|
|
|
CBS 5 Eyewitness News Political Analyst Joe Tuman offers his unique insights into the Bay Area and national political scenes. He is a Professor of Political and Legal Communications at San Francisco State University, where he has taught and researched for 20 years. Joe's work in television news began as an analyst for CNN during the 1984 presidential election and has spanned two decades on the local and national airwaves.
5/19/09
The returns from California's special election were hardly unexpected; for many weeks numerous polls had suggested that all ballot measures (except for the one that would negatively affect the salaries of legislators) were in serious trouble.
That all five measures appear to have been soundly rejected by the smallish turnout of voters does raise some questions. Was this a rejection of the ballot measures themselves? Was it a repudiation of the Governor and/or the state legislature? Or maybe...was it the product of both election fatigue and some reaction to the special election process?
It would be difficult to argue that voters were specifically engaged with the content of all five ballot measures. Only Proposition 1A (which would have created a spending cap and contributions for a rainy day fund, while also extending some existing taxes) got much play in news coverage--or from the Governor's efforts to influence voters.
In truth, the five ballot measures were related--but all were independent. Voters could have voted for one or more, and rejected others. Instead, however, they rejected everything. As the results became more evident tonight, one was reminded of the special election only 4 years before, when voters uniformly rejected all ballot measures in sending a message to both the legislature and the Governor: work together.
Was that the case tonight? Were voters "angry" with the Governor or the legislature? Certainly both the Governor and the legislature have uncommonly low public approval ratings at the moment. Voters have been frustrated this past year at the melodrama that played out in a stalled budget process in Sacramento. Polls have reflected what some have called a growing frustration that those in government positions "just don't get it," which is to say, don't understand or appreciate what is frustrating average citizens.
In my own experience, voters I have spoken to in the last three weeks have uniformly repeated a theme about living within our means. They argue that the recession has forced average people to reconsider their budgetary limits and spending choices. More than once I have heard people complain that they cannot make $40,000/year but continue to spend as if they made double that amount. They make priorities and live without or enjoy less of some things. They point out that if they have to do it, government in Sacramento should as well.
How does this translate to the ballot process and the vote tonight?
By rejecting these measures, voters were again telling the Governor and the legislature to work together--but this time they were saying something else: make some tough choices. Establish priorities. Advocate on their behalf. If cuts are involved--make them. If some taxes are to be raised--do so. But above all, make the decisions and stop worrying about the political cost.
Every time the ballot process is employed the way it was used here, the Governor and the legislature are looking for public approval (and political cover) for decisions those in the government are supposed to make.
Come Wednesday morning, that message should be clear.
Stay tuned....
