Issuu

A Public Polic y Journal Fall 2021

First Look at IE Census Data . . . p. 2

IE Census Data First Look & 2021 Recall

CA Recall History. . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 8 2021 Recall Results . . . . . . . . . . . p. 13 CA & NY Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 17

Photo Credit: Chris Delmas/AFP/Getty Images

e begin this issue of the Inland Empire Outlook with a first look at the 2020 Census data for the Inland Empire. The 2020 Census will result in California losing a congressional seat for the first time in its history due to the state’s slow growth in the last decade, 5.9 percent. The two Inland Empire counties, however, grew at a faster pace, with Riverside County increasing by 10.4 percent and San Bernardino County by 7.2 percent. The balance of this issue examines various issues related to the 2021 Recall Election. First, we trace the history of the origin and use of the recall process in California. Recall became part of the California State Constitution in 1911. The first recall attempt to qualify for the ballot was in 1913. There have been 179 recall attempts since then, with only 11 garnering enough support to qualify for the ballot. Next, we look at the results of the 2021 Recall Election. Governors have been the most frequent targets of recall attempts in California. There have

INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 1

been 55 attempts, but only two have qualified for the ballot. Governor Newsom shares this honor with Governor Grey Davis. Unlike Davis, however, Newsom easily survived the recall attempt, winning support in the more densely populated parts of the state, the coastal counties, Bay area, and Southern California. For our final article, we present an excerpt from a study recently published by the Rose Institute. It presents the findings of a survey of residents of California and New York comparing voter attitudes toward the power to recall public officials, the performance of each state’s governor, and problems facing the states. The full report is available on the Rose Institute’s website. We hope you find this edition of Inland Empire Outlook a useful guide. Please visit our website, www.RoseInstitute.org, for the full survey report and much more information on other Rose Institute research.

PHOTO CREDIT: Census.gov

Census A First Look at IE Census Data by Nandini Jayaram ’22

he United States Constitution requires a census of the population once every ten years. The results of the decennial census determine the number of seats for each state in the U.S. House of Representatives in a process known as reapportionment. The census data are then used to draw congressional, state legislative, and local districts. The census results also drive the distribution of billions of dollars of federal funds. The 2020 Census shows that compared to the national population increase of 7.4 percent, California documented its slowest population growth of 5.9 percent (2.2 million residents) since the 1930s. For the first time in history, California will be losing one of its seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, decreasing from 53 to 52. PPIC reports that the state’s population growth has been slowing down in the last 20 years, and INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 2

almost reached stagnancy from 2019 to 2020 (0.5 percent increase). This is partially attributed to the increasing domestic net migration out of California, with an additional 1.3 million people leaving compared to entering the state, in the last 10 years. The Inland Empire, comprised of Riverside and San Bernardino counties, continues to experience faster-growing populations compared to the rest of the state, especially the less urban parts of Southern California. As reflected in the 2020 Census data, Riverside County’s total population grew by 10.4 percent, the highest rate in the region, followed by San Bernardino County at a 7.2 percent increase. People seem to be shifting away from cities and moving to suburbs in the Inland Empire due to better housing affordability. Beaumont has seen the fastest population growth in Riverside County, at a 43.8 percent increase from 36,877 residents in

Riverside County

City Banning Beaumont Blythe Calimesa Canyon Lake Cathedral City Coachella Corona Desert Hot Springs Eastvale Hemet Highgrove Indian Wells Indio Jurupa Valley Lake Elsinore La Quinta Menifee Moreno Valley Murrieta Norco Palm Desert Palm Springs Perris Rancho Mirage Riverside San Jacinto Temecula Wildomar Remainder of County Riverside County Total

Population 2010

Change

29,603 36,877 20,817 7,879 10,561 51,200 40,704 152,374 25,938

29,505 53,036 18,317 10,026 11,082 51,493 41,941 157,136 32,512

-0.3% 43.8% -12.0% 27.2% 4.9% 0.6% 3.0% 3.1% 25.3%

53,668 78,657 3,988 4,958 76,036 51,821 37,467 77,519 193,365 103,466 27,063 48,445 44,552 68,386 17,218 303,871 44,199 100,097 32,176 446,736 2,189,641

69,757 89,833 7,515 89,137 105,053 70,265 37,558 102,527 208,634 110,949 26,316 51,163 44,575 78,700 16,999 314,998 53,898 110,003 36,875 388,382 2,418,185

