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.

The 1A-1E group of propositions seems to be doing well enough at the polls to win. With almost 40% of all precincts reporting, the numbers are as follows:

• Proposition 1A: 77-24% yes

• Proposition 1B: 60-40% yes

• Proposition 1C: 56-44% yes

• Proposition 1D: 53-47% yes

• Proposition 1E: 63-37% yes

The other big bond measure, Proposition 84, seems to be strugglng to hang on, with 52% voting yes and 48% voting no thus far.

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.

The day is here. Don’t forget to get out to the polls.

Virtually any questions you may have can be answered by calling your county clerk’s office or the Secretary of State’s voter assistance hotline at 1-800-345-VOTE.

Polls in California close at 8pm.

As Daniel Weintraub of the Sacramento Bee notes in an October 24 article on Proposition 90, “This is a constitutional amendment that could change the face of California government forever. It deserves far more attention than it has received to date.”

The television ads on both sides of the proposition have probably done less to illuminate what the effects of the measure would be than the ads for and against any other issue on the ballot. The No on 90 ads ominously call it “a taxpayer trap,” which is a perfect way to stir up voter fear without providing any information (or even misinformation) as to why you should be scared — especially if you’re a California property owner.

As the League of Women Voters summarizes it, Proposition 90 would:

• require additional compensation to property owners if new laws or rules result in substantial economic losses to the owner, such as limiting the number of homes that can be developed on a parcel, limiting the height of buildings, eliminating road access to the parcel, or requiring endangered species protection or historical preservation
• limit the purposes for which a government could take private property for building a government-owned public facility, correcting a public nuisance on a parcel, or responding to a declared state of emergency
• require that the government own and occupy the acquired property
• prohibit governments from using eminent domain for economic development purposes
• require governments to pay more than fair market value if a greater sum were necessary to place the property owner “in the same position monetarily” as if the property had never been taken

The eminent domain provisions of Proposition 90 are controversial. But less-publicized are the provision that property owners be compensated by governments for any use that results in a “substantial loss of value” to their property. The language in this part of the proposition is vague. The state legislative analyst’s office notes that:

… the broad language of the measure suggests that its provisions could apply to a variety of future governmental requirements that impose economic losses on property owners. These laws and rules could include requirements relating, for example, to employment conditions, apartment prices, endangered species, historical preservation, and consumer financial protection.

One significant note: the provisions of Proposition 90 would not apply retroactively.

Lots of last-minute money has been pouring into the No on 90 campaign. According to an article in today’s Sacramento Bee, a joint labor-management committee of the State Building and Construction Trades Council has given $1 million to No on 90.

An attorney for the group is quoted as saying, “Because the threat to infrastructure development is so big from Prop 90, the group decided this was the one place they wanted to spend money. This fund has never contributed to a campaign before. Nothing like this has ever come along.”

Most of the Yes on 90 money in the last month has continued to come from committees affiliated with real-estate developer Howard Rich, as well as from small individual contributions.

According to an article in Saturday’s San Francisco Chronicle, the big infrastructure bonds appear on their way to victory. The Chronicle and several other major newspapers cite the most recent Field Poll results.

A quick look at the poll numbers:

• Proposition 1B: 56-28% yes

• Proposition 1C: 51-30% yes

• Proposition 1D: 56-29% yes

• Proposition 1E: 53-27% yes

• Proposition 84: 51-31% yes

The one caveat to keep in mind from news analysis and political observers that we have emphasized over the past month is that while it is good that all of the bonds are polling above 50%, there is no guarantee that they will pass unless they are well above 50%.

Proposition 1B and 1D appear very well-positioned to clear the hurdle, but the rest are still up in the air. Nonetheless, the recent spate of stumping for the propositions by the governor and other candidates and a truckload of television ads urging a “yes” vote appear to be on their way to paying off.

In addition, as pollsters have pointed out in recent news articles, the number of people expected to vote “no” on the measures has not expanded significantly since the last time polls were taken on the bonds — increasing the likelihood that the measures will pass, and get implemented.

Unless, of course, Proposition 90 passes, in which event all bets are off.

One note amidst all of the election news — don’t forget to vote tomorrow, if you’ve not already voted. Polls are open statewide from 7:00am to 8:00pm.

