Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

S 803MBS

Authors

S 803MBS

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(12) "S_803MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "2993050" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(88240) "PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY AUGUST 2003 Public Policy Institute of California Californians and Their Government ○○○○○ Mark Baldassare Research Director & Survey Director 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, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. 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 parties or candidates for public office. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Preface 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, the survey series has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 76,000 Californians. The current survey is the fourteenth in our Californians and Their Government series, which is conducted on a periodic basis throughout the state’s election cycles. The series is focusing on the social, economic, and political trends that underlie public policy preferences and ballot choices. The current survey focuses on the October 7th statewide special election, the first gubernatorial recall election in California history. It examines voters’ preferences on the recall, and on state propositions that will also be on the ballot, as well as Californians’ attitudes and perceptions toward state and national issues. This report presents the responses of 2,001 adult residents throughout the state on a wide range of issues: • The October 7th statewide special election, including the level of public support for the recall, current favorites among the replacement candidates on the recall ballot, voter perceptions of the governor, attitudes toward the California recall process, and public support for Proposition 53 (infrastructure investment fund) and Proposition 54 (racial classification). • The state of the Golden State today, including measures of overall optimism and pessimism of Californians, the most important problem facing Californians, the general outlook for the state and regional economies, approval ratings of Governor Davis, attitudes and perceptions toward the state legislative budget plan, the level of public support for removing the two-thirds legislative vote requirement for passing a state budget, and approval ratings of the state legislature and its handling of the state budget and taxes. • National politics, including overall approval ratings of President Bush and of his handling of the situation in Iraq and of terrorism and security issues, public perceptions of how the situation in Iraq is going for the United States today, and perceptions of homeland security issues—such as concerns about the personal threat of terrorism, perceptions of the problem of terrorism in California today, attitudes toward the federal governments’ response to the threat of terrorism, and Californians’ confidence in local governments’ ability to respond to homeland security issues—as the second anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks approaches. • The extent to which Californians may differ in their ballot choices for the special election, political and economic attitudes toward the state, and attitudes toward national political issues by party affiliation, demographics, race/ethnicity, and region of residence. This is the 38th PPIC Statewide Survey, which has included a number of special editions: • The Central Valley (11/99, 3/01, 4/02, 4/03) • Population Growth (5/01) • San Diego County (7/02) • Land Use (11/01, 11/02) • Orange County (9/01, 12/02) • The Environment (6/00, 6/02, 7/03) • Los Angeles County (3/03) • California State Budget (6/03) Copies of this report may be ordered by e-mail (order@ppic.org) or phone (415-291-4400). Copies of this and earlier reports are posted on the publications page of the PPIC web site (www.ppic.org). For questions about the survey, please contact survey@ppic.org. -i- Contents Preface Press Release Statewide Special Election State of the Golden State National Politics Survey Methodology Survey Questions and Results Survey Advisory Committee i v 1 7 13 19 21 26 - iii - Press Release Para ver este comunicado de prensa en español, por favor visite nuestra página de internet: http://www.ppic.org/main/pressreleaseindex.asp HOW LOW CAN WE GO? RECALL REFLECTS NEW DEPTHS OF PESSIMISM IN CALIFORNIA Economic Uncertainty, Budget Crisis Fuel Resentment of State Government; Residents Express Mixed Emotions About Iraq Conflict SAN FRANCISCO, California, August 21, 2003 — Has the Golden State lost its luster? Californians are increasingly gloomy about the state of the state and bitter about the performance of their elected representatives, according to a new survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). And they have found an outlet for their pain: California’s first-ever statewide recall election appears to have captured their attention and mounting support. By a margin of more than three-to-one, Californians today say the state is headed in the wrong direction. In recent years, Californians have been relatively pessimistic about the direction of the state, but the percentage who view the state’s direction negatively (66%) now stands at a six-year high. Likely voters are even more pessimistic about the state’s future: 74 percent say it is headed in the wrong direction. And the spreading disaffection has finally hit California’s most optimistic population: By a two-to-one margin, Latinos now say the state is headed in the wrong direction (56% to 28%). Why such a gloomy outlook? It’s the economy — and the state budget. A majority (53%) of state residents say they expect bad times for the state economy in the coming year, down from February (71%) but similar to one year ago (51%). Californians (58%) still believe their region of the state is in an economic recession. Consistent with these worries, residents view the economy, jobs, and unemployment (34%) as the biggest problem facing the state, followed by the state budget and taxes (12%), education and schools (11%), and the gubernatorial recall (11%). If they are feeling little relief from their economic woes, Californians are getting even less satisfaction about their second biggest concern — the state budget — even after the passage of a budget deal earlier this month. More than half of state residents (57%) and 61 percent of likely voters say they are dissatisfied with the budget plan. Indeed, they appear unhappy with most aspects of the compromise budget: 61 percent oppose the idea of floating $11 billion in state bonds as a way to reduce the deficit, and 77 percent are very (36%) or somewhat (41%) concerned about the effects of spending cuts outlined in the agreement. Although the budget does not raise taxes, Californians are split over whether or not it should (44%) or should not (50%) have included tax increases. Despite their general disgust, residents today are even more opposed to an oft-mentioned budget process reform: Only 39 percent support the idea of lowering the supermajority threshold for passing a budget in the state legislature, compared to 46 percent in June. “A stagnant economy, a very public and unpopular budget drama, and a distrustful electorate: All the makings of a perfect storm,” says survey director Mark Baldassare. As the storm builds, approval ratings for Governor Gray Davis remain at historical lows, especially among likely voters: 72 percent say they disapprove of the way he is handling his job; 71 percent disapprove of his handling of jobs and the economy. The state legislature has lost substantial ground: 68 percent of likely voters disapprove of the legislature’s overall performance, compared to 58 percent in June. Currently, 78 percent disapprove of the legislature’s handling of budget and tax issues. Total Recall Given their frustration, it is understandable that Californians would be captivated by the recall campaign. But the intensity of their interest is surprising — comparable to the level of interest during the energy -v- Press Release crisis and following September 11th, and higher than during last fall’s gubernatorial election. Today, 89 percent of likely voters are very closely (45%) or fairly closely (44%) following news of the recall. “This is so much bigger than the recall itself,” says Baldassare. “However unrealistic, voters are also hoping for a quick fix for their larger concerns.” Indeed, 47 percent of likely voters say things in California would get better if Davis is removed from office, while only 17 percent say they would get worse and 28 percent believe there would be no change. At this early stage of the campaign, 58 percent of likely voters say they would vote to remove Davis as governor, up from 51 percent in June and 50 percent in July. Majorities of Republicans (84%), independents (60%), and Latinos (58%) support the recall, while a majority of Democrats (56%) oppose it. The San Francisco Bay Area is the only major region of the state where a majority of voters (55%) would keep Davis as governor. Governor Davis’ political problems stem from both his policies and his personal style: Among likely voters, about half (48%) say they dislike the man and his policies, while only 12 percent say they like Davis and his policies. Currently, 32 percent of all likely voters have not decided which of the candidates they would choose to replace Governor Davis. Among those who have decided, more name Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger (23%) and Democrat Cruz Bustamante (18%) than any of the other candidates (no other candidate receives over 4 percent support). Bustamante (27%) leads Schwarzenegger (19%) among Latino voters. But despite the plethora of choices, only 49 percent of likely voters say they are satisfied with their candidate choices in the recall election, and 40 percent say they are unsatisfied. “This is surprising given the wide range of choices, the sheer volume of candidates, and the level of support for the recall,” says Baldassare. “It’s the wild card in the race.” Despite being underwhelmed about their choices for the current election and conflicted about whether or not the current effort to recall the governor is an appropriate use of the recall process, voters overwhelmingly (80%) believe that the provision of a recall in the state constitution is a good thing. However, when informed that the special election will cost between $50 million and $70 million, 53 percent believe it is a waste of money. The Also Rans: Propositions 53 and 54 Two initiatives, previously slated for the March 2004 ballot, have wound up as part of the October 7th Special Election. Both currently enjoy slim majority support. Proposition 53 — which would set aside between 1 and 3 percent of the state’s General Fund revenues for state and local infrastructure projects — is supported by 52 percent of likely voters, while 25 percent oppose the initiative and 23 percent are undecided. Democratic (59%) and independent (51%) voters would vote yes on Prop. 53, but fewer than half of Republicans (45%) support it. Despite the budget crisis, voters remain comfortable with setting aside portions of General Fund revenue for specific program areas: 58 percent say earmarking is generally a good idea. And they consider infrastructure investment a worthy cause: 43 percent say the current level of funding for infrastructure projects is inadequate, while only 9 percent think it is more than enough. Currently, 50 percent of likely voters favor Proposition 54 — which would prohibit state and local governments from using race, ethnicity, color, and national origin to classify students, employees, or contractors — while 37 percent are opposed and 13 percent are undecided. Republicans (60%), independents (52%), and whites (51%) are more likely than Democrats (43%) and Latinos (39%) to support this initiative. Voters are divided about whether the collection of racial and ethnic data is important (50%) or unimportant (47%). They are also split over the perceived effect of the initiative’s passage on racial and ethnic minorities in California: 26 percent believe it would be a good thing for these groups, 26 percent a bad thing, and 34 percent say it would make no difference. There are sharp differences between whites and non-whites on this question: A greater percentage of non-whites (34%) than whites (25%) say the initiative would be a bad thing for minority groups. - vi - Press Release Little Consensus on Iraq, But Confidence in U.S. Security as 9/11 Anniversary Looms Approval ratings for President George W. Bush have remained relatively stable in recent months: 53 percent of Californians say they approve of his overall performance in office — similar to his national approval rating (55%) — while 42 percent of state residents disapprove. California residents are divided over Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq: Fifty percent say they approve and 45 percent say they disapprove. This rating is also lower than his national approval rating on Iraq (56%). These numbers reflect Californians’ mixed feelings about U.S. efforts to establish security in and rebuild Iraq, as well as about Bush Administration efforts to “sell” the action. Half of state residents say that U.S. activities in Iraq have gone very (13%) or somewhat (38%) well since major hostilities ended on May 1st, while slightly fewer say they have not gone too well (27%) or have not gone well at all (19%). Californians are also divided about the value of U.S. involvement in Iraq: 47 percent say the war is worth the toll it has taken in terms of American lives and other costs, while 46 percent say it is not worth these costs. And although a majority of state residents (59%) say the war did contribute to the long-term security of the United States, a majority (53%) also believes that the Bush Administration intentionally exaggerated evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Support for President Bush is highest when it comes to his handling of terrorism and homeland security issues: 62 percent say they approve of his efforts in this area, down from 70 percent one year ago. As the nation approaches the second anniversary of September 11th, 58 percent of state residents say they are very (14%) or somewhat (44%) confident that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies will be able to prevent future terrorist attacks. However, while 61 percent of Californians say terrorism and security is a problem in the state today, residents are presently more concerned that new laws will excessively restrict civil liberties (54%) than they are that the government will fail to enact strong antiterrorism laws (34%). About the Survey The purpose of the PPIC Statewide Survey is to develop an in-depth profile of the social, economic, and political forces affecting California elections and public policy preferences. Findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,001 California adult residents interviewed from August 8 to August 17, 2003. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2%. The sampling error for the 1,540 registered voters is +/- 2.5% and for the 993 likely voters is +/- 3%. For more information on survey methodology, see page 19. 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. His most recent book, A California State of Mind: The Conflicted Voter in a Changing World, is available at www.ppic.org. 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) on August 21. See graphics next page. ### - vii - Percent All Adults Davis Recall 6% 36% 58% Yes, recall Governor Davis No, keep Governor Davis Don't know Percent Likely Voters Most Important Problem Facing California 40 34 30 20 12 11 11 10 0 Economy & jobs State budget Education Recall Prop 53: Infrastructure Funds 23% 52% 25% Yes No Don't know Percent Likely Voters Percent All Adults Percent Likely Voters Replacement Candidates 40 30 23 20 18 32 10 5 4 4 0 ArnoldCSrTPcuoehztmewrBarDuMBUzisocltleen'CabtlniSeimenkrtgarnmogonoottcenrwehk Do you think CA is going in the … Right direction Wrong direction 70 57 60 50 40 30 34 20 10 0 aprove Sept '98 62 62 66 47 48 44 44 31 30 22 disapprove don't know Dec Aug July Aug Aug '99 '00 '01 Perc'0e2nt All A'd0u3lts Prop 54: Racial Classification 13% 37% 50% Yes No Don't know Percent Likely Voters Statewide Special Election∗ The Davis Recall Election Most Californians are closely following news of the first-ever recall election of a California governor, which has attracted intense national media coverage for several weeks. The public’s interest in this political event is comparable to that recorded during the energy crisis and around September 11th in 2001—and higher than the interest during last fall’s gubernatorial election. In October 2002, 75 percent of likely voters were very or fairly closely following that election. Today, 89 percent are very closely (45%) or fairly closely (44%) following the news of the election to recall Governor Gray Davis. The level of interest is very high across all regions of the state, political parties, racial/ethnic groups, and age, income, and educational categories. “How closely are you following news about the election to recall Governor Gray Davis from office?” Very closely Fairly closely Not too closely Not at all closely Likely Voters 45% 44 8 3 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 43% 48% 44% 45 42 45 10 8 8 223 Latinos 39% 46 12 3 At this early stage of the recall campaign, 58 percent of likely voters say they would vote to remove Davis as governor, up from 51 percent in June and 50 percent in July. Thirty-six percent would vote to keep him, and 6 percent are undecided. Majorities of Republican (84%) and independent (60%) likely voters support the recall, while a majority of Democrats (56%) oppose it. This pattern is consistent with the percentages of liberals (60%) who oppose the recall and of moderates (55%) and conservatives (80%) who support it. The San Francisco Bay Area is the only major region of the state where a majority of voters (55%) would keep Davis as governor. Latinos (58%) are as likely as whites (60%) to support Davis’ removal from office. Support for the recall declines somewhat with age and education. “If the special election to recall Governor Davis were held today, would you vote "yes" to remove Davis as governor or "no" to keep Davis as governor?” Party Registration Yes, remove Davis as governor No, keep Davis as governor Don't know Likely Voters 58% 36 6 Dem 38% 56 6 Rep 84% 14 2 Central Ind Valley 60% 69% 32 25 86 Region SF Bay Area 40% 55 5 Los Angeles 57% 38 5 Other Southern California 68% 26 6 Latinos 58% 35 7 ∗ In this chapter of the report, all data used in the tables are from likely voters only. Subsequent chapters use data from both likely voters and all adults, as indicated. -1- Statewide Special Election Replacement Candidates At this early stage, 32 percent of all likely voters have not decided which of the candidates they would choose to replace Governor Davis, and the percentage is about that high in all voter groups. Among those who have decided, more would vote for Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger (23%) and Democrat Cruz Bustamante (18%) than any of the other 135 candidates on the ballot. Bustamante is the clear favorite of Democratic voters (34%), and Schwarzenegger among GOP voters (38%). Voters who want Davis removed favor Schwarzenegger over Bustamante (35% to 7%), while those who want Davis to stay favor Bustamante over Schwarzenegger (38% to 5%). A somewhat higher percentage of Latino likely voters favor Bustamante to Schwarzenegger (27% to 19%). San Francisco Bay Area residents show the strongest preference for Bustamante over Schwarzenegger (27% to 15%), while Other Southern California residents show the strongest preference for Schwarzenegger over Bustamante (26% to 15%). “How would you vote on the second part of the recall ballot: If the election were held today, who would you vote for?” Arnold Schwarzenegger Cruz Bustamante Tom McClintock Bill Simon Peter Ueberroth Peter Camejo Arianna Huffington Someone else Don't know Party Registration Likely Voters 23% 18 5 4 4 3 3 8 32 Dem 12% 34 1 2 3 2 5 11 30 Rep 38% 2 10 8 5 0 1 5 31 Ind 17% 14 6 3 6 4 3 6 41 Central Valley 23% 15 7 6 3 2 1 5 38 Region SF Bay Area 15% 27 5 2 2 4 2 14 29 Los Angeles 24% 18 4 3 5 1 6 6 33 Other Southern California 26% 15 4 4 5 3 2 6 35 Latinos 19% 27 1 4 2 2 4 5 36 About half of likely voters (49%) say they are satisfied with the candidate choices in the recall election, while 40 percent say they are not satisfied. Likely voters are also more satisfied with the candidate choices in this special recall election than they were with their