30.0% 14.2% 88.4% 17.2% 35.6% 0.2% 32.3% 7.9% 7.2% -2.8% 5.6% 0.1% 15.1% -1.3% 3.7% 21.9% 9.9% 14.6% -13.1% 10.4%

Data Source: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219

INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 3

Population 2020

San Bernardino County

City Adelanto Apple Valley Barstow Big Bear Lake Chino Chino Hills Colton Crestline Fontana Grand Terrace Hesperia Highland Joshua Tree Lake Arrowhead Loma Linda Lucerne Valley Montclair Needles Ontario Rancho Cucamonga Redlands Rialto Running Springs San Bernardino Twentynine Palms Upland Victorville Yucaipa Yucca Valley Remainder of County San Bernardino County Total

Population 2010

Population 2020

31,765 69,135 22,639 5,019 77,983 74,799 52,154 10,770 196,069

38,046 75,791 25,415 5,046 91,403 78,411 53,909 11,650 208,393

19.8% 9.6% 12.3% 0.5% 17.2% 4.8% 3.4% 8.2% 6.3%

12,040 90,173 53,104 7,414 12,424 23,261 5,811 36,664 4,844 163,924 165,269 68,747 99,171 4,862 209,924 25,048 73,732 115,903 51,367 20,700 250,495 2,035,210

13,150 99,818 56,999 6,489 12,401 24,791 5,331 37,865 175,265 174,453 73,168 104,026 5,268 222,101 28,065 79,040 134,810 54,542 21,738 264,270 2,181,654

9.2% 10.7% 7.3% -12.5% -0.2% 6.6% -8.3% 3.3% 6.9% 5.6% 6.4% 4.9% 8.4% 5.8% 12.0% 7.2% 16.3% 6.2% 5.0% 5.5% 7.2%

Data Source: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219

INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 4

Change

2010 to 53,036 in 2020. Two other cities in Riverside County, Lake Elsinore, and Menifee (whose population just crossed the 100,000 threshold), have ranked in the top 10 fastest-growing cities in California, with respective growth rates of 35.6 percent and 32.3 percent, according to Patch. com. Adelanto has seen the most growth in San

Bernardino County, with a 19.8 percent population increase. Chino was not far behind with an increase of 17.2 percent. The state has also become more racially diverse, especially in suburban Southern California counties. The Latino population reached 50 percent in

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

Maps by Daniela Corona ’23, Rose Institute of State and Local Government, October 25, 2021. INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 5

Riverside County and grew to 54 percent in San Bernardino County. African Americans make up 6.1 percent of Riverside County and 7.9 percent of San Bernardino County, and Asians make up 6.8 percent of Riverside County and 8.1 percent of San Bernardino County. On the other hand, the White population fell to 33 percent in Riverside County and 26 percent in San Bernardino County. Outside of incorporated cities, census-designated places (CDPs) in Riverside County had substantial growth. The Press-Enterprise reports that Highgrove’s population increased by 88 percent from 3,988 in 2010 to 7,515 in 2020. Two other unincorporated communities in the area, Green Acres and French Valley, grew by 62 percent and 53 percent. Overall, the population of Riverside County grew from 2,189,641 in 2010 to 2,418,185 in 2020. After Beaumont, Lake Elsinore, and Menifee, the cities of Eastvale (30 percent), Calimesa (27.2 percent), and San Jacinto (21.9 percent) had significant increases.

INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 6

In San Bernardino County, Adelanto had the most growth (19.8 percent), followed by Chino (17.2 percent) and Victorville (16.3 percent). In comparison, the larger suburbs of Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga grew slower, at 6.3 percent and 5.6 percent, respectively. Some cities had significant population decreases, including Joshua Tree (negative 12.5 percent) and Lucerne Valley (negative 8.3 percent). The data from the U.S. Census also supports the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (CCRC), an independent group of 14 members, to draw congressional and state district lines. The California Supreme Court allowed the commission an extension to submit district plans; they now have until November 1, 2021 to release draft district maps and until December 15, 2021 to establish final district plans. ♦

