The state’s voter-turnout rates hit the skids in the 2014 election cycles, with only 25 percent of registered voters casting a ballot in the June primary and only 42 percent voting in the November general election. State officials viewed the situation as something of a crisis and proposed a variety of reforms to encourage greater participation.

But voter turnout rebounded in the 2016 general election, with 14.6 million people voting during the Donald Trump v. Hillary Clinton race. The raw numbers were record-setting, although the percentage of voters (75 percent of those registered, and 59 percent of those eligible) was lower than in the 2008 presidential election, during Barack Obama’s race against John McCain.

There’s little question that a high-profile national election drives far more interest and participation than midterm contests, but state election officials still wonder about ways to encourage more Californians to head to the polls – or drop a ballot in the mail – during lower-profile elections and especially for local races.

There’s much debate over whether a new elections-related law will have a significant effect on the number of Californians who turn out to vote. Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed the “Prime Time Primary Act,” which moves all of California’s primary elections from June to March.

Supporters were concerned that the June date rendered the state’s massive 55 electoral votes largely meaningless because the parties typically know the likely presidential candidate by then. Moving the primary to March – provided other states don’t play leapfrog and move up their dates, also – will make California more of a national player. But it’s uncertain what it might do to voting rates.

“The only other time that a midterm California primary was earlier than June was 2002, when it was in early March,” wrote elections expert Richard Winger in Ballot Access News. “The 2002 California primary had the lowest turnout of any California primary in history, up until that point. Only 34.6 percent of the registered voters cast a ballot.”

The 2014 midterm voting rates were even lower, as noted above. Winger noted that was the first time a midterm primary election was held after California voters approved the “Top Two” primary system in which the primary includes candidates from all parties on one ballot – and then the top-two vote-getters head to the general regardless of their party affiliation.

Supporters of the new system argue that it encourages voter participation because it encourages candidates to reach out beyond their respective parties’ base voters and make an appeal to all voters from all affiliations. But critics of “top two,” including Winger, argue that it suppresses turnout because it keeps smaller parties off the general-election ballot. “Because top-two doesn’t affect presidential primaries or presidential elections, the best evidence that top-two has hurt turnout is the midterm year of 2014,” Winger told me. “Whereas in November 2010, California voters had six parties to choose from for all the statewide offices, in Nov. 2014 all California voters had to vote for a Rep or a Dem or they couldn’t vote at all. That really hurt turnout.”

California lawmakers have passed a variety of other changes affecting voting and registration including laws that “include pre-registration for 16-year-olds, conditional same day voter registration at certain locations, a new Motor Voter program to automate voter registration for individuals when obtaining or renewing identification cards or driver’s licenses with the DMV and a new option for counties to conduct all-mailed ballot elections and use vote centers and ballot drop-off locations prior to election day rather than operate polling places only on election day,” according to the Little Hoover Commission.

Little Hoover, the state’s independent watchdog agency, held a hearing Sept. 28 as part of its ongoing study of statewide voter participation trends and the effect of these recently enacted election reforms. That hearing focused specifically on Los Angeles County, which has more registered voters (5.2 million) than any other jurisdiction in the country. Most testimony centered on the need for “process” changes that make it easier for eligible voters to register and cast a ballot.

“Unfortunately, the lowest voter turnout that we often experience comes during local and municipal elections, which are typically conducted during the odd years,” explained Dean Logan, Los Angeles County’s registrar-recorder and county clerk. “While the importance of local elections is beyond debate, voter participation in these elections has not followed suit.”

He argued that the 2015 passage of Senate Bill 415, the California Voter Participation Act, would eventually help boost these numbers. The measure “prohibits cities, school districts and other special districts from holding elections in odd years if those elections showed worse voter turnout than statewide elections in the past,” according to the San Gabriel Valley Tribune. The goal is to keep these districts from holding elections when few people are paying attention.

Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause, argued in her testimony that problems at polling places – e.g., poorly accessible locations with insufficient parking, poorly functioning ballot readers, an inadequate number of bilingual poll workers, etc. – contributes to the problem. She pointed to a Common Cause study concluding that “California’s declining voter turnout is cause for concern, warranting significant and immediate action.”