Predictions are that anywhere from 38% to 55% of registered voters statewide will actually vote. Although that’s not surprising given the fact that it’s not a presidential election year, it’s still a low number given the enormous impact that any one of the 13 ballot measures on the slate will have on the future of the state, if passed. (Let alone if they were all to pass.) 61% of registered voters participated in the 2003 recall election.
The online version of this year’s Voter Guide is available here.

You can also obtain your polling place information from your county elections office. Just do a Google or Yahoo! search using the name of your county and the term “election,” “clerk,” or “registrar.” The Secretary of State’s website also has a polling place lookup feature which will give you phone numbers for county, city, and town clerks’ offices and will let you know whether your individual community offers online polling place lookup or not.

If you’re having trouble finding your polling place online, or if you don’t have time to search, or if you have any other questions before you head out to vote, you can contact the Secretary of State’s toll-free voter assistance hotline at 1-800-345-VOTE.

Wondering why you’ve not heard much about Proposition 88 lately? Or anything at all? While Governor Schwarzenegger and other California political bigshots are cruising up and down the state stumping hard for Proposition 1D, the education infrastructure bond, what you’re hearing on Proposition 88, the other education-related measure on the ballot, is the sound of crickets.

Proposition 88 would impose a $50 parcel tax on most private property in the state to fund $470 million in school improvement programs. $85 million of that total would go to facility lease costs, but according to the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, conditions on the use of the money would mean that only 140 schools statewide would ever get the facility lease funds.

A post on the SFGate politics blog points out that major California education groups didn’t like Proposition 88 competing with Proposition 1D from the beginning, and they formed an unlikely alliance with groups like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in opposition to the measure. The effect of the education groups’ opposition was, in the words of the post, to seal the measure’s doom.

And that was before the proposition’s biggest financial backer, Silicon Valley philanthropic group EdVoice, pulled $500,000 from the Proposition 88 campaign and gave it instead to Proposition 1D. Initially, venture capitalist John Doerr (who has given close to $1 million to the backers of proposition 87) and Netflix CEO Reed Hastings gave money to the committees supporting the measure, but they stopped donating once it became apparent that the measure was going to lose, according to an October 31 article in the Orange County Register.

The most recent polls on Proposition 88 show it with anywhere between 42 and 52% support. Nonetheless, as one opponent of the measure was quoted in the Orange County Register article as saying, “Even dead people win elections. It would be foolhardy to assume it’s going to fail.”

According to the new Field Poll, Proposition 90 may not be in the enviable position that the Polimetrix poll released a couple of days ago indicated. The Field Poll shows Proposition 90 at 42-35% oppose.

The Field Poll’s Mark DiCamillo suggests in a San Diego Union-Tribune article that voters haven’t been persuaded that Proposition 90 is necessary:

It’s one of those propositions that voters are really having a hard time coming to grips with. They don’t really know what the implications are when they’re passing something like this. When you’re in that kind of predicament and you’re not really sure what it will do, the safer vote is the “no” vote.

If this trend holds, it will be another huge story, because not only have there been constant flows of big money to back Proposition 90, but almost every news report on the measure since the summer has predicted that it would pass, and with flying colors.

The race for controller, normally not what would be called a contentious struggle in California politics, continues to be one of the big campaign cash magnets this year.

Team 2006 (an independent expenditure committee formed by a group of casino-owning Southern California Native American tribes) and tax-preparation software firm Intuit have given over $2 million to Republican Tony Strickland.

The Ventura County Star and the San Francisco Chronicle report that Democratic candidate John Chiang has gotten a lot of late cash, with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians Native American Rights Fund giving almost $337,000 for radio ads in support of Chiang, and $1.9 million coming to his campaign coffers from Working California, a coalition of labor unions and Asian-American business groups.

A new public opinion survey by KTVU-TV and the Field Poll shows continued deteriorating support for three of the major propositions:

• Proposition 85: 46-43% yes

• Proposition 86: 45-45% yes

• Proposition 87: 44-40% no

If Proposition 87 loses in spite of all of the money and political capital that have spent to promote it, including months of TV ads and numerous public appearances by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and assorted celebrities (everyone from Julia Roberts to Robert Redford to Eva Longoria), it will be one of the big stories of the election year.