BIBLIOGRAPHY Christopher, Ben. “California Loses Congressional Seat for First Time.” CalMatters, April 26, 2021. https://calmatters.org/politics/2021/04/california-congress-census/. Horseman, Jeff, and Nikie Johnson. “How Much Did Your Inland Empire City Grow in the 2020 Census?” Press Enterprise, August 20, 2021. https://www.pe.com/2021/08/20/how-much-didyour-inland-empire-city-grow-in-the-2020-census/. Johnson, Hans, Eric McGhee, and Marisol Cuellar Mejia. “California’s Population.” Public Policy Institute of California, March 2021. https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-population/. Johnson, Hans, Eric McGhee, and Marisol Cuellar Mejia. “California’s Stalled Population Growth.” Public Policy Institute of California, April 26, 2021. https://www.ppic.org/blog/californias-stalled- population-growth/. Ludwig, Ashley. “Top 10 Fastest-Growing Cities In California: See The List.” Patch, August 20, 2021. https://patch.com/california/orange-county/top-10-fastest-growing-cities-california-see-list. Rand, Jory, and Grace Manthey. “2020 Census Results Show Most Growth in Suburban Socal Areas, Fueled by Increasing Diversity.” ABC7 Los Angeles. KABC-TV, August 13, 2021. https://abc7. com/2020-us-census-results-population-changes-southern-california-urban/10947942/. “Redistricting in California after the 2020 Census.” Ballotpedia. https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_California_after_the_2020_census “United States Census Bureau.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, September 13, 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census_Bureau. “U.S. Census Bureau Quickfacts: United States,” n.d. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219.

INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 7

PHOTO CREDIT: Foxla.com

CA Recall History by Katherine Adelman ’22

t the turn of the twentieth century, California politics was dominated by one entity: the Southern Pacific Railroad. The company was so large and amassed such wealth that it controlled the affairs of both political parties, effectively squashing any criticism from within official government institutions. This kind of monopoly power and the political corruption it allowed inspired the progressive movement at the state level, mirroring a similar trend taking place on the national stage. It was within this context that California’s progressive party rose to power.

aim of the movement was to generate a more direct democracy. Progressives pushed for three reforms to reclaim power for citizens, all three of which California would go on to adopt. They were the recall, the referendum, and the initiative. Progressives argued that these reforms would more intimately engage citizens in democratic processes, thus enhancing citizenship. These processes would also provide citizens with a means to staunch the influence of overbearing state lawmakers and corporations--another major concern of the era-part of the corruption of decades past.

To get a sense of the national mood in this era, it is important to understand that the progressive party was gaining traction across the United States. Reforming basic democratic processes was on the minds of many Americans in the late 1800s and early 1900s as citizens committed themselves to a new wave of social and political activism. One

The idea for the recall was born around the time of America’s founding. The idea to formalize the recall was contemplated in some of the thirteen colonies. Some states even included a recall provision in their state constitutions, though the procedure immediately fell out of use and was not widely discussed again until the late nineteenth century.

INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 8

In 1902, Oregon became the first state to formalize the referendum and initiative processes, and in 1908, it became the first state to institute the recall process. Sixteen states, including California, followed suit. However, Oregon’s precedent was not the exclusive impetus for California’s ultimate decision to adopt the recall. The political conditions created by monopoly power convinced Californians of the need to adjust their election and legislation procedures. The effort to institute a recall process in California began in 1898 under the stewardship of progressive party leader, Dr. John Randolph Haynes. Frustrated with the current procedures, which he believed stymied civic progress, Dr. Haynes became the recall’s most active advocate. In 1900, he managed to secure an appointment to the Charter Revision Committee for the City of Los Angeles. Through this position, he was able to influence the 1903 charter, which formally instituted the recall for city councilmen and the mayor. The recall was successfully employed multiple times in the first years of its existence, prompting twenty-five other localities in the state to adopt the recall provision for themselves.

Dr. John Randolph Haynes

PHOTO SOURCE: Wikimedia Commons

INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 9

Still, California progressives sought to push for reform beyond specific localities. Party leaders decided that the next step in their strategy was to launch a gubernatorial campaign with a pro-recall advocate on the ticket. They found their man in Hiram Johnson, a San Francisco Assistant District Attorney. The bulk of Johnson’s campaign centered around the corrupt behavior of the Southern Pacific Railroad and his commitment to weeding out malicious corporations and restoring power to the people. His pleas won over voters and he assumed office in 1910. Upon his inauguration, Governor Johnson immediately set out to fulfill his campaign promises. Johnson pushed for an amendment to the California State Constitution. His efforts were fruitful when, in 1911, he secured the passage of an amendment institutionalizing the recall, referendum, and initiative. The first recall attempt to qualify for the ballot occurred in 1913, against the Republican Senator Marshall Black. The attempt was successful, forcing Senator Black out of office and making way for his pro-prohibition replacement, Democrat Herbert C. Jones, to enter into office. This was the first of

Gov. Hiram Johnson

PHOTO SOURCE: Wikimedia Commons

only eleven recall attempts to have successfully made it on the ballot. The vast majority of recall attempts--168 out of a total of 179--never achieve enough signatures to go to a vote.