The report touted election reforms in Colorado, which include same-day registration along with a vote-by-mail system (every registered voter automatically is mailed a ballot) with plenty of drop boxes and vote centers. Brown last year signed SB450, which beginning in 2018 will require that all registered voters be sent a ballot 28 days before an election, so Californians will soon see whether such an approach does much to boost voter participation.

Some election observers, however, argue the problem is more fundamental than the process by which ballots are distributed and collected. For instance, some election experts blame the state’s poor level of representation for low turnout rates. California has, by far, the largest number of voters for each elected politician, meaning they have far less ability to influence an election or a policy decision.

Others blame the state’s dominance by one party, which means that fewer statewide elections have any significant policy ramifications. Most legislative districts have been carved up to so heavily favor one party or the other that there’s little question which party will hold the seat. Still others note that political races and initiatives are dominated by special interests, which breeds cynicism. A 2015 public-opinion survey from the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California concluded that “Low trust in government is the top reason for not registering.”

A comprehensive look at California’s voter-turnout situation might also address this question: Are many Californians skipping the vote not because of impediments to receiving and casting a ballot – but because they don’t think their vote really matters?

Steven Greenhut is Western region director at the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

The conventional wisdom holds that primary turnout in California is generally weak unless there is a particularly contested election of note or a high-profile, high-stakes ballot measure. This June 7, with the presidential nominations largely determined for both parties, most observers have low expectations.

But the National University System Institute for Policy Research thinks we’re in for a surprise. The San Diego university recently released a policy brief that predicts at least half of San Diego County residents will vote — up at least 13 percent from the June 2012 primary. 

This is based on a huge surge in voter registration in the county — a development that has also been seen statewide, with similar implications.

“California is experiencing historic growth in new voter registrations; more than 850,000 voters have registered between January 1st and March 31st of this year. This registration figure is twice the total from January 1st to March 31st in 2012. As noted by elections analyst Paul Mitchell in Capitol Weekly, the last time the state voter rolls grew in the 18 months prior to a presidential primary election was in 1980,” the National University report said.

“San Diego County is no exception – using registration reports from the San Diego County Registrar of Voters, we found countywide registration increased a net 50,977 voters from January 5th to April 30th. Most of the net change in partisan registration was among Democratic voters, further increasing the small registration lead the Democratic Party has over the GOP in San Diego County.”

This influx of voters is “younger, more diverse and more Democratic-leaning,” the policy brief noted.

“Demographically, they largely fit the profile of Bernie Sanders supporters,” Vince Vasquez, senior policy analyst at National University System Institute for Policy Research, told KPBS. “How many will vote down ticket, and what are the campaigns doing to appeal to these new voters? We’ll find out on election night.”

Is social media leading to more young liberals voting?

The report doesn’t speculate on why voting might be higher than normal. But the Obama campaign’s successful “microtargeting” of voters in 2012 is seen as having created new ways to reach and lobby younger voters. In the last month before the 2012 election, the Obama campaign unveiled a new tactic that it credited with leading to a surge in youth voting. Time magazine’s election post-mortem had details:

Half the campaign’s targeted swing-state voters under age 29 had no listed phone number. They lived in the cellular shadows, effectively immune to traditional get-out-the-vote efforts. … But the Obama team had a solution in place: a Facebook application that will transform the way campaigns are conducted in the future. …. “I think this will wind up being the most groundbreaking piece of technology developed for this campaign,” says Teddy Goff, the Obama campaign’s digital director.

That’s because the more than 1 million Obama backers who signed up for the app gave the campaign permission to look at their Facebook friend lists. In an instant, the campaign had a way to see the hidden young voters. Roughly 85% of those without a listed phone number could be found in the uploaded friend lists. What’s more, Facebook offered an ideal way to reach them. … 

The campaign called this effort targeted sharing. And in those final weeks of the campaign, the team blitzed the supporters who had signed up for the app with requests to share specific online content with specific friends simply by clicking a button. More than 600,000 supporters followed through with more than 5 million contacts, asking their friends to register to vote, give money, vote or look at a video designed to change their mind.

This social media-access access often appears to lead to increasingly “pure” liberal views and is reflected in Sanders’ huge lead over Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton among voters under 30.