choices in the 2002 gubernatorial election, when only 38 percent indicated in August, September, and October that they were satisfied with the candidate options. Opinions vary by party, as well as by attitude toward the recall: Sixty-five percent of those who want to keep Davis are dissatisfied with the candidate choices, while 65 percent of those who want him replaced are satisfied. “Would you say you are satisfied or not satisfied with the choices of replacement candidates in the recall election on October 7th?” Satisfied Not satisfied Don't know Likely Voters 49% 40 11 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 38% 63% 47% 53 23 40 9 14 13 Latinos 46% 45 9 -2- Statewide Special Election Perceptions of Governor Davis Governor Davis’ political problems stem from both his policies and his personal style. Among likely voters, about half (48%) say they dislike the man and his policies. This reflects the 70 percent of Republicans, 55 percent of independents, and 30 percent of Democrats who dislike both. Overall, 55 percent dislike him and 73 percent dislike his policies; 37 percent like him, and 19 percent like his policies. Even among Democrats, half say that they like him, but only 31 percent like his policies. Across all of the state’s major regions, solid majorities say they dislike Davis’ policies. His personal popularity is higher among Latinos than among white voters (51% to 33%), but only 21 percent of Latinos and 19 percent of whites like his policies. “Which of these statements is closest to your view of Governor Davis …” I like Davis and like his policies I like Davis but dislike his policies I dislike Davis but like his policies I dislike Davis and dislike his policies Don't know Likely Voters 12% 25 7 48 8 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind Central Valley Region SF Bay Los Area Angeles Other Southern California Latinos 20% 3% 5% 10% 17% 12% 8% 15% 30 20 23 22 20 29 29 36 11 3 5 4 13 6 5 6 30 70 55 58 41 44 50 34 9 4 12 6 9 9 8 9 A high percentage of likely voters (47%) believe that things would get better in California if Governor Davis were recalled. Only 17 percent think things would get worse, and 28 percent believe it would make no difference. Democrats (29% to 26%) and liberals (27% to 29%) are about evenly divided among those who think the recall will make things better or worse. Lower percentages of moderates (19%), independents (19%), conservatives (8%), Republicans (6%), whites (17%), and Latinos (15%) think recalling the governor will make things worse. “If Governor Davis is recalled from office, do you think that things in California would get better, would get worse, or would it make no difference?” Would get better Would get worse Would make no difference Don't know Likely Voters 47% 17 28 8 - 3 - August 2003 Statewide Special Election Perceptions of the Recall Process California’s likely voters overwhelmingly (80%) believe that the provision of a recall in the state constitution is a “good thing.” Across political parties, ideologies, racial/ethnic groups, and the major regions of the state, at least seven in 10 likely voters say it is a good thing that Californians can recall the state’s elected officials. “Generally speaking, and regardless of how you feel about the upcoming election, do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that the California constitution provides a way to recall the state's elected officials, such as the governor?” Good thing Bad thing Don't know Likely Voters 80% 17 3 As for the current effort to recall Governor Davis, 52 percent of likely voters say it is an appropriate use of the recall, and 43 percent say this is not an appropriate use of the recall. Response to this question is strongly related to party registration: Seventy-eight percent of Republicans believe this election is an appropriate use of the recall, compared to 54 percent of independents and 33 percent of Democrats. The partisan divisions are reflected in regional differences and variations between liberals and conservatives. “Do you think that the current effort to recall the governor is an appropriate use of the recall process? Yes No Don't know Likely Voters 52% 43 5 Party Registration Dem 33% 62 5 Rep 78% 18 6 Ind 54% 41 5 Central Valley 63% 30 7 Region SF Bay Area 33% 62 5 Los Angeles 52% 44 4 Other Southern California 60% 35 5 Latinos 49% 45 6 When informed that the special election will cost between 50 million and 70 million dollars, 53 percent of likely voters believe it is a waste of money. Again, there are large partisan differences: Seventy percent of Republicans say it is worth the cost, while 74 percent of Democrats think it is a waste of money. Among independents, 47 percent say it is a waste and 48 percent believe it is worth the cost. Liberals (76%) and San Francisco Bay Area residents (71%) are much more likely than other political and demographic groups to see the recall as a waste of money. “The special election on October 7th will cost an estimated $50-$70 million. Which of the following statements comes closest to your view …” This election is a waste of money This election is worth the cost Don't know Likely Voters 53% 44 3 -4- Statewide Special Election Proposition 53: Infrastructure Funds Constitutional Amendment A majority of likely voters (52%) say they would support Proposition 53. This is a constitutional amendment, placed on the ballot by the California legislature for voter approval, to set aside between 1 and 3 percent of the state’s General Fund revenues for state and local infrastructure projects. While 52 percent of voters support it, 25 percent oppose, and 23 percent are undecided about earmarking funds for water, roads, parks, open space, and other infrastructure projects. Majorities of Democrats (59%) and independents (51%) would vote yes on Proposition 53, while fewer than half of Republicans (45%) would support it. Likewise, this proposition is more popular among liberals (55%) than among conservatives (45%) and more popular among Latinos (62%) than among whites (50%). “If the election were held today would you vote yes or no on Proposition 53?” Yes No Don't know Likely Voters 52% 25 23 Party Registration Dem 59% 20 21 Rep 45% 30 25 Ind 51% 26 23 Central Valley 52% 26 22 Region SF Bay Area 50% 25 25 Los Angeles 55% 27 18 Other Southern California 50% 22 28 Latinos 62% 22 16 Apparently, the state’s budget constraints have not made Californians leery of setting aside funds for specific program areas. Likely voters are much more inclined to think that it is a good idea (58%) than a bad idea (27%) to earmark funds. However, support for earmarking is higher among liberals than among conservatives (61% to 54%). Voters’ responses to Proposition 53 may reflect the priority they place on infrastructure spending. Forty-three percent of likely voters believe there is not enough infrastructure funding, while 23 percent are not sure. Liberals (48%), Democrats (45%) and San Francisco Bay Area voters (47%) are among the most likely to think there is not enough funding. “Given the state's budget situation, do you generally think that it is a good idea or a bad idea to set aside portions of General Fund revenue to specific program areas?” Good idea Bad idea Don't know Likely Voters 58% 27 15 “Do you think that the current level of state funding for state and local infrastructure projects is …” More than enough Just enough Not enough Don't know Likely Voters 9% 25 43 23 - 5 - August 2003 Statewide Special Election Proposition 54: Racial Classification Initiative How do likely voters feel about this citizens’ initiative that would prohibit state and local governments from using race, ethnicity, color, and national origin to classify students, employees, or contractors? If the election were held today, 50 percent would vote yes on Proposition 54, and 37 percent would vote no. Majorities of Republicans (60%) and independents (52%) support the measure, while Democrats are evenly divided (43% support; 43% oppose). Whites (51%) are more likely than Latinos (39%) and all non-white∗ likely voters (41%) to support this proposition. Regionally, opposition to Proposition 54 is highest in the San Francisco Bay Area (47%), and in Los Angeles fewer than half (49%) would vote yes. In Other Southern California and the Central Valley, supporters outnumber opponents by large margins. “If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 54?” Yes No Don't know Likely Voters 50% 37 13 Party Registration Dem 43% 43 14 Rep 60% 27 13 Ind 52% 33 15 Central Valley 58% 28 14 Region SF Bay Area 40% 47 13 Los Angeles 49% 38 13 Other Southern California 54% 32 14 Latinos 39% 48 13 How important is Proposition 54 to voters? While half of likely voters say that the collection or racial and ethnic data is important, only one in five voters (21%) describe this type of data as “very important.” Sixty-one percent of non-white likely voters think that collecting these data is very or somewhat important, while whites are evenly divided on the issue. Voters are also divided about whether Proposition 54 would be a good thing or a bad thing for racial and ethnic minorities in California (26% good thing; 26% bad thing; 34% no difference). Non-whites are somewhat more likely than whites to think that Proposition 54 would be a bad thing for racial and ethnic minorities (34% to 25%). “How important is it to you that state and local governments collect data on race and ethnicity?” Very / somewhat important Not too / not at all important Don't know Likely Voters 50% 47 3 Race/Ethnicity White Non-White 48% 61% 49 36 33 “If Proposition 54 passes, do you think this would be a good thing or a bad thing for racial and ethnic minorities in California, or would this make no difference?” Good thing Bad thing No difference Don't know Likely Voters 26% 26 34 14 Race/Ethnicity White Non-White 27% 23% 25 34 35 33 13 10 ∗ Non-white category includes African Americans, Asians, Latinos, and those who specify “other.” -6- State of the Golden State Overall Mood Nearly seven in 10 Californians (66%) think the state is headed in the wrong direction; only 22 percent think it is headed in the right direction. In recent years, Californians have been relatively pessimistic about the direction of the state, but the percentage who view the state’s direction pessimistically now stands at a six-year high. Even at the height of the state’s energy crisis in the summer of 2001, fewer than 50 percent of residents thought that the state was headed in the wrong direction (May 2001, 48%; July 2001, 47%). “Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction?” All Adults Right direction Wrong direction Don't know Sept 98 57% 34 9 Dec 99 62% 31 7 Aug 00 62% 30 8 Jul 01 44% 47 9 Aug 02 44% 48 8 Aug 03 22% 66 12 Today, the state’s likely voters are especially negative about the direction of the state: Only 17 percent think that California is headed in the right direction, while three in four (74%) think that it's headed in the wrong direction. Seventy-nine percent of Republicans are pessimistic about the state’s direction, and large majorities of Democrats (65%) and independents (69%) also think that the state is headed the wrong way. Sixty-nine percent of those Republicans who think the state is going in the right direction want to recall Governor Davis, and 88 percent of those Republicans who think the state is headed in the wrong direction want to remove him. By contrast, Democrats and independents who think the state is headed in the right direction are inclined to vote no on the Davis recall. Pessimism about the direction of the state has spread in recent months to the state’s typically optimistic Latino population. In surveys conducted earlier this summer, Latinos were nearly evenly divided about whether California was headed in the right or wrong direction. However, Latinos are now more likely to be pessimistic than optimistic about the direction of the state by a nearly two-to-one margin (56% to 28%). Latinos remain somewhat more optimistic than whites (28% to 19%), but the margin of difference has declined significantly. Right direction Wrong direction Don't know Likely Voters 17% 74 9 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 22% 13% 18% 65 79 69 13 8 13 Latinos 28% 56 16 Three in 10 Californians (34%) think that the economy, jobs, and unemployment are the primary problems facing the state today. In June 2003, 31 percent of residents mentioned these issues as their top concerns. The state budget and taxes (12%), schools and education (11%), and the gubernatorial recall (11%) are mentioned next as the most worrisome issues facing the state. Except for the addition of the recall as a top concern, the list of most important issues remains consistent with recent surveys. However, the overall mood in the state is becoming increasingly gloomy. -7- State of the Golden State The Economy Fifty-three percent of Californians expect bad times for the state economy during the next 12 months. Only 30 percent of state residents anticipate good financial times ahead. While the percentage of those expecting bad times is higher than the percentage of those expecting good times by a nearly twoto-one margin (53% to 30%), the percentage of respondents anticipating good times ahead has climbed above the all-time low of 20 percent in February 2003. Among likely voters, 56 percent think that difficult times lie ahead; only 27 percent expect good times. Majorities of Democrats (57%), independents (54%), and Republicans (51%) expect adverse financial conditions over the next 12 months, as do Californians from across household income categories and the state’s major geographic regions. “Do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times?” Dec 99 Aug 00 Jul 01 Aug 02 Feb 03 Aug 03 Good times Bad times Don't know 76% 19 5 72% 21 7 41% 50 9 39% 51 10 20% 71 9 30% 53 17 Fifty-eight percent of Californians say that their region is experiencing an economic recession: 19 percent think that their part of the state is suffering a serious recession, 29 percent consider the recession in their region to be moderate, and 10 percent think that their region is undergoing a mild recession. Thirty-five percent of Californians think that their region is not experiencing an economic recession. Women are more likely than men to describe their region as in a serious recession (23% to 15%). Four in 10 Californians (42%) from households with incomes of $80,000 and higher think that their regions are not in a recession, while only 29 percent of those from households with incomes of $40,000 or less think that their regions are not in a recession. A higher percentage of San Francisco Bay Area residents (71%) than residents in any other area think that their region is experiencing an economic recession. Moreover, people in the San Francisco Bay Area (28%) are much more likely than those elsewhere in the state to believe their recession is serious (only 14 percent of the residents in Other Southern California think the recession in their area is serious). Compared to August 2002, higher percentages of residents in Los Angeles (60% to 53%) and the Central Valley (57% to 49%) think that their regions are in economic recession. “Would you say that your region is in an economic recession or not? If "yes": Do you think it is in a serious, a moderate, or a mild recession?” Yes, serious recession Yes, moderate recession Yes, mild recession No Don't know All Adults 19% 29 10 35 7 Central Valley 19% 27 11 36 7 Region SF Bay Area 28% 34 9 24 5 Los Angeles 17% 32 11 34 6 Other Southern California 14% 24 10 45 7 -8- State of the Golden State Approval Ratings: Governor Davis Gray Davis’ job approval rating among likely voters has again stabilized after precipitous declines during the state’s energy crisis in 2001 and following his reelection in November 2002. The governor's highest approval rating among likely voters responding to the PPIC Statewide Survey was 66 percent in September 2000. Davis' rating declined significantly between January 2001 (62%) and December 2001 (46%), following a summer of rolling blackouts across the state. Davis’ approval remained in the low to mid-40s from the end of 2001 through the end of 2002. After his reelection, the percentage of likely voters who disapproved of his performance as governor increased. In February 2003, only 24 percent of likely voters said they approved of the job Davis was doing. Since that time, the governor's ratings have remained in the low 20s; today only one in four likely voters approves of the job Davis is doing as governor (72 percent disapprove of his job performance). “Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling his job as governor of California?” LIKELY VOTERS ONLY Approve Disapprove Don't know Sep 00 66% 27 7 Oct 00 61% 30 9 Jan 01 62% 28 10 Dec 01 46% 48 6 Jan 02 46% 49 5 Feb 02 44% 53 3 Aug 02 43% 51 6 Sep 02 42% 52 6 Oct 02 45% 52 3 Feb 03 24% 72 4 Jun 03 21% 75 4 Jul 03 22% 72 6 Aug 03 25% 72 3 A higher percentage of Democrats (37%) than independents (22%) or Republicans (8%) approve of the job performance of the Democratic governor, but a majority of Democrats (56%) join significant majorities of independents (73%) and Republicans (89%) in their disapproval of Davis’ performance. Thirty-seven percent of liberals, 26 percent of moderates, and 18 percent of conservatives approve of the way the governor is handling his job. As in earlier surveys, Latinos are more likely than whites (34% to 22%) to approve of the governor’s job performance, but Latino approval of Davis has dropped 6 percentage points from last month. Today, Davis’ disapproval ratings are higher than his approval ratings among all racial/ethnic groups. When it comes to the issue of how well Davis has handled unemployment and the state economy, his approval ratings are even lower than his overall job performance ratings. Only 22 percent of Californians, and 20 percent of likely voters, approve of his performance in this area. Even among fellow Democrats, only a small percentage approve of the governor’s performance: Thirty percent of Democrats, 18 percent of independents, and only 8 percent of Republicans approve of the way Davis has handled the problem of jobs and the economy. Among those who view the economy, jobs, and unemployment as the most important issues facing people in California today, a similarly low percentage of residents (21%) approve of the way Davis has handled these particular problems. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling his job as governor of California? Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling the issue of jobs and the California economy? All Adults Approve Disapprove Don't know Approve Disapprove 26% 67 7 22% 67 Don't know 11 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 37% 8% 22% 56 89 73 735 30% 8% 18% 58 85 72 12 7 10 Likely Voters 25% 72 3 20% 71 9 - 9 - August 2003 State of the Golden State State Budget On August 2, 2003, Governor Gray Davis signed the state’s annual budget into law. The oft-reported and record-setting $38 billion budget gap was reduced through a combination of spending reductions, borrowing, and revenue shifts, resulting in a budget plan that includes $13 billion in spending cuts, $11 billion in new state bonds, and no new taxes. Overall, 57 percent of Californians are not satisfied with the budget plan; only 29 percent are satisfied with it. Among Californians most likely to vote, a similarly low percentage (26%) is satisfied with the plan. Dissatisfaction with the budget plan spans partisan groups: Six in 10 Democrats (56%), independents (60%), and Republicans (64%) are not happy with it. Moreover, majorities of residents across demographic groups express dissatisfaction with the state’s solution to the budget deficit. However, opinions do vary somewhat across the state’s diverse population: Satisfaction with the budget deal declines with age and annual household income and is somewhat higher among Latinos (36%) than whites (27%). “In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the state budget plan? Satisfied Dissatisfied Don't know All Adults 29% 57 14 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 32% 23% 28% 56 64 60 12 13 12 Likely Voters 26% 61 13 This year’s budget includes $10.7 billion in new state bonds to be repaid from existing revenue. Only 26 percent of Californians, and 25 percent of likely voters, favor the idea of the state government borrowing this money to reduce the deficit. As with the overall budget deal, high percentages of independents (59%), Democrats (60%), and Republicans (68%) oppose this borrowing. In June 2003, before this year’s budget deal, a majority of Californians (54%) favored authorizing these bonds as a way to reduce the budget deficit. However, in the context of the actual budget agreement, support for new borrowing has plummeted, now nearly matching the level of support for the general concept of borrowing to reduce a budget deficit (33% in June). “Do you favor or oppose the state government’s borrowing $11 billion as a way to reduce the $38 billion budget deficit?” Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 26% 61 13 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 26% 21% 29% 60 68 59 14 11 12 Likely Voters 25% 64 11 The budget plan also includes about $13 billion in service cuts, and Californians are concerned about possible service reductions. Thirty-six percent of residents are very concerned about the effects of the spending cuts in the budget plan, and another 41 percent are somewhat concerned. Only 20 percent of Californians are either not too concerned or not at all concerned about the effects of these cuts. - 10 - State of the Golden State While forty-three percent of Democrats are very concerned about the effects of the state budget cuts, lower percentages of Republicans (32%) and independents (33%) express this level of concern. Concern about the spending cuts is also higher among Californians who hold a college degree (41% very concerned) than among those with only a high school diploma or less (29% very concerned). Similar percentages of Latinos (33%) and whites (36%) are very concerned about the effects of the recently enacted spending cuts. “How concerned are you about the effects of the spending cuts in the budget plan?” Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not too concerned Not at all concerned Don't know All Adults 36% 41 13 7 3 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 43% 38 10 5 4 32% 41 14 10 3 33% 45 13 7 2 Likely Voters 40% 38 11 8 3 Although tax increases were discussed in advance of the budget deal, there were no such increases in the final plan. The plan did include increasing certain fees, including the Vehicle License Fee (VLF), but taxes were not raised. Forty-four percent of Californians think that tax increases should have been included as part of the plan, while 50 percent think that they should not have been included. Among likely voters, 46 percent think that taxes should have been raised, and 48 percent think not. A majority of Democrats (53%) think that taxes should have been raised to deal with the budget deficit, while majorities of Republicans (59%) and independents (53%) think that any increase in taxes should have been off limits when it came to dealing with the deficit. Support for raising taxes as part of the budget plan increases with education and annual household income. “Do you think that tax increases should have been included in the budget plan?” Yes No It did include taxes (volunteered) Don't know All Adults 44% 50 1 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 53% 34% 43% 42 59 53 011 563 Likely Voters 46% 48 1 5 In June, during the heat of budget negotiations, 46 percent of Californians (a slim plurality) thought that it was a good idea to lower the two-thirds vote requirement for the legislature to pass the budget, requiring instead a 55 percent majority vote. Today, with this year’s budget complete, a lower percentage of Californians (39%; 37% among likely voters) consider this alternative to be a good idea. While Democrats and independents are nearly evenly divided about whether lowering the requirement would be a good idea or a bad idea, six in 10 Republicans (61%) think it would be a bad idea. Survey respondents who are dissatisfied with the current year budget deal are no more or less likely than those who are satisfied with it to support the change from a two-thirds requirement to a 55 percent majority vote. - 11 - August 2003 State of the Golden State Approval Ratings: State Legislature Nearly six in 10 Californians (58%) and nearly eight in 10 of the state’s likely voters (68%) disapprove of the way the state legislature is handling its job. Only 28 percent of Californians and 22 percent of likely voters approve of the job the legislature is doing. These ratings mark a new low for an institution that has received declining approval ratings from all Californians and likely voters alike over the past three years. “Do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling its job?” LIKELY VOTERS ONLY Sep 00 Jan 01 Dec 01 Jan 02 Sep 02 Feb 03 Jun 03 Aug 03 Approve 56% 56% 50% 46% 40% 29% 29% 22% Disapprove 34 32 36 43 45 55 58 68 Don't know 10 12 14 11 15 16 13 10 Only 29 percent of Democrats, 25 percent of independents, and 18 percent of Republicans approve of the job the Democratic-controlled legislature is doing. Legislative job approval is low across all major regions of the state, and it declines with age, education, and income. Only among Latinos does the legislature get a plurality of good marks (42% approve, 40% disapprove); overall, Latinos are more supportive than whites of the legislature (42% to 22%). After the passage of a budget plan that a majority of Californians finds unsatisfactory, it is not surprising that the legislature receives even less support for the way it has handled the state’s budget and taxes. Only 19 percent of Californians approve of the legislature's performance in handling taxing and spending issues—a 10-percentage point decline since June 2003 and a PPIC Statewide Survey low. Approval among likely voters is even lower, at 15 percent. Republicans are particularly likely to disapprove of the legislature’s performance in this area (only 11% approve). Latinos are more likely than whites (32% to 13%) to approve of the legislature’s handling of the state’s budget and taxes, but a majority of Latinos (53%) disapprove. Similarly, although majorities of Californians from all household income categories disapprove of the legislature's handling of fiscal affairs, those from households with incomes of $80,000 and higher are much more likely to disapprove (80%) than those from households with incomes of $40,000 and less (61%). Do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling its job? Do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling the issue of the state budget and taxes? Approve Disapprove Don't know Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 28% 58 14 19% 71 10 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 29% 18% 25% 57 74 64 14 8 11 20% 11% 18% 70 83 74 10 6 8 Likely Voters 22% 68 10 15% 78 7 - 12 - National Politics Approval Ratings: President Bush Fifty-three percent of Californians say they approve of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States. This is similar rating to the 55 percent national approval rating found in a recent CBS News poll. The president’s California rating has not changed in recent months. However, it is lower than a year ago: In the August 2002 survey, 64 percent of Californians said they approved of his job performance. California Republicans overwhelmingly support the president (84%), and a majority of independents (54%) give him a positive job rating. However, nearly two-thirds of the state’s Democrats (63%) disapprove of his performance. Latinos (53%) are about as likely as whites (57%) to be satisfied with the president’s performance. “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling …” … his job as president of the United States? … the situation in Iraq? … terrorism and homeland security? Approve Disapprove Don't know Approve Disapprove Don't know Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 53% 42 5 50% 45 5 62% 33 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 32% 63 5 84% 14 2 54% 39 7 33% 79% 52% 63 18 44 434 44% 87% 63% 51 10 31 536 Latinos 53% 40 7 46% 48 6 62% 30 8 California residents are almost evenly divided over Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq: Fifty percent say they approve and 45 percent say they disapprove. This approval rating is 7 points lower than the 57 percent of Americans who said they approved of his position in a recent CBS News poll. In California, Republicans give the president a much higher approval rating than Democrats on his handling of the situation (79% to 33%). However, Republicans give the president lower marks for this than for his overall job performance. Men are more likely than women (55% to 46%) to say they approve of the president’s actions in Iraq. State residents give the president his highest marks for handling terrorism and homeland security: Sixty-two percent say they approve of the president's efforts in this area. However, this is lower than the 70 percent who approved in the August 2002 survey. Forty-four percent of Democrats, 63 percent of independents, and 87 percent of Republicans approve of Bush’s performance in this area. In every region but one, a majority of residents say they approve of Bush's handling of this issue: In the San Francisco Bay Area, a majority (51%) disapprove. - 13 - National Politics U.S. Efforts in Iraq Californians have mixed feelings about U.S. efforts to establish security in and rebuild Iraq since major combat ended on May 1st. Half say the efforts have gone very well (13%) or somewhat well (38%), while 27 percent say they have not gone too well, and 19 percent say they have not gone at all well. The state’s residents are less positive than Americans nationwide about this experience: According to a July Newsweek poll, 57 percent of Americans say U.S efforts are going very (16%) or somewhat (41%) well, and 40 percent says things have gone not too well (26%) or not at all well (14%). In California, Republicans (70%) are much more likely than independents (53%) or Democrats (36%) to say things have gone well. Across the state, San Francisco Bay Area residents are the most likely to say things have not gone well at all (28%), while Central Valley residents are the most likely to say things have gone very well (17%). “How well do you think U.S. efforts to establish security and rebuild Iraq have gone since major combat ended on May 1st?” Very well Somewhat well Not too well Not at all well Don't know All Adults 13% 38 27 19 3 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 7% 20% 11% 29 50 42 32 22 28 29 6 17 322 Latinos 17% 38 26 15 4 Not only are Californians split on how well efforts in Iraq have gone so far, they are also divided over the value of U.S. involvement. Forty-seven percent of Californians say the war in Iraq is worth the toll it has taken in American lives and other kinds of cost, while 46 percent say it is not worth these costs. These views are similar to those of the nation as a whole: Nationally, 49 percent say the Iraq war is worth the costs and 45 percent say it is not (based on a July Time/CNN poll). Once again, the partisan differences in California are highly significant: 74 percent of Republicans and 49 percent of independents believe the war is worth the costs, while 61 percent of Democrats say it is not. Moderates are split on this issue (45% worth it; 47% not worth it), while a majority of conservatives (65%) say it is worth the costs and a majority of liberals say it is not (64%). Residents with household incomes of $40,000 or less are more likely than residents in households with higher incomes to say it is not worth the costs. Men are more likely than women (50% to 44%), and whites are more likely than Latinos (53% to 41%), to say the war is worth the costs. “In your view, is the war against Iraq worth the toll it has taken in American lives and other kinds of costs, or isn't the war worth these costs?” Worth the costs Not worth the costs Don't know All Adults 47% 46 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 33% 74% 49% 61 20 44 667 Latinos 41% 53 6 - 14 - National Politics The Bush Administration and Iraq A majority of Californians (53%) believe that the Bush Administration intentionally exaggerated evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction such as biological or chemical weapons. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that 50 percent of Americans share this view. Seven in 10 California Democrats (68%) say the administration exaggerated, while an almost equal percentage of Republicans (66%) believe it did not. The heavily Democratic San Francisco Bay Area has the highest percentage of residents (66%) who say the Bush Administration did intentionally exaggerate the evidence. While there are no significant differences across income groups, those with higher educational levels are more likely to say the evidence was exaggerated. “Before the war began, do you think that the Bush Administration did or did not intentionally exaggerate its evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction such as biological or chemical weapons?” Exaggerated Did not exaggerate Don't know All Adults 53% 40 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 68% 27 5 28% 66 6 50% 41 9 Latinos 58% 35 7 Thinking about the future effects of the war against Iraq, six in 10 Californians (59%) say the war contributed a great deal (31%) or some (28%) to the long-term security of the United States, while 34 percent say it did not. Nationally, the numbers are almost exactly the same, with 33 percent saying it contributed a great deal, 29 percent saying it contributed some, and 35 percent saying it did not contribute to the long-term security of the United States (based on a July Washington Post/ABC News poll). Although majorities of California residents across political parties think the war did contribute to long-term security, Democrats (46%) are more likely than Republicans (21%) and independents (30%) to say it did not. Once again, the San Francisco Bay Area is the region with the highest percentage of residents (46%) who say the war in Iraq did not contribute to long-term security. Whites are more likely than Latinos to say the war did not improve the nation’s security outlook (36% to 30%). Seventy-four percent of those residents who think the war did not contribute to the long-term security of the country also say the war was not worth all the costs. “Do you think the war with Iraq did or did not contribute to the long-term security of the United States? If response is "it did": Is that a great deal or some?” Contributed a great deal Contributed some Did not contribute Don't know All Adults 31% 28 34 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 22% 26 46 6 45% 28 21 6 36% 28 30 6 Latinos 36% 30 30 4 - 15 - August 2003 National Politics U.S. Homeland Security As the nation approaches the second anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks, Californians are about as confident as they were a year ago that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies will be able to prevent future terrorist attacks. Today, 58 percent of state residents say they are very (14%) or somewhat (44%) confident on this score, while another 40 percent say they are not too confident (28%) or not at all confident (12%). In the August 2002 survey, taken two months before the president signed a bill creating the Homeland Security Department, the percentages were almost the same. Republicans (74%) are more likely than Democrats (47%) or independents (60%), and Latinos (60%) are about as likely as whites (57%), to say they are very or somewhat confident that U.S. agencies will prevent future attacks. “How confident are you that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies will be able to prevent future terrorist attacks in the United States in which large numbers of Americans are killed?” Very confident Somewhat confident Not too confident Not at all confident Don't know All Adults 14% 44 28 12 2 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 7% 21% 13% 40 53 47 33 19 27 19 6 11 112 Latinos 16% 44 27 12 1 Many Californians continue to be concerned about how anti-terrorism measures may affect civil liberties. Asked whether they are more concerned that the government will fail to enact strong antiterrorism laws or that the government will enact new anti-terrorism laws that excessively restrict the average person’s civil liberties, 54 percent say they are more concerned about the effect on civil liberties. Thirty-four percent say they are more concerned that the government will fail to enact strong antiterrorism laws. In August 2002, 51 percent were concerned about civil liberties. Concern about civil liberties is higher among San Francisco Bay Area (64%) and Los Angeles (55%) residents than among residents of the Central Valley (46%) or Other Southern California (49%). Majorities of Democrats (61%) and independents (57%) express concern about laws restricting civil liberties, while 47 percent of Republicans are concerned that the government will fail to enact tough anti-terrorism laws. Liberals (65%) and moderates (54%) are more concerned with civil liberties, while conservatives are split on this issue (42% to 44%). “In general, which concerns you more right now …” Laws will excessively restrict the average person's civil liberties Government will fail to enact strong anti-terrorism laws Don't know All Adults 54% 34 12 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 61% 40% 57% 28 47 32 11 13 11 Latinos 55% 32 13 - 16 - National Politics State Homeland Security Six in ten state residents (61%) see terrorism and security in California as a big problem (22%) or somewhat of a problem (39%). These findings are similar to those in the August 2002 survey, when 64 percent saw terrorism and security as at least somewhat of a state problem. However, the concern today is significantly lower than the 73 percent expressed in the December 2001 survey. Across the state, Los Angeles residents (25%) express more concern than residents of other regions, while San Francisco Bay Area residents are the most likely to say terrorism and security do not present much of a problem (41%). These results are also similar to those of a year ago. Latinos are more likely than whites to see this issue as a big problem in California (29% to 18%). While majorities across party lines say terrorism and security represent at least somewhat of a problem, independents are most likely to say it is not much of a problem (39%). Californians with only a high school education or less are more likely than those with a college degree to see it as a big problem in the state today (29% to 17%). “How much of a problem is terrorism and security in California today?” Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not much of a problem Don't know All Adults 22% 39 36 3 Central Valley 22% 38 35 5 Region SF Bay Area 16% 39 41 4 Los Angeles 25% 39 33 3 Other Southern California 22% 42 34 2 Latinos 29% 37 31 3 Four in ten Californians (41%) say they are very (14%) or somewhat (27%) worried that they or someone in their family will be a victim of a terrorist attack, while 59 percent say they are not too worried (34%) or not at all worried (25%). State residents gave similar responses in the August 2002 survey and in the December 2001 survey. Latinos are much more concerned about becoming a victim of terrorist attack than whites (60% to 30%). Men are more likely than women to say they are not at all concerned (30% to 20%). Younger, less educated, and lower-income residents are more worried than older, more educated, and more affluent residents that they or someone in their family will become a victim of terrorism. “How worried are you that you or someone in your family will be the victim of a terrorist attack?” Very worried Somewhat worried Not too worried Not at all worried Don't know All Adults 14% 27 34 25 0 Central Valley 13% 25 32 30 0 Region SF Bay Area 10% 25 37 26 2 Los Angeles 18% 29 31 21 1 Other Southern California 13% 26 34 26 1 Latinos 30% 30 25 15 0 - 17 - August 2003 National Politics Local Homeland Security Faced with frequent alerts about possible terrorist attacks and heightened national security, Californians have a lot of confidence that their local public agencies are prepared to respond: Seventyone percent say they have some or a great deal of confidence in their local public health agencies, 77 percent in their local police department, and 90 percent in their fire department. The level of Californians’ confidence in these agencies is similar to that in the August 2002 survey. Compared to residents of other regions in the state, Los Angeles and Other Southern California residents are the most likely to say they have a great deal of confidence in their local government agencies. While state residents may have a great deal of confidence in their local fire, police, and public health agencies, their trust does not carry over to their ratings of city government. About half of Californians (48%) think their city governments are reasonably prepared to respond to the threat of a terrorist attack (14 percent give an “excellent” rating and 34 percent give a “good” rating). However, four in ten say they are not that well prepared (33 percent give a “fair” rating and 8 percent give a “poor” rating). Californians gave their city governments similar ratings a year ago. “How much confidence do you have in …” … your local fire department in terms of its readiness to respond to the threat of new terrorist attacks? … your local police department in terms of providing security in response to the threat of terrorist attacks? … your local public health agencies in terms of their readiness to respond to the threat of new terrorist attacks? A great deal Some Very little/ None Don't know A great deal Some Very little/ None Don't know A great deal Some Very little/ None Don't know All Adults 50% 40 8 2 30% 47 20 3 22% 49 24 5 Central Valley 50% 41 8 1 29% 48 20 3 24% 48 23 5 Region SF Bay Area 40% 47 10 3 24% 51 22 3 18% 53 24 5 Los Angeles 52% 38 8 2 30% 47 20 3 22% 50 25 3 Other Southern California 55% 34 9 2 35% 43 19 3 24% 47 24 5 Latinos 50% 39 10 1 36% 40 23 1 25% 45 28 2 In the context of the state government’s budget deficit, 51 percent of Californians, and 51 percent of likely voters, would be willing to pay a higher local sales tax to increase local government funding for police, fire, and public health agencies as part of an effort to increase terrorism readiness, while 45 percent would oppose the tax hike. A year ago, Californians expressed similar levels of support for such a tax increase. Today, Central Valley (57%) and Other Southern California (53%) residents are the most likely to support the tax increase. Across parties, Democrats (55%) are the most likely to favor a higher sales tax for this purpose, followed by Republicans (51%) and independents (47%). - 18 - Survey Methodology The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, research director at the Public Policy Institute of California, with assistance in research and writing from Jon Cohen, survey research manager, and Renatta DeFever and Eliana Kaimowitz, survey research associates. The findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,001 California adult residents interviewed between August 8 and August 17, 2003. Interviewing took place on weekday nights and weekend days, using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted telephone numbers were called. All telephone exchanges in California were eligible for calling. Telephone numbers in the survey sample were called up to ten 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. Each interview took an average of 20 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English or Spanish. Casa Hispana translated the survey into Spanish, and Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. conducted the telephone interviewing. We used recent U.S. Census and state figures to compare the demographic characteristics of the survey sample with characteristics of California’s adult population. The survey sample was closely comparable to the census and state figures. The survey data in this report were statistically weighted to account for any demographic differences. The sampling error for the total sample of 2,001 adults 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 adults in California were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. The sampling error for the 1,540 registered voters is +/- 2.5 percent. The sampling error for the 993 likely voters is +/- 3 percent, and the sampling error for each of the half samples is also +/- 3 percent. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. 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. “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. These four regions are the major population centers of the state, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population. We present specific results for Latinos because they account for about 28 percent of the state’s adult population and constitute one of the fastest growing voter groups. The sample sizes for the African American and Asian subgroups are not large enough for separate statistical analysis. We do contrast the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The “independents” category includes only those who are registered to vote as “decline to state.” In some cases, we compare PPIC Statewide Survey responses to responses recorded in national surveys conducted by Newsweek, Time/CNN, Washington Post/ABC News, CBS News, and CNN/USA Today/Gallup. We use earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys to analyze trends over time in California. - 19 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY: CALIFORNIANS AND THEIR GOVERNMENT AUGUST 8—AUGUST 17, 2003 2,001 CALIFORNIA ADULT RESIDENTS; ENGLISH AND SPANISH MARGIN OF ERROR +/- 2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 1. Thinking about the state as a whole, what do you think is the most important issue facing people in California today? [open-ended question] 34% economy, jobs, unemployment 12 state budget, deficit, taxes 11 education, schools 11 recall of governor 3 crime 3 immigration, illegal immigration 3 health care, health costs 3 government regulations 1 moral decay 1 housing costs, housing availability 1 population growth and development 1 environment, pollution 1 race relations, racial/ethnic issues 1 drugs 1 poverty, the poor 1 traffic, transportation 1 water, water quality, water availability 5 other (specify) 6 don’t know 2. Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? 22% right direction 66 wrong direction 12 don’t know 3. Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times? 30% good times 53 bad times 17 don’t know 4. Would you say that your region is in an economic recession or not? (if yes: Do you think it is in a serious, a moderate, or a mild recession?) 19% yes, serious recession 29 yes, moderate recession 10 yes, mild recession 35 no 7 don’t know [Responses recorded for questions 5 to 20 are from likely voters only. All other responses are from all adults.] 5. On another topic, how closely are you following news about the election to recall Governor Gray Davis from office—very closely, fairly closely, not too closely, or not at all closely? 45% very closely 44 fairly closely 8 not too closely 3 not at all closely 6. On October 7th, there will be a special election on whether to recall Governor Davis from office. On this ballot, voters will be asked two questions: first, whether Davis should be removed as governor, and second, who from a list of candidates should replace him if he is recalled. The list of about 150 possible replacement candidates includes: [rotate list, then say “among others”] • Peter Camejo, Green Party • Cruz Bustamante, Democrat • Arianna Huffington, Independent • Tom McClintock, Republican • Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican • Peter Ueberroth, Republican • Bill Simon, Republican If the special election to recall Governor Davis were held today, would you vote "yes" to remove Davis as governor or "no" to keep Davis as governor? 58% yes, remove Davis as governor 36 no, keep Davis as governor 6 don’t know 7. Regardless of how you would vote on the first part of the recall, how would you vote on the second part of the recall ballot: If the election were held today, who would you vote for? [if necessary: read rotated list, then ask “or someone else?”] 23% Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican 18 Cruz Bustamante, Democrat 5 Tom McClintock, Republican 4 Bill Simon, Republican 4 Peter Ueberroth, Republican 3 Peter Camejo, Green Party 3 Arianna Huffington, Independent 8 Someone else (specify) 32 don’t know - 21 - 8. Would you say you are satisfied or not satisfied with the choices of replacement candidates in the recall election on October 7th? 49% satisfied 40 not satisfied 11 don’t know 9. Which of these statements is closest to your view of Governor Davis? 12% I like Davis and like his policies 25 I like Davis but dislike his policies 7 I dislike Davis but like his policies 48 I dislike Davis and dislike his policies 8 don’t know 10. If Governor Davis is recalled from office, do you think that things in California would get better, would get worse, or would it make no difference? 47% would get better 17 would get worse 28 would make no difference 8 don’t know 11. Do you think that the current effort to recall the governor is an appropriate use of the recall process or not? 52% yes 43 no 5 don’t know 12. The special election on October 7th will cost an estimated 50 to 70 million dollars. Which of the following statements comes closest to your view— [rotate] (a) this election is a waste of money, or (b) this election is worth the cost? 53% waste of money 44 worth the cost 3 don’t know 13. Generally speaking, and regardless of how you feel about the upcoming election, do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that the California constitution provides a way to recall the state's elected officials, such as the governor? 80% good thing 17 bad thing 3 don’t know 14. At this time, how much would you say that you know about how the recall process works in California—a lot, some, very little, or nothing? 25% a lot 50 some 22 very little 3 nothing 15. On another topic, Proposition 53 on the October 7th ballot, called the Funds Dedicated for State and Local Infrastructure Legislative Constitutional Amendment, would require between 1 and 3 percent of General Fund revenues to be set aside for purchase, construction, or renovation of infrastructure. Half of the money would go for state projects and half would go to local projects. This measure would fund infrastructure projects such as local streets, transportation, water, parks, and open spaces. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 53? 52% yes 25 no 23 don’t know 16. Given the state’s budget situation, do you generally think that it is a good idea or a bad idea to set aside portions of General Fund revenue to specific program areas? 58% good idea 27 bad idea 15 don’t know 17. Do you think that the current level of state funding for state and local infrastructure projects is more than enough, just enough, or not enough? 9% more than enough 25 just enough 43 not enough 23 don’t know 18. Also on the October 7th ballot is Proposition 54, the Classification by Race, Ethnicity, Color, or National Origin Initiative Constitutional Amendment. This measure would prohibit state and local governments from using race, ethnicity, color, or national origin to classify students, contractors, or employees. Exemptions include law enforcement descriptions and actions to maintain federal funding. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 54? 50% yes 37 no 13 don’t know - 22 - 19. How important is it to you that state and local governments collect data on race, ethnicity, color, and national origin—very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all important? 21% very important 29 somewhat important 18 not too important 29 not at all important 3 don’t know 20. If Proposition 54 passes, do you think this would be a good thing or a bad thing for racial and ethnic minorities in California, or would this make no difference? 26% good thing 26 bad thing 34 no difference 14 don’t know 21. On another topic, the state government has an annual budget of around 100 billion dollars and until recently faced a 38 billion dollar budget deficit. The state legislature and governor have approved a new budget that includes 13 billion dollars in spending cuts, 11 billion dollars in borrowing, and no new taxes to close the deficit. In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with this budget plan? 29% satisfied 57 dissatisfied 14 don’t know [rotate questions 22 to 24] 22. Do you favor or oppose the state government’s borrowing 11 billion dollars as a way to reduce the 38 billion dollar budget deficit? 26% favor 61 oppose 13 don’t know 23. Do you think that tax increases should have been included in the budget plan? 44% yes 50 no 1 it did include taxes (volunteered) 5 don’t know 24. How concerned are you about the effects of the spending cuts in the budget plan—very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned? 36% very concerned 41 somewhat concerned 13 not too concerned 7 not at all concerned 3 don’t know 25. The California state constitution requires that twothirds of the state legislature agree to a state budget for it to pass. Do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea to replace this two-thirds requirement with a 55 percent majority vote? 39% good idea 48 bad idea 13 don’t know 26. Changing topics, overall do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States? 53% approve 42 disapprove 5 don’t know [rotate questions 27 and 28] 27. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq? 50% approve 45 disapprove 5 don’t know 28. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling terrorism and homeland security issues? 62% approve 33 disapprove 5 don’t know 29. How well do you think U.S. efforts to establish security and rebuild Iraq have gone since major combat ended on May 1st—very well, somewhat well, not too well, or not at all well? 13% very well 38 somewhat well 27 not too well 19 not at all well 3 don’t know 30. In your view, is the war against Iraq worth the toll it has taken in American lives and other kinds of costs, or isn’t the war worth these costs? 47% worth it 46 not worth it 7 don’t know - 23 - August 2003 31. Before the war began, do you think that the Bush Administration did or did not intentionally exaggerate its evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction such as biological or chemical weapons? 53% did exaggerate 40 did not exaggerate 7 don’t know 32. Do you think the war with Iraq did or did not contribute to the long-term security of the United States? (if response is "it did": Is that a great deal or some?) 31% contributed a great deal 28 contributed some 34 did not contribute 7 don’t know 33. On another topic, how confident are you that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies will be able to prevent future terrorist attacks in the United States in which large numbers of Americans are killed—very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident, or not at all confident? 14% very confident 44 somewhat confident 28 not too confident 12 not at all confident 2 don’t know 34. In general, which concerns you more right now—that the government will fail to enact strong anti-terrorism laws or that the government will enact new antiterrorism laws that excessively restrict the average person’s civil liberties? 54% laws will excessively restrict the average person’s civil liberties 34 government will fail to enact strong antiterrorism laws 12 don’t know 35. How much of a problem is terrorism and security in California today? Is it a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not much of a problem? 22% big problem 39 somewhat of a problem 36 not much of a problem 3 don’t know 36. How worried are you that you or someone in your family will be the victim of a terrorist attack—very worried, somewhat worried, not too worried, or not at all worried? 14% very worried 27 somewhat worried 34 not too worried 25 not at all worried 37. Overall, how would you rate your city government’s response to the threat of terrorist attacks since September 11th — excellent, good, fair, or poor? 14% excellent 34 good 33 fair 8 poor 3 don’t live in a city (volunteered) 8 don’t know [rotate questions 38 to 40] 38. How much confidence do you have in your local police department in terms of providing security in response to the threat of terrorist attacks—a great deal, some, very little, or none? 30% a great deal 47 some 15 very little 5 none 3 don’t know 39. How much confidence do you have in your local fire department in terms of its readiness to respond to the threat of new terrorist attacks—a great deal, some, very little, or none? 50% a great deal 40 some 6 very little 2 none 2 don’t know 40. How much confidence do you have in your local public health agencies in terms of their readiness to respond to the threat of new terrorist attacks—a great deal, some, very little, or none? 22% a great deal 49 some 19 very little 5 none 5 don’t know - 24 - 41. Suppose that your local government said it needed to raise the sales tax to increase funding for police, fire, and public health agencies as part of an effort to increase terrorism readiness. Would you favor or oppose a higher sales tax for this purpose? 51% favor 45 oppose 4 don’t know 42. Changing topics back to the state: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling his job as governor of California? 26% approve 67 disapprove 7 don’t know 43. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling the issue of jobs and the California economy? 22% approve 67 disapprove 11 don’t know 44. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling its job? 28% approve 58 disapprove 14 don’t know 45. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling the issue of the state budget and taxes? 19% approve 71 disapprove 10 don’t know 46. On another topic, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote? 78% yes [ask q. 46a] 22 no [skip to q. 47a] 46a. Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 35% Democrat [ask q. 47b] 26 Republican [ask q. 47c] 3 other (specify) [ask q. 48] 14 independent [ask q. 47a] 22 not registered 47a. Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 27% Republican party 39 Democratic party 24 neither (volunteered) 10 don’t know 47b. Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 46% strong 51 not very strong 3 don’t know 47c. Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 56% strong 40 not very strong 4 don’t know 48. On another topic, would you consider yourself to be politically very liberal, somewhat liberal, middle-ofthe-road, somewhat conservative, or very conservative? 10% very liberal 22 somewhat liberal 32 middle-of-the-road 23 somewhat conservative 11 very conservative 2 don’t know 49. Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics—a great deal, a fair amount, only a little, or none? 23% great deal 43 fair amount 28 only a little 6 none 50. How often would you say you vote—always, nearly always, part of the time, seldom, or never? 48% always 23 nearly always 10 part of the time 4 seldom 15 never 51. And do you plan to vote in the recall election on October 7th? (if yes: Will you vote at your local polling place or by absentee ballot?) 60% yes, local polling place 17 yes, absentee ballot 17 no, not planning to vote 6 don’t know - 25 - August 2003 PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY Advisory Committee Angela Blackwell President Policy Link 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 Matt Fong Chairman Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Advisory Committee William Hauck President California Business Roundtable Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Monica Lozano President and Chief Operating Officer La Opinión Donna Lucas Executive Vice President Porter Novelli Max Neiman Director Center for Social and Behavioral Research University of California, Riverside Dan Rosenheim News Director KPIX-TV Richard Schlosberg President and CEO The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Carol Stogsdill President Stogsdill Consulting Cathy Taylor Vice President and Editorial Commentary Director Orange County Register Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center - 26 - PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates William K. Coblentz Senior Partner Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP A. Alan Post Former State Legislative Analyst State of California Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Thomas C. Sutton Chairman & CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Cynthia A. Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Harold M. Williams President Emeritus The J. Paul Getty Trust and Of Counsel Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Advisory Council Mary C. Daly Research Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Clifford W. Graves General Manager Department of Community Development City of Los Angeles 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 Daniel A. Mazmanian C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California 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 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 info@ppic.org" } ["___content":protected]=> string(102) "

S 803MBS