Sen. Marshall Black

PHOTOS from JoinCalifornia.com

Herbert C. Jones

In the years immediately succeeding the introduction of the recall, it found popular use at the state level. Three recall attempts qualified for the ballot in 1913 and 1914, two of which successfully ousted the state senators challenged. This excitement for the recall would not last, however. Between 1916 and 1960, there were only five recall attempts, none of which obtained enough support to make it on the ballot. Even when the recall once again came into regular usage in the mid-1960s, there would not be another successful recall attempt until 1994, when California State Senator David Roberti (D) found himself on the chopping block and ultimately ousted.

Sen. David O. Roberti

PHOTO SOURCE: VerdeXchange

INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 10

Since 1960, every governor has experienced at least an attempted recall, though only twice has the issue made it on the ballot and only once was it successful in the removal of a governor from office. The unfortunate governor was Democrat Gray Davis who, eleven months into his second term, found himself handing over his governorship to his replacement, the Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger. Governor Davis never experienced particularly high favorability amongst his constituents and only narrowly won reelection in 2002. Thus, when the state began experiencing major problems, Davis was an easy, unpopular target for frustrated constituents. His first major setback, the energy crisis, occurred during his first term, but the resentment generated as a result carried over into his second term. Starting in 2000, the state had begun experiencing rolling blackouts as it faced ever worse electricity shortages. The crisis had been brewing since before Davis took office, but it was under his leadership that blackouts became a normal occurrence, causing many Californians to fault him for mishandling the situation. Things got worse for Governor Davis when, less than a month into his second term, Davis announced that the state was facing a $35 billion budget deficit. After this announcement, state Republicans began immediately collecting signatures for his recall.

Gov. Gray Davis

PHOTO SOURCE: The US National Archives

CALIFORNIA RECALL HISTORY Target Official Governor Lieutenant Governor Attorney General Secretary of State State Treasurer State Controller Insurance Commissioner Member of the Board of Equalization Member of the State Senate Member of the Assembly Supreme Court (entire membership) Supreme Court (individual justices) Total

Attempts 55 2 7 1 1 1 2 2 30 50 1 27 179

Qualified for Ballot 2

Recalled

6 3

3 2

Source: “California Recall History.” California Secretary of State. Accessed October 24, 2021. https://www.sos.ca.gov/.

Additional political conditions of this era helped make the recall against Davis a success. To start, never before in California’s state history had a governor been successfully recalled. Accustomed to these failed attempts, despite 53 attempts against governors, many people did not take the threat of a recall seriously, resulting in a lackluster showing at the polls. Furthermore, the California of the early 2000s was far more centrist than the California of 2021. Less polarization decreased the power of party loyalty resulting in less energy from Democratic constituents on election day. Davis was also hurt by Schwarzenegger’s prominence. Famous for his work in Hollywood, Schwarzenegger stood out in the crowded field of replacement candidates, which helped him eventually oust Davis in 2003. Thus the 2021 recall beat the odds by being only the eleventh recall attempt of 179 to make it onto the ballot. The failure at the polls to oust Governor Newsom, however, was consistent with California’s recall history. ♦

INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 11

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

PHOTO SOURCE: Wikimedia Commons

BIBLIOGRAPHY Karlamangla, Soumya. “Why does California have recall elections?” New York Times. September 13, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/13/us/recall-elections-california-history.html KQED News Staff. “Former Gov. Gray Davis: Recalls Explained.” KQED. September 10, 2010. https://www.kqed.org/news/11888013/former-gov-gray-davis-recalls-explained-this-week-in- california-politics.

