220-2708 Survey Conducted: May 6-14, 2009 Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates Opinion Research & Public Policy Analysis Santa Monica, CA – Oakland,

220-2708

Survey Conducted:May 6-14, 2009

Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & AssociatesOpinion Research & Public Policy Analysis

Santa Monica, CA – Oakland, CA – Madison, WI – Mexico City

Coalition to Protect Coalition to Protect Local Vital Services Local Vital Services

Baseline SurveyBaseline Survey

Fairbank, Maslin,

Maullin & AssociatesOpinion Research &

Public Policy Analysis

2

MethodologyMethodology

Interviews conducted by telephone with 1500 randomly selected California registered voters likely to vote in November 2010 Statewide Election

Dates of interview: May 6 – 14, 2009

Margin of error for the full sample is +/-2.5%

Margin of error for half the sample is +/-3.6%

Fairbank, Maslin,



3

Right Direction/Wrong Track: Right Direction/Wrong Track: Voter opinion of the state differs Voter opinion of the state differs

dramatically from their perception dramatically from their perception of how things are going at the local level. of how things are going at the local level.

2. Would you say that things in are generally headed in the right direction or do you feel that things are pretty seriously off on the wrong track?

38%

7%

8%20%

55%

31%

72%

62%

7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Right Direction Wrong Track DK/NA

Your City or town

Your region of the state

The State of California

(Ranked by Right Direction)

Fairbank, Maslin,



4

About a third of voters know that a local About a third of voters know that a local special purpose tax or bond measure special purpose tax or bond measure

requires two-thirds approval of local voters.requires two-thirds approval of local voters.

4a & b. Do you know what percentage is needed for local voters to pass a local tax or bond measure to fund a specific local service in their City or County? Is it. . . ? Split Sample

35%

9%

11%

41%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60%

34%

5%

9%

2%

48%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Yes, two-thirds

Yes, 55 percent of votes cast

Yes, 50 percent plus one vote

Do not know

None of these/Other

Yes, two-thirds/66 percent

Yes, 55 percent

Yes, 50 percent plus one vote/majority

Yes, other

No, don’t know

DK/NA

Multiple Choice Open-end(Split Sample)

Fairbank, Maslin,



5

33%

29%

12%

18%

8%0% 20% 40% 60%

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

DK/NA

Informing voters about the current two-thirds Informing voters about the current two-thirds requirements has a significant effect on support for requirements has a significant effect on support for

a 55% threshold for local finance measures.a 55% threshold for local finance measures.

Total Total OpposeOppose

30%30%

Total Total SupportSupport

62%62%

Would you support or oppose a requirement that local tax and bond measures that fund specific local services in cities, counties or school districts, be approved by 55% of local voters?

31%

22%

15%

25%

7%0% 20% 40% 60%

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

DK/NA


40%40%


53%53%

Would you support or oppose a requirement that local tax and bond measures that fund specific local services in cities, counties or school districts, be approved by 55% of local voters instead of the present two-thirds vote requirement?

Q5a/5b.

(Split Sample)

Fairbank, Maslin,



6

Proposition 39 Ballot Language – 55% Proposition 39 Ballot Language – 55% Threshold for Local School Bond MeasuresThreshold for Local School Bond Measures

Proposition 39. School Facilities. 55% Local Vote. Bonds, Taxes Accountability Requirements. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Authorizes bonds for repair, construction or replacement of school facilities, classrooms, if approved by 55% local vote. Fiscal Impact: Increased bond debt for many school districts. Long-term costs statewide could total in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Potential longer-term state savings to the extent school districts assume greater responsibility for funding school facilities.

43%

47%

10%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Yes

No

DK/NA

53%

47%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Yes

No

January 1999 Baseline Survey November 2000 Election Day

http://www.smartvoter.org/2000/11/07/ca/state/prop/39/

http://www.smartvoter.org/2000/11/07/ca/state/prop/39/

Fairbank, Maslin,



7

Information Statement: California’s State Constitution currently requires local special purpose tax and bond measures to be approved by two-thirds of voters, which is 66.7%, in a given city or county, and for certain school funding measures. Special purpose tax measures are those where funds must be dedicated for a single local service or project.

“Let me ask you about a possible statewide initiative that may appear on the ballot next year. This initiative would do two things:

First, it would require the approval of (55/50) percent of local voters to pass a tax or bond measure to fund specific local services - like public safety, emergency room care, transportation and local schools - instead of the present two-thirds vote requirement.

