Democratic candidates across the country may not have made a raise in the minimum wage the centerpiece of their campaigns this year, but the minimum wage issue appears to be one who time has definitely arrived.

The federal miniumum wage is currently $5.15 per hour. The last time that the federal minimum wage was raised by Congress was in September 1997.

Prior to the November 2006 election, 17 states and the District of Columbia had set the minimum wage above the federal line. Six states had ballot measures this year to raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation. Those states were Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Missouri, Nevada, and Ohio. All six minimum wage measures passed.

Of the 11 states with eminent domain measures on the November ballot, nine passed the measures into law. The states that passed eminent domain measures were Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, and South Carolina. Eminent domain measures failed to pass in California and Idaho.

The Initiative and Referendum Institute noted that the two eminent domain measures that failed “also included a regulatory takings component that would have required governments to compensate owners when their property values were reduced by land use regulations.” Arizona’s eminent domain measure, Proposition 207, contained a similar provision, and it passed by a 2-1 margin.

As was the case with the Oregon measure passed in November and another Oregon land use measure passed in 2004, Measure 37, opponents of the Arizona measure vowed to start litigation against the measure almost as soon as it passed.

Despite predictions that same-sex marriage could turn the November election (the same way that conventional wisdom holds that it did in 2004), as Ben Adler wrote in The New Republic recently, “All in all, gay marriage policies, including not only anti-marriage referenda but also the New Jersey Supreme Court’s pro-gay marriage decision, proved to be an electoral dog that didn’t bark this year.”

The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a ruling on October 25 that homosexual couples are entitled to the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, and the dominant prediction was that, as a New York Times article put it, “the low-key tenor of the same-sex marriage debate could change in a thunderclap if a court decision that appears to undermine traditional marriage boundaries is handed down before the election.”

Seven states passed the same-sex bans on their ballots this year. The states that passed them were Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Idaho, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. According to the Initiative and Referendum Institute, that brings the total number of states that have approved same-sex marriage bans (most of the time with other restrictions added) to 23.

An unusual wrinkle to this story is that in Arizona, where Proposition 107 was supported by politicians as prominent as John McCain, the same-sex marriage ban failed at the ballot by 52% to 48%, largely because the ban would have also denied benefits to same-sex couples. In addition to passing Amendment 43, a same-sex marriage ban, Colorado voters rejected Referendum I, which would have extended to same-sex couples the same rights and benefits that apply to heterosexual marriages. Referendum I lost by a margin of 52% to 47%.

It’s unclear how much of an impact the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling had on voters in the states that had ballot measures banning same-sex marriage, but the election results generally were a demonstration that, at the very least, same-sex marriage was not a defining issue of the 2006 election cycle, nor was it even close to being a defining issue.

There were tobacco taxes similar to Proposition 86 on the ballot in Missouri, Arizona, and South Dakota this year. The latter two measures passed. Missouri’s tobacco tax measure failed.

Although industry analysts warned before the election that tobacco manufacturers faced an uphill struggle to defeat Proposition 86 because of most Californians’ antipathy toward smokers and toward tobacco generally, in the end, only a scattered number of counties voted for the measure.

Secretary of State voting pattern maps show that the heaviest support for the measure was in the Bay Area, with other counties that supported the measure doing so by only small majorities. San Francisco registered the highest support for the measure (67%); Glenn County voted most strongly against the measure (75%).

Overall, though, the margin by which Proposition 86 failed statewide was narrow enough that many political analysts believe that the tobacco tax will be back on a future ballot in one form or another.

A November 9 Los Angeles Times article noted that Proposition 87’s defeat was largely due to voter unease about the cost and the mechanics of the measure’s implementation. Foremost in voters’ minds were worries about the cost of gasoline going up and the nature of the bureaucracy necessary to implement the measure. Even Proposition 87 backers admitted that opponents of the measure were able to “plant seeds of doubt,” as one pro-initiative spokesperson put it, “on the issues of cost and accountability.”

Other theories about Proposition 87’s defeat popped up in news analysis articles and in the political blogs. One widely disseminated conclusion was that Proposition 87’s advertisements (many of which in the final days of the campaign featured Bill Clinton) and high-profile celebrity endorsements left voters either cold or indifferent, especially in the state’s non-coastal regions. This conclusion appears to be supported by Secretary of State voting pattern maps, which show that inland counties opposed Proposition 87 by anywhere from 56% (Imperial County) to 78% (Glenn County). The Bay Area, in fact, was the only part of the state where some counties voted for the measure with numbers exceeding 60%.

Even in the Bay Area, Contra Costa County voters opposed the measure 51-49%. Coastal support for the measure was by no means solid, with the region from Paso Robles to Ventura opposing the measure by margins in the 53-58% range.