Link, William A. Review of Hiram W. Johnson and the American Liberal Tradition, by Richard Coke Lower. Reviews in American History 23, no. 2 (1995): 272–76. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/2702697. Patterson. Thom. “Genesis of recall rooted in California energy crisis.” CNN. October 7, 2003. https://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/06/energy.crisis/index.html. “The Politics of Progressivism.” Boundless US History. Lumen. Accessed October 19, 2021. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-ushistory/chapter/the-politics-of-progressivism/. “Recall History in California (1913 to Present).” California Secretary of State. Accessed October 19, 2021. https://www.sos.ca.gov/. Spivak, Joshua. “Why Did California Adopt the Recall?” History News Network. Columbian College of Arts and Sciences, September 15, 2003. https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1682 . Wilson, Reid. “’If this thing qualifies, I’m toast’: An oral history of the Gray Davis recall in California.” The Hill. June 2, 2021. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/556014-if-this-thing-qualifiesim-toast-an-oral-history-of-the-gray-davis-recall.

INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 12

Graphics by M.S. Moore

2021 Recall Results by Robin Peterson ’22

n Tuesday, September 14, 2021, California held a recall election on whether or not to remove Governor Gavin Newsom. The 2021 recall election was the second time in California’s history that the recall process embedded in California’s constitution has made it to the ballot to attempt to oust a governor from office. The first was in 2003 when Grey Davis was ousted and replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger. The recall effort in 2021 was led by Californians who were frustrated with the governor’s performance on a host of issues. The most prominent one was his use of expansive executive orders following his declaration of a state of emergency in response to the Covid-19 pandemic on March 4, 2020. Newsom exercised his emergency powers to issue more than 50 executive orders in 18 months. They constituted

INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 13

an aggressive COVID-19 pandemic response in which he unilaterally issued orders to close schools, businesses and churches and issued mask mandates and stay-at-home orders. The harsh Covid-19 lockdown policies decimated many businesses. California’s attack on independent contractors (AB 5) and rising crime in cities across the state were among a long list of other contributing factors. In a recall election, there are two questions on the ballot. First, should the elected official be removed from office? Second, who should be the replacement if the recall is successful? The first of two questions on the 2021 recall ballot was “Shall Gavin Newsom be recalled from the office of Governor?” For the recall to succeed to remove Governor Newsom, over 50 percent of voters needed to respond YES to this question.

2021 RECALL RESULTS BY COUNTY

Source: https://electionresults.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/governor-recall

Governor Newsom easily survived the recall attempt, with only 38.1 percent voting YES on the recall question, out of the 12,838,565 votes tallied. The California Secretary of State data show that the only coastal county to vote in favor of the recall (59.9 percent YES, 40.1 percent NO) was Del Norte County, bordering Oregon, where the vote was a mirror image of the statewide results. All other coastal counties voted NO.

In Southern California, all of the coastal counties voted NO. This includes Orange County which has long been considered a Republican stronghold in the region. Orange County voted 48.3 percent YES and 51.7 percent NO. San Diego County voted NO by an even larger margin, 38.1 percent YES and 61.9 percent NO. The San Diego County result was very close to results for Los Angeles County, 29.2 percent YES, 70.8 percent NO.

Inland counties offered more varied results. The Bay Area counties that are not on the coast, but adjacent to the coastal counties voted NO. They are Lake, Napa, Yolo, Sacramento, Solano, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, and San Benito counties. Three Northern California inland counties on the Nevada border Mono, Alpine, and Nevada - also voted NO.

The Inland Empire counties of Riverside and San Bernardino had remarkably close election results, but with opposing outcomes. Riverside county voted YES to remove Governor Newsom —(50.5 percent YES, 49.5 percent NO). The vote in San Bernardino County was almost identical, but with the opposite outcome, (49.8 percent YES, 50.2 percent NO).

INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 14

Source: https://calmatters.org/politics/2021/09/california-recall-election-results/

Throughout California, the trends from the recall election can be observed regionally, with a clear divide between coastal and inland counties for northern and central California. Fourteen of the fifteen counties that comprise the northeastern region of the state voted in favor of recalling Governor Newsom. These counties are considered rural and voted majority Republican in the 2020 presidential election. These counties, however, are less populous than those on the coast and in other parts of the state. Inland counties in the middle of the state also largely voted YES, but, again, they are much less populous than their neighbors to the west. Southern California offered a more mixed result. While the coastal counties all voted NO, they were joined by inland San Bernardino and Imperial.

INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 15

California resoundingly voted NO on the recall of Governor Gavin Newsom. Thus, the second question on the ballot, who should succeed Newsom if he is recall, was mute. Larry A. Elder was the leader among the 46 candidates on the replacement ballot, getting 48.5 percent of the votes cast. A full 42.7 percent of voters did not vote on the second question. For more information, please see electionresults.sos. ca.gov/results/governor-recall. ♦

BIBLIOGRAPHY “California Gubernatorial Recall Election.” Election Results. Accessed October 25, 2021. https:/ electionresults.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/governor-recall. “California Recall Election Results.” The New York Times, September 14, 2021, sec. U.S. Accessed October 20, 2021. “California recall election results 2021: Live updates statewide and by county.” CalMatters. Accessed October 25, 2021. https://calmatters.org/politics/2021/09/california-recall-election-results/. Dunford, Oliver. “Gavin Newsom thought he could override the Constitution – now faces a recall.” The Hill. Accessed October 26, 2021. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/569661-gavin-newsom-thoughthe-could-override-the-constitution-now-he-faces-a?rl=1. Lloyd, Jonathan. “Map: See How California’s 58 Counties Voted in the Presidential Election.” NBC Los Angeles, n.d. Accessed October 20, 2021. https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/politics/ decision-2020/california-map-2020-electoral-vote-trump-biden-president-election-resultscounty/2455412/. Orr, Katie. “As the Pandemic Wains, Newsome’s Emergency Powers Remain.” KQED. https://www.kqed.org/ news/11876747/as-the-pandemic-wains-newsoms-emergency-powers-remain-in-place “Reason to Recall Gavin Newson.” RECALL GAVIN. Accessed October 20, 2021. https://recallgavin2020. com/reasons/. “Recall History in California (1913 to Present).” California Secretary of State. Accessed October 20, 2021. https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/recalls/recall-history-california-1913-present. “2021 California Gubernatorial Recall Election Results.” Election Results. Accessed October 20, 2021. https://electionresults.sos.ca.gov. “2021 California Gubernatorial Recall Election Los Angeles County Results.” Election Results. Accessed October 20, 2021. https://electionresults.sos.ca.gov/returns/governor-recall/county/los-angeles. “2021 California Gubernatorial Recall Election Orange County Results.” Election Results. Accessed October 20, 2021. https://electionresults.sos.ca.gov/returns/governor-recall/county/orange. “2021 California Gubernatorial Recall Election Riverside County Results.” Election Results. Accessed October 20, 2021. https://electionresults.sos.ca.gov/returns/governor-recall/county/riverside. “2021 California Gubernatorial Recall Election San Bernardino County Results.” Election Results. Accessed October 20, 2021. https://electionresults.sos.ca.gov/returns/governor-recall/county/sanbernardino.

INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 16

Graphics from RoseInstitute.org

An Excerpt from the Study by Anna Green ’21

he governors of the nation’s two largest blue states, California and New York, recently faced accountability moments, as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo resigned his office in August, and California Governor Gavin Newsom survived a recall effort in September. In a survey of residents of the two states during this period of political upheaval, the Rose Institute of State and Local Government at CMC compared attitudes of California and New York voters toward the power to recall public officials, their governors’ performances, and problems facing the states. Unlike other recent polls that have focused exclusively on the views of California voters regarding Governor Newsom and the recall process leading up to the California recall election, the CMC-Rose Institute Poll provided a comparison of public opinion in these two, large, Democratic states—one of which allows for the recall of elected officials, while the other does not. INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 17

The poll, designed by the Rose Institute and conducted by YouGov, surveyed 2,000 respondents in California and 1,675 in New York between August 30, 2021 and September 10, 2021. Professor J. Andrew Sinclair and Professor Ken Miller, both faculty in the CMC Government Department, developed and oversaw the poll comparing political attitudes in California and New York. CMC students Nohl Patterson ’22 and Adhitya Venkatraman ’22 led a team of student research assistants contributing to the analysis of the data. We present below the first section of the report presenting the findings for the California recall. The full report, including a section examining preferences over political institutions and a section looking at how voters assess the outcomes of politics, is available on the Rose Institute’s website. Please see roseinstitute.org.

ur survey accurately reflects what transpired in the recall election. We had 1822 “likely” voters among our 2000 California respondents, and have focused our analysis on that group, applying the survey weights YouGov provided for them.8 In our data, 59.8% of the likely voters preferred to retain Governor Gavin Newsom in office, voting “No” on the recall. Election returns from the Secretary

of State’s office have “No” obtaining approximately 63.4%, with some vote remaining to be counted.9 These results are very similar to Newsom’s 61.9% in the 2018 general election against Republican John Cox and President Joseph Biden’s 63.5% in the 2020 presidential election against former President Donald Trump. The recall election results reflect the partisan divide in California.