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(110) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-their-government-august-2003/s_803mbs/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8351) ["ID"]=> int(8351) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:36:51" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3538) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(8) "S 803MBS" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(8) "s_803mbs" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "S_803MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "2993050" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(88240) "PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY AUGUST 2003 Public Policy Institute of California Californians and Their Government ○○○○○ Mark Baldassare Research Director & Survey Director 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, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. 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 parties or candidates for public office. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Preface 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, the survey series has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 76,000 Californians. The current survey is the fourteenth in our Californians and Their Government series, which is conducted on a periodic basis throughout the state’s election cycles. The series is focusing on the social, economic, and political trends that underlie public policy preferences and ballot choices. The current survey focuses on the October 7th statewide special election, the first gubernatorial recall election in California history. It examines voters’ preferences on the recall, and on state propositions that will also be on the ballot, as well as Californians’ attitudes and perceptions toward state and national issues. This report presents the responses of 2,001 adult residents throughout the state on a wide range of issues: • The October 7th statewide special election, including the level of public support for the recall, current favorites among the replacement candidates on the recall ballot, voter perceptions of the governor, attitudes toward the California recall process, and public support for Proposition 53 (infrastructure investment fund) and Proposition 54 (racial classification). • The state of the Golden State today, including measures of overall optimism and pessimism of Californians, the most important problem facing Californians, the general outlook for the state and regional economies, approval ratings of Governor Davis, attitudes and perceptions toward the state legislative budget plan, the level of public support for removing the two-thirds legislative vote requirement for passing a state budget, and approval ratings of the state legislature and its handling of the state budget and taxes. • National politics, including overall approval ratings of President Bush and of his handling of the situation in Iraq and of terrorism and security issues, public perceptions of how the situation in Iraq is going for the United States today, and perceptions of homeland security issues—such as concerns about the personal threat of terrorism, perceptions of the problem of terrorism in California today, attitudes toward the federal governments’ response to the threat of terrorism, and Californians’ confidence in local governments’ ability to respond to homeland security issues—as the second anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks approaches. • The extent to which Californians may differ in their ballot choices for the special election, political and economic attitudes toward the state, and attitudes toward national political issues by party affiliation, demographics, race/ethnicity, and region of residence. This is the 38th PPIC Statewide Survey, which has included a number of special editions: • The Central Valley (11/99, 3/01, 4/02, 4/03) • Population Growth (5/01) • San Diego County (7/02) • Land Use (11/01, 11/02) • Orange County (9/01, 12/02) • The Environment (6/00, 6/02, 7/03) • Los Angeles County (3/03) • California State Budget (6/03) Copies of this report may be ordered by e-mail (order@ppic.org) or phone (415-291-4400). Copies of this and earlier reports are posted on the publications page of the PPIC web site (www.ppic.org). For questions about the survey, please contact survey@ppic.org. -i- Contents Preface Press Release Statewide Special Election State of the Golden State National Politics Survey Methodology Survey Questions and Results Survey Advisory Committee i v 1 7 13 19 21 26 - iii - Press Release Para ver este comunicado de prensa en español, por favor visite nuestra página de internet: http://www.ppic.org/main/pressreleaseindex.asp HOW LOW CAN WE GO? RECALL REFLECTS NEW DEPTHS OF PESSIMISM IN CALIFORNIA Economic Uncertainty, Budget Crisis Fuel Resentment of State Government; Residents Express Mixed Emotions About Iraq Conflict SAN FRANCISCO, California, August 21, 2003 — Has the Golden State lost its luster? Californians are increasingly gloomy about the state of the state and bitter about the performance of their elected representatives, according to a new survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). And they have found an outlet for their pain: California’s first-ever statewide recall election appears to have captured their attention and mounting support. By a margin of more than three-to-one, Californians today say the state is headed in the wrong direction. In recent years, Californians have been relatively pessimistic about the direction of the state, but the percentage who view the state’s direction negatively (66%) now stands at a six-year high. Likely voters are even more pessimistic about the state’s future: 74 percent say it is headed in the wrong direction. And the spreading disaffection has finally hit California’s most optimistic population: By a two-to-one margin, Latinos now say the state is headed in the wrong direction (56% to 28%). Why such a gloomy outlook? It’s the economy — and the state budget. A majority (53%) of state residents say they expect bad times for the state economy in the coming year, down from February (71%) but similar to one year ago (51%). Californians (58%) still believe their region of the state is in an economic recession. Consistent with these worries, residents view the economy, jobs, and unemployment (34%) as the biggest problem facing the state, followed by the state budget and taxes (12%), education and schools (11%), and the gubernatorial recall (11%). If they are feeling little relief from their economic woes, Californians are getting even less satisfaction about their second biggest concern — the state budget — even after the passage of a budget deal earlier this month. More than half of state residents (57%) and 61 percent of likely voters say they are dissatisfied with the budget plan. Indeed, they appear unhappy with most aspects of the compromise budget: 61 percent oppose the idea of floating $11 billion in state bonds as a way to reduce the deficit, and 77 percent are very (36%) or somewhat (41%) concerned about the effects of spending cuts outlined in the agreement. Although the budget does not raise taxes, Californians are split over whether or not it should (44%) or should not (50%) have included tax increases. Despite their general disgust, residents today are even more opposed to an oft-mentioned budget process reform: Only 39 percent support the idea of lowering the supermajority threshold for passing a budget in the state legislature, compared to 46 percent in June. “A stagnant economy, a very public and unpopular budget drama, and a distrustful electorate: All the makings of a perfect storm,” says survey director Mark Baldassare. As the storm builds, approval ratings for Governor Gray Davis remain at historical lows, especially among likely voters: 72 percent say they disapprove of the way he is handling his job; 71 percent disapprove of his handling of jobs and the economy. The state legislature has lost substantial ground: 68 percent of likely voters disapprove of the legislature’s overall performance, compared to 58 percent in June. Currently, 78 percent disapprove of the legislature’s handling of budget and tax issues. Total Recall Given their frustration, it is understandable that Californians would be captivated by the recall campaign. But the intensity of their interest is surprising — comparable to the level of interest during the energy -v- Press Release crisis and following September 11th, and higher than during last fall’s gubernatorial election. Today, 89 percent of likely voters are very closely (45%) or fairly closely (44%) following news of the recall. “This is so much bigger than the recall itself,” says Baldassare. “However unrealistic, voters are also hoping for a quick fix for their larger concerns.” Indeed, 47 percent of likely voters say things in California would get better if Davis is removed from office, while only 17 percent say they would get worse and 28 percent believe there would be no change. At this early stage of the campaign, 58 percent of likely voters say they would vote to remove Davis as governor, up from 51 percent in June and 50 percent in July. Majorities of Republicans (84%), independents (60%), and Latinos (58%) support the recall, while a majority of Democrats (56%) oppose it. The San Francisco Bay Area is the only major region of the state where a majority of voters (55%) would keep Davis as governor. Governor Davis’ political problems stem from both his policies and his personal style: Among likely voters, about half (48%) say they dislike the man and his policies, while only 12 percent say they like Davis and his policies. Currently, 32 percent of all likely voters have not decided which of the candidates they would choose to replace Governor Davis. Among those who have decided, more name Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger (23%) and Democrat Cruz Bustamante (18%) than any of the other candidates (no other candidate receives over 4 percent support). Bustamante (27%) leads Schwarzenegger (19%) among Latino voters. But despite the plethora of choices, only 49 percent of likely voters say they are satisfied with their candidate choices in the recall election, and 40 percent say they are unsatisfied. “This is surprising given the wide range of choices, the sheer volume of candidates, and the level of support for the recall,” says Baldassare. “It’s the wild card in the race.” Despite being underwhelmed about their choices for the current election and conflicted about whether or not the current effort to recall the governor is an appropriate use of the recall process, voters overwhelmingly (80%) believe that the provision of a recall in the state constitution is a good thing. However, when informed that the special election will cost between $50 million and $70 million, 53 percent believe it is a waste of money. The Also Rans: Propositions 53 and 54 Two initiatives, previously slated for the March 2004 ballot, have wound up as part of the October 7th Special Election. Both currently enjoy slim majority support. Proposition 53 — which would set aside between 1 and 3 percent of the state’s General Fund revenues for state and local infrastructure projects — is supported by 52 percent of likely voters, while 25 percent oppose the initiative and 23 percent are undecided. Democratic (59%) and independent (51%) voters would vote yes on Prop. 53, but fewer than half of Republicans (45%) support it. Despite the budget crisis, voters remain comfortable with setting aside portions of General Fund revenue for specific program areas: 58 percent say earmarking is generally a good idea. And they consider infrastructure investment a worthy cause: 43 percent say the current level of funding for infrastructure projects is inadequate, while only 9 percent think it is more than enough. Currently, 50 percent of likely voters favor Proposition 54 — which would prohibit state and local governments from using race, ethnicity, color, and national origin to classify students, employees, or contractors — while 37 percent are opposed and 13 percent are undecided. Republicans (60%), independents (52%), and whites (51%) are more likely than Democrats (43%) and Latinos (39%) to support this initiative. Voters are divided about whether the collection of racial and ethnic data is important (50%) or unimportant (47%). They are also split over the perceived effect of the initiative’s passage on racial and ethnic minorities in California: 26 percent believe it would be a good thing for these groups, 26 percent a bad thing, and 34 percent say it would make no difference. There are sharp differences between whites and non-whites on this question: A greater percentage of non-whites (34%) than whites (25%) say the initiative would be a bad thing for minority groups. - vi - Press Release Little Consensus on Iraq, But Confidence in U.S. Security as 9/11 Anniversary Looms Approval ratings for President George W. Bush have remained relatively stable in recent months: 53 percent of Californians say they approve of his overall performance in office — similar to his national approval rating (55%) — while 42 percent of state residents disapprove. California residents are divided over Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq: Fifty percent say they approve and 45 percent say they disapprove. This rating is also lower than his national approval rating on Iraq (56%). These numbers reflect Californians’ mixed feelings about U.S. efforts to establish security in and rebuild Iraq, as well as about Bush Administration efforts to “sell” the action. Half of state residents say that U.S. activities in Iraq have gone very (13%) or somewhat (38%) well since major hostilities ended on May 1st, while slightly fewer say they have not gone too well (27%) or have not gone well at all (19%). Californians are also divided about the value of U.S. involvement in Iraq: 47 percent say the war is worth the toll it has taken in terms of American lives and other costs, while 46 percent say it is not worth these costs. And although a majority of state residents (59%) say the war did contribute to the long-term security of the United States, a majority (53%) also believes that the Bush Administration intentionally exaggerated evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Support for President Bush is highest when it comes to his handling of terrorism and homeland security issues: 62 percent say they approve of his efforts in this area, down from 70 percent one year ago. As the nation approaches the second anniversary of September 11th, 58 percent of state residents say they are very (14%) or somewhat (44%) confident that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies will be able to prevent future terrorist attacks. However, while 61 percent of Californians say terrorism and security is a problem in the state today, residents are presently more concerned that new laws will excessively restrict civil liberties (54%) than they are that the government will fail to enact strong antiterrorism laws (34%). About the Survey The purpose of the PPIC Statewide Survey is to develop an in-depth profile of the social, economic, and political forces affecting California elections and public policy preferences. Findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,001 California adult residents interviewed from August 8 to August 17, 2003. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2%. The sampling error for the 1,540 registered voters is +/- 2.5% and for the 993 likely voters is +/- 3%. For more information on survey methodology, see page 19. 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. His most recent book, A California State of Mind: The Conflicted Voter in a Changing World, is available at www.ppic.org. 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) on August 21. See graphics next page. ### - vii - Percent All Adults Davis Recall 6% 36% 58% Yes, recall Governor Davis No, keep Governor Davis Don't know Percent Likely Voters Most Important Problem Facing California 40 34 30 20 12 11 11 10 0 Economy & jobs State budget Education Recall Prop 53: Infrastructure Funds 23% 52% 25% Yes No Don't know Percent Likely Voters Percent All Adults Percent Likely Voters Replacement Candidates 40 30 23 20 18 32 10 5 4 4 0 ArnoldCSrTPcuoehztmewrBarDuMBUzisocltleen'CabtlniSeimenkrtgarnmogonoottcenrwehk Do you think CA is going in the … Right direction Wrong direction 70 57 60 50 40 30 34 20 10 0 aprove Sept '98 62 62 66 47 48 44 44 31 30 22 disapprove don't know Dec Aug July Aug Aug '99 '00 '01 Perc'0e2nt All A'd0u3lts Prop 54: Racial Classification 13% 37% 50% Yes No Don't know Percent Likely Voters Statewide Special Election∗ The Davis Recall Election Most Californians are closely following news of the first-ever recall election of a California governor, which has attracted intense national media coverage for several weeks. The public’s interest in this political event is comparable to that recorded during the energy crisis and around September 11th in 2001—and higher than the interest during last fall’s gubernatorial election. In October 2002, 75 percent of likely voters were very or fairly closely following that election. Today, 89 percent are very closely (45%) or fairly closely (44%) following the news of the election to recall Governor Gray Davis. The level of interest is very high across all regions of the state, political parties, racial/ethnic groups, and age, income, and educational categories. “How closely are you following news about the election to recall Governor Gray Davis from office?” Very closely Fairly closely Not too closely Not at all closely Likely Voters 45% 44 8 3 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 43% 48% 44% 45 42 45 10 8 8 223 Latinos 39% 46 12 3 At this early stage of the recall campaign, 58 percent of likely voters say they would vote to remove Davis as governor, up from 51 percent in June and 50 percent in July. Thirty-six percent would vote to keep him, and 6 percent are undecided. Majorities of Republican (84%) and independent (60%) likely voters support the recall, while a majority of Democrats (56%) oppose it. This pattern is consistent with the percentages of liberals (60%) who oppose the recall and of moderates (55%) and conservatives (80%) who support it. The San Francisco Bay Area is the only major region of the state where a majority of voters (55%) would keep Davis as governor. Latinos (58%) are as likely as whites (60%) to support Davis’ removal from office. Support for the recall declines somewhat with age and education. “If the special election to recall Governor Davis were held today, would you vote "yes" to remove Davis as governor or "no" to keep Davis as governor?” Party Registration Yes, remove Davis as governor No, keep Davis as governor Don't know Likely Voters 58% 36 6 Dem 38% 56 6 Rep 84% 14 2 Central Ind Valley 60% 69% 32 25 86 Region SF Bay Area 40% 55 5 Los Angeles 57% 38 5 Other Southern California 68% 26 6 Latinos 58% 35 7 ∗ In this chapter of the report, all data used in the tables are from likely voters only. Subsequent chapters use data from both likely voters and all adults, as indicated. -1- Statewide Special Election Replacement Candidates At this early stage, 32 percent of all likely voters have not decided which of the candidates they would choose to replace Governor Davis, and the percentage is about that high in all voter groups. Among those who have decided, more would vote for Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger (23%) and Democrat Cruz Bustamante (18%) than any of the other 135 candidates on the ballot. Bustamante is the clear favorite of Democratic voters (34%), and Schwarzenegger among GOP voters (38%). Voters who want Davis removed favor Schwarzenegger over Bustamante (35% to 7%), while those who want Davis to stay favor Bustamante over Schwarzenegger (38% to 5%). A somewhat higher percentage of Latino likely voters favor Bustamante to Schwarzenegger (27% to 19%). San Francisco Bay Area residents show the strongest preference for Bustamante over Schwarzenegger (27% to 15%), while Other Southern California residents show the strongest preference for Schwarzenegger over Bustamante (26% to 15%). “How would you vote on the second part of the recall ballot: If the election were held today, who would you vote for?” Arnold Schwarzenegger Cruz Bustamante Tom McClintock Bill Simon Peter Ueberroth Peter Camejo Arianna Huffington Someone else Don't know Party Registration Likely Voters 23% 18 5 4 4 3 3 8 32 Dem 12% 34 1 2 3 2 5 11 30 Rep 38% 2 10 8 5 0 1 5 31 Ind 17% 14 6 3 6 4 3 6 41 Central Valley 23% 15 7 6 3 2 1 5 38 Region SF Bay Area 15% 27 5 2 2 4 2 14 29 Los Angeles 24% 18 4 3 5 1 6 6 33 Other Southern California 26% 15 4 4 5 3 2 6 35 Latinos 19% 27 1 4 2 2 4 5 36 About half of likely voters (49%) say they are satisfied with the candidate choices in the recall election, while 40 percent say they are not satisfied. Likely voters are also more satisfied with the candidate choices in this special recall election than they were with their choices in the 