Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

JTF SpecialElectionVoterProfilesJTF

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(39) "JTF_SpecialElectionVoterProfilesJTF.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "111729" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(5313) "2005 SPECIAL ELECTION VOTER PROFILES November 2005 Special election voters were mostly white, older, and college-educated. The November 8th special election included about 7.9 million voters—50 percent of California’s registered voters. The demographic profile of the special election voters was similar to the profile of voters who frequently participate in statewide elections, with the exception of under-representing younger voters under age 35. Voters were predominantly older, white, college-educated, affluent, and homeowners. Men and women voted in equal proportions. Thirty percent of the voters were either union members or lived in a household with a union member. Political profile was similar to the California “blue state” electorate. The special election, which featured four propositions endorsed by the governor, attracted an electorate that was comparable to the political profile of frequent voters in state elections. Significantly more Democrats than Republicans participated in the election; 15 percent of the voters were “decline to state” or independents. Voters were roughly equally divided across the ideological spectrum. A majority of voters disapproved of the governor’s job performance, considered the special election a bad idea, and believed that the state is headed in the wrong direction. The political composition of the electorate contributed to the defeat of the governor’s four propositions. Proposition 74 (teacher tenure). Proposition 74, which would have changed the time it takes for a public school teacher to be granted tenure, lost by a 10-point margin (55% no, 45% yes). The measure failed to receive majority support in any demographic group. The “no” vote was higher among women than men, among younger and less-affluent residents than older and more-affluent residents, among Latinos than whites, renters than homeowners, and union than non-union households. Democrats, independents, liberals, and moderates opposed Proposition 74, as did those who express disapproval of the governor’s job performance, his calling of the special election, and the direction of the state. Proposition 75 (public union dues). Proposition 75, which would have required public employee unions to get permission from members before using dues for political purposes, lost by a 8-point margin (54% no, 46% yes). The vote on this measure was also strongly divided across partisan lines and political ideology and highly dependent on attitudes toward Governor Schwarzenegger. Union households opposed this measure, while non-union households were divided. Women, younger voters, less affluent voters, renters, and Latinos were among the voter groups most opposed to Proposition 75. Proposition 76 (state spending limits). Voters rejected Proposition 76, which would have limited state spending, by a 24-point margin (62% no, 38% yes). The “no” vote for this ballot measure was also divided along ideological and party lines and was highly correlated with the governor’s job approval ratings. Opposition was especially high among women, younger voters, less-affluent voters, renters, Latinos, and union households. Proposition 77 (redistricting). Proposition 77, which would have shifted the drawing of political districts to a panel of retired judges, was rejected by a 20-point margin (40% yes, 60% no). Once again, the strongest opposition was among Democrats, independents, liberals, moderates, and those who disapprove of the governor. Majorities in all demographic groups voted no on Proposition 77. Public Policy Institute of California 415-291-4400 www.ppic.org 2005 Special Election Voter Profiles % of Special Election Voters 74 Proposition 75 76 77 Percentage Voting “No” on a Proposition 55% 54% 62% 60% Gender Men Women 49% 51 50 57 54 51 60 58 66 66 18-34 years old 12 65 63 70 75 Age 35-54 years old 42 56 55 64 59 55 years or older 46 53 51 57 57 Education High school only Some college 19 54 55 60 65 28 52 51 57 57 College graduate 53 58 55 65 59 Under $40,000 28 61 61 67 69 Household income $40,000 to under $80,000 37 59 55 64 61 $80,000 or higher 35 52 51 60 55 Race/ ethnicity White Latino 71 50 49 57 54 15 69 68 75 76 Own/rent Own Rent 78 51 50 58 55 22 70 71 76 76 Union household Yes No 30 64 62 69 65 70 51 50 58 57 Party Democrat Republican 43 82 83 87 84 36 22 22 29 30 Independent 15 53 52 63 59 Liberal 32 84 84 90 84 Ideology Middle-of-the road 31 60 59 67 63 Conservative 37 29 28 33 36 Governor’s job approval Approve Disapprove 39 13 13 16 21 56 86 88 92 88 Special election opinion Good Idea Bad Idea 36 19 18 23 27 60 79 80 86 80 Direction of California Right direction Wrong direction 23 48 46 54 57 68 58 56 65 62 Sources: (1) PPIC Statewide Survey of 2,002 November election voters conducted from November 9th to 20th with a +/- 2% margin of error for the total sample. The sample sizes for African Americans, Asian Americans, multiracial subgroups, other political parties, and the undecided responses for governor’s job approval, special election opinion, and direction of California are not large enough for separate statistical analysis; (2) California Secretary of State, November 2005, for “no” vote returns through December 1st , 2005. Public Policy Institute of California 415-291-4400 www.ppic.org" } ["___content":protected]=> string(156) "