Figure 1.1, above, breaks down the recall vote by “party identification,” how voters choose to describe themselves. Independent voters reporting leaning towards one party or the other are included with voters of that party, as past political science research has tended to support the idea that “leaners” are very similar to partisans. Almost 90% of Democratic identifiers planned to vote “no” in a state dominated by that party (57% of the likely

voters overall). Approximately 90% of Republican identifiers planned to vote “yes,” a mirror image of the Democratic totals, although with a much smaller group of voters (making up only 29% of the electorate). While true, non-leaning, independent voters did favor the recall, this group is not adequately large or uniform to make up for the Democratic Party’s advantage in California.

__________________________________________________________________

The unweighted results are actually quite similar to the weighted ones. Unweighted, “No” wins in this group with 62.2% of the vote. Applying the weights, “No” wins with 59.8% of the vote. It is “best practice” to apply survey weights to this kind of data, though, so we provided weighted data throughout. 9 This is from the California Secretary of State’s election returns as of 9/20/21. https://electionresults.sos.ca.gov/returns/governor-recall. 8

INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 18

Although Newsom’s victory makes the second question moot, our survey also accurately captured both Republican Larry Elder’s lead and the substantial abstention in the replacement election. Overall, Elder led a divided field, obtaining in our survey 48.3% of the vote among the specific candidates we listed, with Democrat Kevin Paffrath in a distant second. This mirrors the early returns; Elder had 47.4% of the actual vote – but with only 2,809,638 votes out of 10,601,811 cast on the first question, or 26.5% when abstention is permitted.10 In our survey data, allowing for abstention (the most popular response), Elder had 25.5% of the vote. Figure 1.2 presents our results for the second

question, split by party; Elder obtained support from two-thirds of Republicans. Democrats overwhelmingly intended to abstain or declined to choose from among our alternatives.11 We included a follow-up question asking respondents, no matter how they voted on the second question, to say which person they thought would make the best governor of California. For that question, we included Newsom on the list and forced a choice among the candidates listed. Newsom was the most popular choice by far, with Elder in a distant second place.12

_______________________________________________

Current vote totals as of 9/20/21. Our survey included: Doug Ose, Kevin Kiley, Kevin Faulconer, Ted Gaines, Caitlyn Jenner, Larry Elder, Kevin Paffrath, John Cox, and Brandon Ross. We included the full ballot descriptions, so respondents would know that Paffrath and Ross were Democrats. It seems likely that many respondents selecting “some other candidate” instead of making a specific choice ultimately did not select any candidates in the actual election itself. 12 Newsom’s percentage in this question – 49%, to Elder’s 24% -- reflects his advantage, but may underestimate his support, as not every respondent may have read the question carefully enough to realize Newsom was included. 10 11

INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 19

We also asked the survey respondents to evaluate several commonly discussed reasons for favoring or opposing recalling Newsom (included in Table 1.1). Respondents were asked to select all of the statements with which they agreed. These choices reflected the partisan and ideological nature of the contest as well. Among voters favoring recalling Newsom, more than 70% agreed that Newsom was “corrupt or hypocritical,” supported “bad policies,” and “abuses his authority.” Only 35% of the recall supporters selected “I like a different candidate better” – an affirmative, rather than a negative, judgment. While such voters tended not to select any of the reasons for opposing the recall, it is notable that 13% did agree that they were worried about who might replace Newsom – but voted for the recall anyway.

INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 20

Voters who disapproved of Newsom tended to strongly disapprove of him. In the whole California registered voters sample, 24% strongly approved, 32% somewhat approved, 14% somewhat disapproved, and 30% strongly disapproved. Among Republican identifiers, 75% strongly disapproved, with only 14% somewhat disapproving. The dislike for Newsom among Republicans was certainly more zealous than his support within his own party: among Democrats, only 38% strongly approved while 46% somewhat approved. Nevertheless, they would vote overwhelmingly for him, and few crossed over into either disapproval category.

