FIELD RESEARCH CORPORATION

Transcription

1 FIELD RESEARCH CORPORATION FOUNDED IN 1945 BY MERVIN FIELD 601 California Street San Francisco, California Tabulations From a Survey of California Likely Voters Measuring Voter Preferences on Prop. 64 (Marijuana Legalization) and Prop. 63 (Firearms, Ammunition Sales) - prepared for the - Capitol Alert and the Sacramento Bee September 23,

2 Introduction This volume presents the statistical data developed from a September 2016 Field-IGS Poll, conducted jointly by The Field Poll and UC Berkeley s Institute of Governmental Studies using YouGov s online panel. The results in this volume are based on the responses of 942 likely voters in California, although some of the questions are based on a random subsample of voters statewide. Data collection was completed September 7-13, 2016 in English and Spanish by YouGov, which administered the survey among California registered voters included as part of its online panel of over 1.5 million U.S. residents. YouGov panel members were invited to participate in the poll through an invitation containing a link to the survey, and were selected using a proprietary sampling technology frame that establishes interlocking targets, so that the characteristics of the voters interviewed match the demographic, political and regional profile of the overall California registered voter population. To help ensure diversity among poll respondents, YouGov recruits its panelists using a variety of methods, including web-based advertising and campaigns, partner-sponsored solicitations, and telephone-to-web recruitment or mail-to-web recruitment. Difficult-to-reach populations are supplemented through more specialized recruitment efforts, including telephone and mail surveys. The Field Poll and the Institute of Governmental Studies were jointly responsible for developing all questions included in the survey and its translation into Spanish. After survey administration, the YouGov data file was forwarded to The Field Poll for processing. The Field Poll then took the lead in developing and applying post-stratification weights to more precisely align the sample to Field Poll estimates of the characteristics of the California registered voter population both overall and by region. The Field Poll was also responsible for determining which voters in the survey were most likely to vote in this year s election. 2

3 Guide to Reading the Tables The question or questions upon which the data are based is shown at the top of each table. Tables are percentaged vertically with the raw percentage base appearing at the top of each column. The data have been weighted to known parameters of the statewide registered voter population. All percentages and frequencies reported in each table are therefore weighted tabulations. In instances where percentages are calculated on small bases (e.g., when the base is fewer than 100 respondents) the reader is urged to interpret the data with caution, since results are subject to larger levels of sampling error. Throughout the tables an asterisk is used to denote a value of less than 1/2 of 1%. A hyphen indicates zero value. On some tables the percentages may add to more than 100% due to multiple mentions. s of subgroups used in the tabulations may add to less than the total number of respondents due to some respondents not reporting that characteristic. 3

4 Regional Subgroup Definitions Section Southern CA : rthern CA: San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial and Kern counties all other 48 California counties Area Coastal Counties: San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, San Francisco, Contra Costa, Alameda, Marin, Napa, Solano, Sonoma, Santa Clara, Mendocino, Humboldt, Del rte Inland counties: all other 38 California counties Region Los Angeles: Los Angeles county Other South South Coast: Central Valley: SF Bay Area: Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Imperial and San Luis Obispo counties San Diego County and Orange counties Butte, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba San Francisco, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo Other rth: Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Del rte, El Dorado, Humboldt, Inyo, Lake, Lassen, Mariposa, Mendocino, Monterey, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, San Benito, Santa Cruz, Sierra, Siskiyou, Trinity, Tuolumne 4

5 Questions Asked Proposition 63: FIREARMS. AMMUNITION SALES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Requires background check and Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition. Prohibits possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines. Establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons. Requires Department of Justice s participation in federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local court and law enforcement costs, potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually, related to a new court process for removing firearms from prohibited persons after they are convicted. If the election were being held today, how would you vote on Proposition 63? YES; NO; UNDECIDED Proposition 64: MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Legalizes marijuana under state law, for use by adults 21 or older. Imposes state taxes on sales and cultivation. Provides for industry licensing and establishes standards for marijuana products. Allows local regulation and taxation. Fiscal Impact: Additional tax revenues from high hundreds of millions of dollars to over $1 billion annually, mostly dedicated to specific purposes. Reduced criminal justice costs of tens of millions of dollars annually. If the election were being held today, how would you vote on Proposition 64? YES; NO; UNDECIDED 5