Despite the measure’s loss, the funding pool for alternative energy itself isn’t going anywhere but up. According to an article in the November 9 San Francisco Chronicle, $843 million was invested in alternative energy during the second quarter of 2006 alone, more than double the amount from the same period in 2005.

Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee pointed out in an excellent column on November 14 that any serious analysis of the results of the election this year needs to take into account the low turnout.

Low turnout was predicted, and low turnout happened. About 7.5 million Californians cast ballots this year. That’s well under 50% of all registered California voters. It’s only a third or so of all eligible voters (the state has roughly 22.7 million eligible voters). Walters writes, “Whatever the final number turns out to be, it will be much lower than even the most pessimistic pre-election forecasts.”

In addition to the sheer low numbers, Walters cites data from the Los Angeles Times exit polls that show that even though whites have dropped to below 50% of the state’s population, voter turnout this year was almost overwhelmingly white and non-Latino (75%). Similar disparities exist between people who are most likely to vote and the rest of the population in terms of income and college education.

As Walters points out, “The numbers underscore the fact that California is two parallel political universes, forcing politicians to simultaneously appeal to voters who are an ever-narrower slice of society and confront issues that are largely generated in the nonvoting universe.”

According to a November 9 Los Angeles Times article, the line of competitors is already forming for funds available under the $42.7 billion in infrastructure bonds passed by voters on Election Day.

Other post-election articles feature quotes very similar to this one from the president of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Carl Guardino: “For California employers and the economy, this election was like Christmas. Almost every package we hoped for was under the tree.”

What will be lost in all of the celebration and shoulder-jostling is that the funds approved are a drop in the bucket. According to the article, the governor’s office estimates that at least $500 billion will be needed over the next 20 years to accommodate the expected 30% growth in California’s population.

Another significant part of the election this year was that the governor had very little in the way of coattails for any of the Republican downticket candidates. The only Republican downticket candidate who won was Insurance Commissioner-elect Steve Poizner, who beat out Cruz Bustamante by a 51-39% margin.

All of the other Republicans lost, despite polls and pundit assessments in the run-up to the election that predicted that many of them would win. Tom McClintock lost to John Garamendi by 49-45%. Tony Strickland lost to John Chiang by 51-40%. Steve McPherson lost to Debra Bowen by 48-45%. The attorney general and treasurer races were decided by even wider margins.

The biggest news about the slate of propositions on he California ballot this year was that there were quite a number of expectations defied.

None of the big infrastructure measures fell. In fact, most passed with comfortable margins. The conventional wisdom was that voters were going to be too wary of big-ticket spending to give the measures their okay. The other conventional wisdom was that there was just too much information to absorb about all of the infrastructure measures. The thinking seemed to be that all of the measures would cancel each other out.
On the other hand, none of the other measures on the ballot did well — except for Proposition 83, which never had any significant opposition. The two biggest-ticket measures, Propositions 86 and 87, failed at the polls by significant margins. The parental notification and eminent domain measures, Propositions 85 and 90, which were both expected to pass, failed as well.

Dan Morain of the Los Angeles Times, who covered the money side of the ballot measure campaigns, pointed out in a November 9 article that in almost all of the campaigns, the side with the most money to spend won. In the case of Proposition 87 alone, both sides spent more than $150 million, making the alternative energy initiative by far the most expensive ballot measure in US history.

Our handy cheat sheets of election results for statewide races are now live.

Check out our page of ballot measure and major statewide officeholder results.

We’ve also posted a page of detailed statewide officeholder results, including the tallies for all minor-party candidates.

Also, don’t forget our page of campaign finance figures. It’s a one-stop resource that will tell you where all the big money funding supporters and opponents of the ballot measures came from.

More resources to come, shortly. Stay tuned.

We’ve just put tables at the top of our Hot Topic pages for each proposition indicating the final vote count statewide for each measure. We also plan to publish a single page with major statewide election results (including candidate races) in the next 24 hours. Keep checking back for further details.

Of course, for the most up-to-date election results, check the Secretary of State website.

Proposition 90 has been going back and forth all evening. As of now, with 38% of all precincts reporting, the noes have the slight edge: 51-49%.

Both of the big-money measures appear on their way down to defeat. Proposition 86 is at 54-46%. Proposition 87 is at 57-43%, which if it holds will be a truly humiliating margin for the measure’s backers.

Governor Schwarzenegger has beaten Phil Angelides by an approximately 60-36% margin with about a third of all precincts reporting. About an hour ago, Schwarzenegger struck a pronounced bipartisan note in his victory speech, and Angelides conceded the race.