CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS DATA ARCHIVE INTRODUCTION

Transcription

1 CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS DATA ARCHIVE INTRODUCTION The California Elections Data Archive (CEDA) is a joint project of the Center for California Studies and the Institute for Social Research, both of California State University, Sacramento and the office of the California Secretary of State. The purpose of CEDA is to provide researchers, citizens, public agencies and other interested parties with a single repository of local election data. With over 6,000 local jurisdictions in California, the task of monitoring local elections is nearly impossible for individuals. CEDA addresses this problem through the creation of a single, cost-effective and easily accessible source of local election data. CEDA includes both candidate and ballot measure results for county, city, community college, and school district elections throughout the State. CEDA thus represents the only comprehensive repository of local election results in California. Election data are collected periodically throughout the year. This enables CEDA to incorporate results from special elections as well as all regularly scheduled elections. Election results from counties, cities, and community college and school districts are entered in the CEDA database from which three standard CEDA reports are generated. These reports include: County Elections: Candidates, ballot designations, and vote totals for all elected county offices; vote totals and text for county ballot measures. City Elections: Candidates, ballot designations, and vote totals for all elected city offices; vote totals and text for all city ballot measures. Community College and School District Elections: Candidates, ballot designations, and vote totals for all elective community college and school district offices; vote totals and text for all district ballot measures. Ballot measures for all jurisdictions are coded according to type (e.g., charter amendment, bond measure, initiative, etc.) and to subject (e.g., taxes, education, public safety, governance, etc.). THE CENTER FOR CALIFORNIA STUDIES Located at California State University, Sacramento, the Center for California Studies is a public policy, public service and curricular support unit of the California State University. The Center s location in the state Capital and its ability to draw upon the resources of the entire State University system give it a unique capacity for making contributions to public policy development and the public life of California. Center programs cover four broad areas: administration of the nationally known Assembly, Senate, Executive, and Judicial Administration Fellowship Programs; university-state government liaison and applied policy research; civic education and community service through forums, conferences and issue dialogues; and curricular support activity in the interdisciplinary field of California Studies.

2 INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH Established in 1989, the Institute for Social Research (ISR) is an interdisciplinary center serving the research needs of federal, state and local government agencies, non-profit organizations and university administration, faculty and students. These services include research and sampling design, measurement, coding and data entry, computer assisted telephone and field interviewing, mailed surveys, focus groups, data base management, statistical analysis and report production. ISR has completed numerous contracts with over 40 state and community agencies, several private firms and many administrative units of the university. Faculty affiliates of the Institute offer expertise in a wide variety of disciplines, including the social sciences, health and human services, engineering and education. CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE The Secretary of State is, among other duties, California's chief elections officer with the responsibility of administering the provisions of the Elections Code. The Secretary must compile state election returns and issue certificates of election to winning candidates; compile the returns and certify the results of initiative and referendum elections; certify acts delayed by referendum and prepare and file a statement of vote. Recent legislation permits but does not mandate that the Secretary of State compile local election results ELECTION DATA For many Californians, 2000 was the millennium year. For the men and women holding elected county positions 2000 was a sesquicentennial year. In April of 1850, Los Angeles and other counties held the first county elections under the Constitution of the State of California. A century and a half later, voters in 58 counties voted on 356 elected positions and 115 ballot measures. Totals that, given the optimism and enthusiasm of California politics in the 1850s, probably would not surprise those first county candidates. In addition to county elections, the year 2000 also saw numerous city, school and community college district elections. California voters faced 559 local ballot measures and 5,153 candidates for local elective office. In 1999, the totals were only 283 measures and 2,293 candidates. But 2000 is comparable to both 1998 (572 measures and 5,502 candidates) and 1996 (573 measures and 5,530 candidates). BALLOT MEASURES Local voters faced 559 ballot measures in 2000 including 115 county, 297 city, and 146 community college and school district ballot measures. As in prior years, these numbers do not indicate a failure of local governments to address issues, thus forcing the voters to do it themselves. The opposite is true as only 42 local ballot measures or 7.5 percent of all such measures were placed on the ballot through the initiative process. The other 517 ballot measures were placed on the ballot by actions of a county board of supervisors, city council, or community college or school district board.

