don’t know 7. Do you think that Governor Schwarzenegger and the state legislature will be able to work together and accomplish a lot in the next year, or not? 58% yes, will be able to work together 31 no, will not be able to work together 11 don’t know 8. Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? 53% right direction 39 wrong direction 8 don’t know November 2006 33 Californians and the Future 9. Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times? 51% good times 36 bad times 13 don’t know 10.Next, how much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Sacramento to do what is right? 3% just about always 25 most of the time 66 only some of the time 4 none of the time (volunteered) 2 don’t know 11.Would you say the state government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, or that it is run for the benefit of all of the people? 68% a few big interests 23 benefit of all of the people 9 don’t know 12.Do you think the people in state government waste a lot of the money we pay in taxes, waste some of it, or don’t waste very much of it? 57% a lot 35 some 5 don’t waste very much 3 don’t know 13.In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the state’s elected officials when it comes to making public policy? 3% a great deal 49 a fair amount 37 not too much 9 none at all 2 don’t know 14.How much trust and confidence do you have in California’s voters when it comes to making public policy at the ballot box? 11% a great deal 41 a fair amount 37 not too much 10 none at all 1 don’t know Now, thinking about the November 7th election, the ballot included 13 state propositions, five measures placed on the ballot by the governor and legislature— Propositions 1A through 1E—and eight citizens’ initiatives—Propositions 83 through 90. 15.Overall, how did you feel about having to vote on the 13 propositions in the November 7th general election—would you say you were very happy, somewhat happy, somewhat unhappy, or very unhappy? 18% very happy 42 somewhat happy 25 somewhat unhappy 10 very unhappy 2 neither (volunteered) 3 don’t know 16.Overall, would you say the November 7th general election has made you feel better, worse, or no different about California politics? 30% better 14 worse 54 no different 2 don’t know 34 PPIC Statewide Survey 17.Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislature placed the infrastructure bonds package—Propositions 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E—on the November 7th ballot for Californians to vote on transportation, affordable housing, schools, and flood control bonds. In general, do you think the infrastructure bonds package was a good idea or a bad idea? 61% good idea 31 bad idea 2 neither (volunteered) 6 don’t know 18. And regardless of how you voted, before deciding how to vote on the 13 state propositions, how closely were you following news about these measures? 32% very closely 45 fairly closely 17 not too closely 5 not at all closely 1 don’t know 19.People learned about the ballot propositions a number of different ways. Which way did you find the most helpful in deciding how to vote on the 13 state propositions? [code, don’t read] 42% official voter information guide and sample ballot 17 advertisements— radio/television/newspaper/mail 11 news and media coverage— radio/television/newspaper 8 Internet 8 newspaper endorsements— columns/editorials 4 opinions of friends/family/ coworkers 3 endorsements—interest groups/politicians/celebrities 2 forum/debate/meeting 3 something/someone else 2 don’t know Questionnaire and Results 19a.Did you happen to get any news or information about the November election on the Internet or through email? 35% yes 65 no 20.Overall, how satisfied were you with the information you had to make choices on the ballot propositions? 34% very satisfied 47 somewhat satisfied 13 not too satisfied 4 not at all satisfied 2 don’t know 21.Which one of the 13 state propositions on the November 7th ballot were you most interested in? [code, don’t read] 5% Proposition 1A 4 Proposition 1B 3 Proposition 1C 5 Proposition 1D 2 Proposition 1E 5 Proposition 83 3 Proposition 84 14 Proposition 85 7 Proposition 86 21 Proposition 87 2 Proposition 88 1 Proposition 89 5 Proposition 90 4 none of them 3 all equally 2 other answer 14 don’t know November 2006 35 Californians and the Future For each of the following, please tell me if you voted yes or no on the measure. First, 22.Proposition 1B was called the “Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006” for $19,925,000,000 in state bonds. Did you vote yes or no on this measure? [*actual vote] 61% voted yes 39 voted no [q23a asked of those who say they voted yes] 23a.And why did you vote yes? [code, don’t read] 32% important to the future of California/needed/good idea 28 roads need to be fixed 10 traffic is a problem/reduce congestion 4 port security is important/ports need to be secured 3 air pollution is a problem 3 endorsed by group/public figure I trust 3 governor/legislature supported it 3 increases money for mass transit/public transportation 2 friends/family supported it 7 other 5 don’t know [skip to q23c] [q23b asked of those who say they voted no] 23b.And why did you vote no? [code, don’t read] 24% bond amount is too much 11 state wastes too much money already/budget deficits 10 bond debt is too high already 10 this is not the solution/will not fix the problem 9 I vote no on all bonds 6 mortgages our future/should use pay-as-you-go approach 2 already spend too much money on transportation 2 friends/family opposed it 1 governor/legislature supported it 19 other 6 don’t know 23c.As you may know Proposition 1B passed. Do you think that the level of state funding for surface transportation that is available now will be more than enough, just enough, or not enough to prepare for the future? 