Thursday, June 4, 1998
CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS, PROPOSITION 226
Defeat of Measure Energizes Labor
Union leaders vow to crush similar efforts elsewhere to
restrict use of dues. Initiative's backers say issue is far from
dead.
By ERIC BAILEY, ROBERT SHOGAN, LA Times Staff Writers
If politics is akin to nature, the Proposition 226
campaign was like trying to exterminate a
hornet's nest with a good, swift kick.
The ballot measure offered by conservatives to weaken
organized labor's campaign clout in California--by
requiring annual permission for unions to use
members' dues for political purposes--backfired on
election day. Despite better than 2-to-1 support early
in the campaign, the initiative experienced a
convincing defeat under a swarm of political money
and manpower from the unions it had sought to tame.
And the swarm may not be going away.
Leaders of organized labor said Wednesday that they
will seek to use momentum from the unprecedented
$23-million effort against the initiative--a proposition
that has helped spark a flurry of similar measures in
other states--to carry forth into California's
gubernatorial contest in November.
Democrats, meanwhile, were chortling that the
measure's loss was a blow to the presidential
aspirations of Gov. Pete Wilson, who made the fight for
Proposition 226 a personal crusade.
Defeat of the nationally publicized measure, which
voters rejected by a margin of 53.5% to 46.5%, also
could chill similar initiative efforts being waged in
other states.
"Republicans back in Washington figured this was their
wedge issue for 1998," said Gale Kaufman, the
Sacramento political consultant who led the fight
against Proposition 226. "Now they've got to be sitting
back scratching their heads and saying, 'Where do we
go now?' "
Boosters of the measure, who say they were outspent
at least 10 to 1 by the unions, remained outwardly
undeterred Wednesday, boldly predicting that the
issue will resurface.
"If I have anything to do with it, it's going to happen
again in June 2000," said Mark Bucher, who crafted
the measure, which backers described as seeking
"paycheck protection." Wilson also said the movement
would not wither, declaring to a Republican breakfast
gathering Wednesday, "I have bad news for the
unions--this is going to go on. This was Round 1."
'A Modern Political Miracle'
In Washington on Wednesday, AFL-CIO President John
Sweeney called the outcome "a modern political
miracle" that sent "a clear message about the
prospects" of similar efforts in other states. "This vote
shows that the nationally coordinated effort by Newt
Gingrich, [anti-union activist] Grover Norquist and
Pete Wilson to take working families out of the political
process is a clear loser."
Sweeney said labor unions have "gained new strength
and momentum for a pro-working family agenda
heading into the fall elections." He said thousands of
new union activists emerged during the campaign
against Proposition 226.
"These were people who had never been involved in a
political campaign," Sweeney said. "There is every
indication that they're going to be here for the longer
haul."
He also predicted that the vote on Proposition 226
could deter proponents from resurrecting the
initiative. "If they bring this again or in other states,
they're going to get the same response," Sweeney said.
"The education that we did on this one is going to be
helpful in future efforts. They should understand that
this was won by the workers in California."
Norquist, whose Washington-based Americans for Tax
Reform is spearheading the national drive to restrict
the political use of union dues, said efforts will be
redoubled in states with looming ballot measures,
such as Nevada, Oregon and Colorado.
"It won't discourage our team," he said. "We had a
conference call this morning with legislative leaders in
30 states, and everybody was gung-ho and ready to
go."
But others on his side of the fence thought that
Norquist himself was too big a target in the debate.
He and another backer of Proposition 226, Indiana
insurance executive J. Patrick Rooney, were attacked
by the measure's foes in TV commercials for their
conservative political beliefs. Rooney, for example, is a
longtime champion of school vouchers.
"A lot of Republicans are scratching their heads and
trying to find people who ran that thing from a
50-point lead to defeat," said Mike Murphy, a veteran
Republican political consultant. "There is a lesson to
be learned from this--that we needed this to be a
referendum on union democracy, not on our
movement activists."
