Think you know what really happened in November? (2006)

BISC
January 19, 2007

Every election season produces broad misconceptions in the pursuit of early answers to that age-old question: "what happened?" Many of these myths — some created intentionally by spin-meisters and others simply the product of hasty analysis — cement themselves very early in the media and public mind.

Ballot measures are ripe for this type of problem for a number of reasons. Most prominent among these are the following:

• Spin — Unlike candidates, ballot measures embody a single issue — often an issue that engenders strong feelings on either side. The proponents and opponents will use any victory in pursuit of their long-term goals on the issue to draw larger meanings than the reality might suggest.
• Meta-Story — Ballot measures are not simply issues or policies, but political campaigns. Each side of the political spectrum has begun to use the initiative process more strategically in multi-state capacities as part of larger political power-building potential. If an initiative is successful, especially in multiple states, analysts will use the apparent momentum to give the issue more power than it deserves. Conversely, pundits will also draw erroneous conclusions from a surprising failure.
• Lag — The research and polling that shows how ballot initiatives may have worked more broadly to influence the election does not magically appear in the week following the election, when most of the zeitgeist heats up and then quickly congeals. The academic analysis of the post-election polling can take even longer to roll out. This unavoidable situation fosters the first two problems by creating an evidentiary vacuum that pundits and spinners are paid to fill.

Given the presence of all of these conditions in these first weeks after the 2006 election cycle, BISC has prepared the following list of myths that have arisen since Election Day to explain the ballot initiative results this year — and the facts to refute them. We hope that this list, which will be expanded as more ideas begin to take hold, might clear up the rhetoric before it becomes reality.

MYTH:
The Missouri stem cell initiative turned out voters who helped Democratic Senate challenger Claire McCaskill win her campaign.

FACT:
BISC post-election research shows that the stem cell battle was more motivating to conservative voters and increased the likelihood of casting their ballots for Senator Jim Talent, the Republican incumbent and vocal opponent of stem cell research.

On the other hand, the Missouri minimum wage initiative drew targeted voters to the polls and spurred them to vote for Claire McCaskill. This progressive mobilizing effect compensated for the stem cell initiative's drag on McCaskill's campaign, and helped her achieve a close victory on Election Night.

MYTH:
The 2006 ballot initiatives show widespread dissatisfaction with "big government."
AND
The 2006 ballot initiatives show widespread dissatisfaction with "small government."

FACT:
If any broad conclusion can be drawn from the 2006 ballot measure results, it is that voters are looking for a "Goldilocks government:" not too big, not too small, but just right. The results do not support either side of the simplistic and largely irrelevant arguments about the size of government that has long characterized the conservative/liberal divide. This year voters chose to raise the minimum wage while at the same time banning Kelo-style eminent domain. They rejected both anti-choice policies and affirmative action. They embraced both stem cell research and gay marriage bans.

On the tax and economic front, the pattern that emerges suggests not some arbitrary measure of size, but rather voters' desire for responsible, efficient, and just government. The minimum wage campaigns were victorious because voters in six states realized that leaving low-wage workers behind undermined the American value of fairness. Congress had not acted for a decade, and voters were energized to take matters into their own hands. By the same token, the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) initiatives were roundly defeated, not only because voters recognized the potential damage the law would do to a state's ability to fund core services, but because they rejected the proponents' attempts to undermine the lawful process of qualifying a ballot initiative — a real vote for responsible government.

MYTH:
Voters are as opposed to gay marriage as ever.

FACT:
The numbers tell a different story.

In 2004, voters constitutionally banned gay marriage in 13 states by an average of 70%. Two years later, the average passing rate fell by more than 15 percentage points to 54.5%. Nearly two-thirds of voters support some form of legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples, and seven of ten voters believe that civil unions will be permitted throughout the country within ten years, according to a post-election survey of 19,356 voters conducted by Zogby International in November.

2006 also saw the first-ever defeat of a marriage discrimination measure, as Arizona voters shot down a ban 51%-49%. Furthermore, contrary to conventional wisdom, post election polling in Arizona shows that minority voters were more likely to oppose the initiative than were white voters. South Dakota's ban passed by a mere four points, with barely a campaign organized in opposition.