3 Two interesting developments in political and governance issues are evident in the data from 2000 local ballot measures. First, through the 1980s and 1990s many California communities, either voluntarily or as a result of court orders, abandoned at-large election systems in favor of district elections. District elections were a priority for MALDEF and other voting rights groups and triggered several fights in the Legislature. In 2000, however, five cities and three community college or school districts rejected district elections by either passing measures eliminating existing district election systems and moving instead to at-large elections or defeating measures that would have adopted district systems. Only one at-large measure failed. Second, unlike previous years, term limits measures were comparatively scarce in Only three measures imposing term limits appeared on local election ballots. No term limit measures appeared on county ballots and only one city adopted term limits (Campbell in Santa Clara County) though an effort to modify term limits in the City of Long Beach in Los Angeles County failed. Two term limit measures appeared on community college and school district ballots, both of which passed. In comparison, in 1998 there was one county and 11 city term limit measures. It is possible that the enthusiasm for local term limits has waned. Recalls were particularly successful in 2000 with 11 of 11 passing. All recalls of city council members passed. The City of Oroville in Butte County recalled three council members, Huron in Fresno County recalled two and Southgate in Los Angeles County recalled one. All five school board members subject to recalls were recalled. This included one board member in Elk Hills Elementary District in Kern County; two in Fort Sage Unified in Lassen County; and two with Round Valley Unified in Mendocino County County Measures. Voters in the state s 58 counties passed judgment on 115 ballot measures. The fate of these measures was remarkable even with 56 or 48.7 percent passing and 59 or 51.3 percent failing. Tax measures were the largest type of ballot measure with 52 or 45.2 percent of all measures falling in this category. Voters were not friendly to those measures with 37 or 71.1 percent being rejected and only 15 or 28.9 percent passing. In terms of subject matter, governance issues were most frequent with 22 or 19.1 percent of all measures. Land use issues followed with 17 or 14.8 percent of all measures. Governance issues included a successful Inyo county initiative requiring that all county ordinances effecting the creation, elimination or reorganization of county offices and departments be subject to voter approval, and failed measures that would have increased the salaries of county supervisors in San Mateo and Tehama Counties. County voters passed judgment on six bond measures, defeating one in San Mateo and passing five which accounted for $309,810,000 in bonds (one in El Dorado and five in San Francisco). Two of the more interesting county measures were Measure G in Mendocino approving the Cannabis Personal Use Ordinance and Contra Costa s Measure D which was a failing effort to regulate house sizes to ensure proportionality between house and lot size. Finally, the proliferation of county service areas is indicated by the fact that 32 or 27.8 percent of all county ballot measures dealt with service areas. The county service area is clearly becoming an important but still obscure part of local governance in California. City Measures. Voters in municipal elections faced a total of 297 ballot measures, which they treated with more approval than did county voters with 60.3 percent passing and 39.7 percent failing. The most frequent type of municipal ballot measure were ordinances (113 or 38.1 percent of all municipal measures) with charter amendments

4 being the second most frequent (71 or 23.9 percent). Ordinances fared well with 55.8 percent being approved. On the other hand only 45.5 percent of tax measures passed and 54.5 percent failed. Governance issues were the most frequent topic of city ballot measures (119 or 40.1 percent of all measures) with land use measures accounting for 56 or 18.9 percent. In both topic areas, voters approved about two-thirds of the measures (63.9 percent of governance measures and 60.7 percent of land-use measures). City voters also approved nine of 11 bond measures representing $1.03 billion in bonded indebtedness. In addition, voters in eight cities faced 15 ballot measures that shifted elected positions to appointed positions. Of these, 13 were defeated and only two were approved. The trend toward making land use decisions through the ballot box was particularly apparent in Escondido in San Diego County. The Escondido ballots in 2000 featured nine ballot measures, eight of which dealt with land use and zoning issues affecting a total of only acres. One measure dealt with a single 3.6 acre parcel. Finally, one of the more interesting city measures was Measure Z in Oroville in Butte County. Measure Z, which was adopted, was the People s Choice Prison Initiative the purpose of which is to keep Oroville prison free. School Measures. Voters in community college and school districts were asked to pass judgment on 146 ballot measures of which 100 or 68.5 percent were bond measures. These bond measures equaled $6,567,173,000 in bonded indebtedness. Voters actually approved bonds totaling $3,611,875,000. After bond measures, the most frequent community college and school district ballot measures were ordinances. Of these, five sought to replace trustee districts with at large elections. Three passed (Chualar Elementary in Monterey County, Twin Ridges Elementary in Nevada County and Atascadero Unified in San Luis Obispo County) and two failed (Pierce Joint District in Colusa County and Pierce Unified in Yolo County). CANDIDATE ELECTIONS California voters in 2000 were able to chose among 5,153 candidates running for 2,325 county, city, school and community college district elected positions. The total number of candidates is approximately 6 percent fewer than the number of candidates in 1998 (5,502) or 1996 (5,530). However, it is obviously too early to determine whether this is a trend of fewer Californians willing to seek local elective office. Overall, incumbent office holders continued to fare well at the polls. Of the 1,526 incumbents who sought reelection, 1,204 or 78.9 percent won and only 327 or 21.1 lost. Of the 2,325 men and women elected to local elective office in 2000, 1,204 or 51.8 were incumbents and 1,121 were non-incumbents. Thus the year 2000 saw the continuation of the patterns of prior years: high incumbent reelection rates balanced by very significant numbers of non-incumbents taking office. County races. The sesquicentennial county elections witnessed the clear end of the mid-1990s trend of significant numbers of incumbent county supervisors being defeated or choosing not to run for re-election. In November 1994, for example, reelection rate for incumbent county supervisors was 42.1 percent and only 15.3 percent of all supervisors elected were incumbents. In short, of the 52 supervisorial races that November, only 19