11% more than enough 25 just enough 47 not enough 17 don’t know 24.Proposition 1C was called the “Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006” for $2,850,000,000 in state bonds. Did you vote yes or no on this measure? [*actual vote] 58% voted yes 42 voted no 36 PPIC Statewide Survey [q25a asked of those who say they voted yes] 25a.And why did you vote yes? [code, don’t read] 35% it’s a good cause/people in those circumstances need help 27 important to the future of California/needed/good idea 12 cost of housing is too high/ affordability of housing 9 emergency shelters are needed 2 endorsed by group/public figure I trust 2 governor/legislature supported it 1 bond amount is small/lowest of all bond amounts 1 friends/family supported it 6 other 5 don’t know [skip to q25c] [q25b asked of those who say they voted no] 25b.And why did you vote no? [code, don’t read] 18% bond amount is too much 16 state wastes too much money already/budget deficits 10 this is not the solution/will not fix the problem 9 I vote no on all bonds 8 bond debt is too high already 6 housing is an individual responsibility/state should not subsidize housing 4 mortgages our future/should use pay-as-you-go approach 1 friends/family opposed it 1 no need for emergency shelters 21 other 6 don’t know Questionnaire and Results 25c.As you may know Proposition 1C passed. Do you think that the level of state funding for affordable housing that is available now will be more than enough, just enough, or not enough to prepare for the future? 14% more than enough 20 just enough 53 not enough 13 don’t know 26.Proposition 1D was called the “Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006” for $10,416,000,000 in state bonds. Did you vote yes or no on this measure? [*actual vote] 57% voted yes 43 voted no [q27a asked of those who say they voted yes] 27a.And why did you vote yes? [code, don’t read] 29% important to the future of California/needed/good idea 20 I always support education/ schools doing poorly/I’m a teacher/student 14 schools too crowded/replaces portable classrooms/improves teacher-pupil ratio 8 schools need fixing/earthquake protection 7 new facilities needed 2 endorsed by group/public figure I trust 2 friends/family supported it 2 governor/legislature supported it 12 other 4 don’t know [skip to q27c] November 2006 37 Californians and the Future [q27b asked of those who say they voted no] 27b.And why did you vote no? [code, don’t read] 17% state wastes too much money already/budget deficits 15 bond amount is too much 13 schools waste funds/money goes to administration, not kids 11 this is not the solution/will not fix the problem 9 I vote no on all bonds 6 bond debt is too high already 4 mortgages our future/should use pay-as-you-go approach 2 should not pay for immigrants to go to school 1 friends/family opposed it 1 opposed by group/public figure I trust 17 other 4 don’t know 27c.As you may know Proposition 1D passed. Do you think that the level of state funding for school facilities that is available now will be more than enough, just enough, or not enough to prepare for the future? 16% more than enough 25 just enough 50 not enough 9 don’t know 28.Proposition 1E was called the “Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006” for $4.09 billion in state bonds. Did you vote yes or no on this measure? [*actual vote] 64% voted yes 36 voted no [q29a asked of those who say they voted yes] 29a.And why did you vote yes? [code, don’t read] 43% flood control and disaster preparedness is important/ Hurricane Katrina, earthquakes, storms 25 important to the future of California/needed/good idea 17 levees/dikes need repair 2 endorsed by group/public figure I trust 2 governor/legislature supported it 2 water/clean drinking water important to California 1 friends/family supported it 4 other 4 don’t know [skip to q29c] [q29b asked of those who say they voted no] 29b.And why did you vote no? [code, don’t read] 17% state wastes too much money already/budget deficits 16 bond amount is too much 11 I vote no on all bonds 10 this is not the solution/will not fix the problem 7 bond debt is too high already 4 mortgages our future/should use pay-as-you-go approach 3 I do not live near water or levees 2 people should not live/build on/near flood plains 1 friends/family opposed it 1 levees/dikes do not need repairs 22 other 6 don’t know 38 PPIC Statewide Survey 29c.As you may know Proposition 1E passed. Do you think that the level of state funding for water systems and flood controls that is available now will be more than enough, just enough, or not enough to prepare for the future? 15% more than enough 32 just enough 39 not enough 14 don’t know 30.Between now and 2025, California’s population is estimated to increase by about 10 million people from 37 million to about 47 million. On balance, do you think this population growth is a good thing or a bad thing or does it make no difference to you and your family? 12% good thing 60 bad thing 23 no difference 5 don’t know 31.How much confidence do you have in the state government’s ability to plan for the state’s future and growth? 7% a great deal 46 only some 32 very little 14 none at all 1 don’t know 32.Overall, do you think that in 2025 California will be a better place to live than it is now or a worse place to live than it is now or there will be no change? 20% better place 51 worse place 22 no change 7 don’t know Questionnaire and Results 33.In the November election, California voters passed state infrastructure bonds for transportation, affordable housing, school facilities and water and flood control bonds. Does this outcome make you more optimistic about the state’s future, more pessimistic, or do you feel about the same as you did before the election? 34% more optimistic 14 more pessimistic 51 feel about the same 1 don’t know California uses the direct initiative process, which enables voters to bypass the legislature and have issues put on the ballot—as state propositions—for voter approval and rejection. 34.Generally speaking, would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, or not satisfied with the way the initiative process is working in California today? 19% very satisfied 50 somewhat satisfied 27 not satisfied 4 don’t know 35.Do you think the citizens’ initiative process in California is in need of major changes, minor changes or that it is basically fine the way it is? 35% major changes 32 minor changes 26 fine the way it is 7 don’t know In thinking about the November 7th election, please say if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements. November 2006 39 Californians and the Future [rotate questions 36 to 38] 36.The wording of propositions on the state ballot was too complicated and confusing. 