Trump seen as spurring Hispanics to register

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported Thursday that another candidate besides Sanders may be bringing out California voters: Donald Trump.

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is spurring a record number of citizenship applications and increases in voter registration among Latinos upset by the candidate’s rhetoric and fearful of his plans to crack down on immigration. …. 

In California, the number of Hispanics registering to vote doubled in the first three months of this year compared with the same period in 2012, according to state data.

California Democrats succeeded in sending Gov. Jerry Brown legislation that would substantially expand voter registration.

The move teed up a significant advance toward one of the party’s longtime statewide and nationwide goals. As MSNBC noted, Democrats see themselves at a disadvantage when turnout reaches relative lows. “More than 70 million eligible Americans aren’t registered to vote — a key reason why turnout fell to just 36 percent in last fall’s midterms,” according to the network. “The unregistered are more likely than the registered to be non-white, young and poor – all groups that lean Democratic. Nearly half of all eligible Latinos, and over half of all eligible millennials, aren’t registered.”

AB1461, introduced by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, would ensure “eligible citizens would be registered to vote when they get their driver’s license at the Department of Motor Vehicles unless they opt out,” according to the Los Angeles Times. “The measure would not take effect until a new computerized voter registration database is established some time next year,” presumably before November’s elections.

Heated rhetoric

The bill returned California — and the political media — to the heated climate of 2002, when Prop. 52 hit state ballots. That initiative “would have allowed people to register and vote on the same day,” the Washington Post recalled. “Backed by Democratic groups and opposed by Republicans, the proposal would have made it much easier to increase the vote from targeted demographics. Your candidate is supported heavily by older voters? Pull up a bus outside a nursing home, pack it full and drive to the polling place. Anyone not already registered could vote within minutes regardless.”

Cries of likely fraud drove Prop. 52 down to defeat

This time around, the state GOP have raised louder alarms about the possibility of fraud. As the IJ Review observed, lawmakers have cited “the increased potential for non-citizens to gain access to voting through these automatic motor-voter programs. California law allows unauthorized immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses, and opponents are concerned that they could inadvertently be registered to vote.” As the Times noted, state Sen. Jeff Stone, R-Murrieta, warned the bill could “further undermine the integrity of our election system.”

At the same time, civics-centric critics have cautioned that automatic registration could give greater weight to voters with a more casual or cavalier attitude toward the ballot. One editorialist at the Orange County Register suggested that, “while we celebrate the widespread expansion of the franchise, we ought to avoid cheapening it to the point where it is regarded as little more than a vehicle for self-expression. When you step into a voting booth, you hold the lives and livelihoods of your fellow citizens in your hands. If you can’t be bothered to register, perhaps you’re not ready for that responsibility.”

On the left, by contrast, the legislation was hailed as a great leap forward. In California, The Nation suggested, over 6.5 million voters would be registered. Although Gov. Jerry Brown has yet to signal whether he’ll sign the bill, The Nation added, he threw his weight behind the idea of automatic registration at the 1992 Democratic National Convention:

“Every citizen in America should have not only the right but the real opportunity to vote […]. And it’s the responsibility of government to ensure that by registering every American […]. They know how to get our taxes — why don’t they get our votes, and the votes of everyone in this country?”

Courting the unknown

At any rate, the bill has introduced a fresh layer of complexity to the California political calculus. By adding an “unknown” category to the way registrations tabulate political preferences, CA FWD noted, the bill would create a new question for candidates courting first-time voters: “How does a campaign target an unknown voter in the era of California’s Top Two Primary?”

Political Data, Inc.’s Paul Mitchell told CA FWD “we expect campaigns will do what they have with other new registrants: use age, geography, ethnicity, gender, household partisanship, and other factors to drive targeting decisions.” Reliable data on voters with unknown affiliations, in other words, was set to become a political premium.

In June, in a move that rated only a brief in the local newspaper, one California county found a way to express this frustration:

At the urging of Supervisor Ryan Coonerty, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday not to invest for five years with the five banks that recently agreed to plead guilty to felony charges.

 

The Department of Justice announced in May that four major banks — Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Barclays and the Royal Bank of Scotland — have agreed to plead guilty to felony charges of conspiring to manipulate the price of U.S. dollars and euros exchanged in the foreign currency exchange spot market. In addition, a fifth bank, UBS, has agreed to plead guilty to manipulating the London Interbank Offered Rate and other bench mark interest rates.

 

While the action of Santa Cruz County alone may not have a major impact on Wall Street, Coonerty will be contacting other local jurisdictions across the country to urge them to consider taking similar action in order to send a message to Wall Street.

That’s the entire item in the Santa Cruz Sentinel. Scroll down; it isn’t the lead item in that day’s news briefs.

Former secretary of labor offers praise

But if this gesture wasn’t seen as very important in Santa Cruz, former Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich, a UC Berkeley public policy professor, disagreed later in June on his personal blog. Here’s part of the lengthy post:

A strong case can be made that employers shouldn’t pay attention to criminal convictions of real people who need a fresh start, especially a job.

 

But giant banks that have committed felonies are something different. Why shouldn’t depositors and investors consider their past convictions?

 

Which brings us to Santa Cruz County.

 

The county’s board of supervisors just voted not to do business for five years with any of the five banks felons.

 

The county won’t use the banks’ investment services or buy their commercial paper, and will pull its money out of the banks to the extent it can.

 

“We have a sacred obligation to protect the public’s tax dollars and these banks can’t be trusted. Santa Cruz County should not be involved with those who rigged the world’s biggest financial markets,” says supervisor Ryan Coonerty.

 

The banks will hardly notice. Santa Cruz County’s portfolio is valued at about $650 million.

 

But what if every county, city, and state in America followed Santa Cruz County’s example, and held the big banks accountable for their felonies?

 

What if all of us taxpayers said, in effect, we’re not going to hire these convicted felons to handle our public finances? We don’t trust them.

 

That would hit these banks directly. They’d lose our business. Which might even cause them to clean up their acts.

Coonerty hopes that other government bodies follow suit. The reprinting of Reich’s commentary on some prominent left-wing sites gives him  hope. He’s also now getting more favorable coverage of his plan from his hometown paper.

Whether or not it becomes a national cause, in California, it could possibly become a ballot initiative to help get out the liberal vote in the 2016 election. As this Southern California Public Radio story notes, ballot measures on “hot-button” issues are just another tool in the voter-turnout playbook in the Golden State for liberals and conservatives alike.

“California elections would be radically retooled, with neighborhood polling places replaced by ‘voting centers’ serving much larger swaths and a vast expansion of early voting,” reported the San Jose Mercury News.

Big changes

Spearheaded by Secretary of State Alex Padilla, the overhaul took shape in a bill advanced by two influential lawmakers from the Los Angeles area — state Sens. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, and Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys. As the Sacramento Bee explained, “Senate Bill 450 would have county election officials mail ballots to every registered voter. Voters could then mail them in or drop them off at new kiosks that Padilla said would ideally be open beginning 10 days before elections, eight hours a day.”

“The new legislation incorporates ideas previously included in other bills,” as the Los Angeles Times noted. “A pending bill by Allen also calls for voting centers to be open before Election Day. A measure by Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, would create secure drop-off sites where ballots could be left before Election Day.”

Another effort to increase vote totals also recently gained traction in Sacramento. “Padilla has sponsored another bill that would register to vote everyone who gets a driver’s license in California, unless they opt out,” the Times reported.

Principles and ideology

The push for reform owed its energy to two complementary, yet competing, factors. On the one hand, voter turnout in California has hit extreme lows in recent election cycles, prompting a general outcry about the importance of broad-based civic participation to the government’s legitimacy. On the other, Democrats have made no apologies for their partisan interest in making ballots as easy as possible to cast. Historically, voters who supported Republican candidates tended to turn out more reliably than those who would be more likely to pull the lever for the other party.

Given their dominance, state Democrats had little to worry in rolling out the new proposal. Purple states often experience razor-thin electoral margins that would make even a small shift in turnout potentially significant. In the absence of that pressure, the bill’s sponsors have been able to play up the value of easy voting. “We’ll probably never see another election in California where more voters go to the polls than vote by mail,” said Allen, according to the Bee. “This is about expanding options and convenience for voters.”

