CALIFORNIA ELECTION DATA ARCHIVE INTRODUCTION The California Elections Data Archive (CEDA) is a joint project of the Center for California Studies and tinstitute for Social Research, both of California State University, Sacramento. 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 into the CEDA data base 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 all 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 for all district ballot measures. Ballot measures for all jurisdictions are coded according to type (e.g., charter amendment, bond measure, initiative, etc.) and topic (e.g., taxes, education, public safety, governance). Tables summarizing the appropriate ballot measure results by type, topic and county are included with each report. In addition, each report contains a set of tables summarizing outcomes for ballot measures by type, topic and county independent of jurisdiction and for candidates by type of office and incumbency status. These tables are accompanied by the brief description of results discussed below. Center for California Studies The Center for California Studies, located at California State University, Sacramento, is a public policy, public service and curricular support unit of the California State University. The Center's location in the state Capital and ability to draw upon the resources of the entire State University system give it a unique capacity for making contributions to the development of public policies and the public life of California. Center programs cover four broad areas: administration of the nationally known Assembly, Senate and Executivee 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. Institute for Social Research
The CSUS Institute for Social Research is an interdisciplinary center offering research services to state, federal and community agencies, non-profit corporations and the university. These services include research and sampling design, measurement, coding and data entry, computer assisted telephone and field interviewing, data base management, statistical analysis and report production. Now in its tenth year, ISR has completed contracts with over 40 state and community agencies, several private firms and numerous administrative units of the university. Four federal projects are in process. Off-campus contracts have varied in size from $15,000 to $593,000, totaling more than $1.5 million in the last five years. Faculty affiliates of the Institute offer expertise in a wide variety of disciplines, including the social sciences, health and human services, engineering and education. 1996 ELECTION DATA Ballot Measures In 1996, the popularity of local ballot measures continued to flourish as California voters were presented with 573 county, city, school and community college district proposals. As expected, cities led the pack with an impressive 371 measures while counties and school/community college districts were well behind with 115 and 87, respectively. As usual, subject matters ranged widely from the seemingly mundane governmental organization issues to hotly contested tax matters and recall measures. Out of the 573 total measures, 57 percent (327) were successful. New or amended ordinances constituted the plurality of local measures with a total of 176. There were also 141 tax proposals, 115 charter amendments, and 33 recalls. The city of Oakland led all local jurisdictions with a total of 12 measures. Among other things, Oakland's voters were asked whether the city council should annually designate an official city newspaper and whether to impose a special tax to provide services to the elderly. Both of those measures failed but eight others were successful, including the establishment of a Public Ethics Commission and a $45 million general obligation bond for libraries, museums and other cultural and recreational facilities. Other notables included the city of San Luis Obispo with a total of 10 measures, the city of San Diego with 9, the city of Los Angeles with 7, and the Northern California college town of Chico with 6. County measures had more difficulty at the ballot box than their city and school counterparts. Out of 115 total county measures only 59 (51 percent) were approved by the voters. Tax measures fared the worst with only 10 of 35 (29 percent) passing while 54 percent of proposed ordinances and 65 percent of proposed charter amendments were approved. There were only four county bond measures on the 1996 ballot with two passing. Although recalls are targeted at officeholders, they are nonetheless considered ballot measures. While there were only four county recalls statewide (one in Alpine and three in Tehama), all were successful in removing county supervisors from office. Some of the more interesting measures on county ballots included passage of campaign contribution limits for candidates running in Los Angeles County and rejection of a measure asking voters if they wanted a state prison to be constructed in Lake County. Orange County voters, perhaps still reeling from their recent fiscal crises, rejected a proposal to expand the board of supervisors from five to nine seats and approved a measure imposing term limits on the same body. Additionally, eight separate Orange County cities voted to impose term limits on their city councils and mayors, including Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Dana Point, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, La Palma, Orange, and Yorba Linda.