5 featured candidates who were incumbents and only eight of those incumbents won. Moreover, 33 races had no incumbent running for reelection. In 1996, reelection rates for incumbent supervisors was 69.3 percent but of the 222 positions filled, only 42.8 percent were incumbents and 57.2 percent were non-incumbents. Thus of those 222 races, 95 were won by incumbents, 42 lost by incumbents and 85 had no incumbent running. This trend began to reverse in 1998 when incumbent re-election rates jumped to 85.9 percent and incumbents accounted for 55.6 percent of all winners. In 2000, the county supervisor reelection rate was 86.7 percent with 130 of 150 incumbents successfully seeking re-election. Of all supervisors elected in 2000, 67.0 percent were incumbents. Of the 194 supervisorial positions up in 2000, 130 incumbents were reelected, 20 defeated and only 44 races were open. It is also interesting to note the significant growth in county community service districts (CSD) and the election of CSD directors. In 1998, 22 individuals ran for 11 CSD director positions. In 2000, 174 candidates ran for 80 CSD director positions. City races. Individuals holding city office and seeking reelection were very successful in The reelection rate for incumbent city council members was 79.7 percent with 385 of 483 incumbents being reelected. Incumbents of other city elected positions were even more successful with 94.2 percent being reelected. It is important to note, however, that high incumbent reelection rates do not automatically equate with minimal turnover in city elected positions. Voters elected 758 city council members in 2000 of which 50.8 percent were incumbents and 49.2 were non-incumbents. Turnover in California city councils was, therefore, quite healthy in Among other city positions, turnover was not as dramatic. Of the 221 non-council positions elected, 61.1 percent were incumbents and 33.9 percent were new comers. School District Races. In 2000, 2,059 Californians ran for 990 positions on community college and school district boards. Incumbents were reelected at a rate of 75.0% with 496 of 661 incumbent trustees being reelected. As with the State s city councils, this high incumbent reelection rate did not translate to low turnover and minimal new blood on boards. Of the 990 winners, 50.1 percent were incumbents but 49.9 were nonincumbents. Indeed, only four more incumbents were reelected than newcomers. BALLOT MEASURES TRENDS With the publication of this report, CEDA now contains six full years of election data, including one complete gubernatorial year (1998), two featuring statewide elections (1996 and 2000) and three odd-numbered years devoted to local races, bond and tax measures. Fewer ballot measures were offered during the odd-numbered years (252, 342 and 283 in 1995, 1997 and 1999 respectively) than in years with statewide elections (573, 572 and 559) in 1996, 1998 and Although more bonds appear on even-year ballots, they make up a higher percentage of all measures in the odd-numbered years, over a third in 1995, 1997 and Ordinances, tax measures and charter amendments are also more numerous in the even years when statewide elections are held. However, their proportions of all ballot measures do not fluctuate in a regular pattern between odd and even years. Instead,