Nevertheless, Republicans have been quick to emphasize the bill’s partisan upshot. Former state party chairman Ron Nehring, now vice chairman of San Diego County’s GOP, said state Democrats “have a turnout problem,” U-T San Diego noted. “Republican voter turnout rates are already high,” he said, suggesting that “more competitive elections” could better mobilize voters than fresh legislation.

Other critics have pointed to studies that suggest expanded early voting programs may fail to increase participation, or actually lead to a decrease. Additionally, the prospect of increased costs may strengthen some resistance to Padilla’s plans.

Early results

SB450 drew its inspiration from a new scheme rolled out in Colorado, where Democrats do not enjoy the advantage they do in California. Padilla himself swung through to confirm the state’s measurable growth in turnout. “In the first year Colorado increased voting options, the state saw 319,225 more ballots cast in 2013 compared with 2011,” according to the San Francisco Chronicle, “despite both elections lacking a presidential, gubernatorial or congressional race to drive people to the polls.”

Last year, the Chronicle noted, Colorado cracked the top three of states in voter turnout, while California hit all-time lows during its most recent general and primary elections. Oregon and Washington have also boosted turnout with similar schemes of their own.

“Overall, the turnout data show that the surface totals, like saying it was 42 percent turnout, belie the fact that turnout is so varied by age and demographics,” Paul Mitchell, vice-president of Political Data, Inc., told CalWatchdog.com.

A new turnout analysis published by Mitchell’s firm shows wide disparities in voter participation throughout the state based on region, age, ethnicity and past voter history. These demographic factors offer a more complete picture of the lowest turnout general election in California’s history.

So, who voted? Despite their smaller registration numbers, Republicans turned out in higher percentages than Democrats or independent voters. Older Californians showed up at the polls in greater numbers than younger voters. Bay Area counties outperformed Southern California. White and Asian Americans voted in higher numbers than Latinos or African Americans.

Dig a little deeper, and you can identify smaller sub-groups of voters that are a virtual lock to cast their ballots. For example, here’s a fun stat: 90 percent of Republican voters over the age of 65 in Sierra County exercised their franchise in last November’s election.

Age: Older voters show up, younger voters don’t

Before race or ethnicity, age offered the starkest contrast in turnout. Statewide, two-thirds of registered voters over the age of 65 cast their ballots.

“Look at any district and the Age 65-plus cohort had turnout that is about 25 points higher and parallels their turnout in other gubernatorial elections,” Mitchell explained. “In a place like Huntington Beach, you see that age cohort at 72 percent turnout. Even in a low-income community like Santa Ana, nearly two-thirds of those voters cast ballots.”

Younger voters, who rocked the vote for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, weren’t nearly as enthused about the reelection of California’s 76-year-old Democratic governor, Jerry Brown. Just 17 percent of registered voters under the age of 30 voted.

“I think even folks that work with the data all the time were surprised by just how low that number was,” Mindy Romero, director of the California Civic Engagement Project at the University of California, Davis, told KQED. “Youth get very little contact, real contact, from candidates and campaigns. And so it generates even less information, less awareness, less connection with the political process.”

34th State Senate: Lower Latino turnout

In the competitive 34th state Senate district, Republican Janet Nguyen cruised to victory with the help of Asian voters, who overwhelmingly voted by mail. In her battle against former Democratic Assemblyman Jose Solorio, 47 percent of Asian voters turned out for the hotly contested legislative race — 10 points higher than the statewide average for Asian Americans.

Higher turnout by Asian Americans coincided with lower turnout by the district’s more than 102,000 Latino voters. Although a quarter of the district’s registered voters are Latino, this group accounted for 20 percent of the voters in November, moving Latinos from the second largest ethnic group to third, after Asian Americans.

Asian American voters in the 34th State Senate race also had a big preference in how they voted. Among Asian voters that participated in the Orange County-based legislative race, 79 percent cast their ballots by mail, with the remaining 21 percent appearing at a polling place. No other group, based on age, ethnicity or party, came close to this 4-to-1 absentee voting ratio.

Asian American vote-by-mail preference

Although it was highest in the 34th State Senate district, Asian Americans throughout the state overwhelmingly preferred voting by mail, with 70 percent of them preferring that method to voting in person.

On the surface, this preference might seem trivial, a statistic to impress political consultants and data geeks. But it has major implications for the outcomes of races.