Among voters opposing recalling Newsom, the most commonly selected reason was also negative: “I am worried about who might replace him,” at 70%. Newsom did have some positive support, though, with 63% also agreeing that he had “done a good enough job.” The least popular reason was an antirecall principle (“elected officials should get their full term,” 27%), although 51% thought this particular recall process was flawed or unfair. Most of the ‘no’ voters did not agree with any of the reasons for recalling Newsom, although 9% did concede that Newsom “is not very likeable.” In pre-election polling, Elder was the clear leader among the replacement alternatives, and much of the media coverage described the recall as a choice between Elder and Newsom. On both the recall

and replacement questions, preferences split among party lines. In a state with a considerable advantage for the Democratic Party, that meant the election was not competitive. The 2021 recall differed from the 2003 recall in several respects. First, Schwarzenegger had both a unique brand and a more centrist set of ideological positions than Elder. Second, the state was considerably more Republican in 2003. Third, Davis had lost more support among Democrats, who also had a serious replacement option on the ballot. In many ways, the 2021 recall election had more in common with the 2018 gubernatorial election or 2020 presidential election than the 2003 recall, despite the unusual structure of the ballot. ♦

AN INTERVIEW WITH PROFESSOR J. ANDREW SINCLAIR Q: The survey captured data on Cuomo, who resigned, and Newsom, who survived his recall election. What do the survey results tell Governor Newsom about the views of his constituency and policy areas to prioritize during the remainder of his term? A: Instead of indicating what Governor Newsom’s voters did want, the survey results clearly show what they did not want: Larry Elder and the Republican Party. Seven-in-ten voters supporting Newsom in the recall agreed that they were “worried about who might replace him.” One fairly typical respondent, asked to describe three most important problems, wrote: “Republican racists,” “Covid-19,” and “Climate change and climate change deniers.” With the electorate so polarized, Newsom retains a considerable amount of flexibility over which issues he prioritizes among those broadly favored by Democrats. Q: Could you explain some of the logistics/mechanics of conducting a survey using YouGov, for people who might not be familiar with the process? How was the data collected? A: Over the last decade, it has become increasingly common to do public opinion research using online panels of respondents. People who have signed up for YouGov (you can sign up if you want: it’s easy!) get an offer to participate in the survey; YouGov makes these offers in a way that gets the respondents to look like the population of interest. It works really well: we are only about two percentage points off from the recall election result (underestimating Newsom’s support).

INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 21

Q: California and New York have become known as “solidly blue” states in the past few election cycles, though their economic, geographic, and demographic makeups vary significantly. Is it possible to draw conclusions on their political differences from this report? What, if anything, is the “baseline” for any comparison? A: In the important political terms, California and New York are quite similar. Both are heavily Democratic states because of the overwhelming support for Democrats within cities - NYC in New York and both the Bay Area and greater Los Angeles in California. Yet, both also have substantial rural areas and large Republican populations. In 2020, Donald Trump got more votes in California than he did in Texas; he also had more votes in New York than he did in Ohio. So there are these large numbers of Republicans in these states that do not have much political power unless they can split the Democratic Party or take advantage of policy failures to win support from independents and disappointed Democrats. We wanted to look at both states, at a time when their Democratic governors were in some political trouble, to see how voters were responding. Q: How did Rose Institute students contribute to the research process? A: Rose students provided some invaluable help with the survey, particularly by “coding” (categorizing) the free-response “most important problem” answers. There is nothing like reading through almost 4000 answers to get a sense of what people are thinking about!

INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 22

INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 23

Contributors: Robin Peterson ’22, from left, Katherine Adelman ’22, Anna Green ’21, and Nandini Jayaram ’22.

EDI TORI A L STAFF Kenneth P. Miller, JD, PhD Director

Bipasa Nadon, JD Assistant Director

Marionette Moore Administrative Assistant

ST U DE N T STAFF

KAtherine Adelman ’22 Daniela Corona ’23 Anna Green ’21 Nandini Jayaram ’22 Robin Peterson ’22

About the Rose Institute The Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College was founded in 1973. An unmatched resource for information on California state and local governments, the Institute maintains extensive demographic, economic, and political databases on the Southern California region. Under the direction of nationally-recognized faculty and staff, students from Claremont McKenna College play a significant role in researching, interpreting, and presenting data. The Institute specializes in four areas: survey research, criminal justice analysis, demographic studies, and legal and regulatory analysis. The mission of the Rose Institute of State and Local Government is to enhance the education of students at CMC, to produce high quality research, and to promote public understanding on issues of state and local government, politics, and policy, with an emphasis on California. The Institute employs close to 30 student research assistants each year, almost all of whom stay for the duration of their time at Claremont McKenna College. To receive issues of this publication electronically and news from the Rose Institute, please e-mail us at roseinstitute@cmc.edu. Learn more about us at www.RoseInstitute.org

INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 24

PHOTO CREDIT: Nolan Windham ’25