Prop 1A

The May 19 Massacre

Joe Mathews — Wed, 20 May 2009 03:33:00 -0400

Your blogger would have called it for "No" at 8:01 p.m., but he was out reporting. It's a special election wipeout. Propositions 1A through 1E -- backed by Governor Schwarzenegger, Democratic legislative leaders and most of the state's elite -- all lost badly. Only 1B appears to be receiving as much as 40 percent support in early returns. The rest are in the mid to upper 30s. (UPDATE MONDAY MORNING: all 5 measures are now well under 40 percent).

What's next? Chaos. Fighting. And a discussion of how exactly a bankrupt state declares bankruptcy.

Stop the Lies: Prop 1A Isn't That Long

Joe Mathews — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:51:00 -0400

cross posted at Fox & Hounds Daily.

Criticize Prop 1A if you like, but opponents of the measures (and heck, even some supporters) should stop saying that it's long. It's not.

By comparison to other California ballot measures, 1A is short and compact. And the legislative and gubernatorial staffers (not to mention the interest group folks) who drafted 1A have done a much better job of being concise than sponsors of ballot initiatives.

Prop 1A is a little less than 3,000 words. If that seems like a lot, consider this: between 2000 and 2006, 15 of the 46 voter-sponsored initiatives on the ballot were over 5,000 words long, according to a 2008 report from the Center for Governmental Studies. Eight of those 46 initiatives were longer than 10,000 words.

The trend, the CGS report found, is at least 20 years old. Between 1980 and 1987, only two initiatives were longer than 5,000 words. (Irony: One of those initiatives, Prop 37, the lottery initiative, would be changed under Prop 1C on next Tuesday's ballot). Most initiatives in this era - and previous eras - were about the same length as Prop 1A, between 1,000 and 3,000 words. But in the 1988 and 1990 elections, all 13 initiatives exceeded 5,000 words.

How about this for an irony? A big reason why voters must decide on Propositions 1A thru 1E is because of previous ballot initiatives that were themselves longer than Prop 1A. In addition to the lottery initiative of Prop 37, Prop 98 (the education initiative that provides the basis for parts of Prop 1A and Prop 1B), Prop 10 (the early childhood initiative that would be partially undone by Prop 1D) and Prop 63 (the mental health initiative that would be partially undone by Prop 1E) were all longer than Prop 1A.

If anything, instead of criticizing 1A for being long, opponents would be more honest to argue that it's not long enough. Prop 1A doesn't always explain or define its terms. And in the unlikely event it were to pass, there would be quite a bit of debate - and litigation - about the exact meaning of some of its language.

So, voters, please give Prop 1A a read. It won't take you long.

Special Election Swing Vote: White Guys Who Love Baseball and Read Newspapers

Joe Mathews — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:14:00 -0400

I must admit that my heart skipped a beat while watching the first TV ad (above) in favor of the six measures on the California special election ballot. The ad has no policy content worth commenting upon. Politically, it takes a swipe "politicians," which you don't want to think too hard about it because you might remember that it's the state political leadership who cooked up these propositions. No, this ad is about developing a feeling and targeting a demographic.

That demographic is your blogger: a dad who loves baseball and still reads newspapers. (I live in an apartment, not a house with a lawn -- this is 21st century urban Southern California after all -- but I'd like to live in a house like that). It's an interesting visual approach, particularly in an era when California political ads usually show a mix of voters or working people of various sexes and ethnicities. The approach is clearly targeted to independent and Republican men, a demographic that might be expected to support a spending limit but are not rallying to Prop 1A and the accompanying measures.

A Little More on 1A Polling

Joe Mathews — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:18:00 -0400

I sent Rick Claussen's memo, referenced below, to Mark Baldassare of PPIC, and asked him for a response to the claims on voter turnout. Here's what Mark wrote back:

"Thanks, our poll does not assume a specific turnout for the
election. In fact, we never make predictions about the size and
composition of the electorate before an election. We define likely
voters through answers to a series of questions about voter
registration, intentions to vote, past voting, interest in politics, and
attention to election news. Rather than focus on the size of our sample
as it relates to the percent of registered voters, let's consider the
partisan makeup among our likely voters -- Democrat 45%; Republicans
36%; dts/others=19%. Would a low turnout produce a more Republican or a
more Democratic electorate? This will be important, since Republicans
are opposed to 1A to 1E will Democrats favor each of them...."