Absentee voters make up their minds earlier in the race, affecting how and when campaigns decide to roll out their messages and criticize their rivals. Voters who cast their ballots by mail also contend with a greater number of reasons for their vote to be invalidated, such as a mismatched signature or late-arriving ballot.

State lawmakers have tried to address the issue of late-arriving ballots by extending the deadline for receiving absentee ballots. As of Jan. 1, ballots that are postmarked on Election Day can be received up to three days later.

Online registration produces better turnout

Above all else, past voter history was the easiest way to predict whether you voted in November. Ninety percent of primary voters returned to the ballot box five months later.

Newly registered voters are less likely to vote than experienced voters. But California’s online voter registration program has helped boost turnout.

“If you look at the online registrants by age group and compare it to overall, you’ll find that 18-29 and 30-45 year old online registrants performed 8 points higher than their age groups overall,” Mitchell pointed out. “Asians in those age groups performed 5 points better, and Latinos 7-8 points better.”

Political Data Inc.’s complete voter registration analysis is available here.

“When it’s 50 % turnout, your voting power is doubled #math,” Paul Mitchell of Political Data Inc., the state’s top political data firm, tweeted on Election Day.

Increased voting power — it’s one of several upsides to the state’s record low turnout in this month’s gubernatorial election. With fewer than 75,000 ballots left to count statewide, turnout is expected to top out at 42 percent — the lowest for a general election in California’s history. Of the state’s 38 million residents, just 7.5 million registered voters cast their ballots. That comes out to one in five people deciding who will lead the largest state in the nation for the next four years.

California’s abyssal turnout rate demolished the previous record for worst turnout in a general election. In 2002, just 50.57 percent of registered voters chose between Republican businessman Bill Simon and then-Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat.

It wasn’t unexpected. The June 2014 primary turnout of 25.2 percent set a new record for the lowest voter turnout for any statewide election in California; the previous low was 28.2 percent in June 2008.

The low turnout has inspired a round of news stories about how to improve civic participation. “Democracy works better as more people participate,” incoming Secretary of State Alex Padilla told the San Francisco Chronicle. “Excitement around the particular candidates drives much of the turnout, and that’s hard to legislate.”

KFBK recently asked, “What should California do about low voter turnout?”

The question presupposes low turnout is a problem in need of fixing. For starters, California’s voter turnout isn’t evenly distributed throughout the state. In tiny Sierra County, the second-least populous county in the state, 73 percent of registered voters cast their ballots in the Nov. 4 election. That’s more than double Los Angeles, the most populous county in the country, where 31 percent of registered voters participated. Another half-dozen counties — Nevada, Mariposa, Amador, Alpine, Plumas and Marin — all had turnout of 60 percent or more.

2016: Bumper year for ballot measures

In addition to increased voting power for high-propensity voters, the state’s record-low turnout in 2014 will lead to a bumper year for ballot measures in 2016.

“If voters were a bit underwhelmed by the measures on the California ballot … just wait for the 2016 election,” wrote Joel Fox, publisher of Fox and Hounds Daily, one of the state’s top business and political websites. “Already there is talk of potential initiatives on legalizing recreational marijuana, public pension reform, minimum wage increases and a basket full of tax hikes. The machinations around the tax issues could be most compelling just because so many are being considered.”

A recent memo from a top-notch public affairs firm based in Sacramento made the case that 2016 could break records for the most number of ballot measures on a single ballot.

“The historically low turnout in the 2014 general election will dramatically lower the number of signatures required to qualify ballot initiatives in 2016,” wrote Rick Claussen, Ned Wigglesworth and Aaron McLear of Redwood Pacific Public Affairs. “But the lower signature threshold and extended collection window very likely will make qualifying initiatives far less expensive than ever before, potentially producing a very long ballot in 2016.”

The threshold for qualifying a ballot measure is based on participation in the previous gubernatorial election. Initiative statutes require valid signatures from at least 5 percent of the total votes cast for governor at the last gubernatorial election, while initiative constitutional amendments require at least 8 percent. Based on current figures, that would lower the signature requirement from 504,760 valid signatures to 365,000.

In other words, just 2 percent of registered voters can get a measure on the ballot — or less than 1 percent of residents in the state.