2002 gubernatorial election, when only 38 percent indicated in August, September, and October that they were satisfied with the candidate options. Opinions vary by party, as well as by attitude toward the recall: Sixty-five percent of those who want to keep Davis are dissatisfied with the candidate choices, while 65 percent of those who want him replaced are satisfied. “Would you say you are satisfied or not satisfied with the choices of replacement candidates in the recall election on October 7th?” Satisfied Not satisfied Don't know Likely Voters 49% 40 11 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 38% 63% 47% 53 23 40 9 14 13 Latinos 46% 45 9 -2- Statewide Special Election Perceptions of Governor Davis Governor Davis’ political problems stem from both his policies and his personal style. Among likely voters, about half (48%) say they dislike the man and his policies. This reflects the 70 percent of Republicans, 55 percent of independents, and 30 percent of Democrats who dislike both. Overall, 55 percent dislike him and 73 percent dislike his policies; 37 percent like him, and 19 percent like his policies. Even among Democrats, half say that they like him, but only 31 percent like his policies. Across all of the state’s major regions, solid majorities say they dislike Davis’ policies. His personal popularity is higher among Latinos than among white voters (51% to 33%), but only 21 percent of Latinos and 19 percent of whites like his policies. “Which of these statements is closest to your view of Governor Davis …” I like Davis and like his policies I like Davis but dislike his policies I dislike Davis but like his policies I dislike Davis and dislike his policies Don't know Likely Voters 12% 25 7 48 8 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind Central Valley Region SF Bay Los Area Angeles Other Southern California Latinos 20% 3% 5% 10% 17% 12% 8% 15% 30 20 23 22 20 29 29 36 11 3 5 4 13 6 5 6 30 70 55 58 41 44 50 34 9 4 12 6 9 9 8 9 A high percentage of likely voters (47%) believe that things would get better in California if Governor Davis were recalled. Only 17 percent think things would get worse, and 28 percent believe it would make no difference. Democrats (29% to 26%) and liberals (27% to 29%) are about evenly divided among those who think the recall will make things better or worse. Lower percentages of moderates (19%), independents (19%), conservatives (8%), Republicans (6%), whites (17%), and Latinos (15%) think recalling the governor will make things worse. “If Governor Davis is recalled from office, do you think that things in California would get better, would get worse, or would it make no difference?” Would get better Would get worse Would make no difference Don't know Likely Voters 47% 17 28 8 - 3 - August 2003 Statewide Special Election Perceptions of the Recall Process California’s likely voters overwhelmingly (80%) believe that the provision of a recall in the state constitution is a “good thing.” Across political parties, ideologies, racial/ethnic groups, and the major regions of the state, at least seven in 10 likely voters say it is a good thing that Californians can recall the state’s elected officials. “Generally speaking, and regardless of how you feel about the upcoming election, do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that the California constitution provides a way to recall the state's elected officials, such as the governor?” Good thing Bad thing Don't know Likely Voters 80% 17 3 As for the current effort to recall Governor Davis, 52 percent of likely voters say it is an appropriate use of the recall, and 43 percent say this is not an appropriate use of the recall. Response to this question is strongly related to party registration: Seventy-eight percent of Republicans believe this election is an appropriate use of the recall, compared to 54 percent of independents and 33 percent of Democrats. The partisan divisions are reflected in regional differences and variations between liberals and conservatives. “Do you think that the current effort to recall the governor is an appropriate use of the recall process? Yes No Don't know Likely Voters 52% 43 5 Party Registration Dem 33% 62 5 Rep 78% 18 6 Ind 54% 41 5 Central Valley 63% 30 7 Region SF Bay Area 33% 62 5 Los Angeles 52% 44 4 Other Southern California 60% 35 5 Latinos 49% 45 6 When informed that the special election will cost between 50 million and 70 million dollars, 53 percent of likely voters believe it is a waste of money. Again, there are large partisan differences: Seventy percent of Republicans say it is worth the cost, while 74 percent of Democrats think it is a waste of money. Among independents, 47 percent say it is a waste and 48 percent believe it is worth the cost. Liberals (76%) and San Francisco Bay Area residents (71%) are much more likely than other political and demographic groups to see the recall as a waste of money. “The special election on October 7th will cost an estimated $50-$70 million. Which of the following statements comes closest to your view …” This election is a waste of money This election is worth the cost Don't know Likely Voters 53% 44 3 -4- Statewide Special Election Proposition 53: Infrastructure Funds Constitutional Amendment A majority of likely voters (52%) say they would support Proposition 53. This is a constitutional amendment, placed on the ballot by the California legislature for voter approval, to set aside between 1 and 3 percent of the state’s General Fund revenues for state and local infrastructure projects. While 52 percent of voters support it, 25 percent oppose, and 23 percent are undecided about earmarking funds for water, roads, parks, open space, and other infrastructure projects. Majorities of Democrats (59%) and independents (51%) would vote yes on Proposition 53, while fewer than half of Republicans (45%) would support it. Likewise, this proposition is more popular among liberals (55%) than among conservatives (45%) and more popular among Latinos (62%) than among whites (50%). “If the election were held today would you vote yes or no on Proposition 53?” Yes No Don't know Likely Voters 52% 25 23 Party Registration Dem 59% 20 21 Rep 45% 30 25 Ind 51% 26 23 Central Valley 52% 26 22 Region SF Bay Area 50% 25 25 Los Angeles 55% 27 18 Other Southern California 50% 22 28 Latinos 62% 22 16 Apparently, the state’s budget constraints have not made Californians leery of setting aside funds for specific program areas. Likely voters are much more inclined to think that it is a good idea (58%) than a bad idea (27%) to earmark funds. However, support for earmarking is higher among liberals than among conservatives (61% to 54%). Voters’ responses to Proposition 53 may reflect the priority they place on infrastructure spending. Forty-three percent of likely voters believe there is not enough infrastructure funding, while 23 percent are not sure. Liberals (48%), Democrats (45%) and San Francisco Bay Area voters (47%) are among the most likely to think there is not enough funding. “Given the state's budget situation, do you generally think that it is a good idea or a bad idea to set aside portions of General Fund revenue to specific program areas?” Good idea Bad idea Don't know Likely Voters 58% 27 15 “Do you think that the current level of state funding for state and local infrastructure projects is …” More than enough Just enough Not enough Don't know Likely Voters 9% 25 43 23 - 5 - August 2003 Statewide Special Election Proposition 54: Racial Classification Initiative How do likely voters feel about this citizens’ initiative that would prohibit state and local governments from using race, ethnicity, color, and national origin to classify students, employees, or contractors? If the election were held today, 50 percent would vote yes on Proposition 54, and 37 percent would vote no. Majorities of Republicans (60%) and independents (52%) support the measure, while Democrats are evenly divided (43% support; 43% oppose). Whites (51%) are more likely than Latinos (39%) and all non-white∗ likely voters (41%) to support this proposition. Regionally, opposition to Proposition 54 is highest in the San Francisco Bay Area (47%), and in Los Angeles fewer than half (49%) would vote yes. In Other Southern California and the Central Valley, supporters outnumber opponents by large margins. “If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 54?” Yes No Don't know Likely Voters 50% 37 13 Party Registration Dem 43% 43 14 Rep 60% 27 13 Ind 52% 33 15 Central Valley 58% 28 14 Region SF Bay Area 40% 47 13 Los Angeles 49% 38 13 Other Southern California 54% 32 14 Latinos 39% 48 13 How important is Proposition 54 to voters? While half of likely voters say that the collection or racial and ethnic data is important, only one in five voters (21%) describe this type of data as “very important.” Sixty-one percent of non-white likely voters think that collecting these data is very or somewhat important, while whites are evenly divided on the issue. Voters are also divided about whether Proposition 54 would be a good thing or a bad thing for racial and ethnic minorities in California (26% good thing; 26% bad thing; 34% no difference). Non-whites are somewhat more likely than whites to think that Proposition 54 would be a bad thing for racial and ethnic minorities (34% to 25%). “How important is it to you that state and local governments collect data on race and ethnicity?” Very / somewhat important Not too / not at all important Don't know Likely Voters 50% 47 3 Race/Ethnicity White Non-White 48% 61% 49 36 33 “If Proposition 54 passes, do you think this would be a good thing or a bad thing for racial and ethnic minorities in California, or would this make no difference?” Good thing Bad thing No difference Don't know Likely Voters 26% 26 34 14 Race/Ethnicity White Non-White 27% 23% 25 34 35 33 13 10 ∗ Non-white category includes African Americans, Asians, Latinos, and those who specify “other.” -6- State of the Golden State Overall Mood Nearly seven in 10 Californians (66%) think the state is headed in the wrong direction; only 22 percent think it is headed in the right direction. In recent years, Californians have been relatively pessimistic about the direction of the state, but the percentage who view the state’s direction pessimistically now stands at a six-year high. Even at the height of the state’s energy crisis in the summer of 2001, fewer than 50 percent of residents thought that the state was headed in the wrong direction (May 2001, 48%; July 2001, 47%). “Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction?” All Adults Right direction Wrong direction Don't know Sept 98 57% 34 9 Dec 99 62% 31 7 Aug 00 62% 30 8 Jul 01 44% 47 9 Aug 02 44% 48 8 Aug 03 22% 66 12 Today, the state’s likely voters are especially negative about the direction of the state: Only 17 percent think that California is headed in the right direction, while three in four (74%) think that it's headed in the wrong direction. Seventy-nine percent of Republicans are pessimistic about the state’s direction, and large majorities of Democrats (65%) and independents (69%) also think that the state is headed the wrong way. Sixty-nine percent of those Republicans who think the state is going in the right direction want to recall Governor Davis, and 88 percent of those Republicans who think the state is headed in the wrong direction want to remove him. By contrast, Democrats and independents who think the state is headed in the right direction are inclined to vote no on the Davis recall. Pessimism about the direction of the state has spread in recent months to the state’s typically optimistic Latino population. In surveys conducted earlier this summer, Latinos were nearly evenly divided about whether California was headed in the right or wrong direction. However, Latinos are now more likely to be pessimistic than optimistic about the direction of the state by a nearly two-to-one margin (56% to 28%). Latinos remain somewhat more optimistic than whites (28% to 19%), but the margin of difference has declined significantly. Right direction Wrong direction Don't know Likely Voters 17% 74 9 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 22% 13% 18% 65 79 69 13 8 13 Latinos 28% 56 16 Three in 10 Californians (34%) think that the economy, jobs, and unemployment are the primary problems facing the state today. In June 2003, 31 percent of residents mentioned these issues as their top concerns. The state budget and taxes (12%), schools and education (11%), and the gubernatorial recall (11%) are mentioned next as the most worrisome issues facing the state. Except for the addition of the recall as a top concern, the list of most important issues remains consistent with recent surveys. However, the overall mood in the state is becoming increasingly gloomy. -7- State of the Golden State The Economy Fifty-three percent of Californians expect bad times for the state economy during the next 12 months. Only 30 percent of state residents anticipate good financial times ahead. While the percentage of those expecting bad times is higher than the percentage of those expecting good times by a nearly twoto-one margin (53% to 30%), the percentage of respondents anticipating good times ahead has climbed above the all-time low of 20 percent in February 2003. Among likely voters, 56 percent think that difficult times lie ahead; only 27 percent expect good times. Majorities of Democrats (57%), independents (54%), and Republicans (51%) expect adverse financial conditions over the next 12 months, as do Californians from across household income categories and the state’s major geographic regions. “Do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times?” Dec 99 Aug 00 Jul 01 Aug 02 Feb 03 Aug 03 Good times Bad times Don't know 76% 19 5 72% 21 7 41% 50 9 39% 51 10 20% 71 9 30% 53 17 Fifty-eight percent of Californians say that their region is experiencing an economic recession: 19 percent think that their part of the state is suffering a serious recession, 29 percent consider the recession in their region to be moderate, and 10 percent think that their region is undergoing a mild recession. Thirty-five percent of Californians think that their region is not experiencing an economic recession. Women are more likely than men to describe their region as in a serious recession (23% to 15%). Four in 10 Californians (42%) from households with incomes of $80,000 and higher think that their regions are not in a recession, while only 29 percent of those from households with incomes of $40,000 or less think that their regions are not in a recession. A higher percentage of San Francisco Bay Area residents (71%) than residents in any other area think that their region is experiencing an economic recession. Moreover, people in the San Francisco Bay Area (28%) are much more likely than those elsewhere in the state to believe their recession is serious (only 14 percent of the residents in Other Southern California think the recession in their area is serious). Compared to August 2002, higher percentages of residents in Los Angeles (60% to 53%) and the Central Valley (57% to 49%) think that their regions are in economic recession. “Would you say that your region is in an economic recession or not? If "yes": Do you think it is in a serious, a moderate, or a mild recession?” Yes, serious recession Yes, moderate recession Yes, mild recession No Don't know All Adults 19% 29 10 35 7 Central Valley 19% 27 11 36 7 Region SF Bay Area 28% 34 9 24 5 Los Angeles 17% 32 11 34 6 Other Southern California 14% 24 10 45 7 -8- State of the Golden State Approval Ratings: Governor Davis Gray Davis’ job approval rating among likely voters has again stabilized after precipitous declines during the state’s energy crisis in 2001 and following his reelection in November 2002. The governor's highest approval rating among likely voters responding to the PPIC Statewide Survey was 66 percent in September 2000. Davis' rating declined significantly between January 2001 (62%) and December 2001 (46%), following a summer of rolling blackouts across the state. Davis’ approval remained in the low to mid-40s from the end of 2001 through the end of 2002. After his reelection, the percentage of likely voters who disapproved of his performance as governor increased. In February 2003, only 24 percent of likely voters said they approved of the job Davis was doing. Since that time, the governor's ratings have remained in the low 20s; today only one in four likely voters approves of the job Davis is doing as governor (72 percent disapprove of his job performance). “Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling his job as governor of California?” LIKELY VOTERS ONLY Approve Disapprove Don't know Sep 00 66% 27 7 Oct 00 61% 30 9 Jan 01 62% 28 10 Dec 01 46% 48 6 Jan 02 46% 49 5 Feb 02 44% 53 3 Aug 02 43% 51 6 Sep 02 42% 52 6 Oct 02 45% 52 3 Feb 03 24% 72 4 Jun 03 21% 75 4 Jul 03 22% 72 6 Aug 03 25% 72 3 A higher percentage of Democrats (37%) than independents (22%) or Republicans (8%) approve of the job performance of the Democratic governor, but a majority of Democrats (56%) join significant majorities of independents (73%) and Republicans (89%) in their disapproval of Davis’ performance. Thirty-seven percent of liberals, 26 percent of moderates, and 18 percent of conservatives approve of the way the governor is handling his job. As in earlier surveys, Latinos are more likely than whites (34% to 22%) to approve of the governor’s job performance, but Latino approval of Davis has dropped 6 percentage points from last month. Today, Davis’ disapproval ratings are higher than his approval ratings among all racial/ethnic groups. When it comes to the issue of how well Davis has handled unemployment and the state economy, his approval ratings are even lower than his overall job performance ratings. Only 22 percent of Californians, and 20 percent of likely voters, approve of his performance in this area. Even among fellow Democrats, only a small percentage approve of the governor’s performance: Thirty percent of Democrats, 18 percent of independents, and only 8 percent of Republicans approve of the way Davis has handled the problem of jobs and the economy. Among those who view the economy, jobs, and unemployment as the most important issues facing people in California today, a similarly low percentage of residents (21%) approve of the way Davis has handled these particular problems. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling his job as governor of California? Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling the issue of jobs and the California economy? All Adults Approve Disapprove Don't know Approve Disapprove 26% 67 7 22% 67 Don't know 11 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 37% 8% 22% 56 89 73 735 30% 8% 18% 58 85 72 12 7 10 Likely Voters 25% 72 3 20% 71 9 - 9 - August 2003 State of the Golden State State Budget On August 2, 2003, Governor Gray Davis signed the state’s annual budget into law. The oft-reported and record-setting $38 billion budget gap was reduced through a combination of spending reductions, borrowing, and revenue shifts, resulting in a budget plan that includes $13 billion in spending cuts, $11 billion in new state bonds, and no new taxes. Overall, 57 percent of Californians are not satisfied with the budget plan; only 29 percent are satisfied with it. Among Californians most likely to vote, a similarly low percentage (26%) is satisfied with the plan. Dissatisfaction with the budget plan spans partisan groups: Six in 10 Democrats (56%), independents (60%), and Republicans (64%) are not happy with it. Moreover, majorities of residents across demographic groups express dissatisfaction with the state’s solution to the budget deficit. However, opinions do vary somewhat across the state’s diverse population: Satisfaction with the budget deal declines with age and annual household income and is somewhat higher among Latinos (36%) than whites (27%). “In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the state budget plan? Satisfied Dissatisfied Don't know All Adults 29% 57 14 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 32% 23% 28% 56 64 60 12 13 12 Likely Voters 26% 61 13 This year’s budget includes $10.7 billion in new state bonds to be repaid from existing revenue. Only 26 percent of Californians, and 25 percent of likely voters, favor the idea of the state government borrowing this money to reduce the deficit. As with the overall budget deal, high percentages of independents (59%), Democrats (60%), and Republicans (68%) oppose this borrowing. In June 2003, before this year’s budget deal, a majority of Californians (54%) favored authorizing these bonds as a way to reduce the budget deficit. However, in the context of the actual budget agreement, support for new borrowing has plummeted, now nearly matching the level of support for the general concept of borrowing to reduce a budget deficit (33% in June). “Do you favor or oppose the state government’s borrowing $11 billion as a way to reduce the $38 billion budget deficit?” Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 26% 61 13 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 26% 21% 29% 60 68 59 14 11 12 Likely Voters 25% 64 11 The budget plan also includes about $13 billion in service cuts, and Californians are concerned about possible service reductions. Thirty-six percent of residents are very concerned about the effects of the spending cuts in the budget plan, and another 41 percent are somewhat concerned. Only 20 percent of Californians are either not too concerned or not at all concerned about the effects of these cuts. - 10 - State of the Golden State While forty-three percent of Democrats are very concerned about the effects of the state budget cuts, lower percentages of Republicans (32%) and independents (33%) express this level of concern. Concern about the spending cuts is also higher among Californians who hold a college degree (41% very concerned) than among those with only a high school diploma or less (29% very concerned). Similar percentages of Latinos (33%) and whites (36%) are very concerned about the effects of the recently enacted spending cuts. “How concerned are you about the effects of the spending cuts in the budget plan?” Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not too concerned Not at all concerned Don't know All Adults 36% 41 13 7 3 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 43% 38 10 5 4 32% 41 14 10 3 33% 45 13 7 2 Likely Voters 40% 38 11 8 3 Although tax increases were discussed in advance of the budget deal, there were no such increases in the final plan. The plan did include increasing certain fees, including the Vehicle License Fee (VLF), but taxes were not raised. Forty-four percent of Californians think that tax increases should have been included as part of the plan, while 50 percent think that they should not have been included. Among likely voters, 46 percent think that taxes should have been raised, and 48 percent think not. A majority of Democrats (53%) think that taxes should have been raised to deal with the budget deficit, while majorities of Republicans (59%) and independents (53%) think that any increase in taxes should have been off limits when it came to dealing with the deficit. Support for raising taxes as part of the budget plan increases with education and annual household income. “Do you think that tax increases should have been included in the budget plan?” Yes No It did include taxes (volunteered) Don't know All Adults 44% 50 1 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 53% 34% 43% 42 59 53 011 563 Likely Voters 46% 48 1 5 In June, during the heat of budget negotiations, 46 percent of Californians (a slim plurality) thought that it was a good idea to lower the two-thirds vote requirement for the legislature to pass the budget, requiring instead a 55 percent majority vote. Today, with this year’s budget complete, a lower percentage of Californians (39%; 37% among likely voters) consider this alternative to be a good idea. While Democrats and independents are nearly evenly divided about whether lowering the requirement would be a good idea or a bad idea, six in 10 Republicans (61%) think it would be a bad idea. Survey respondents who are dissatisfied with the current year budget deal are no more or less likely than those who are satisfied with it to support the change from a two-thirds requirement to a 55 percent majority vote. - 11 - August 2003 State of the Golden State Approval Ratings: State Legislature Nearly six in 10 Californians (58%) and nearly eight in 10 of the state’s likely voters (68%) disapprove of the way the state legislature is handling its job. Only 28 percent of Californians and 22 percent of likely voters approve of the job the legislature is doing. These ratings mark a new low for an institution that has received declining approval ratings from all Californians and likely voters alike over the past three years. “Do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling its job?” LIKELY VOTERS ONLY Sep 00 Jan 01 Dec 01 Jan 02 Sep 02 Feb 03 Jun 03 Aug 03 Approve 56% 56% 50% 46% 40% 29% 29% 22% Disapprove 34 32 36 43 45 55 58 68 Don't know 10 12 14 11 15 16 13 10 Only 29 percent of Democrats, 25 percent of independents, and 18 percent of Republicans approve of the job the Democratic-controlled legislature is doing. Legislative job approval is low across all major regions of the state, and it declines with age, education, and income. Only among Latinos does the legislature get a plurality of good marks (42% approve, 40% disapprove); overall, Latinos are more supportive than whites of the legislature (42% to 22%). After the passage of a budget plan that a majority of Californians finds unsatisfactory, it is not surprising that the legislature receives even less support for the way it has handled the state’s budget and taxes. Only 19 percent of Californians approve of the legislature's performance in handling taxing and spending issues—a 10-percentage point decline since June 2003 and a PPIC Statewide Survey low. Approval among likely voters is even lower, at 15 percent. Republicans are particularly likely to disapprove of the legislature’s performance in this area (only 11% approve). Latinos are more likely than whites (32% to 13%) to approve of the legislature’s handling of the state’s budget and taxes, but a majority of Latinos (53%) disapprove. Similarly, although majorities of Californians from all household income categories disapprove of the legislature's handling of fiscal affairs, those from households with incomes of $80,000 and higher are much more likely to disapprove (80%) than those from households with incomes of $40,000 and less (61%). Do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling its job? Do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling the issue of the state budget and taxes? Approve Disapprove Don't know Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 28% 58 14 19% 71 10 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 29% 18% 25% 57 74 64 14 8 11 20% 11% 18% 70 83 74 10 6 8 Likely Voters 22% 68 10 15% 78 7 - 12 - National Politics Approval Ratings: President Bush Fifty-three percent of Californians say they approve of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States. This is similar rating to the 55 percent national approval rating found in a recent CBS News poll. The president’s California rating has not changed in recent months. However, it is lower than a year ago: In the August 2002 survey, 64 percent of Californians said they approved of his job performance. California Republicans overwhelmingly support the president (84%), and a majority of independents (54%) give him a positive job rating. However, nearly two-thirds of the state’s Democrats (63%) disapprove of his performance. Latinos (53%) are about as likely as whites (57%) to be satisfied with the president’s performance. “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling …” … his job as president of the United States? … the situation in Iraq? … terrorism and homeland security? Approve Disapprove Don't know Approve Disapprove Don't know Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 53% 42 5 50% 45 5 62% 33 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 32% 63 5 84% 14 2 54% 39 7 33% 79% 52% 63 18 44 434 44% 87% 63% 51 10 31 536 Latinos 53% 40 7 46% 48 6 62% 30 8 California residents are almost evenly divided over Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq: Fifty percent say they approve and 45 percent say they disapprove. This approval rating is 7 points lower than the 57 percent of Americans who said they approved of his position in a recent CBS News poll. In California, Republicans give the president a much higher approval rating than Democrats on his handling of the situation (79% to 33%). However, Republicans give the president lower marks for this than for his overall job performance. Men are more likely than women (55% to 46%) to say they approve of the president’s actions in Iraq. State residents give the president his highest marks for handling terrorism and homeland security: Sixty-two percent say they approve of the president's efforts in this area. However, this is lower than the 70 percent who approved in the August 2002 survey. Forty-four percent of Democrats, 63 percent of independents, and 87 percent of Republicans approve of Bush’s performance in this area. In every region but one, a majority of residents say they approve of Bush's handling of this issue: In the San Francisco Bay Area, a majority (51%) disapprove. - 13 - National Politics U.S. Efforts in Iraq Californians have mixed feelings about U.S. efforts to establish security in and rebuild Iraq since major combat ended on May 1st. Half say the efforts have gone very well (13%) or somewhat well (38%), while 27 percent say they have not gone too well, and 19 percent say they have not gone at all well. The state’s residents are less positive than Americans nationwide about this experience: According to a July Newsweek poll, 57 percent of Americans say U.S efforts are going very (16%) or somewhat (41%) well, and 40 percent says things have gone not too well (26%) or not at all well (14%). In California, Republicans (70%) are much more likely than independents (53%) or Democrats (36%) to say things have gone well. Across the state, San Francisco Bay Area residents are the most likely to say things have not gone well at all (28%), while Central Valley residents are the most likely to say things have gone very well (17%). “How well do you think U.S. efforts to establish security and rebuild Iraq have gone since major combat ended on May 1st?” Very well Somewhat well Not too well Not at all well Don't know All Adults 13% 38 27 19 3 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 7% 20% 11% 29 50 42 32 22 28 29 6 17 322 Latinos 17% 38 26 15 4 Not only are Californians split on how well efforts in Iraq have gone so far, they are also divided over the value of U.S. involvement. Forty-seven percent of Californians say the war in Iraq is worth the toll it has taken in American lives and other kinds of cost, while 46 percent say it is not worth these costs. These views are similar to those of the nation as a whole: Nationally, 49 percent say the Iraq war is worth the costs and 45 percent say it is not (based on a July Time/CNN poll). Once again, the partisan differences in California are highly significant: 74 percent of Republicans and 49 percent of independents believe the war is worth the costs, while 61 percent of Democrats say it is not. Moderates are split on this issue (45% worth it; 47% not worth it), while a majority of conservatives (65%) say it is worth the costs and a majority of liberals say it is not (64%). Residents with household incomes of $40,000 or less are more likely than residents in households with higher incomes to say it is not worth the costs. Men are more likely than women (50% to 44%), and whites are more likely than Latinos (53% to 41%), to say the war is worth the costs. “In your view, is the war against Iraq worth the toll it has taken in American lives and other kinds of costs, or isn't the war worth these costs?” Worth the costs Not worth the costs Don't know All Adults 47% 46 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 33% 74% 49% 61 20 44 667 Latinos 41% 53 6 - 14 - National Politics The Bush Administration and Iraq A majority of Californians (53%) believe that the Bush Administration intentionally exaggerated evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction such as biological or chemical weapons. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that 50 percent of Americans share this view. Seven in 10 California Democrats (68%) say the administration exaggerated, while an almost equal percentage of Republicans (66%) believe it did not. The heavily Democratic San Francisco Bay Area has the highest percentage of residents (66%) who say the Bush Administration did intentionally exaggerate the evidence. While there are no significant differences across income groups, those with higher educational levels are more likely to say the evidence was exaggerated. “Before the war began, do you think that the Bush Administration did or did not intentionally exaggerate its evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction such as biological or chemical weapons?” Exaggerated Did not exaggerate Don't know All Adults 53% 40 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 68% 27 5 28% 66 6 50% 41 9 Latinos 58% 35 7 Thinking about the future effects of the war against Iraq, six in 10 Californians (59%) say the war contributed a great deal (31%) or some (28%) to the long-term security of the United States, while 34 percent say it did not. Nationally, the numbers are almost exactly the same, with 33 percent saying it contributed a great deal, 29 percent saying it contributed some, and 35 percent saying it did not contribute to the long-term security of the United States (based on a July Washington Post/ABC News poll). Although majorities of California residents across political parties think the war did contribute to long-term security, Democrats (46%) are more likely than Republicans (21%) and independents (30%) to say it did not. Once again, the San Francisco Bay Area is the region with the highest percentage of residents (46%) who say the war in Iraq did not contribute to long-term security. Whites are more likely than Latinos to say the war did not improve the nation’s security outlook (36% to 30%). Seventy-four percent of those residents who think the war did not contribute to the long-term security of the country also say the war was not worth all the costs. “Do you think the war with Iraq did or did not contribute to the long-term security of the United States? If response is "it did": Is that a great deal or some?” Contributed a great deal Contributed some Did not contribute Don't know All Adults 31% 28 34 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 22% 26 46 6 45% 28 21 6 36% 28 30 6 Latinos 36% 30 30 4 - 15 - August 2003 National Politics U.S. Homeland Security As the nation approaches the second anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks, Californians are about as confident as they were a year ago that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies will be able to prevent future terrorist attacks. Today, 58 percent of state residents say they are very (14%) or somewhat (44%) confident on this score, while another 40 percent say they are not too confident (28%) or not at all confident (12%). In the August 2002 survey, taken two months before the president signed a bill creating the Homeland Security Department, the percentages were almost the same. Republicans (74%) are more likely than Democrats (47%) or independents (60%), and Latinos (60%) are about as likely as whites (57%), to say they are very or somewhat confident that U.S. agencies will prevent future attacks. “How confident are you that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies will be able to prevent future terrorist attacks in the United States in which large numbers of Americans are killed?” Very confident Somewhat confident Not too confident Not at all confident Don't know All Adults 14% 44 28 12 2 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 7% 21% 13% 40 53 47 33 19 27 19 6 11 112 Latinos 16% 44 27 12 1 Many Californians continue to be concerned about how anti-terrorism measures may affect civil liberties. Asked whether they are more concerned that the government will fail to enact strong antiterrorism laws or that the government will enact new anti-terrorism laws that excessively restrict the average person’s civil liberties, 54 percent say they are more concerned about the effect on civil liberties. Thirty-four percent say they are more concerned that the government will fail to enact strong antiterrorism laws. In August 2002, 51 percent were concerned about civil liberties. Concern about civil liberties is higher among San Francisco Bay Area (64%) and Los Angeles (55%) residents than among residents of the Central Valley (46%) or Other Southern California (49%). Majorities of Democrats (61%) and independents (57%) express concern about laws restricting civil liberties, while 47 percent of Republicans are concerned that the government will fail to enact tough anti-terrorism laws. Liberals (65%) and moderates (54%) are more concerned with civil liberties, while conservatives are split on this issue (42% to 44%). “In general, which concerns you more right now …” Laws will excessively restrict the average person's civil liberties Government will fail to enact strong anti-terrorism laws Don't know All Adults 54% 34 12 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 61% 40% 57% 28 47 32 11 13 11 Latinos 55% 32 13 - 16 - National Politics State Homeland Security Six in ten state residents (61%) see terrorism and security in California as a big problem (22%) or somewhat of a problem (39%). These findings are similar to those in the August 2002 survey, when 64 percent saw terrorism and security as at least somewhat of a state problem. However, the concern today is significantly lower than the 73 percent expressed in the December 2001 survey. Across the state, Los Angeles residents (25%) express more concern than residents of other regions, while San Francisco Bay Area residents are the most likely to say terrorism and security do not present much of a problem (41%). These results are also similar to those of a year ago. Latinos are more likely than whites to see this issue as a big problem in California (29% to 18%). While majorities across party lines say terrorism and security represent at least somewhat of a problem, independents are most likely to say it is not much of a problem (39%). Californians with only a high school education or less are more likely than those with a college degree to see it as a big problem in the state today (29% to 17%). “How much of a problem is terrorism and security in California today?” Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not much of a problem Don't know All Adults 22% 39 36 3 Central Valley 22% 38 35 5 Region SF Bay Area 16% 39 41 4 Los Angeles 25% 39 33 3 Other Southern California 22% 42 34 2 Latinos 29% 37 31 3 Four in ten Californians (41%) say they are very (14%) or somewhat (27%) worried that they or someone in their family will be a victim of a terrorist attack, while 59 percent say they are not too worried (34%) or not at all worried (25%). State residents gave similar responses in the August 2002 survey and in the December 2001 survey. Latinos are much more concerned about becoming a victim of terrorist attack than whites (60% to 30%). Men are more likely than women to say they are not at all concerned (30% to 20%). Younger, less educated, and lower-income residents are more worried than older, more educated, and more affluent residents that they or someone in their family will become a victim of terrorism. “How worried are you that you or someone in your family will be the victim of a terrorist attack?” Very worried Somewhat worried Not too worried Not at all worried Don't know All Adults 14% 27 34 25 0 Central Valley 13% 25 32 30 0 Region SF Bay Area 10% 25 37 26 2 Los Angeles 18% 29 31 21 1 Other Southern California 13% 26 34 26 1 Latinos 30% 30 25 15 0 - 17 - August 2003 National Politics Local Homeland Security Faced with frequent alerts about possible terrorist attacks and heightened national security, Californians have a lot of confidence that their local public agencies are prepared to respond: Seventyone percent say they have some or a great deal of confidence in their local public health agencies, 77 percent in their local police department, and 90 percent in their fire department. The level of Californians’ confidence in these agencies is similar to that in the August 2002 survey. Compared to residents of other regions in the state, Los Angeles and Other Southern California residents are the most likely to say they have a great deal of confidence in their local government agencies. While state residents may have a great deal of confidence in their local fire, police, and public health agencies, their trust does not carry over to their ratings of city government. About half of Californians (48%) think their city governments are reasonably prepared to respond to the threat of a terrorist attack (14 percent give an “excellent” rating and 34 percent give a “good” rating). However, four in ten say they are not that well prepared (33 percent give a “fair” rating and 8 percent give a “poor” rating). Californians gave their city governments similar ratings a year ago. “How much confidence do you have in …” … your local fire department in terms of its readiness to respond to the threat of new terrorist attacks? … your local police department in terms of providing security in response to the threat of terrorist attacks? … your local public health agencies in terms of their readiness to respond to the threat of new terrorist attacks? A great deal Some Very little/ None Don't know A great deal Some Very little/ None Don't know A great deal Some Very little/ None Don't know All Adults 50% 40 8 2 30% 47 20 3 22% 49 24 5 Central Valley 50% 41 8 1 29% 48 20 3 24% 48 23 5 Region SF Bay Area 40% 47 10 3 24% 51 22 3 18% 53 24 5 Los Angeles 52% 38 8 2 30% 47 20 3 22% 50 25 3 Other Southern California 55% 34 9 2 35% 43 19 3 24% 47 24 5 Latinos 50% 39 10 1 36% 40 23 1 25% 45 28 2 In the context of the state government’s budget deficit, 51 percent of Californians, and 51 percent of likely voters, would be willing to pay a higher local sales tax to increase local government funding for police, fire, and public health agencies as part of an effort to increase terrorism readiness, while 45 percent would oppose the tax hike. A year ago, Californians expressed similar levels of support for such a tax increase. Today, Central Valley (57%) and Other Southern California (53%) residents are the most likely to support the tax increase. Across parties, Democrats (55%) are the most likely to favor a higher sales tax for this purpose, followed by Republicans (51%) and independents (47%). - 18 - Survey Methodology The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, research director at the Public Policy Institute of California, with assistance in research and writing from Jon Cohen, survey research manager, and Renatta DeFever and Eliana Kaimowitz, survey research associates. The findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,001 California adult residents interviewed between August 8 and August 17, 2003. Interviewing took place on weekday nights and weekend days, using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted telephone numbers were called. All telephone exchanges in California were eligible for calling. Telephone numbers in the survey sample were called up to ten 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. Each interview took an average of 20 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English or Spanish. Casa Hispana translated the survey into Spanish, and Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. conducted the telephone interviewing. We used recent U.S. Census and state figures to compare the demographic characteristics of the survey sample with characteristics of California’s adult population. The survey sample was closely comparable to the census and state figures. The survey data in this report were statistically weighted to account for any demographic differences. The sampling error for the total sample of 2,001 adults 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 adults in California were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. The sampling error for the 1,540 registered voters is +/- 2.5 percent. The sampling error for the 993 likely voters is +/- 3 percent, and the sampling error for each of the half samples is also +/- 3 percent. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. 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. “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. These four regions are the major population centers of the state, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population. We present specific results for Latinos because they account for about 28 percent of the state’s adult population and constitute one of the fastest growing voter groups. The sample sizes for the African American and Asian subgroups are not large enough for separate statistical analysis. We do contrast the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The “independents” category includes only those who are registered to vote as “decline to state.” In some cases, we compare PPIC Statewide Survey responses to responses recorded in national surveys conducted by Newsweek, Time/CNN, Washington Post/ABC News, CBS News, and CNN/USA Today/Gallup. We use earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys to analyze trends over time in California. - 19 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY: CALIFORNIANS AND THEIR GOVERNMENT AUGUST 8—AUGUST 17, 2003 2,001 CALIFORNIA ADULT RESIDENTS; ENGLISH AND SPANISH MARGIN OF ERROR +/- 2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 1. Thinking about the state as a whole, what do you think is the most important issue facing people in California today? [open-ended question] 34% economy, jobs, unemployment 12 state budget, deficit, taxes 11 education, schools 11 recall of governor 3 crime 3 immigration, illegal immigration 3 health care, health costs 3 government regulations 1 moral decay 1 housing costs, housing availability 1 population growth and development 1 environment, pollution 1 race relations, racial/ethnic issues 1 drugs 1 poverty, the poor 1 traffic, transportation 1 water, water quality, water availability 5 other (specify) 6 don’t know 2. Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? 22% right direction 66 wrong direction 12 don’t know 3. Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times? 30% good times 53 bad times 17 don’t know 4. Would you say that your region is in an economic recession or not? (if yes: Do you think it is in a serious, a moderate, or a mild recession?) 19% yes, serious recession 29 yes, moderate recession 10 yes, mild recession 35 no 7 don’t know [Responses recorded for questions 5 to 20 are from likely voters only. All other responses are from all adults.] 5. On another topic, how closely are you following news about the election to recall Governor Gray Davis from office—very closely, fairly closely, not too closely, or not at all closely? 45% very closely 44 fairly closely 8 not too closely 3 not at all closely 6. On October 7th, there will be a special election on whether to recall Governor Davis from office. On this ballot, voters will be asked two questions: first, whether Davis should be removed as governor, and second, who from a list of candidates should replace him if he is recalled. The list of about 150 possible replacement candidates includes: [rotate list, then say “among others”] • Peter Camejo, Green Party • Cruz Bustamante, Democrat • Arianna Huffington, Independent • Tom McClintock, Republican • Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican • Peter Ueberroth, Republican • Bill Simon, Republican If the special election to recall Governor Davis were held today, would you vote "yes" to remove Davis as governor or "no" to keep Davis as governor? 58% yes, remove Davis as governor 36 no, keep Davis as governor 6 don’t know 7. Regardless of how you would vote on the first part of the recall, how would you vote on the second part of the recall ballot: If the election were held today, who would you vote for? [if necessary: read rotated list, then ask “or someone else?”] 23% Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican 18 Cruz Bustamante, Democrat 5 Tom McClintock, Republican 4 Bill Simon, Republican 4 Peter Ueberroth, Republican 3 Peter Camejo, Green Party 3 Arianna Huffington, Independent 8 Someone else (specify) 32 don’t know - 21 - 8. Would you say you are satisfied or not satisfied with the choices of replacement candidates in the recall election on October 7th? 49% satisfied 40 not satisfied 11 don’t know 9. Which of these statements is closest to your view of Governor Davis? 12% I like Davis and like his policies 25 I like Davis but dislike his policies 7 I dislike Davis but like his policies 48 I dislike Davis and dislike his policies 8 don’t know 10. If Governor Davis is recalled from office, do you think that things in California would get better, would get worse, or would it make no difference? 47% would get better 17 would get worse 28 would make no difference 8 don’t know 11. Do you think that the current effort to recall the governor is an appropriate use of the recall process or not? 52% yes 43 no 5 don’t know 12. The special election on October 7th will cost an estimated 50 to 70 million dollars. Which of the following statements comes closest to your view— [rotate] (a) this election is a waste of money, or (b) this election is worth the cost? 53% waste of money 44 worth the cost 3 don’t know 13. Generally speaking, and regardless of how you feel about the upcoming election, do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that the California constitution provides a way to recall the state's elected officials, such as the governor? 80% good thing 17 bad thing 3 don’t know 14. At this time, how much would you say that you know about how the recall process works in California—a lot, some, very little, or nothing? 25% a lot 50 some 22 very little 3 nothing 15. On another topic, Proposition 53 on the October 7th ballot, called the Funds Dedicated for State and Local Infrastructure Legislative Constitutional Amendment, would require between 1 and 3 percent of General Fund revenues to be set aside for purchase, construction, or renovation of infrastructure. Half of the money would go for state projects and half would go to local projects. This measure would fund infrastructure projects such as local streets, transportation, water, parks, and open spaces. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 53? 52% yes 25 no 23 don’t know 16. Given the state’s budget situation, do you generally think that it is a good idea or a bad idea to set aside portions of General Fund revenue to specific program areas? 58% good idea 27 bad idea 15 don’t know 17. Do you think that the current level of state funding for state and local infrastructure projects is more than enough, just enough, or not enough? 9% more than enough 25 just enough 43 not enough 23 don’t know 18. Also on the October 7th ballot is Proposition 54, the Classification by Race, Ethnicity, Color, or National Origin Initiative Constitutional Amendment. This measure would prohibit state and local governments from using race, ethnicity, color, or national origin to classify students, contractors, or employees. Exemptions include law enforcement descriptions and actions to maintain federal funding. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 54? 50% yes 37 no 13 don’t know - 22 - 19. How important is it to you that state and local governments collect data on race, ethnicity, color, and national origin—very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all important? 21% very important 29 somewhat important 18 not too important 29 not at all important 3 don’t know 20. If Proposition 54 passes, do you think this would be a good thing or a bad thing for racial and ethnic minorities in California, or would this make no difference? 26% good thing 26 bad thing 34 no difference 14 don’t know 21. On another topic, the state government has an annual budget of around 100 billion dollars and until recently faced a 38 billion dollar budget deficit. The state legislature and governor have approved a new budget that includes 13 billion dollars in spending cuts, 11 billion dollars in borrowing, and no new taxes to close the deficit. In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with this budget plan? 29% satisfied 57 dissatisfied 14 don’t know [rotate questions 22 to 24] 22. Do you favor or oppose the state government’s borrowing 11 billion dollars as a way to reduce the 38 billion dollar budget deficit? 26% favor 61 oppose 13 don’t know 23. Do you think that tax increases should have been included in the budget plan? 44% yes 50 no 1 it did include taxes (volunteered) 5 don’t know 24. How concerned are you about the effects of the spending cuts in the budget plan—very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned? 36% very concerned 41 somewhat concerned 13 not too concerned 7 not at all concerned 3 don’t know 25. The California state constitution requires that twothirds of the state legislature agree to a state budget for it to pass. Do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea to replace this two-thirds requirement with a 55 percent majority vote? 39% good idea 48 bad idea 13 don’t know 26. Changing topics, overall do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president of the United States? 53% approve 42 disapprove 5 don’t know [rotate questions 27 and 28] 27. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq? 50% approve 45 disapprove 5 don’t know 28. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling terrorism and homeland security issues? 62% approve 33 disapprove 5 don’t know 29. How well do you think U.S. efforts to establish security and rebuild Iraq have gone since major combat ended on May 1st—very well, somewhat well, not too well, or not at all well? 13% very well 38 somewhat well 27 not too well 19 not at all well 3 don’t know 30. In your view, is the war against Iraq worth the toll it has taken in American lives and other kinds of costs, or isn’t the war worth these costs? 47% worth it 46 not worth it 7 don’t know - 23 - August 2003 31. Before the war began, do you think that the Bush Administration did or did not intentionally exaggerate its evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction such as biological or chemical weapons? 53% did exaggerate 40 did not exaggerate 7 don’t know 32. Do you think the war with Iraq did or did not contribute to the long-term security of the United States? (if response is "it did": Is that a great deal or some?) 31% contributed a great deal 28 contributed some 34 did not contribute 7 don’t know 33. On another topic, how confident are you that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies will be able to prevent future terrorist attacks in the United States in which large numbers of Americans are killed—very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident, or not at all confident? 14% very confident 44 somewhat confident 28 not too confident 12 not at all confident 2 don’t know 34. In general, which concerns you more right now—that the government will fail to enact strong anti-terrorism laws or that the government will enact new antiterrorism laws that excessively restrict the average person’s civil liberties? 54% laws will excessively restrict the average person’s civil liberties 34 government will fail to enact strong antiterrorism laws 12 don’t know 35. How much of a problem is terrorism and security in California today? Is it a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not much of a problem? 22% big problem 39 somewhat of a problem 36 not much of a problem 3 don’t know 36. How worried are you that you or someone in your family will be the victim of a terrorist attack—very worried, somewhat worried, not too worried, or not at all worried? 14% very worried 27 somewhat worried 34 not too worried 25 not at all worried 37. Overall, how would you rate your city government’s response to the threat of terrorist attacks since September 11th — excellent, good, fair, or poor? 14% excellent 34 good 33 fair 8 poor 3 don’t live in a city (volunteered) 8 don’t know [rotate questions 38 to 40] 38. How much confidence do you have in your local police department in terms of providing security in response to the threat of terrorist attacks—a great deal, some, very little, or none? 30% a great deal 47 some 15 very little 5 none 3 don’t know 39. How much confidence do you have in your local fire department in terms of its readiness to respond to the threat of new terrorist attacks—a great deal, some, very little, or none? 50% a great deal 40 some 6 very little 2 none 2 don’t know 40. How much confidence do you have in your local public health agencies in terms of their readiness to respond to the threat of new terrorist attacks—a great deal, some, very little, or none? 22% a great deal 49 some 19 very little 5 none 5 don’t know - 24 - 41. Suppose that your local government said it needed to raise the sales tax to increase funding for police, fire, and public health agencies as part of an effort to increase terrorism readiness. Would you favor or oppose a higher sales tax for this purpose? 51% favor 45 oppose 4 don’t know 42. Changing topics back to the state: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling his job as governor of California? 26% approve 67 disapprove 7 don’t know 43. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling the issue of jobs and the California economy? 22% approve 67 disapprove 11 don’t know 44. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling its job? 28% approve 58 disapprove 14 don’t know 45. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California legislature is handling the issue of the state budget and taxes? 19% approve 71 disapprove 10 don’t know 46. On another topic, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote? 78% yes [ask q. 46a] 22 no [skip to q. 47a] 46a. Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 35% Democrat [ask q. 47b] 26 Republican [ask q. 47c] 3 other (specify) [ask q. 48] 14 independent [ask q. 47a] 22 not registered 47a. Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 27% Republican party 39 Democratic party 24 neither (volunteered) 10 don’t know 47b. Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 46% strong 51 not very strong 3 don’t know 47c. Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 56% strong 40 not very strong 4 don’t know 48. On another topic, would you consider yourself to be politically very liberal, somewhat liberal, middle-ofthe-road, somewhat conservative, or very conservative? 10% very liberal 22 somewhat liberal 32 middle-of-the-road 23 somewhat conservative 11 very conservative 2 don’t know 49. Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics—a great deal, a fair amount, only a little, or none? 23% great deal 43 fair amount 28 only a little 6 none 50. How often would you say you vote—always, nearly always, part of the time, seldom, or never? 48% always 23 nearly always 10 part of the time 4 seldom 15 never 51. And do you plan to vote in the recall election on October 7th? (if yes: Will you vote at your local polling place or by absentee ballot?) 60% yes, local polling place 17 yes, absentee ballot 17 no, not planning to vote 6 don’t know - 25 - August 2003 PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY Advisory Committee Angela Blackwell President Policy Link 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 Matt Fong Chairman Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Advisory Committee William Hauck President California Business Roundtable Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Monica Lozano President and Chief Operating Officer La Opinión Donna Lucas Executive Vice President Porter Novelli Max Neiman Director Center for Social and Behavioral Research University of California, Riverside Dan Rosenheim News Director KPIX-TV Richard Schlosberg President and CEO The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Carol Stogsdill President Stogsdill Consulting Cathy Taylor Vice President and Editorial Commentary Director Orange County Register Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center - 26 - PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates William K. Coblentz Senior Partner Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP A. Alan Post Former State Legislative Analyst State of California Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Thomas C. Sutton Chairman & CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Cynthia A. Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Harold M. Williams President Emeritus The J. Paul Getty Trust and Of Counsel Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Advisory Council Mary C. Daly Research Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Clifford W. Graves General Manager Department of Community Development City of Los Angeles 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 Daniel A. Mazmanian C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California 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 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 info@ppic.org" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:36:51" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(8) "s_803mbs" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:36:51" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:36:51" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(50) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/S_803MBS.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) }