Susan Pinkus, director of the Times Poll, said there is
evidence that the initiative stirred union members to
vote. The Times exit poll found that 35% of all voters
in Tuesday's election said they came from a union
household, compared to 29% in the June 1994
election. And it was those additional union members
who provided the margin for the proposition's defeat.
"I think these union members were energized by their
leaders," Pinkus said. The leaders "spent millions and
millions of dollars to get out the vote and to get the
public to vote no. It worked."
Among voters who said they came from "union
households," 64% said they voted no on the
proposition.
Democrats, women and minorities were more likely to
vote against Proposition 226, according to results
from the Times exit poll. According to the poll, 72% of
Democrats said they voted no on the measure. Among
Republicans, the numbers were reversed: 72%
supported it.
Whites were the only ethnic group likely to support the
initiative, with more than half of such voters casting
ballots for it. The proposition was especially unpopular
among Latinos at the polls, a full 75% of whom voted
against it.
Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster who did opinion
surveys for the forces opposing the initiative, said the
defeat would kill the national movement backing the
issue.
"I think this idea is dead; this vote drove a stake
through its heart," he said. "After Pete Wilson's
experience here, I can't imagine there is another
politician in the country who would want to step out in
front on this issue. And I don't think there are going to
be many more fund-raisers who are going to be willing
to throw money down this rat hole."
Union participation in politics has been on the upswing
in recent years. In 1996, a huge push by organized
labor helped Democrats nearly recapture the House
of Representatives.
"I think this really shows a continued resurgence of the
labor community," said John Perez, executive director
of the United Food and Commercial Workers' Western
branch. "It absolutely emboldened us, and it absolutely
backfired on the Republicans."
Art Pulaski, California Labor Federation executive
secretary, said the labor movement "emerged from
this campaign much stronger than we began. From
this, we will continue to build the momentum of all of
these workers in fighting for decent wages, winning
back daily overtime, and working for better health
care."
"With this new army we're going to move to November
and beyond. We'll support candidates who support
working family issues."
But several political consultants said they doubted
that enthusiasm would last, predicting that unions
would play the same role in November as they
traditionally do.
"226 will be a long-forgotten memory by the end of
this month," said Ken Khachigian, a GOP consultant.
"The teachers and other unions will be involved in
November, but it will be the usual suspects. I don't see
that this has really motivated anything different."
Wilson Called Hero of 'This Dunkirk'
Rob Stutzman, a spokesman for Republican
gubernatorial nominee Dan Lungren, played down the
possibility that unions will enjoy any more of a role in
November than they normally do. Proposition 226
drew a historic response, he said, because unions were
faced with a do-or-die situation.
"It was self-preservation," Stutzman said. "You put the
gun to someone's head, they'll turn out. November will
be a completely different dynamic."
As for Wilson, Democratic predictions of his
presidential prospects' demise because of the
measure's defeat may be unfounded.
Republicans say that all the Proposition 226 debacle
may do is strengthen Wilson's ratings with
conservatives, who can appreciate his efforts to fight
for the cause. "If anybody is a hero of this Dunkirk, it's
Wilson," said GOP consultant Murphy.
Yet if Wilson's presidential ambitions were not
damaged by Proposition 226's defeat, part of the
reason is that they were not too great to begin with,
he added. "I think his chances make such a small
target that they are hard to hit in an hurry," Murphy
said.
Times staff writer Davan Maharaj contributed to this
story.
Copyright Los Angeles Times
==================================
Thursday, June 4, 1998
Profile of the Electorate
The electorate that produced Tuesday's results was more Democratic than
usual and reflected a somewhat higher turnout of union members and
supporters than four years ago. Otherwise, the turnout fit California's
classic profile, with voters tending to be older, wealthier and better
educated.