As CalWatchdog.com’s Chris Reed argued, “That is good news for those considering taking on public employee unions in 2016 with ballot measures putting limits on government pensions or scrapping state laws allowing teachers to receive lifetime tenure after less than two years on the job.”

The Marijuana Policy Project, which is pushing for the legalization of marijuana throughout the country, is optimistic about California in 2016.

“This year’s election was a large step forward, but the 2016 election will be a huge leap toward ending marijuana prohibition in this country once and for all,” Rob Kampia, the organization’s executive director, said in a statement after the election.

Redwood Pacific’s memo outlined other changes to the initiative process that will alter the 2016 political landscape. Under a law passed in 2011, all ballot measures arising from signatures are considered on the general election ballot. Additionally, in 2014, the legislature approved Senate Bill 1253, which will extend the signature gathering period by an extra month, add a public review period for title and summary, and require a legislative informational hearing when proponents collect 25 percent of the necessary signatures.

“For a relatively small investment, a proponent can force a legislative hearing on their initiative,” McLear told CalWatchdog.com.

The low threshold won’t last forever. As KQED’s John Myers recently pointed out, “The new low bar for initiatives will last only for two election cycles.”

Probolsky Research: “Surprises may be the norm”

It’s no coincidence that California’s record-low turnout was matched by a record number of legislative upsets. An incumbent Democratic state lawmaker hadn’t lost reelection in 20 years. This year, four incumbents lost reelection, including Assemblyman Raul Bocanegra’s shocking defeat to long-shot Democrat Patty Lopez.

One of California’s top polling firms expects more upsets, courtesy of low turnout and the Top Two elections system.

“Surprises may be the norm,” said Justin Wallin, COO/CMO of Probolsky Research. “Voter behavior is more likely to mimic what we have seen with our jungle primaries, wherein candidates in large fields of contestants can’t rely so heavily on their ballot language.”

Wallin believes candidates need to “ensure that voters arrive at the ballot box intending to vote for them, otherwise they are likely to just get lost in the crowd.”

By Katy Grimes

Democrats should be upset and Republicans smiling at the numbers from the June 5 primary, a new CalWatchDog.com analysis shows. That’s contrary to the popular belief that Republicans are faltering in the Golden State.

Primary voters can usually be counted on as staunch partisan voters. However, the primary results in California showed that there were significant numbers of Democrats who not vote in the Democratic presidential primary.

President Barack Obama received more than 280,000 votes less than California’s U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein in her primary, and more than 340,000 fewer votes than the cumulative Democratic Assembly vote, indicating a real weakness for the upcoming November election. It appears that many Democrats are disenchanted with their president. He still should win the state, but not by the more than 3 million margin he did against Republican John McCain in 2008. That could spell trouble for Obama in other states.

Across the state of California, voters have already begun showing their anger at the Democratic-controlled Legislature by voting against Democratic incumbents, as well as voting against even former Democratic legislators attempting a comeback.

There are five Democratic Assembly members facing a same party runoff in November.

“Top Two” Primary

There also appears to be frustration among Democrats with the new “Top Two” primary voting system passed in 2010.

The June 2012 primary election was the first California election using the Top Two Candidate Open Primary system for statewide offices.

According to the League of Women Voters, the Top Two rules mean that:

* All candidates for a given state or congressional office will be listed on a single primary election ballot.

* Voters can vote for the candidate of their choice for these offices.

* The top two candidates, as determined by the voters, will advance to the General Election in November.

“Twenty California State Senate seats were up for election — half the total number of seats in the upper house of the Legislature,” the Independent Voter reported the day after the election.

The Public Policy Institute of California reported that more incumbents faced primary challenges from within their own party this year than they have on average in the last five election cycles.

The PPIC also found that there were majority-vote winners in 40 out of 80 Assembly primaries. In Senate races, 16 of 20 primaries ended with a majority-vote winner. And in U.S. House races, 35 of 53 candidates received more than half of the vote.

But after the primary, many in the state were incredulous that the majority vote winners would still face a challenger in November.

Propositions

Proposition 29, the tobacco tax initiative, lost in a close race, 49.8 percent to 50.2 percent. Interestingly, the vote by county was nearly a predictable party-line vote. The heavily Democratic counties voted to pass Prop. 29 by heavy margins, while more the more Republican counties voted “no” on the tobacco tax.

