As early ballots arrive in mailboxes this week, Golden State voters will arrive at a symbolic and substantial demographic landmark: a so-called majority-minority electorate. 

“For the first time, non-Latino whites will fall below 50 percent of the state’s eligible voters,” as the California Civic Engagement Project predicted in 2014. “From 1980 to 2014, the state’s Latino and Asian American populations grew by 230 percent and 331 percent, respectively, while the white population fell about 6 percent,” the Orange County Register noted, citing a January report from the Civic Engagement Project. 

Despite a clear trend since the 1990s toward political dominance by Democrats, the longer term implications of the demographic shift have remained shrouded in mystery. On the one hand, in-state Republicans have weathered a period of fracture likely to end eventually in a new but familiar rough equilibrium between the two major parties. On the other hand, nonwhite voting patterns, especially in recent immigrant families, have in some respects had a limited impact on California politics. Many nonwhite residents, according to the Register, “are too young to vote or otherwise not registered. So far, the voter rolls haven’t made the minority-majority jump. A Field Poll found that 59 percent of California’s registered voters are white, down from 83 percent in 1978.” 

Low enthusiasm

Another complicating factor involves voter enthusiasm and turnout. Voter rolls have swelled tremendously, with a surge of new registrations pushing the current total to over 18 million. “The new data show California now has more registered voters than the population of 46 states,” the Los Angeles Times reported. Yet registered voters have not coalesced around a consensus political agenda. “Republicans trailed Democrats in registration by more than 18 percentage points,” the Times continued, but decline-to-state voters, “known in California as those who have ‘no party preference,’ were a close third and made up more than 23 percent of the statewide registration.” 

For Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated voters alike, showing up at the polls has not always been an easy sell — despite consistent measures from Sacramento designed to make voting as easy and popular as possible. (“In California, no law requires voters to show ID. They soon will be registered to vote automatically. Their vote will be counted even if it shows up three days after the election,” as the Sacramento Bee noted.) Many Democrats have rested easy in the knowledge that their party will prevail even with low turnout. Although Loretta Sanchez would be the first Latina U.S. Senator if elected to replace Barbara Boxer, for instance, her candidacy has not ratcheted up projected turnout in November. Republicans, traditionally more likely to vote, have faced sharp intraparty conflicts in recent years, sometimes leaving state and local elections effectively uncontested. Voters who have soured on both parties, meanwhile, have not always had an opportunity to make a decisive difference in election day outcomes. 

Wedge issues

Nevertheless, the determined push by California officials for de facto amnesty for unlawful and undocumented immigrants has only sharpened as an electoral wedge issue. In Santa Ana, as the New York Times recently observed, transformative changes around immigration have raised political questions even as Latino political power has increased only modestly. “Immigrants living illegally in California are entitled to driver’s licenses. Their children can receive state-funded health insurance. Local law enforcement officials generally do not provide information to federal immigration authorities, as they do in many other parts of the country. On a smaller, if no less symbolic, level, the first thing the Santa Ana City Council did when it went all-Latino in 2006 was pass a law requiring simultaneous translation of all of its meetings to Spanish,” the Times reported. 

“The power and presence of Latinos in this community in Orange County — itself once a bastion of Republicanism — is echoed up and down the California coast. Latinos now make up just under 40 percent of the state’s population, projected to increase to 47 percent by 2050. The leaders of both houses of the Legislature are Latino, as is the secretary of state, the current mayor of Los Angeles and the previous mayor.”

So everything is looking positive for the Warriors coming back to San Francisco? Not exactly. Critics have assembled a multimillion-dollar legal fund to fight the project at every turn, and a classic NIMBY battle between well-funded interests looms.

The main opponent “came out of nowhere” in April. The San Francisco Business Times had details:

A group of University of California, San Francisco, donors is threatening to sue or push a ballot measure against the Warriors’ potential Mission Bay arena over parking and traffic concerns. …

 

The group, a nonprofit called the Mission Bay Alliance, worries that arena traffic will bottle up to ensnarl ambulances headed to nearby UCSF Medical Center and threaten the neighborhood’s ability to grow as a biotechnology hub. Its proximity to AT&T Park and possible overlapping game days will exacerbate that, the group says.

 

Sam Singer, who is representing the alliance’s public relations efforts, [said], “The alliance wants to see the (arena) and office towers halted completely. If that doesn’t happen through the EIR and public participation process, the alliance will consider a lawsuit and going to the ballot to stop the stadium.”

Poll suggests public not sold on arena

On the eve of the supervisors’ vote, the Mission Bay Alliance released a poll of 540 voters that showed much less support than the Warriors have asserted. This is from a statement on the alliance’s website:

Based on what they know today about the proposed arena plan in Mission Bay, fewer than half of voters say they support it:

 

Support – 49 percent

 

Oppose – 42 percent

 

Don’t know – 10 percent  …

 

Once voters became aware of the facts surrounding the proposed arena and the expected regional impacts, including traffic gridlock, the lack of parking and clogged emergency access for adjacent UCSF hospitals, support for the arena plummeted even more:

 

Support – 38 percent

 

Oppose – 59 percent

 

Don’t know – 3 percent

 

Parking and traffic ranked as the two most problematic impacts, with 65 percent of voters concerned about traffic gridlock and 67 percent about a lack of parking in and around the arena. … [The project] does little to alleviate the burden the arena will put on regional transit like BART and CalTrain.

Being a popular champion helps sway debate

But the Warriors and the city leaders who back them up on the planned move could benefit tremendously from timing. San Diego voters agreed to help pay for PETCO Park for the Padres in the city’s downtown area in November 1998 — a month after the team won a rare National League title and advanced to the World Series.

The contrast is sharp with present-day San Diego and seemingly broad opposition to having local governments help the Chargers pay for a new NFL stadium. Other factors certainly come into play. San Diego’s reputation as “Enron by the Bay” has faded, but the city’s years of financial struggles have left scars. The city is debating a huge infrastructure program, prompting questions about why $200 million that might go to fix pocked roads and add fire stations would instead help a billionaire build a stadium. But it hasn’t helped the let’s-hold-our-noses-and-accept subsidies crowd that the Chargers have been hugely disappointing since their 14-2 season in 2007, rarely living up to expectations.

The Warriors, by contrast, sharply exceeded expectations in 2014-15, when they won their first NBA championship in 40 years. This season, meanwhile, they got off to the fastest start of any team in NBA history. That could be an ace in the hole for team owners Joe Lacob and Peter Guber.

A whopping 71 percent favor spending more money to fix the roads. A smaller number, 48 percent, favor building new roads; but that’s still higher than the 35 percent opposed to new roads.

But voters split evenly — 49 percent in favor, 48 percent against — when asked if they want to pay 10 cents more per gallon to “improve the condition of state roads and highways.”

Democrats most favor the higher tax levy, at 63 percent affirmative. Republicans oppose it, with 64 percent negative. Given the higher Democratic registration in the state, that should drive the poll in the “yes” camp.

Except the decisive factor is the increasing share of voters who are “No party preference/other.” They clock at 45 percent in favor of the higher tax, 53 percent opposed.

Californians believe, with 76 percent affirming, that “Californians pay more in gasoline taxes compared to most other states.” As the Field Poll noted, in this they are correct:

“at 63.79 cents per gallon, Californians currently pay the second highest combined state and federal gasoline tax rate in the nation, behind only Pennsylvania. The national average is 48.23 cents per gallon.”

No car monitors

A new proposal in California is to pay for roads by miles driven, rather than directly taxing gas purchases. According to the San Jose Mercury News, Gov. Jerry Brown and other officials are looking at the idea.

But for now, state voters want to push the idea off a cliff. The Field Poll found 66 percent opposed, and only 30 percent supported the proposition to:

“Install an electronic device on motor vehicles to measure the exact amount of miles you drive to enable the state to assess a for road funding based on the number of miles people drive instead of charging for gas taxes at the pump.”

Democrats, at 59 percent opposed, were nearly as opposed as Republicans, at 74 percent. No party preference/other was in the middle, exactly at the 66 percent opposed of all those asked.

By Katy Grimes

SACRAMENTO — Ask any women what she wants in a purse design, and she’ll tell you it needs to be able to organize her entire life. The bag must be able to carry everything, including a spare pair of shoes and a laptop.

But a salesperson shouldn’t be the only one talking about the features of the bag. The buyer must realize the benefits for herself.

Oddly enough, this is the easy prescription for attracting more Latinos into the Republican Party — or so says Marcelino Valdez, a new face in state GOP circles. Valdez might become a very familiar face in a short time. He’s a young, straight-talking California Latino with a photogenic family. And he knows how to sell a purse.

How GOP can appeal to Latino voters

Valdez, 33, has been running to be the GOP’s Central Valley regional vice-chair, and was just voted in today.

I met with the magna cum laude graduate of Fresno Pacific University, who is an insurance broker, today at the Republican Convention. We walked and talked for quite a while, back and forth between the Hyatt Regency hotel and the Sacramento Convention Center, about how the California Republican Party has mostly neglected and stereotyped Latino voters instead of including them as an important voice in party politics.

But the problem goes both ways; Latinos have had a skewed view of Republicans as well.

I asked Valdez why Latino voters have been so reluctant to vote Republican, even though, as he said, the Republican ideology is one that most Latinos believe and live.

Valdez said for too many years, Republicans have allowed Democrats to define Republicans. Valdez said Republicans need to actually talk face-to-face with voters — all voters — inside their communities and neighborhoods, and stop talking just to Republicans.

Voter registration: GOP needs resources

One of the most important issues for Valdez is voter registration. Valdez said he decided to commit himself to work closely with the state’s central committees to make sure they have the resources needed to successfully run voter registration drives, and to reach more people with the Republican message.

Valdez thinks one reason Latinos are leery of GOP candidates has to do with the consultants the candidates rely on. He said too many consultants claim they can do the outreach and  connect with Latinos. But when it comes time to do the hard work — mixing it up with other Republicans over the need to change their unhelpful views on immigration — consultants often cave in, because they want the paychecks to keep coming their way.

On immigration, Valdez said he believes Sen. Marco Rubio’s plan is good.

Valdez said a pathway to citizenship for the country’s 11 million undocumented immigrants is something that must be faced and dealt with. And he said a pathway to citizenship is not amnesty.

Valdez told a funny story about his position on the pathway to citizenship.

When he was running for Fresno City Council in 2010, he sought the endorsement from a very influential Democratic Hispanic who was very active in the Central Valley political scene.  Valdez said he knew if he could garner the man’s endorsement, it would go a long way in convincing other area Latino Democrats to support him.

Framing immigration rules as reflecting fairness

As a professional salesperson, Valdez called many times asking to meet, undaunted by rejection. But when they met, the Democratic activist told Valdez there was no way he could endorse a Republican. Valdez said he ignored the comment and continued his pitch about his run for City Council.

The fellow listened, but then he asked Valdez how he could be Republican when the Republican Party doesn’t “want his kind.” He told Valdez that Republicans want to deport all Mexicans back to Mexico, whether they are here legally or not.

Valdez said he was taken aback by the comment. He said he asked the Democratic activist what he had done for a living prior to retiring.  The fellow told Valdez he had been a professor at a local community college.  Valdez said he asked him if he would have allowed a student to crash his class who hadn’t applied for school, paid the registration fees or registered for the class, knowing there were students waiting to be added to his class?

The Democratic activist and former professor replied that it wouldn’t be fair to those who had followed the process properly, paid the fees and registered his class.

It was a real “gotcha” moment for Valdez.

He said he told the activist that his fellow Republicans are only asking that everyone follow the legal process to enter America legally, just as students must follow the school’s registration process.

Valdez earned the endorsement.

Keep your eye on this guy.