Second, it would require mandatory accountability provisions for local funding measures, including annual independent performance audits, citizens’ oversight, and public expenditure reports.

Knowing this, would you support or oppose this ballot initiative?”

Voters were read a summary of current Voters were read a summary of current law and a proposed ballot initiative.law and a proposed ballot initiative.

Fairbank, Maslin,



8

Total support for changing the threshold Total support for changing the threshold level is similar at 55% and 50%, but there is level is similar at 55% and 50%, but there is

greater intensity (“strongly support”) greater intensity (“strongly support”) at the 55% level.at the 55% level.

6/7. Would you support or oppose this ballot initiative? Split Sample

32%

24%

10%

25%

9%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

DK/NA


35%35%


56%56%

27%

26%

11%

27%

9%

0% 20% 40% 60%


38%38%


53%53%

55% Threshold 50%+1 Threshold

November 2010 Likely Voters

Fairbank, Maslin,



9

67%

42%

56%

54% 58

%

22%

52%

35% 38

%

33%

11%

6% 9% 8% 9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Democrat Republican DTS/Other Men Women

Total Support Total Oppose DK/NA

% of Sample

(46%) (36%) (46%)

55% Threshold Demographics:55% Threshold Demographics:Party and Gender

(18%) (54%)

Party Gender

6. Would you support or oppose this ballot initiative? Split Sample

Fairbank, Maslin,



10

72%

66%

53% 58

%

69%

19%

30% 39

%

31%

23%

9%

4% 8% 11%

8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Latino African-American

White Asian Non-White


Ethnicity


(16%) (5%) (5%)(67%) (26%)% of

Sample

55% Threshold Demographics:55% Threshold Demographics:

Fairbank, Maslin,



11

61%

52% 62

%

53%

44%

58%

48%

30%

41%

30% 34

% 44%

36% 41

%

9% 7% 8%

13%

12%

6%

11%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

LosAngeles

Los AngelesArea

Bay Area San Diego Sacramento/North

CentralValley

InlandEmpire


Region


(24%) (22%) (9%)(22%) (11%)% of

Sample (12%) (11%)

55% Threshold Demographics:55% Threshold Demographics:

Fairbank, Maslin,



12

Voters have a higher regard for local Voters have a higher regard for local government and are more concerned government and are more concerned

about protecting local services. about protecting local services.

10. I am going to read you a list of statements. I’d like you to tell me whether you generally agree or disagree. Split Sample

5%

4%70%

72%

71%

23%

26%

24%

5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Strng./S.W. Agr. S.W./Strng. Disagr. DK/NA

(Ranked by 2009 Total Strongly/S.W. Agree)

Because state government is not working, local government should do more to protect jobs and

improve local economies

Because state government is not working, local government should take more responsibility to

provide vital local services

Local government is more accountable to voters than state government

Fairbank, Maslin,



1312. I am now going to read you some different provisions that may also be included in the potential initiative to require the approval of at least 55%/50% percent of local voters to pass a tax or bond measure to fund specific local services. Please tell me whether you support or oppose that provision. Split Sample

5%78%

79%

79%

18%

17%

19% 2%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Strng./S.W. Supp. Strng./S.W. Opp. DK/NA

(Ranked by Total Strongly/S.W. Support)

Allows local police and law enforcement to make more direct decisions about police

staffing levels, crime and gang prevention programs, and other local public safety

priorities

Includes a sunset provision requiring that any tax increase approved by voters is legally

required to expire after 10 years unless voters vote to extend the tax

Allows local parents, teachers, and principals to make more direct decisions about teacher

staffing levels, classroom education, after school programs and other priorities for local

schools

The accountability provisions and greater The accountability provisions and greater local control of funds attached to the local control of funds attached to the initiative are well-received by voters.initiative are well-received by voters.

Fairbank, Maslin,



14

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total More Inclined

Most Effective Statements in Support of Most Effective Statements in Support of an Initiative to Change the Threshold an Initiative to Change the Threshold

for Local Finance Measuresfor Local Finance Measures

65%65%

65%65%

(Ranked by Total More Inclined to Support Initiative)

13. I am going to read you some statements made by people who support this initiative. Please tell me if it makes you more inclined to support this initiative. *Split Sample

*Due to the economic crisis and budget cuts, cities and counties across California are laying off firefighters, police and teachers. This initiative empowers local voters to decide for themselves if

they want to maintain funding for public safety, local schools, emergency room care and transportation services, because

Sacramento politicians are not getting the job done.This initiative does not raise taxes and does not allow elected

officials to raise taxes. This initiative simply makes it easier for voters to decide for themselves if they want to pass a local

measure to maintain vital services, like public safety and local schools.

