"An Analysis of Pre-election Field Polls Regarding Proposition 86, the Tax on Cigarettes Initiative" is our site of the day

This 27 page report has plenty of goodies for those trying to figure out why Proposition 86 lost. It was prepared for the California HealthCare Foundation by Mark Di Camillo, director of the California Field Poll. The California HealthCare Foundation had the Field Poll's final two summaries before the election--late September and October-- supplemented by adding a series of questions exploring voter attitudes toward the major program areas slated for revenues increases under Prop. 86 and their views about children’s health insurance.

Here are the key findings found in the Executive Summary of the report:

• While initial voter backing of Proposition 86 was about as strong as early support for two previous successful cigarette tax initiatives in California, Prop. 99 in 1988 and Prop. 10 in 1998, it eroded at a faster rate than past initiatives. Much of this can be tied to an early and aggressive television advertising campaign against the initiative launched by the tobacco industry. In The Field Poll’s first survey on Prop. 86 conducted in July prior to the opposition advertising campaign, awareness of the initiative was low (26%) and supporters outnumbered opponents nearly two to one (63% to 32%). Support dropped precipitously to a 53% to 40% level in the poll’s late-September survey, which was taken after the launching of the no side advertising campaign. Awareness of the initiative in that poll increased more than two-fold to 60%. By the time of the final Field Poll completed one week prior to the election, after intense advertising both for and against the initiative, the proportion of voters opposed (45%) equaled the proportion of voters in favor (45%). Unofficial election returns from the California Secretary of State show voters narrowly defeated Prop. 86 in the November 2006 election 51.8% to 48.2%.

• The voter subgroups most supportive of Prop. 86 were similar to the voting constituencies that championed past cigarette tax initiatives. These included Democrats, younger voters, Latinos, blacks and Asians, those who had never smoked, and voters living in coastal counties. While the erosion in yes side backing of Prop. 86 was broad-based, some of the steepest declines were registered among women and those who had never smoked, two of the core supporters of previous cigarette initiatives. Each of these groups registered 25-percentage point declines in yes side support between the poll’s July and late-October surveys.

• The fact that Prop. 86 was decided in a low turnout election also hurt its chances of passage. According to unofficial estimates from the California Secretary of State, 54% of registered voters voted in the November 2006 election, the second lowest general election turnout in California history. Because younger voters and ethnic voters, such as Latinos, blacks and Asians, are less likely to participate in low turnout elections, and because these constituencies were among Prop. 86’s strongest supporters, the low turnout characterizing the November 2006 election worked against passage of the initiative.

• When voters intending to vote no were asked to state in their own words their reasons for opposing the initiative one week before the election, two types of comments were played back far more frequently than any others – “the tax is too high”/“it’s unfair to smokers and low-income people” (32%) and “the money won’t go to the right places, where it’s supposed to go” (25%).

• Very large majorities of voters in both the late-September and late-October Field Polls
considered it important to expand state funding in each of five major program areas slated for revenue increases under Prop. 86. Moreover, half or more of voters considered it extremely important” to expand state funding in three areas – disease prevention and treatment, hospital emergency and trauma services, and children’s health insurance. Yet, in the campaign’s final weeks, support for Prop. 86 declined among voters who felt increasing state funding in these areas was extremely important. This decline in backing among these core supporters late in the campaign also played a role in Prop. 86’s defeat.

• The most frequently cited reason given by those voting no who also considered it extremely important to increase state funding for all or nearly all of the program areas slated for revenue increases under Prop. 86 was that “the tax is too high”/“it’s unfair to smokers and low-income people.” This explanation was volunteered more than twice as frequently as any other as a reason for opposing the initiative. These voters were apparently in conflict about Prop. 86, with the size and perceived unfairness of the tax overriding the importance they attached to expanded funding for needed health programs.

• Large majorities of likely voters (84%-85%) in both late-September and late-October
reported that they were either very or somewhat concerned about the number of children who are without health insurance in California. The degree of a voter’s concern about uninsured children was also related to voting preferences on Prop. 86 in both surveys. Yet, a declining proportion of those who were concerned about uninsured children supported Prop. 86 in the final stages of the campaign. For example, in late-September voters very concerned about the number of uninsured children were intending to vote yes on Prop. 86 by a greater than two to one margin (65% to 30%), while those somewhat concerned were about evenly divided (49% yes and 44% no). However, in late-October support for Prop. 86 among voters very concerned was less than two to one (58% to 33%), while among voters expressing some concern about this, opponents exceeded supporters 53% to 36%.

• Voters in both the late-September and late-October Field Polls were about evenly divided when asked whether they supported or opposed “using state tax revenues to make sure that every child in California has health insurance, regardless of their immigration status.” Voter opinions about using state tax revenues for this purpose were directly related to voting preferences on Prop. 86 in both surveys. While, there was no slippage in the strong voter support for Prop. 86 among those supportive of using state tax revenues to insure children regardless of immigration status, opposition to Prop. 86 increased among voters opposed to using state tax revenues for this purpose in the late stages of the campaign. The late-October Field Poll showed these voters opposing Prop. 86 by 42 points (68% to 26%), compared to a more modest 16-point deficit (56% to 40%) in late-September.