JTF SpecialElectionVoterProfilesJTF

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(106) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/special-election-voter-profiles-2005/jtf_specialelectionvoterprofilesjtf/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8516) ["ID"]=> int(8516) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:38:17" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3728) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(35) "JTF SpecialElectionVoterProfilesJTF" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(35) "jtf_specialelectionvoterprofilesjtf" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(39) "JTF_SpecialElectionVoterProfilesJTF.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "111729" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(5313) "2005 SPECIAL ELECTION VOTER PROFILES November 2005 Special election voters were mostly white, older, and college-educated. The November 8th special election included about 7.9 million voters—50 percent of California’s registered voters. The demographic profile of the special election voters was similar to the profile of voters who frequently participate in statewide elections, with the exception of under-representing younger voters under age 35. Voters were predominantly older, white, college-educated, affluent, and homeowners. Men and women voted in equal proportions. Thirty percent of the voters were either union members or lived in a household with a union member. Political profile was similar to the California “blue state” electorate. The special election, which featured four propositions endorsed by the governor, attracted an electorate that was comparable to the political profile of frequent voters in state elections. Significantly more Democrats than Republicans participated in the election; 15 percent of the voters were “decline to state” or independents. Voters were roughly equally divided across the ideological spectrum. A majority of voters disapproved of the governor’s job performance, considered the special election a bad idea, and believed that the state is headed in the wrong direction. The political composition of the electorate contributed to the defeat of the governor’s four propositions. Proposition 74 (teacher tenure). Proposition 74, which would have changed the time it takes for a public school teacher to be granted tenure, lost by a 10-point margin (55% no, 45% yes). The measure failed to receive majority support in any demographic group. The “no” vote was higher among women than men, among younger and less-affluent residents than older and more-affluent residents, among Latinos than whites, renters than homeowners, and union than non-union households. Democrats, independents, liberals, and moderates opposed Proposition 74, as did those who express disapproval of the governor’s job performance, his calling of the special election, and the direction of the state. Proposition 75 (public union dues). Proposition 75, which would have required public employee unions to get permission from members before using dues for political purposes, lost by a 8-point margin (54% no, 46% yes). The vote on this measure was also strongly divided across partisan lines and political ideology and highly dependent on attitudes toward Governor Schwarzenegger. Union households opposed this measure, while non-union households were divided. Women, younger voters, less affluent voters, renters, and Latinos were among the voter groups most opposed to Proposition 75. Proposition 76 (state spending limits). Voters rejected Proposition 76, which would have limited state spending, by a 24-point margin (62% no, 38% yes). The “no” vote for this ballot measure was also divided along ideological and party lines and was highly correlated with the governor’s job approval ratings. Opposition was especially high among women, younger voters, less-affluent voters, renters, Latinos, and union households. Proposition 77 (redistricting). Proposition 77, which would have shifted the drawing of political districts to a panel of retired judges, was rejected by a 20-point margin (40% yes, 60% no). Once again, the strongest opposition was among Democrats, independents, liberals, moderates, and those who disapprove of the governor. Majorities in all demographic groups voted no on Proposition 77. Public Policy Institute of California 415-291-4400 www.ppic.org 2005 Special Election Voter Profiles % of Special Election Voters 74 Proposition 75 76 77 Percentage Voting “No” on a Proposition 55% 54% 62% 60% Gender Men Women 49% 51 50 57 54 51 60 58 66 66 18-34 years old 12 65 63 70 75 Age 35-54 years old 42 56 55 64 59 55 years or older 46 53 51 57 57 Education High school only Some college 19 54 55 60 65 28 52 51 57 57 College graduate 53 58 55 65 59 Under $40,000 28 61 61 67 69 Household income $40,000 to under $80,000 37 59 55 64 61 $80,000 or higher 35 52 51 60 55 Race/ ethnicity White Latino 71 50 49 57 54 15 69 68 75 76 Own/rent Own Rent 78 51 50 58 55 22 70 71 76 76 Union household Yes No 30 64 62 69 65 70 51 50 58 57 Party Democrat Republican 43 82 83 87 84 36 22 22 29 30 Independent 15 53 52 63 59 Liberal 32 84 84 90 84 Ideology Middle-of-the road 31 60 59 67 63 Conservative 37 29 28 33 36 Governor’s job approval Approve Disapprove 39 13 13 16 21 56 86 88 92 88 Special election opinion Good Idea Bad Idea 36 19 18 23 27 60 79 80 86 80 Direction of California Right direction Wrong direction 23 48 46 54 57 68 58 56 65 62 Sources: (1) PPIC Statewide Survey of 2,002 November election voters conducted from November 9th to 20th with a +/- 2% margin of error for the total sample. The sample sizes for African Americans, Asian Americans, multiracial subgroups, other political parties, and the undecided responses for governor’s job approval, special election opinion, and direction of California are not large enough for separate statistical analysis; (2) California Secretary of State, November 2005, for “no” vote returns through December 1st , 2005. Public Policy Institute of California 415-291-4400 www.ppic.org" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:38:17" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(35) "jtf_specialelectionvoterprofilesjtf" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:38:17" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:38:17" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(77) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/JTF_SpecialElectionVoterProfilesJTF.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) }