6 there were proportionately fewer tax measures and charter amendments in the last few years and somewhat more ordinances than occurred in the mid-1990s. Overall pass rates for ballot measures have been remarkably stable over the six-year period, with rates varying between 59 and 61% in five of the six years, dipping to 57% in Pass rates for bonds and ordinances are similar and stable (58 to 61% in most years) while those for tax measures are lower and more variable between odd and even years. In statewide election years -- when 70% of the tax measures appear on the ballot -- fewer tax measures pass (39-48%); in the off-year elections of 1997 and 1999, tax measures were much more successful, with pass rates of 56-57%. Relatively infrequent types of ballot measures (recalls, initiatives and charter amendments) have more variable pass rates -- an artifact of their smaller numbers. Education and governance issues are the most common topics covered by ballot measures in every election. Together they constituted over half of all ballot measures in CEDA's six year history. They were more dominant in the odd-numbered years, making up roughly two-thirds of all measures in 1995, 1997 and 1999(64 to 73%), but a bare majority in the even-numbered years (51-53%). Land use has been the third most frequent topic of ballot measures over the past six years (a total of 238 measures in the six year period). General services, public safety and public facilities were in fourth place, with roughly comparable frequencies (164, 146 and 141 total in six years). Land use, public safety and public facility measures were more numerous in the even-numbered years, with approximately three-fourths of each appearing on the ballots in 1996, 1998 and The number of measures focused on general services has been declining since From a high of 71 on the ballot in that year to a low of 13 in 1999, the number of general services measures rebounded only slightly to 20 in Some ballot measure topics are more successful at the polls than others. Governance and education issues have among the highest and least variable pass rates, with roughly two-thirds passing in five of the six election years. The exception was 1995, when 84% of the governance issues passed and only 53% of those dealing with education. Pass rates for other topics are more variable because there are fewer measures covering them. However, combining all of the measures on a given topic over the six election years yields lower average pass rates than governance and education issues enjoy. Four topic areas receive healthy majority support: fifty-eight percent of 238 land use measures, a similar percentage of 64 transportation and 164 general services measures, and 55% of 141 covering public facilities passed. Public safety measures have the lowest average pass rate, with 49% of 146 approved. County Measures. County measures are concentrated in the even-numbered years, when 83% of them appear on the ballot. During these statewide election years, county measures made up 20-21% of all ballot measures. In two of the three off-year elections, county measures constituted only 7% of the ballot measures, but in 1999 they made up 17% of the reduced number of ballot measures in these elections. Tax measures, ordinances and charter amendments account for almost three-fourths of all county ballot measures over the six-year period. While two-thirds of all tax measures fail, a roughly similar percentage of ordinances and charter amendments pass (64% and 73% respectively). Governance issues dominate county ballot measures, outnumbering five other topics by at least two to one. Public facilities, land use, transportation, public safety and general services appear with approximately equal frequency (41 to 52 of each over the six year period). Governance and transportation issues passed easily (68

7 - 69%), general services issues garnered solid majority support (56%), but public facilities, public safety and land use issues were more apt to fail (with pass rates of 35%, 39% and 47% respectively). City Measures. City measures account for over half of all ballot measures during the six-year period. They are not quite as concentrated in statewide election years as county measures (71% appear in even-numbered years), but certainly more so than school district measures which are almost equally distributed between odd and even years. Like the counties, most city measures are either ordinances (30%), tax measures (28%) or charter amendments (24%). And also like the counties, charter amendments and ordinances are more apt to pass (76% and 55% respectively) while tax measures are more apt to fail (46%). However, city tax measures are noticeably more successful than county ones (46% vs. 35%) and city ordinances less so than county ones (55% vs. 64%). Governance issues dominated city ballot measures even more than county measures (38% vs. 25%). In addition, topics of interest for city measures were even more concentrated: governance, land use, general services and public safety accounted for 69% of all city ballot measures, while governance, land use, public facilities, and transportation accounted for 59% of all county measures. Governance issues were equally successful as city and county ballot measures (68%) and city general services measures were even more successful (62% vs. 56% for county measures). However, while county land use, public facilities and public safety measures tended to fail, city measures on land use and public facilities passed handily (61% and 63%) or, in the case of public safety, with clear majority support (53%). School District Measures. While city and county measures are concentrated in statewide election years, school district measures are more evenly distributed, with a slight majority appearing in the odd-numbered years. They command more attention in those years because they constitute roughly half of all measures in off-year elections. Pass rates for school district measures were remarkably constant, varying between 61 and 63% in five of the six years. Bonds account for almost three-fourths of all school district measures. Tax measures, ordinances and recalls make up another 20%. Pass rates were highest for recalls and ordinances (77% and 78%), and more substantial for taxes (69%) than for bonds (56%). CANDIDATE ELECTIONS Roughly 70% of all candidates for city, county and school board elections run in evennumbered years when statewide elections are held. Almost all elections for county offices are held in these years, along with three-fourths of city races and 60% of those for school boards. Incumbency rebounded in the last few years, from an overall low of 27% and 26% in 1995 and 1996 to 30% to 32% from 1997 forward. With the exception of 1995 and 1996 when the ratio slipped to 30% and 28%, the proportion of incumbent candidates for school boards has remained virtually unchanged at 32-33%. Incumbent candidates were heavily favored in all six years, but particularly so in the gubernatorial election year (1998) when 82% won re-election.