33% strongly agree 30 somewhat agree 22 somewhat disagree 13 strongly disagree 2 don’t know 37.There were too many propositions on the state ballot. 35% strongly agree 25 somewhat agree 23 somewhat disagree 15 strongly disagree 2 don’t know 38.There was too much money spent by the initiative campaigns. 56% strongly agree 22 somewhat agree 9 somewhat disagree 5 strongly disagree 8 don’t know Reforms have been suggested to address issues that arise in the initiative process. Please say whether you would favor or oppose each of the following reform proposals. [rotate questions 39 and 40] 39.Would you favor or oppose having a period of time in which the initiative sponsor and the legislature could meet to see if there is a compromise solution before initiatives go to the ballot? 80% favor 15 oppose 5 don’t know 40.Would you favor or oppose increasing public disclosure of funding sources for signature gathering and initiative campaigns? 84% favor 11 oppose 5 don’t know Reforms have also been suggested to address issues that arise in candidate campaigns. [rotate questions 41 and 42] 41.Would you favor or oppose having a system of public funding for state and legislative campaigns in California if it cost each taxpayer a few dollars a year to run? 38% favor 55 oppose 7 don’t know 42.Would you favor or oppose an initiative that would require candidates for governor to participate in five prime time publicly broadcasted debates? 67% favor 28 oppose 5 don’t know 43.Are you registered to vote as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 47% Democrat [skip to q43b] 37 Republican [skip to q43c] 2 another party (specify) [skip to q44] 14 independent [ask q43a] 43a.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 23% Republican party 49% Democratic party 25 neither (volunteered) 3 don’t know [skip to q44] 40 PPIC Statewide Survey 43b.Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 58% strong 38 not very strong 4 don’t know [skip to q44] 43c.Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 58% strong 39 not very strong 3 don’t know 44.On another topic, would you consider yourself to be politically: [read list, rotate order top to bottom] 12% very liberal 20 somewhat liberal 28 middle-of-the-road 24 somewhat conservative 15 very conservative 1 don’t know 45.Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics? 34% great deal 47 fair amount 17 only a little 2 none Questionnaire and Results 46.How often would you say you vote? 84% always 14% nearly always 2 part of the time 47.Did you vote at your local polling place or by absentee ballot? 59% local polling place 41 absentee ballot 48.For governor, did you happen to vote for [rotate] Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican, Phil Angelides, the Democrat, or someone else? [*actual vote] 56 Arnold Schwarzenegger 39 Phil Angelides 5 someone else (specify) 49.And are you or is anyone in your immediate family a member of a labor union? [if yes, ask: Is that person you or another person in your family?] 11% yes, respondent 10 yes, another person in family 3 yes, both 72 no 3 former member (volunteered) 1 don’t know November 2006 41 PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Angela Blackwell Founder and Chief Executive Officer PolicyLink Paul Brest President The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Mollyann Brodie Vice President Kaiser Family Foundation Bruce E. Cain Director Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Berkeley James E. Canales President The James Irvine Foundation Matthew K. Fong President Strategic Advisory Group William Hauck President California Business Roundtable Dennis A. Hunt Vice President Communications and Public Affairs The California Endowment Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Carol S. Larson President and Chief Executive Officer The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Monica Lozano Publisher and Chief Executive Officer La Opinión Donna Lucas CEO Lucas Public Affairs Dan Rosenheim News Director KPIX-TV Carol Stogsdill President Stogsdill Consulting Cathy Taylor Vice President and Editorial Commentary Director Orange County Register Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center The PPIC Statewide Survey Advisory Committee is diverse group of experts who provide advice on survey issues. However, survey methods, questions, content, and timing are determined solely by PPIC. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Thomas C. Sutton, Chair Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Pacific Life Insurance Company Linda Griego President and Chief Executive Officer Griego Enterprises, Inc. Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Gary K. Hart Founder Institute for Education Reform California State University, Sacramento Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities ADVISORY COUNCIL Stuart A. Gabriel Director and Lusk Chair Lusk Center for Real Estate University of Southern California Clifford W. Graves Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Hilary W. Hoynes Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis Andrés E. Jiménez Director California Policy Research Center University of California Office of the President Norman R. King Director, University Transportation Center California State University, San Bernardino David W. Lyon President and Chief Executive Officer Public Policy Institute of California Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Dean Misczynski Director California Research Bureau Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Manuel Pastor Professor, Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Peter Schrag Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND Corporation PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 phone: 415.291.4400 fax: 415.291.4401 www.ppic.org survey@ppic.org" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:38:50" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(9) "s_1106mbs" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:38:50" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:38:50" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(51) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/S_1106MBS.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }