Note by Brian: In the wake of the "execution" of Troy Davis, it is more important than ever to end the death penalty in California and across the nation. Murder is still murder, even when it has the patina of a cover in the form of a dysfunctional justice system. Taxpayers for Justice and their SAFE California campaign have committed to ending the death penalty in California via the ballot box. There are many reasons to do so, but the time for this is now.
SAFE California Campaign
A new poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) showed 54% of Californians prefer life imprisonment with no possibility of parole, with only 39% preferring the death penalty.
The PPIC report shows a clear preference for life in prison with no chance of parole for all adults across the state. Support was strongest among residents of Los Angeles (62%) and Latinos (67%), California residents under 35 and those earning less than $40,000.
"These new numbers confirm what we already know to be true: across the state and across party lines, California voters are ready to replace our dysfunctional death penalty with life in prison without parole," said Jeanne Woodford, former warden of San Quentin and spokesperson for the SAFE California campaign. "Voters express even greater support for striking the death penalty when they have the option to choose life without parole with work and restitution to families through our victim compensation fund."
PPIC's most recent findings are in line with other polling data on the death penalty in California and nationwide:
• A 2011 statewide survey of likely voters conducted by David Binder Research showed 63% of likely voters support converting all current death row sentences to life imprisonment without any possibility of parole in order to save the state $1 billion dollars in five years, where the money saved would be used for public education and law enforcement. The idea was supported by voters from all political parties and from across all regions of the state.
• A 2010 national survey of registered voters conducted by Lake Research Partners revealed that a clear majority of voters nationwide (61%) would choose a punishment other than the death penalty if it were available.
• A 2009 poll of eligible California voters conducted by Professor Craig Haney from the University of California Santa Cruz found that 66% prefer life without parole with work and restitution, over the death penalty.
"Yesterday's protests and vigils against the execution of Troy Davis in Georgia are a vivid reminder that the death penalty will always risk the execution of innocent people," added Woodford. "More and more the public is realizing that the only way to protect the innocent is to replace the death penalty with life in prison without parole."
"California is no different. California's death penalty brings with it enormous costs, it saps money from the investigation of open rape and murder cases, and here too it brings the risk of executing an innocent person. That's why we are confident that voters will replace it with life imprisonment, if given the chance to vote on the issue - 33 years and $4 Billion dollars later."
The SAFE California campaign will start gathering signatures in October to put before the voters at the November 2012 election an initiative to replace the death penalty with life in prison without parole with work and restitution. The campaign is supported by a coalition of law enforcement leaders, murder victim family members, exonerees and advocates.
One of the most deceptive arguments used by agribusiness, southern California water agencies and the state and federal governments in their campaign to build the peripheral canal/tunnel on the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is the myth of the Delta's "fragile, earthquake-prone" levees.
This narrative has been pushed forward by the water "experts" of the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) in their reports, funded by Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, to scare California residents into building the peripheral canal/tunnel.
in the July 2008, the PPIC released a report stating that, "A major earthquake would cause a catastrophic
failure of the levee system, jeopardizing water supplies from the Bay Area to San Diego."
The report (www.ppic.org/main/pressrelease.asp?p=859) concluded, "Building a peripheral canal to carry water around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the most promising strategy to balance two critical policy goals: reviving a threatened ecosystem and ensuring a high-quality water supply for California's residents."
In an otherwise good San Jose Mercury News editorial: "Brown needs to find a way to fix the Delta," this myth is perpetuated (http://www.mercurynews.com/editorials/ci_17230039?source=rss&nclick_check=1).
"The Calaveras and Hayward faults are less than 50 miles west of the Delta's 1,300-mile levee system, parts of which are more than 50 years old and fragile at best. A major earthquake could mean catastrophic failure of the levees, which are the only thing keeping San Francisco Bay's saltwater from intruding into the freshwater estuary, which is below sea level," the editors wrote.
However, Delta advocates take issue with the argument that imminent disaster awaits the Delta and California water supplies from an earthquake if a peripheral canal isn't built.
"Do Delta levees need repairs and upgrades?" asked Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta. "Of course they do, as do all levee systems. Levees need constant maintenance."
However, Barrigan-Parrilla emphasized, "We have never lost one levee in the Delta to an earthquake. Not in 1989, and not before that."
The greatest threat to the Delta is a catastrophic flood, not an earthquake. Ironically, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) will not release the bond money marked for such levee improvements as voted on by Californians, according to Barrigan-Parrilla.
Why is that? "So that the failing Delta becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and DWR protects its relevance by building a new state water project," she suggests.
I agree with Barrigan-Parrilla and other Delta advocates that to prevent Delta levees from collapsing, DWR needs to release the bond money marked for levee improvements, not build a new canal.
While the "canal huggers" in the state and federal governments claim that they want to build the peripheral canal/tunnel to increase "water supply reliability" and "restore the ecosystem," the real reason behind building such a big government project is to increase water exports to corporate agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, Southern California water agencies, and corporate water privateers.
There is no example in U.S. or world history where a canal system has ended up diverting less water from a watershed and restoring an ecosystem, as the "canal huggers" claim the canal/tunnel will do. California water is already overallocated many times - and the canal will only serve to divert more water needed for imperiled Central Valley and Delta fish populations to recover to agribusiness and southern California.
Bill Jennings, executive director/chairman of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance pointed out in a recent Delta Stewardship Council meeting in Stockton that the unimpaired flows down the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers amount to 29,000,000 acre feet of water per year, while the state has identified 345 million acre feet of water rights, including water for hydropower.
Construction of the canal may mean big profits for engineering firms, real estate companies and construction corporations that raid the public trough to build the canal, but the export of more water from the Delta is likely to lead to the extinction of Sacramento River chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, green sturgeon and other imperiled fish populations.
For more information, go to www.restorethedelta.org.
We've seen that the Republicans are scared of letting the voters vote on taxes. The Norquistians are saying that even putting taxes on the ballot is a violation of the no-tax pledge. Something has got them nervous, perhaps that's because of numbers like these:
The poll, just released, shows strong support for Brown's special statewide election on budget fixes, as well as reasonably strong support for his suggestion to erase California's deficit with a mix of cuts and taxes.
The Public Policy Institute of California finds 66% of voters surveyed like the idea of a special election to consider budget issues. That includes not just an overwhelming majority of Democrats (74%) but a majority (55%) of Republicans, too.
*** **** ***
While the poll offers several more interesting nuggets (like an affirmation of the fiscal disconnect affecting the state's voters which we've discussed before), here's one more that helps explain why Governor Brown's budget not only protects K-12 schools (for the most part), but puts them front and center should the voters reject the $11 billion in tax extensions he wants on a June statewide ballot: 75% say they oppose any more K-12 cuts, and 71% say they'd pay higher taxes to spare those schools.(Capital Notes)
In fact, a strong plurality rejects a cuts only budget. Only 36% favor cuts alone, while 49% prefer at least some taxes, and another 7% favors additional debt. As to which taxes, well, the corporate tax is still tax number one. Too bad the voters just chose to preserve a $1.5 billion corporate tax cut. I guess it goes to show you what a bit of campaign propaganda can do. You can grab all of the numbers at the PPIC survey here.
The voters clearly still need additional information on how our system works. They don't quite understand how we fund our budget, and where it all goes. But, at the same time, I think voters understand more than they are given credit for in the media and amongst some political circles.
Governor Brown's budget is far from perfect, but it's enough that it is scaring the Right. And that's a start.
Meg Whitman keeps reciting the same misinformation about job loss resulting from California's bad business climate, claiming that businesses are leaving California because of "over-regulation". But the truth is, we have lost fewer jobs than neighboring states that have fewer worker protections and lower taxes on corporations and the wealthy. Arizona, Nevada and Oregon had over 6.5% job loss, while California had 4%.
The "bleeding of jobs" -- the notion that a large number of jobs are businesses are fleeing California -- is a familiar talking point in state politics these days, especially among Republicans. But in the only broad, longitudinal nonpartisan study out there, the numbers don't match the rhetoric.
The annual net employment change in California due to relocation -- a loss of about 9,000 jobs -- represents only 0.05% of California's 18 million jobs.
Not only is Whitman wrong on the big picture, the specifics she cites aren't credible either. She continually points to aerospace giant Northrop Grumman's relocation from Long Beach to Virginia as evidence of businesses fleeing the state. Which would make sense... except that Northrop Grumman didn't actually leave California. They moved their corporate headquarters, which amounts to just 1 percent of their workforce, while over 30,000 employees remain here in California.
Remember back to early June when Carly Fiorina called climate change "the weather"? Well, it seems that while Carly might have impressed the GOP base with that message, it's not really a winning message for the general electorate.
PPIC just released its "Californians and the environment" poll, and while the numbers could be better for Boxer, who is leading Fiorina by a 39-34 tally, there is still a lot to like here. A few tidbits:
The Weather: Two-thirds (67%) favor AB 32. However, 42% would favor Prop 23's goal of holding off until we hit better job figures(53% oppose). Of course, this is why Dan Logue's measure plugs in this ridiculous 5.5% unemployment number for several quarters. He wants to kill AB 32, but doesn't want to say that flat out. So, he'll use some artificial threshold (actually below what most economists consider to be equilibrium for unemployment) and put lipstick on that pig.
In the end, even the lipstick is only producing a modest uptick.
More Climate Change: Also of concern to Logue must be the numbers of Californians that think AB 32 will not hurt our jobs numbers. 45% think it will result in more jobs, with only 23% saying fewer jobs. Further, 48% of Californians say the state isn't doing enough to combat climate change (52% for the feds). This electorate flat out does not look prepared to overturn AB 32.
Carbon Tax: It turns out that most people haven't heard the details of the proposals. But when they do, they know how the world really works. After hearing brief descriptions of cap and trade and a carbon tax, 60% said they would support the carbon tax, with only 50% supporting the cap and trade.
Off-shore Drilling: Rather unsurprisingly, this is where Mother Nature made her biggest public opinion gains. Most Californians now oppose more offshore drilling (59% oppose, 36% favor)-a 16-point increase in opposition from last year (43% oppose, 51% favor). Also coming from the land of Obvious, very few people trust the government's response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Of course, PPIC also did some political numbers. I mentioned Boxer's 39-34 lead, but Brown also holds a small lead at 37-34. I'll have to say that these numbers should start concerning Whitman soon. Brown hasn't really done much to combat all of her TV spending, and he's still got himself in a decent position. When Brown goes up, you have to figure these numbers only move in his direction. Oh, and the state still really dislikes Arnold (25% approval) and the Legislature (15%).
There is a lot of work to do not only for November, but also for the greater theme of protecting the environment. But, all in all, I am rather encouraged by these numbers. If we are able to muster some sort of a field campaign, California might just end up as a bright spot for Democrats in the 2010 elections.
I won't go through the full litany of approval scores, but it is worth mentioning that the approval ratings for both the President and Congress are down since the May Statewide survey. A very large chunk of that is coming from Democrats. In other words, the President, with his failure to clearly state his position is losing his base. Now, this data is obviously from before the speech on Wednesday, but I doubt the numbers would move all the way back to May numbers. What President Obama needs to do is to actually get real health care reform. Anything less and we could be in for an ugly midterm election. And for electoral purposes, it's good to see Sen. Boxer over 50%.
On the state side, yeah, pretty much everybody hates both the Legislature and the Governor. The ratings are relatively flat, with Arnold at just over thirty percent, and the Leg just over 20. The more interesting data came from the structural side, with a bit of contradictory data thrown in for some added spice. Voters want to change the 2/3 budget rule by a count of 54-40. Now, PPIC asked about 55 percent, but I wouldn't really expect majority to be all that different given other polling I've seen. For some reason, it appears the revenue question was skipped for the Prop 218 question. That is whether local taxes should only require a reduced super majority, which was favored by 50% in the poll.
Given the lack of trust in the legislature, it wasn't surprising to see the support for term limits over 60% and the support for initiatives as better policy making venues than the legislature. Apparently a few Californians think we live in Athens circa 400 BCE.
Anyway, check the full poll out, and point out your favorite fun fact in the comments.
It's about time that progressives start fighting back against the demonization of immigration that will be laced into every policy critique that Republicans make between now and November. The Public Policy Institute of California has helpfully provided the facts on just one of the many falsehoods peddled about immigration.
Fears that immigration leads to rising crime rates are unjustified, says a California study released Monday.
The report by the Public Policy Institute of California, a nonpartisan research group, asked the question: Are the foreign-born more likely than the U.S.-born to commit crimes?
"In California, as in the rest of the nation, immigrants ... have extremely low rates of criminal activity," said Kristin Butcher, a co-author of the report, "Crime, Corrections and California: What Does Immigration Have to Do With It?"