6 Prop 63 (Banner 1) Likely voters (Form C) Answer Total Southern CA Section Area Region Party Registration Likely voters Other rthern Coastal Inland L.A. South Other Central SF Bay NPP/ Likely rther Democrat Republican CA counties counties County Coast South Valley Area Other voter CA Version C vote choice Proposition % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % 57.9% 63.0% 64.4% 51.2% 64.7% 57.3% 45.6% 53.2% 70.4% 64.4% 82.7% 27.7% 57.0% 60.1% % 31.1% 29.3% 26.1% 39.1% 26.0% 30.8% 41.2% 37.0% 21.7% 35.6% 6.6% 63.1% 34.8% 30.3% % 10.8% 7.7% 9.4% 9.7% 8.9% 11.9% 13.2% 9.8% 7.9% % 8.8% 8.2% 9.5% % 0.2% - 0.2% - 0.5% % - 0.1% - t likely voter Field Research Corporation Table 91 6

7 Prop 63 (Banner 2) Likely voters (Form C) Answer Total Male Female Gender Race/Ethnicity Age Marital Status White non- Hispanic Latino African- American Asian/ Pac Isle Other Married/ domestic partner Single/ Never married Widow/ separated/ divorced Child under 18 in HH Version C vote choice Proposition % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % 50.1% 70.0% 58.4% 68.6% 59.4% 70.9% 27.5% 68.5% 62.9% 63.1% 56.5% 57.6% 58.1% 64.6% 58.5% 64.3% 58.9% % 40.5% 20.2% 33.6% 22.7% 16.0% 17.9% 58.0% 18.0% 21.2% 32.5% 38.6% 31.4% 33.9% 23.9% 30.9% 28.6% 30.9% % 9.1% 9.8% 7.9% 8.6% 24.6% 11.2% 14.5% 13.5% 15.3% 4.4% 5.0% 11.0% 7.8% 11.5% 10.7% 6.6% 10.2% % 0.2% - 0.2% % % % - Field Research Corporation Table 92 7

8 Prop 63 (Banner 3) Likely voters (Form C) Answer Total Very conservative Conservative Political ideology Follow gov/public affairs Household Income Education w and $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 H.S. Some Very Most of Some of then/ Under Moderate Liberal $100,000+ graduate college/ liberal the time the time hardly $20,000 $39,999 $59,999 $79,999 $99,999 or less 2-year at all College graduate Version C vote choice Proposition % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % 12.9% 26.5% 62.4% 74.5% 91.5% 56.4% 67.8% % 56.3% 63.0% 64.5% 56.5% 60.9% 50.9% 54.5% 61.7% 73.5% % 78.8% 66.8% 26.5% 12.8% 1.7% 34.0% 22.7% % 28.5% 31.9% 24.6% 40.4% 31.4% 35.8% 35.5% 28.6% 20.7% % 8.3% 6.8% 10.7% 12.7% 6.8% 9.4% 9.5% - 9.2% 15.2% 5.1% 10.9% 2.1% 7.7% 13.3% 10.0% 9.2% 5.8% % % % % % - Post graduate Field Research Corporation Table 93 8

9 Prop 63 (Banner 4) Likely voters (Form C) Answer Tenure Employment status Religion Born Again Form Total t Home- Roman Other Agnostic/ Renter Employed employed Protestant owner Catholic religion nothing (all other) A B C Version C vote choice Proposition % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % % 56.8% 67.6% 60.7% 59.5% 45.4% 65.0% 76.8% 62.7% 49.8% 62.8% % % 36.6% 18.5% 28.2% 32.4% 44.2% 29.1% 16.4% 25.7% 38.6% 28.2% % % 6.4% 13.9% 10.9% 8.1% 10.4% 5.2% 6.8% 11.6% 11.6% 8.9% % % 0.2% - 0.2% % % % Field Research Corporation Table 94 9