Putting the whole picture of this issue in context shows us what the gay rights community has known for years: the simple electoral results of the marriage bans obscure the real change in public opinion on the issue. While public opinion shifts slowly on any issue, conservatives have quickly foisted these gimmicky up-or-down votes (gay marriage was already illegal in every state that has voted on an amendment) to cement fear and scapegoating into state Constitutions.

MYTH:
The effect of a ballot measure can single-handedly swing other elections.
AND/OR
Ballot measures have no electoral impact.

FACT:
Even a powerfully motivating ballot measure is not a silver bullet that can magically define an entire electoral debate or sweep politicians into office with a massive turnout effect. As with any single political tool, strategists should be cautioned against viewing an initiative as a ticket to broad victories.

However, BISC research has shown that initiative campaigns focused on achieving larger electoral gains — targeted turnout, message framing opportunities for candidates, wedging political opponents based on past votes on the issue have successfully changed the dynamic of state elections. When ballot measure campaigns in multiple states focus on these goals using the same issue, together they can force a national public conversation on a single issue. Conservatives accomplished this feat in 2004 using 13 gay marriage bans, while progressives responded in 2006 with initiatives to raise and index the minimum wage in six states.

Voters reported a high level of interest in ballot measures in 2006. Voters reported that they were an important factor in motivating them to vote, and in several states voters said that candidates' positions on various measures influenced their vote for those candidates. [Statewide post election surveys were conducted by Lake Research Partners for BISC in fives states in November 2006; Ohio, Missouri, Colorado, Arizona and Oregon — a comprehensive report is available through BISC.].

Research shows that the minimum wage initiatives in Ohio, Missouri, Colorado and Arizona played an important role in generating political interest and enthusiasm among Democratic base voters. The popularity of the minimum wage initiatives translated into higher turnout among low participation base voters, especially African Americans in Ohio and Missouri. Democrats in Missouri were twice as likely to support their party's candidate for U.S. Senate because of the minimum wage. In Ohio, of the 31% of voters who heard about U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown's position on the minimum wage, three out of ten say it made them more likely to vote and also made them feel more favorable towards him.

MYTH:
The initiatives to prohibit expanding eminent domain to private interests a backlash to the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London were a significant conservative victory.

FACT:
1. There were 11 eminent domain-related measures on the ballot. 2. Ten of these were related to reversing the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, which gave municipalities the right to take private land (with just compensation) for private interests to develop in the pursuit of economic improvement. Seven of the measures dealt solely with this issue. 3. However, three of the Kelo-related measures were designed to use Kelo reform as a mask for a much more radical agenda — passing "regulatory takings." These measures would have instituted a system like Oregon's disastrous policy, by which taxpayers are forced to pay developers to follow existing zoning laws. If the public cannot pay, the state must waive those laws. 4. A fourth initiative dealt solely with regulatory takings.

Each of the seven straight anti-Kelo measures passed by wide margins. Both conservatives and progressives supported these initiatives because both sides of the political spectrum were concerned with the power of a corporate-governmental union that may trample property rights. None of these seven initiatives were positioned as conservative vehicles, and hardly any of them appeared to mount a real campaign of any kind. None of these measures were opposed by an organized coalition.

The four regulatory takings measures (in AZ, CA, ID, and WA), on the other hand, were funded by radical conservative real estate investor Howard Rich through numerous phony shell organizations. Regulatory takings was vigorously opposed by broad coalitions, and all were defeated except for Arizona's measure. The end result is a net gain for the distinctly non-political anti-Kelo measures, and a stinging loss for the conservative strategy of regulatory takings.

I hope you find these useful as you discuss the lessons of the 2006 cycle with your colleagues and acquaintances. Conventional wisdom congeals quickly, and the effects of mistaken analysis can haunt us for a long time.

As always, feel free to contact BISC with any questions you may have about ballot initiatives happening now or down the road.

All the best,

Kristina Wilfore
Executive Director

http://www.ballot.org