Available data, the report's authors said, "suggest that long-standing fears of immigration as a threat to public safety are unjustified."
Just as fears about immigrants stealing government services and free health care are unjustified. Just as fears about immigrants sinking the economy are unjustified. In fact, all that Republicans base this debate on is fear, which for them is of course redundant.
I'll refer to something I wrote many months ago about the preferred progressive approach to the immigration debate:
There a bunch of polling firms in the state, but two are most recognizable, Field and PPIC . Both release their data to the public. Well, most of it anyway. You can actually get Field's cross-tabulations on SacBee Capitol Alert site.Pretty cool if you're as big of a dork as me. But the two groups have very different takes on how best to time the release of their data. Field slowly trickles out each question of a poll. So you get these "Field Seasons" that last for two weeks every few months. First you get Bush's job approval, then you get some environmental question, then you get some initiave. So, they get a fair bit of press coverage from that. Not a bad route, PR speaking.
On the other hand, PPIC allows you to just gorge yourself on data. And this PPIC statewide survey is no different, we've received a tidal wave of data. I'll just take these in the order that they chose. They headline with economic data. It's not pretty:
Most Californians have a negative outlook on the direction of the state (52%) and the economy (65%) for the next year, and on the impact of the current housing situation on their own finances (52%).
Call it a Big Shitpile, call it whatever you want, but people are scared where the state, and the nation, are headed. They are worried about their jobs, their children's future, oh and yeah keeping their houses. But, of course, they have something else to be worried about: health care. And yup we Californians are worried about that, for ourselves and for our fellow Californians too:
Most California residents continue to believe that the number of people without health insurance is a big problem (76%).
The newest PPIC poll is out, and it contains data on a wide range of national and state subjects, including showing that 55% of likely voters support the term limits extension proposal, whereas only 39% currently support getting rid of the 2/3 rule (with small majorities in favor among Democrats, this suggests a lot of voters aren't informed about the matter).
But some of the most important data is on health care, especially as the Legislature enters into its special session. The poll shows 69% of Californians want "major change" in health care, and is now the second most important issue they feel faces the state, behind the overblown immigration issue.
Specifically, the poll claims 72% of Californians and 61% of likely voters support Arnold's reform plan. 61% of Californians support AB 8, but only 47% of likely voters back it, with 49% opposed.
However, we should be cautious before reading too much into those results. As it turns out, the way the PPIC asked questions on each proposal was...well...interesting.
Hey, those of us who follow state government closely are really, really big dorks. It seems we are in a really small minority in terms of knowing what the state government is up to. Um, I think many of us knew that (and that at least I am a dork), but I guess it's good to have some numbers behind that. The numbers behind my dorkiness have always been there for the world to see. From the Public Policy Institute of California:
Some findings of the current survey:
Sixty-four percent of likely voters support Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal to issue $43.3 billion in bonds to increase funding for education facilities, prisons, water storage, and other infrastructure projects.
Fifty-two percent of voters admit that they know very little (43%) or nothing (9%) about how bonds are paid for in California. Six percent say they know a lot.
The share of residents who describe the state budget as a big problem has fallen 29 points, from 73 percent to 44 percent, since May 2004.
There are some serious ramificiations of this information. Flippy-dippy, ramalama, ding-dong, changity change, oooh- oooh oooh FLIP...
(Nice to have the Senator here. Now go do as he says! - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Recently the Los Angeles Times ran an editorial, “For Citizens Only,” on the California Dream Act (SB 160) which misrepresented facts and promoted a policy position out of step with reality and mainstream opinion in California.
Just one week after the LA Times declared their objection to increasing access to higher education for all Californians, the California Public Policy Institute (PPIC) issued a definitive analysis citing a critical gap in the number of college grads the state will produce. PPIC warned that California will not meet the economic demand for highly skilled workers with current immigration and graduation rates; they recommended swift action on the state’s behalf to intervene. Additionally, a Field Poll in April 2007 noted that 83% of Californians support creating programs to legalize the status of undocumented immigrants indicating a far more open attitude toward immigrants than the LA Times expressed in their editorial.
The California Dream Act is an appropriate step to address our state’s workforce needs and is in alignment with voter sentiments toward immigrants. As the paper of note in California’s largest immigrant city, we expect more from the Los Angeles Times.