Proposition 28 was another story altogether. The initiative was deceptively written and voters thought they were casting a protest vote against the Legislature and imposing stricter term limits.

Pension reform initiatives did very well in San Diego and San Jose, and easily won passage with large margins.

Angry voters

Five Democratic Assembly members fared poorly in June and will face a same-party runoffs in November:

* Assemblyman Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, received only 38 percent of the vote against largely unknown candidates.

* Assemblyman Michael Allen, D-Santa Rosa, received only 31 percent of the vote and will be in a same-party runoff in November.

* Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, only 41 percent of the vote.

* Assemblyman Paul Fong, D-Mountain View, received only 53 percent of the vote against only one challenger who was a “No Party Preference” candidate.

* Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, D-Baldwin Park, lost with 43 percent of the vote to Republican challenger Joe Gardener, who received 45 percent of the vote. The NPP candidate received 11 percent of the vote in this race.

* Assemblywoman Betsy Butler, D-Torrance, was in a near tied race with two other Democrats and one Republican challenger. Butler received only 25.8 percent of the vote. In the November runoff, she will face Richard Bloom, who got 25.6 percent. But close behind was Tori Osborn with 24.3 percent. Republican challenger Bradly Torgan received 24.4 percent.

* Assemblywoman Norma Torres, D-Pomona, received only 41 percent of the vote in a race with two Democratic and one Republican challenger. Republican Kenny Coble received 37.5 percent of the vote.

Assembly Democrats running for state Senate did not fare well

* In Senate District 5, Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani, D-Fresno, received only 41 percent of the vote, while two Republican challengers combined received 59 percent. Assemblyman Bill Berryhill, R-Stockton, received 35.8 percent of the vote.

* Senate District 39: Assemblyman Marty Block, D-San Diego, received only 46.3 percent, while Republican challenger George Plescia received 43.7 percent of the vote. A Democratic challenger received 10 percent.

* In Congressional District 2, Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, received only 37.5 percent of the vote.

* Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, D-Santa Monica, running for Congressional District 26, received only 27 percent of the vote against Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Thousand Oaks, who received 44.1 percent.

Former Democratic legislators did not do well

* Former Assemblyman Richard Alacaron was trounced in Assembly District 39. Alacaron received only 26.9 percent of the vote, while a Democratic challenger, CSU Professor Raul Bocanegra, also Alacaron’s former aide, received 36.2 percent of the vote. The LA Weekly called the results “humiliating.”

* Former Assemblyman Joe Baca received only 42.3 percent of the vote and will be facing a Top Two runoff in november.

* Former Assemblyman Rudy Bermudez lost to newcomer Ian Claderon, also a Democrat and a member of the political Calderon family, 27.7 percent to 28.5 percent.

* Former Assemblyman Tom Calderon placed third in a race with six candidates.

* Sen. Fran Pavely, D-Agoura Hilla lost to unknown Republican Todd Zink, 48.9 percent to 51.1 percent.

* Former Assemblyman Steve Clute came in third in a three-candidate race.

* Former Assemblywoman Lori Saldana, D-San Diego, came in third behind Democrat Scott Peters, losing by only 719 votes, and Republican Brian Bilbray, who garnered 41 percent of the vote.

Projected turnout for November

Of the 17 million registered voters who turned out for the primary, 7.4 million were Democrats, 5.1 million were Republicans, and approximately 4.5 million were Independents, Green Party, Libertarian, or “other.” So Democrats held an edge there.

However, Republicans, although lower in numbers, were more likely to turn out to vote. Turnout by party was: Democrats 23 percent, Republicans 30 percent, Independents 26 percent.

The projected turnout for November looks very strong for both Republicans and Democrats, but favors Republicans. Republican registrations are up significantly in the state, as are Independents; 500,000 more Independents, Decline-to-State and Third Party people voted than in the June 2008 state primary. The turnout is expected to increase significantly in the November general election.

Angry voters will make a difference in California. We all can expect to see a great deal of change in the Legislature next year, and new legislators will be facing a state on the brink of disaster.

 (Voter results and information is available from the California Secretary of State’s Statement of Vote for the June 2012 primary.)