PPIC Poll Shows Five Of Six California Measures In Trouble

Joe Mathews — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:33:00 -0400

Here's a link to the poll, which shows five of the six measures on the May 19 special election ballot with less than 50 percent support. Here's pollster Mark Baldassare's take on the results in the Sacramento Bee. And here's my upbeat prediction, via Fox & Hounds Daily.

That optimism is based on the fact that opposition to the measures is poorly funded, disorganized and late to the game. The Sacramento Bee, in this news story, suggests the opponents are coming together to fight Prop 1A, the spending limit. But the opposition is forming too late to make much difference on its own. The real problem is that people don't understand much about the measure other than its link to taxes. As Ted Costa, the anti-tax activist who is co-chair of one of the campaigns against 1A, said on a conference call yesterday, "We can beat this with just robocalls." 1A likely loses even without a campaign against it.

Claussen on 1A Polling

Joe Mathews — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:16:00 -0400

UPDATED 9 p.m.: Rick Claussen, the veteran initiative consultant handling the sweeping campaign for all six California special election measures, is out with an interesting memo on the recent PPIC poll, which shows five of those six in trouble.

Claussen is self-interested obviously. But your blogger has found him to be very reliable in the past. (Most recently, your blogger said Prop 11, last November's redistricting initiative in California, had no chance of passing. Claussen told me I was wrong and then proved it, managing the campaign that got it passed).

In this new memo, dated Wednesday, Claussen writes that the PPIC poll effectively assumes a turnout of 50 percent. He says the campaign's own internals on Prop 1A show it with a lead of 50 to 37 percent. That would make the measure hardly a sure thing, but that's much better than the PPIC poll, which showed it trailing, with 46 percent No and 39 percent Yes:

From the memo:

"In an off-year special election to be held in May, we believe a 50% turnout model is very
high based on historical data. It is more likely that we will see turnout of 30% or lower.
In the heated 2005 special election (with $150 million spent), turnout was 50%.

"PPIC conducted 2,004 interviews in this survey and of those, 1,525 self-reported that they
were registered to vote and then self reported their past voting record, current interest and
voting intentions on May 19. This narrowed PPIC’s likely voter pool down to 978 likely
voters. This means they used a turnout model of over 50%. PPIC also uses a random
digit dial and then asks folks if they are registered and then attempts to build some sort of
“likely voter” crosstab.

"Internal polling conducted both by the Budget Reform Now committee and others
working to pass these measures was built on roughly a 30% turnout model using
registered voter lists supplemented by calls to cell phone numbers. The numbers in these
surveys tell a different story. For example, in our polling we asked nearly the exact same
question on Proposition 1A and found 50% support for the measure to 37% oppose.
PPIC, on the other hand, found 39% support for the measure to 46% oppose."

What does "nearly the exact same question" mean? According to the campaign, its internals did not include two small changes made to the ballot label by the judge. (Both polls read the ballot label).It is worth noting that the judge's changes, whille minor, removed two words that gave the label a more positive cast. The word "reforms" was struck from the phrase, "reforms the budget process."

I sent the memo to Mark Baldassare of PPIC, who replied in part:

Whitman Takes the Easy Path on The Props

Joe Mathews — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:44:00 -0400

Writing in the Sacramento Bee, Meg Whitman, the eBay chief turned GOP gubernatorial contender, comes out against Props 1A (spending limit and rainy day fund), Prop 1B (a boost in the education funding base) and Prop 1C (a plan to modernize the lottery and borrow against future revenue). She supports Props 1D and 1E (which redirect voter-approved moneys for early childhood and mental health programs) and the populist 1F, which would bar legislative pay increases in years with deficits. All six measures were part of last month's budget deal and appear on the May 19 special election ballot.