Please help us express our dissatisfaction with the paper’s position and presentation of facts. It is critical that we set the record straight on SB 160 and make the paperaware of our concerns.
Why is there a big gap in 2008 California Presidential Democratic Primary in the two most recent poll results?
Hillary Rodham Clinton leads the Democratic presidential candidates in California, with four in 10 likely primary voters saying they will support her, according to a Field Poll released Tuesday.
That is a higher level of support than she has registered in national polling or in a recent statewide poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, which found her leading with 35 percent.
- The People Like Arnold a Little Less And Dislike the Leg a Little Less
56% of likely voters approve of Arnold's performance as Governator. That's down five points from January, but still OK for him. However, the Legislature is still becoming... Well, less unpopular. While only 39% of likely voters approve of the Legislature's performance, that's a big jump from only 23% approval (AND 65% DISAPPROVAL!!) a year ago.
- Sorry, Don Perata... Voters Like Term Limits As They Are...
68% of likely voters think terms limits have been good for California, and 64% "oppose a term limits reform initiative that proponents hope to put on the February 2008 primary ballot."
The opposition is also widespread: 70% of Republicans, 61% of Democrats and 68% of independents say they oppose the initiative.
- ... But They Do Want to Redo Redistricting
Now, we all know that the real strategy to get term limits changed is to tie it to redistricting reform. Well, I guess they're kinda "halfway there". Voters want to change the way that districts are drawn...:
- 66% of likely voters think the current redistricting system needs at least minor changes.
- 39% of likely voters think it needs major changes
- 66% of likely voters favor putting an independent citizen commission in change of drawing districts.
The Public Policy Institute of California released its post-election poll of California general election voters this week and the results seem to point to yet another reason Schwarzenegger didn't get swept away in the Democratic wave this year: voters really like the way the governor and the Democrats in the legislature played nice this year.
The poll showed that 53% of voters — including majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents — approve of the way the Legislature and governor "are working together in making public policy." Only 36% disapprove.
For more on this and some promising signs that voters will support some common sense ballot initiative reforms, join me over the flip.
PPIC has Arnold's lead swelling to 17 (48-31) from 13 (45-32). Only word I've seen on this is from Dan Weintraub:
Among likely voters, Schwarzenegger is up by 48-31.
Angelides is leading among Democrats by 57-21.
Schwarzenegger is up among Republicans, 82-4.
Among independents, it's Schwarzenegger by 42-27.
Among men: 54-27.
Among women: 41-24.
I'm still a little uncomfortable with PPIC's likely voter model, but if the lead grows much larger it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. People won't vote if they don't think it's a close race. However, we need to make sure we bring a huge GOTV effort. Down-ticket races will be depending on the fact that we get decent Dem participation. And who knows, with a big turnout, perhaps all those "likely voter" models will be proven wrong. More information on this when I get it...
The July PPIC Statewide survey was released late last night. It's focused on environmental issues, but the gubenatorial election data that was also obtained in the survey was not great news. According to PPIC, Schwarzenegger is leading Angelides 43-30. Part of the difference between this and other polls is due to the way the question was asked. Rather than just saying Angelides, Schwarzenegger or other, the question mentioned specific candidates like Green Party candidate Peter Camejo. Camejo gets 4 percent in this poll and likely takes most of that from Angelides.
PPIC is generally a very good survey organization. It doesn't have quite the accuracy of Field, but it's certainly not something out of left field. That being said, Schwarzenegger is still polling well below 50%, the traditional indicator of a safe incumbent. Interestingly, it appears Democrats have yet to be convinced by Angelides. Currently only 54% of Democrats say they support Angelides. This is a real growth opportunity for Phil; he needs to get his message out to the Democrats around the state. Arnold pulls down 79% of the GOP vote, and Angelides will need to get a similar percentage of the Dem vote.
A sizable ad campaign will help reverse some of the poor numbers. If you think about it, this poll is really taken in the valley of Phil's popularity. He's coming out of a bruising primary and is being massively outspent. Future spending and additional appearances around the state will improve his standing not just among Dems, but also among independents, a category that Arnold is leading 43-25.
So, what can we do to help get Phil's message out. One interesting opportunity is Phil's "volunteer center", a virtual phone bank. It is imperative that the voters of this state are aware the stakes of this election. Let's not let Arnold coast. As always, the Poll HQ has been updated.