This initiative requires tough accountability provisions in local ballot measures: publishing expenditure reports publicly;

conducting mandatory annual performance audits; and creating citizens’ oversight committees to ensure that local tax dollars are

used as promised. Further, this initiative prohibits funds raised by a local ballot measure from being taken by state government.

64%64%

Fairbank, Maslin,



15

36%

28%

6%

22%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

32%

24%

10%

25%

9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

27%

26%

11%

27%

9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

34%

24%

10%

26%

6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

After the messages, two-thirds support a 55% After the messages, two-thirds support a 55% threshold for local finance measures and nearly threshold for local finance measures and nearly

three-in-five support a simple majority.three-in-five support a simple majority.

6/14a/7/14b. Would you support or oppose this ballot initiative? Split Sample


35%35%


56%56%


38%38%


53%53%

55% Threshold 50%+1 Threshold

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

DK/NA


28%28%


64%64%


58%58%


36%36%

Vote after MessagesInitial Vote Vote after

MessagesInitial Vote

Fairbank, Maslin,



16

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Total More Inclined

53%53%

52%52%

15. I am going to mention to you some statements made by people who oppose this possible statewide ballot initiative. Please tell me if it makes you more inclined to oppose such an initiative. Split Sample

Statements Opposed to Changing Two-thirds Statements Opposed to Changing Two-thirds Requirement for Local Finance MeasuresRequirement for Local Finance Measures

(Ranked by Total More Inclined to Oppose Initiative)

In this time of economic crisis, now is not the time to make it easier to raise taxes. The State Legislature passed a

huge tax increase, and this measure makes it easier to raise all kinds of taxes on families and businesses.

In this time of economic crisis, now is not the time to make it easier to raise taxes. The State Legislature just passed a

huge tax increase, and this measure makes it easier to raise all kinds of taxes on families and businesses. This

initiative makes it easier to raise local property taxes, parcel taxes, business taxes, utility taxes and sales taxes.

Fairbank, Maslin,



17

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Total More Inclined

49%49%

46%46%


ContinuedContinued

49%49%

This initiative opens the flood gates for all types of tax increases. Making it easier to raise local taxes will make

California less economically competitive and drive businesses, jobs and talented people out of the state.

There is too much wasteful spending in government. Cities and counties should cut wasteful spending before we open

the flood gates to all types of tax increases.

This initiative seeks to repeal one of the most important provisions of Proposition 13, which has protected every

California resident, including property owners, renters, and seniors from local tax increases for more than 30 years.

Fairbank, Maslin,



18

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Total More Inclined

45%45%

37%37%


ContinuedContinued

43%43%

This measure is really a backdoor attempt to gut Prop 13 protections, and allow local governments to raise taxes on

property owners throughout California.

Voters have already addressed local school funding by reducing the percentage needed to approve local school bonds to 55%. The two-thirds requirement should be left

in place for other less essential government programs.

Our present system has been in place for 30 years, and it works. The two-thirds voter requirement has allowed

hundreds of important and broadly-supported tax increases, but has blocked less essential ones that do not

have broad community support.

Fairbank, Maslin,



19

56%64%

59%

35%28%

35%

9% 8% 6%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


Total Support 56% 64% 59%Total Oppose 35% 28% 35%DK/NA 9% 8% 6%

Initial Vote Voter After Supportive Messages Vote After Oppositional Messages

Even after negative messages, three-in-five Even after negative messages, three-in-five voters support changing the threshold to voters support changing the threshold to pass local tax and bond measures to 55%.pass local tax and bond measures to 55%.

6/14a/16a. Would you support or oppose this ballot initiative? Split Sample

220-2708

Survey Conducted:May 6-14, 2009

Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & AssociatesOpinion Research & Public Policy Analysis

Santa Monica, CA – Oakland, CA – Madison, WI – Mexico City

Coalition to Protect Coalition to Protect Local Vital Services Local Vital Services

Baseline SurveyBaseline Survey

Documents

220-2708 Survey Conducted: May 6-14, 2009 Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates Opinion Research & Public Policy Analysis Santa Monica, CA – Oakland,