Governor
% of all voters
SEX Checchi Davis Harman Lungren
52% Male 12% 34% 10% 37%
48% Female 14% 33% 15% 33%
AGE
8% 18 to 29 19% 28% 14% 27%
38% 30 to 49 13% 33% 14% 33%
30% 50 to 64 11% 34% 13% 36%
24% 65 or older 11% 39% 7% 40%
RACE/ETHNICITY
69% White 9% 30% 11% 43%
14% Black 17% 53% 17% 9%
12% Latino 30% 36% 11% 17%
3% Asian 14% 36% 10% 39%
EDUCATION
20% High school
graduate or less 20% 35% 9% 31%
27% Some college 11% 32% 11% 39%
28% College graduate 10% 33% 12% 38%
25% Postgraduate study 9% 38% 17% 30%
PARTY REGISTRATION
48% Democrats 16% 52% 18% 9%
6% Independents 13% 42% 15% 21%
40% Republicans 7% 13% 5% 70%
SEX AND PARTY
25% Democratic men 14% 56% 15% 11%
26% Democratic women 18% 49% 20% 9%
25% Republican men 9% 12% 3% 70%
19% Republican women 6% 10% 6% 74%
POLITICAL IDEOLOGY
20% Liberal 14% 49% 21% 7%
43% Moderate 13% 44% 15% 23%
37% Conservative 10% 15% 5% 65%
PARTY AND IDEOLOGY
13% Liberal Democrat 14% 53% 23% 4%
29% Other Democrat 17% 52% 15% 12%
12% Other Republican 11% 21% 10% 53%
24% Conservative
Republican 6% 6% 2% 81%
ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME
10% Less than $20,000 23% 36% 9% 24%
20% $20,000 to $39,999 15% 37% 12% 32%
22% $40,000 to $59,999 12% 34% 12% 35%
16% $60,000 to $74,999 11% 33% 11% 38%
32% $75,000 or more 9% 33% 15% 37%
RELIGION
50% Non-Catholic Christian 11% 29% 11% 44%
24% Roman Catholic 18% 38% 10% 30%
5% Jewish 11% 46% 19% 19%
UNION MEMBERSHIP
23% Union member 13% 48% 11% 23%
12% Union member
in household 10% 36% 13% 35%
65% Non-union household 13% 29% 13% 39%
REGION
25% Los Angeles County 18% 36% 11% 30%
32% Rest of Southern California 13% 29% 11% 43%
14% Bay Area 12% 44% 17% 17%
29% Rest of Northern California 10% 37% 12% 35%
U.S. Senator
% of all voters
SEX Boxer Fong Issa
52% Male 39% 26% 20%
48% Female 48% 19% 18%
AGE
8% 18 to 29 48% 17% 15%
38% 30 to 49 44% 21% 19%
30% 50 to 64 44% 21% 20%
24% 65 or older 41% 27% 19%
RACE/ETHNICITY
69% White 35% 26% 24%
14% Black 78% 8% 3%
12% Latino 57% 11% 11%
3% Asian 34% 50% 9%
EDUCATION
20% High school
graduate or less 47% 19% 15%
27% Some college 40% 21% 21%
28% College graduate 41% 24% 19%
25% Postgraduate study 48% 25% 18%
PARTY REGISTRATION
48% Democrats 73% 10% 5%
6% Independents 51% 22% 13%
40% Republicans 10% 39% 36%
SEX AND PARTY
25% Democratic men 71% 12% 5%
26% Democratic women 71% 9% 6%
25% Republican men 7% 43% 37%
19% Republican women 11% 36% 37%
POLITICAL IDEOLOGY
20% Liberal 78% 8% 3%
43% Moderate 52% 20% 12%
37% Conservative 15% 32% 36%
PARTY AND IDEOLOGY
13% Liberal Democrat 83% 5% 2%
29% Other Democrat 66% 13% 7%
12% Other Republican 19% 40% 23%
24% Conservative Republican 3% 39% 45%
ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME
10% Less than $20,000 50% 16% 14%
20% $20,000 to $39,999 47% 21% 16%
22% $40,000 to $59,999 45% 18% 20%
16% $60,000 to $74,999 40% 23% 21%
32% $75,000 or more 42% 27% 19%
RELIGION
50% Non-Catholic Christian 35% 26% 24%
24% Roman Catholic 47% 21% 16%
5% Jewish 69% 12% 9%
UNION MEMBERSHIP
23% Union member 56% 16% 12%
