New Report Examines Forces That Led to Defeat of Prop. 86 and Provides Analysis of Pre-election Field Polls on Tobacco Tax

[CAL/AAEM News Service]

New Report Examines Forces That Led to Defeat of Prop. 86 
Provides Analysis of Pre-election Field Polls on Tobacco Tax 

Source: California HealthCare Foundation (http://www.chcf.org)
Date: December 20, 2006


In November 2006, Californians voted on Proposition 86, an initiative to significantly
increase cigarette taxes in order to fund hospital emergency services, children's health
insurance and other state health programs. While early voter backing mirrored that of two
previous successful cigarette tax initiatives, support quickly eroded and the measure was
narrowly defeated. 

Why did California voters defeat Prop. 86 in November when they approved two previous
cigarette tax hikes? And how could the measure fail if a large majority of voters favors
increasing funding for health programs? 

A new CHCF-funded report, An Analysis of Pre-election Field Polls Regarding Proposition
86, the Tax on Cigarettes Initiative by Field Research Corporation, examines pre-election
surveys to better understand the voter attitudes and external forces that led to the
defeat of Prop. 86, an initiative to fund children's health insurance, improved emergency
care, tobacco prevention programs, and chronic disease research. 

It points to several factors, including low voter turnout and opposition among key
subgroups. It also confirms the notion that it's easier to defeat a ballot measure than
to get one approved-especially when opponents have deep pockets. 

To view the report, visit: http://www.healthvote.org/uploads/pdf/field_nov06.pdf 
 

For easy review this is the executive summary of the report


Executive Summary

While initial voter backing of Proposition 86 was about as strong as early support for
two
previous successful cigarette tax initiatives in California, Prop. 99 in 1988 and Prop.
10 in 1998, it eroded at a faster rate than past initiatives. Much of this can be tied to
an early and aggressive television advertising campaign against the initiative launched
by the tobacco industry. In The Field Poll’s first survey on Prop. 86 conducted in July
prior to the opposition advertising campaign, awareness of the initiative was low (26%)
and supporters outnumbered opponents nearly two to one (63% to 32%). Support dropped
precipitously to a 53% to 40% level in the poll’s late-September survey, which was taken
after the launching of the no side advertising campaign. Awareness of the initiative in
that poll increased more than two-fold to 60%. By the time of the final Field Poll
completed one week prior to the election, after intense advertising both for and against
the initiative, the proportion of voters opposed (45%) equaled the proportion of voters
in favor (45%). Unofficial election returns from the California Secretary of State show
voters narrowly defeated Prop. 86 in the November 2006 election 51.8% to 48.2%.

The voter subgroups most supportive of Prop. 86 were similar to the voting
constituencies that championed past cigarette tax initiatives. These included Democrats,
younger voters, Latinos, blacks and Asians, those who had never smoked, and voters living
in coastal counties. While the erosion in yes side backing of Prop. 86 was broad-based,
some of the steepest declines were registered among women and those who had never smoked,
two of the core supporters of previous cigarette initiatives. Each of these groups
registered 25-percentage point declines in yes side support between the poll’s July and
late-October surveys.

The fact that Prop. 86 was decided in a low turnout election also hurt its chances of
passage. According to unofficial estimates from the California Secretary of State, 54% of
registered voters voted in the November 2006 election, the second lowest general election
turnout in California history. Because younger voters and ethnic voters, such as Latinos,
blacks and Asians, are less likely to participate in low turnout elections, and because
these constituencies were among Prop. 86’s strongest supporters, the low turnout
characterizing the November 2006 election worked against passage of the initiative.

When voters intending to vote no were asked to state in their own words their reasons for
opposing the initiative one week before the election, two types of comments were played
back far more frequently than any others – “the tax is too high”/“it’s unfair to smokers
and low-income people” (32%) and “the money won’t go to the right places, where it’s
supposed to go” (25%). 

Very large majorities of voters in both the late-September and late-October Field Polls
considered it important to expand state funding in each of five major program areas
slated for revenue increases under Prop. 86. Moreover, half or more of voters considered
it “extremely important” to expand state funding in three areas – disease prevention and
treatment, hospital emergency and trauma services, and children’s health insurance. Yet,
in the campaign’s final weeks, support for Prop. 86 declined among voters who felt
increasing state funding in these areas was extremely important. This decline in backing
among these core supporters late in the campaign also played a role in Prop. 86’s defeat.

The most frequently cited reason given by those voting no who also considered it
extremely important to increase state funding for all or nearly all of the program areas
slated for revenue increases under Prop. 86 was that “the tax is too high”/“it’s unfair
to smokers and low-income people.” This explanation was volunteered more than twice as
frequently as any other as a reason for opposing the initiative. These voters were
apparently in conflict about Prop. 86, with the size and perceived unfairness of the tax
overriding the importance they attached to expanded funding for needed health programs.

Large majorities of likely voters (84%-85%) in both late-September and late-October
reported that they were either very or somewhat concerned about the number of children
who are without health insurance in California. The degree of a voter’s concern about
uninsured children was also related to voting preferences on Prop. 86 in both surveys.
Yet, a declining proportion of those who were concerned about uninsured children
supported Prop. 86 in the final stages of the campaign. For example, in late-September
voters very concerned about the number of uninsured children were intending to vote yes
on Prop. 86 by a greater than two to one margin (65% to 30%), while those somewhat
concerned were about evenly divided (49% yes and 44% no). However, in late-October
support for Prop. 86 among voters very concerned was less than two to one (58% to 33%),
while among voters expressing some concern about this, opponents exceeded supporters 53%
to 36%. 

Voters in both the late-September and late-October Field Polls were about evenly divided
when asked whether they supported or opposed “using state tax revenues to make sure that
every child in California has health insurance, regardless of their immigration status.”
Voter opinions about using state tax revenues for this purpose were directly related to
voting preferences on Prop. 86 in both surveys. While, there was no slippage in the
strong voter support for Prop. 86 among those supportive of using state tax revenues to
insure children regardless of immigration status, opposition to Prop. 86 increased among
voters opposed to using state tax revenues for this purpose in the late stages of the
campaign. The late-October Field Poll showed these voters opposing Prop. 86 by 42 points
(68% to 26%), compared to a more modest 16-point deficit (56% to 40%) in late-September.


Cyrus Shahpar & Brian Potts 
Managing Editors, CAL/AAEM News Service
University of California, Irvine

The CAL/AAEM Archives are available at: http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/calaaem/


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com