Of the 371 total city ballot measures, 215 or 58 percent were successful. Tax measures and charter amendments were the most common types of measures on the city ballots. Of the 92 charter amendments, an impressive 75 percent (69) enjoyed success while of the 98 tax measures, only 43 percent (42) passed. Additionally, a mere 3 out of 10 city bond measures were approved. In 1996, attempts were made to recall 24 city mayors or councilmembers; all but five succeeded. The diverse cities involved ranged from the scenic north coast town of Arcata to the central valley s Chowchilla to the Los Angeles suburb of Hawaiian Gardens. Others on the list included Adelanto, Antioch, Colfax, Colton, Dana Point, Farmersville, Grover Beach, Isleton, and Perris. In this election year, recalls of city officials were clearly a small town phenomenon - - with small defined as a city of less than 50,000 population. Under state law, a recall election is triggered when a certain percentage of voters sign recall petitions. The number of signatures varies according to the number of registered voters in the jurisdiction. For example, in a city with less than 1,000 registered voters, 35 percent of those voters must sign a petition; but in a city of 100,000 voters, only 10 percent is necessary. Despite the sliding scale, it is functionally easier to obtain 350 than 1,000 signatures. Thus, structurally, recalls are easier in smaller cities. However, an additional factor may well be the closer proximity of politics and government in small towns and cities. Ballot measures in school and community college districts fared best of all with 53 of 87 or 61 percent gaining passage. Revenue generating proposals (bonds and taxes) accounted for twothirds of these measures. Bond measures alone numbered 50 with a surprising success rate of 66 percent. Candidate Elections It is interesting and perhaps more than a bit odd that voters in 1996 were supportive of both term limits and incumbents. This was especially apparent in Orange County where voters in eight cities imposed term limits on elective city officials while re-electing 10 of 13 incumbents seeking reelection. The 77 percent success rate enjoyed by city council members in these eight cities was, in fact, higher than the statewide reelection rates of county supervisors (69 percent) and city council members (75 percent). Of course, it could be argued that voter behavior in Orange County and elsewhere supporting both incumbents and term limits is, in fact, a rational calculus that voters like individual incumbents but feel that no incumbent should stay in office indefinitely. Alternatively, scholarly literature indicates that many voters feel antipathy toward political institutions and office holders in general while being favorably disposed toward individual politicians. The results in Orange County may simply be a reflection of this "hate Congress but love your Congressman" mentality. The reelection rates of incumbent county supervisor candidates (69 percent) showed a marked increase over 1994 when less than half of supervisorial incumbents were reelected. Incumbent candidates seeking reelection to other county offices fared even better. Incumbent Superior Court Judges were reelected at a rate of over 76 percent, Municipal Court Judges at over 85 percent, and all of the incumbents running for Sheriff, District Attorney, and Tax Collector were victorious. Tiny Alpine County proved to be one exception to this trend when voters there rejected the bids of all three incumbent supervisors seeking reelection. Incumbents seeking reelection to city offices fared as well or better than those in the counties. Almost 75 percent, or 303 of the 405 incumbents who ran, were reelected to city councils and incumbent mayors were successful at an 87 percent rate, with 41 of 47 incumbents being
reelected. Fifty-three of the 55 incumbent city treasurers were reelected, or 96 percent, while those incumbents seeking other city offices failed to lose any of their races. The incumbent reelection statistics for the various school offices were similar to the cities' experience. Over 78 percent, or 555 of the 708 incumbents seeking reelection to these offices, were victorious. No school or community college district sought to impose term limits on their board members in 1966. Short Term Trends The relatively recent introduction of CEDA in 1994 limits any discussion of trends. In addition, comparisons of a non-gubernatorial year election (1996) with one coinciding with major statewide races can suggest misleading conclusions. However, with more history behind it, CEDA will eventually highlight real shifts in electoral habits. In the short term, similarities between the two elections may be evidence of an established pattern -- assuming a sufficient number of cases in both years -- while differences between the two may reflect more the peculiarities of non-gubernatorial year elections rather than change over time. The most obvious difference between the two years is the large number of ballot measures floated during the non-gubernatorial year election: 1996 ballots contained over twice as many measures as those facing voters in the gubernatorial year, 1994. Initiatives, recalls and tax measures were particularly numerous in the non-gubernatorial year election. Proponents of these measures may assume that it is easier to attract the voters' attention when there are fewer statewide personalities on the ballot. But, in general, more attention does not seem to affect the outcome: pass rates were only marginally lower in 1996 than they had been in 1994 (57% vs 61%). Some types of measures, however, did better in 1996 than they had in 1994. Losing propositions in 1994, bonds were more apt to win in 1996. In contrast, taxes and initiatives were more apt to lose. Education issues drew more support in 1996 while voters were being less enthusiastic about land use and public facilities. Public safety issues were a toss-up in both election years. Cities and counties use a non-gubernatorial year election to vote on local offices. Counties particularly concentrate supervisory races and those for other county posts in years with fewer statewide races. On the other hand, the number of school board members on the ballot was virtually the same in both years. The introduction of term limits at the state level and in many local jurisdictions, and the general anti-government sentiments noted by observers in both California and the nation, may be responsible for the unexpectedly low number of incumbents seeking reelection in 1994 and 1996. The forced retirement of many state legislators significantly increased the electoral opportunities for many local officials. As county supervisors and city council members set their sights on Sacramento, the ripple effect was felt in local elections with the increased frequency of open races. Moreover, as noted in the 1994 CEDA reports, the number of incumbent local officials declining to seek reelection may be a reflection of a national trend of official "burnout:" i.e., elected officials simply deciding that the manifold costs of holding office are too much. The conventional wisdom of incumbent invulnerability at all levels must be modified in light of these data; but it is also reinforced by the fact that those incumbents who did opt to run again were generally successful. Although incumbent reelection rates for all county, city and school board
positions were higher in 1996 than 1994, rates in excess of 70 percent were typical in both years.