12% Union member in household 43% 24% 17%
65% Non-union household 39% 24% 22%
REGION
25% Los Angeles County 51% 18% 16%
32% Rest of Southern California 37% 22% 26%
14% Bay Area 59% 20% 7%
29% Rest of Northern California 39% 26% 18%
Ballot Propositions
% of all voters
226 227
voters SEX Yes No Yes No
52% Male 50% 50% 64% 36%
48% Female 45% 55% 57% 43%
AGE
8% 18 to 29 40% 60% 50% 50%
38% 30 to 49 45% 55% 59% 41%
30% 50 to 64 49% 51% 61% 39%
24% 65 or older 55% 45% 66% 34%
RACE/ETHNICITY
69% White 55% 45% 67% 33%
14% Black 31% 69% 48% 52%
12% Latino 25% 75% 37% 63%
3% Asian 48% 52% 57% 43%
EDUCATION
20% High school
graduate or less 39% 61% 56% 44%
27% Some college 47% 53% 65% 35%
28% College
graduate 53% 47% 63% 37%
25% Postgraduate
study 50% 50% 57% 43%
PARTY REGISTRATION
48% Democrats 28% 72% 47% 53%
6% Independents 45% 55% 59% 41%
40% Republicans 72% 28% 77% 23%
SEX AND PARTY
25% Democratic men 28% 72% 48% 52%
26% Democratic
women 27% 73% 48% 52%
25% Republican men 74% 26% 81% 19%
19% Republican
women 71% 29% 72% 28%
POLITICAL IDEOLOGY
20% Liberal 23% 77% 36% 64%
43% Moderate 40% 60% 59% 41%
37% Conservative 71% 29% 77% 28%
PARTY AND IDEOLOGY
13% Liberal Democrat 19% 81% 35% 65%
29% Other Democrat 32% 68% 55% 45%
12% Other Republican 59% 41% 68% 32%
24% Conservative
Republican 80% 20% 82% 18%
ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME
10% Less than $20,000 41% 59% 49% 51%
20% $20,000 to $39,999 42% 58% 56% 44%
22% $40,000 to $59,999 48% 52% 61% 39%
16% $60,000 to $74,999 50% 50% 65% 35%
32% $75,000 or more 51% 49% 64% 36%
RELIGION
50% Non-Catholic Christian 56% 44% 66% 34%
24% Roman Catholic 41% 59% 54% 46%
5% Jewish 37% 63% 55% 45%
UNION MEMBERSHIP
23% Union member 33% 67% 51% 49%
12% Union member
in household 41% 59% 57% 43%
65% Non-union household 55% 45% 65% 35%
REGION
25% Los Angeles County 47% 53% 57% 43%
32% Rest of Southern
California 53% 47% 68% 32%
14% Bay Area 37% 63% 49% 51%
29% Rest of Northern
California 48% 52% 59% 41%
Note: Numbers may not add up to 100% where some voter groups or candidates
are not shown.
Source: Los Angeles Times / CNN exit poll conducted Tuesday
How the Poll Was Conducted
The Times Poll/CNN interviewed 5,143 voters as they left 100 polling places
across California during
voting hours. Precincts were chosen based on the pattern of turnout in past
statewide elections.
The survey was by confidential questionnaire. The margin of sampling error
for percentages based
on the entire sample is plus or minus 2 percentage points; for some
subgroups the error margin
may be somewhat higher. Because the survey does not include absentee voters
or those who
declined to participate when approached, actual returns and demographic
estimates by the
interviewers were used to adjust the sample slightly. Interviews at the
precinct level were conducted
by Davis Research of Calabasas. Times Poll results are also available at
http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/POLLS or http://www.allpolitics.com.
Copyright Los Angeles Times
