Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

About Us

Frank D. Russo

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Sponsors

Books

Field Poll Shows California Prop 4--Parental Notification and Waiting Period for Abortion by Minors--is Leading and That Turnout May Decide Its Fate

California Voters Have Rejected Similar Measures Twice in the Last Four Years

frankrusso-small.jpg By Frank D. Russo

The California Field Poll has released a survey of likely voters showing Proposition 4, a constitutional amendment requiring parental notification and a waiting period before a minor can have an abortion, is favored by 49% and opposed by 41%, with 10% undecided. This survey was conducted September 5 through 14, about 7 weeks before the November election. It is remarkably similar to the overall results in the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) poll released yesterday which showed the measure ahead 48% to 41%.

This is an interesting poll from Field, because in addition to crunching the numbers showing the divide between different groupings of Californians, they asked open ended questions of voters as to why they were planning to vote no or yes on the measure and they tested different arguments and their effects on voters. I’d recommend taking a look at this poll online as there is a lot here below the surface.

Field has this passage in their release of the poll, which is key to interpreting these numbers: “There is considerable variation in preferences across subgroups of the voting population on this initiative. Because of this, the shape of voter turnout on Election Day will have a greater than usual impact in determining the outcome of the election.

This is spot on, and if history is any predictor, the outcome of this ballot proposition is too close to call. There is a wide partisan divide on this issue and also significant differences between young and older voters. The pattern of the last two elections on this issue shows that Propositions 73 in November of 2005 and Proposition 85 in 2006 were favored by those who voted absentee (now “vote by mail”) and lost with those who voted on election day in their polling places. That combination led to defeat of those two measures after the dust had settled and all ballots had been counted.

And looking at the crosstabs of the Field Poll published by the Sacramento Bee, the same pattern is set up here, with vote by mail voters in favor and day of election voters divided and substantially less supportive.

As we noted in our analysis of the PPIC poll yesterday:

“This issue has been on the California ballot and rejected by the voters twice before by margins of 47% yes and 53% no in 2005 and 46% yes and 54% no in 2006. In those past elections, it was favored by larger margins at the beginning of the campaign and lost strength closer to election day. This presages what may be a close election this time, as voters who have not decided how to vote generally vote against ballot propositions if there is a campaign against the measure that creates doubts about it.”

The November 2006 Field Poll, taken on the cusp of that election, showed Prop 85 winning 46% to 43%. The Field Poll taken in November of 2005, right before that election, showed Proposition 73 trailing for the first time. In three prior surveys, Field reported that voters were closely divided in their preferences, with yes side support on 73 ranging narrowly between 45% to 48%, while opposition was likewise narrowly ranging between 43% and 45%.

The numbers released this week by Field and PPIC are a bit higher on the yes side on Prop 4 and a bit lower on the no side. The results this year probably will be closer—one way or the other. The no side won by 6 points and 8 points respectively in the last two elections, and in at least one of them, it was due to voter turnout on election day. In the special election of 2005, the electorate broke according to Field’s last poll before the election with those casting absentee ballots statistically tied at 46% in favor and 48% opposed, but those who voted in their precincts voted 39% in favor and 50% opposed.

Here there is a gulf of difference between parties and on the ideological spectrum. Democrats are opposed 50% to 39% and Republicans are in support by an even wider 69% to 24%. Non-partisan/others are opposed 52% to 35%. Prop 4 has overwhelming support from strongly and moderately conservative voters—making up 31% of the expected electorate. It has strong opposition from moderately liberal and strongly liberal voters, expected to comprise 29% of the electorate. The 40% of the expected electorate who describe themselves as “middle-of-the-road” are split, 45% in favor and 43% opposed, within the margin of error of the poll.

There is a large gender gap here with men favoring the initiative 54% to 38% and women split at 44% in favor and 43% opposed. There is a religious divide here with Protestants and Catholics and Evangelicals in support and other religious beliefs opposed.

And there is a correlation with age. Young voters—those under age 39 are split, while older voters are in support of Prop 4.

Here is how the tug of war on Prop 4 may play out. It depends on turnout on election day and how the undecideds break.

If those who vote include larger than expected numbers of Democrats or those belonging to neither party—especially younger voters—Prop 4 will probably fail. Field’s modeling is that the electorate will be 44% Democratic, 36% Republican, and 20% non-partisan/others. In what I believe will be a very high turnout of voters, including newly registered voters, the final numbers could be closer to the actual registration figures which give Democrats a 12% edge over Republicans and non-partisans, who traditionally vote in much lower proportions than they are registered, could also vote in a higher percentage.

The trend in most ballot elections, if the opposition is well financed to make its arguments, is that voters in doubt tend to vote no. What is very telling in Field’s numbers is that the highest percentage of undecided voters are in the middle of the road and moderately liberal segments. Basically, conservatives have made up their minds: only 8% of strongly conservative and 3% of moderately conservative voters are undecided. While only 9% of strongly liberal voters are undecided, the highest group of undecided voters includes 20% of moderately liberal voters and 12% of middle-of-the-road voters. Moderate liberals are breaking three to one (60% to 20%) against Prop 4—and if those who are undecided break similarly, it will provide votes to the no side.

There’s also one final variable. Who will get down that far in the ballot and vote on ballot propositions.

Field’s poll was taken of 830 likely voters and has a margin of error of 3.5%. The poll and its crosstabs do not reflect the opinions of registered voters including those who are not the predicted likely voters. Those results would have been interesting in what may be a close election contest.

Posted on September 26, 2008

Comments

You don't think Dem turnout may be a little low since it is a forgone conclusion that Obama will win the state? I would have to imagine money will be pulled and staffers will be sent to battleground states for the last 2 weeks before the election. This could drive down Dem/decline to state turnout, if the thinking is Obama has this in the bag no reason to go vote. Reps show up in about the same number regardless.

Posted by: sean at September 26, 2008 01:02 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Get email updates!

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.



© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.

RSS

Stat tracker