10 Prop 64 (Banner 1) Likely voters (Form A&C) Answer Total Southern CA Section Area Region Party Registration Likely voters Other rthern Coastal Inland L.A. South Other Central SF Bay NPP/ Likely rther Democrat Republican CA counties counties County Coast South Valley Area Other voter CA Version A vote choice Proposition % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % 62.2% 57.5% 64.5% 50.6% 70.8% 57.0% 52.0% 50.3% 61.2% 64.2% 70.4% 40.0% 65.1% 60.2% % 30.1% 33.3% 28.0% 39.0% 22.9% 35.8% 36.8% 42.5% 29.3% 21.9% 21.1% 53.2% 25.1% 31.4% % 7.1% 9.2% 7.0% 10.4% 6.0% 5.7% 11.2% 7.2% 9.5% 13.9% 8.3% 6.8% 8.9% 8.0% % 0.6% - 0.5% - 0.3% 1.4% % - 0.9% 0.3% - t likely voter Field Research Corporation Table 95 10

11 Prop 64 (Banner 2) Likely voters (Form A&C) Answer Total Male Female Gender Race/Ethnicity Age Marital Status White non- Hispanic Latino African- American Asian/ Pac Isle Other Married/ domestic partner Single/ Never married Widow/ separated/ divorced Child under 18 in HH Version A vote choice Proposition % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % 60.0% 60.4% 61.9% 56.6% 67.3% 47.7% 57.3% 60.2% 66.0% 68.6% 61.7% 51.5% 55.7% 71.2% 57.2% 57.9% 60.7% % 35.1% 27.7% 29.2% 36.6% 25.9% 39.0% 38.9% 32.6% 25.5% 23.6% 32.1% 37.0% 36.0% 19.1% 35.9% 34.9% 30.5% % 4.7% 11.4% 8.4% 6.8% 6.8% 13.2% 3.8% 7.3% 7.9% 7.8% 6.3% 10.6% 7.6% 9.7% 6.8% 6.9% 8.5% % 0.2% 0.5% 0.5% % % 0.6% % 0.3% Field Research Corporation Table 96 11

12 Prop 64 (Banner 3) Likely voters (Form A&C) Answer Total Very conservative Conservative Political ideology Follow gov/public affairs Household Income Education w and $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 H.S. Some Very Most of Some of then/ Under Moderate Liberal $100,000+ graduate college/ liberal the time the time hardly $20,000 $39,999 $59,999 $79,999 $99,999 or less 2-year at all College graduate Version A vote choice Proposition % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % 27.9% 41.9% 58.7% 73.9% 82.7% 60.0% 60.6% % 67.2% 54.3% 57.5% 58.1% 67.8% 48.1% 56.7% 65.7% 67.4% % 63.5% 54.0% 30.1% 18.7% 9.2% 31.5% 31.2% % 29.3% 35.7% 35.6% 38.1% 25.6% 44.2% 33.4% 28.8% 22.2% % 8.6% 4.1% 10.2% 7.4% 8.1% 8.1% 7.9% % 3.5% 10.0% 7.0% 3.8% 5.1% 7.7% 9.9% 5.1% 9.3% % % % 0.3% % % 1.1% Post graduate Field Research Corporation Table 97 12

13 Prop 64 (Banner 4) Likely voters (Form A&C) Answer Tenure Employment status Religion Born Again Form Total t Home- Roman Other Agnostic/ Renter Employed employed Protestant owner Catholic religion nothing (all other) A B C Version A vote choice Proposition % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % % 56.7% 66.4% 62.1% 58.3% 45.1% 47.2% 63.8% 76.6% 40.3% 66.2% 59.0% % % 35.9% 23.1% 30.0% 32.8% 46.8% 43.6% 21.0% 17.4% 54.2% 24.5% 32.8% % % 6.9% 10.4% 7.7% 8.4% 8.1% 8.8% 15.2% 5.3% 5.6% 8.8% 8.0% - 8.1% % 0.5% - 0.2% 0.5% - 0.5% - 0.6% - 0.4% 0.2% - 0.5% Field Research Corporation Table 98 13