This is safe politics but something short of leadership. Whitman needs the conservatives who vote in Republican primaries, and they hate the temporary tax extensions that are part of Prop 1A. (If the measure passes, the temporary taxes run for 4 years. If it fails, they run for 2 years). One potential rival, former Congressman Tom Campbell, has bravely backed Prop 1A. Another, insurance commissioner Steve Poizner, has adopted a line similar to Whitman's.

Poizner and Whitman are taking the easy way. What would be the hard way? I'd love to see these two Republicans put together plans that would address the state's budget problems. They won't of course. Because of the politics and because the state's budget deficit can't be closed without increasing some taxes. If there's a way to do it without tax increases, I haven't seen it.

'These Are Not Serious People'

Joe Mathews — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:16:00 -0400

That's how California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today characterized opponents of the six measures that were part of last month's budget deal and go before voters in the May 19 special election.

Schwarzenegger made plain in a speech at the Commonwealth Club that, despite sagging approval ratings, he intends to campaign strongly for the package of six measures.

He also revealed a tough political strategy: go negative against opponents of the package and particularly the spending limit and rainy day fund measure, Prop 1A. In the speech, Schwarzenegger depicted those opponents as out of the mainstream, "the far left" (who want to spend) and "the far right." He was not kind. Consider this excerpt:

In a blast at members of his own party, he said: "Those who say that we could balance the budget through spending cuts alone are guilty of political cynicism at its worst. These are not serious people."

That's right, the governor of California effectively declared that much of the Republican establishment, a majority of GOP legislators and the two of the three GOP candidates for governor in 2010 (Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman) "are not serious people." That's a bit much, but their opposition to taxes in this circumstance is certainly unserious. It appears that the third GOP candidate, former Congressman and Schwarzenegger finance director Tom Campbell, has the governor's endorsement. If he wants it.

As for the Democrats, he called them hippies and said they don't know math. "Those who say we could balance the budget through tax increases alone reveal their total economic ignorance and lack of math skills. Their grasp of economics must come from living on a hippie commune."

And there was this classic piece of Arnold rhetoric, as an explanation for why a rainy day fund is needed: "Many of you probably have a pet. At my house, we have dogs, and I'm the one in charge of feeding them every morning. If I put outa whole week's worth of food, they would eat it all and not have anything to eat for the rest of the week. Dog food, tax revenues -- it's the same thing. Perhaps that's not a good example. Some smart-aleck reporter will say that I compared the legislature to my Labradors. But I love my Labradors."

No, governor, this smart-aleck blogger wouldn't say that. He'd say that you said you love your Labs, and left your feelings about the legislature to the imagination.

Left and Right Attack California Spending Limit

Joe Mathews — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:46:00 -0500

The left doesn't like Prop 1A, which sets up a strong rainy day fund and limits spending. The right doesn't like Prop 1A either, because its passage would extend temporary taxes. So the coalition forming to fight the measure, one of six measures that came out of the budget deal and are on the May 19 special election ballot, has plenty of "strange bedfellows," the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

Why California Needs a Title Board, Exhibit A

Joe Mathews — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 01:19:00 -0500

It's bad enough that California law permits the attorney general -- an elected, partisan official -- to write the official titles and summaries for ballot initiatives that qualify from the ballot. Most of the time, at least, the a.g. is independent of the initiative sponsor. But when it comes to measures that are placed on the ballot by the legislature itself, lawmakers themselves get to write the official summaries. And they don't have a good record of being honest with the public.

The latest example is Prop 1A, the spending limit measure that was part of last week's budget deal and will appear on the May 19 special election ballot. As the Sacramento Bee points out in this story, the legislature's official description of the measure omits the very important fact that if the measure passes, temporary tax increases in the budget deal will last longer. (The tax provision was inserted to discourage unions and liberal groups from fighting the measure on the ballot -- a tactic that, so far, seems to be working).

California needs an independent title board that would draft titles and summaries for ballot initiatives and legislative measures -- anything that goes to the people. Such a board should be balanced between Democrats and Republicans and independents. The board's only mission would be to give voters an accurate description of the measure.