Field Poll Tabulations

FIELD
RESEARCH
CORPORATION
FOUNDED IN 1945 BY MERVIN FIELD
601 California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, California 94108 415-392-5763
Tabulations From a Survey of California Voters About Proposition 32,

the Payroll Deductions for Political Contributions Initiative
- prepared for the Capitol Alert and the Sacramento Bee
September 21, 2012
Introduction
This survey was conducted jointly by The Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley and The Field Poll September 6-18, 2012.
Interviews were conducted with 1,183 California registered voters, including 902 voters considered likely to vote in the November
2012 general election. In order to cover a broad range of issues and still minimize voter fatigue, most of the questions in the report were
asked of a random subsample of 434 likely voters. The survey was conducted by telephone using live interviewers in six languages
and dialects English, Spanish, Cantonese, Mandarin, Korean, and Vietnamese.
The overall registered voter sample was supplemented additional interviews among Chinese-American, Korean-American and
Vietnamese-American voters to enable the results from these voter subgroups to be compared to those of other racial/ethnic voter
populations. Funding for the multi-ethnic samples was provided by the New America Media, through a grant from the Blue Shield of
California Foundation.
.
Sampling
The sample was developed from telephone listings of individual voters selected randomly from a listing of statewide voter registration rolls.
The Asian sample augments were developed from listings of ethnic surnames of voters targeting Chinese-Americans, Korean-Americans and
Vietnamese-Americans. Once a voters name and telephone had been selected interviewers are attempted only with the specified voter.
Interviews can be conducted on either the voters landline or cell phone, depending on the source of the telephone listing from the voter file
and the preference of the voter.
Prior to the start of data collection, professionally-trained telephone interviewers were briefed with regard to the surveys proper calling and
interviewing procedures by the Study Director. This session provided both interviewers and supervisors with an overview of the study and
includes a question-by-question review of all items in the survey. Interviewers then completed survey interviews by telephone through the
computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) system. CATI controls the telephone scripts read to individual respondents by displaying
the appropriate questionnaire items and their valid response code alternatives in their proper sequence on computer screens at each
interviewer's booth. The interviewer then reads each question aloud to the respondent from the screen and enters each respondent's pre-coded
answer category through the keyboard directly to a computer disk. All answers are automatically stored in computer memory.
In order to bring hard-to-reach respondents into the survey, up to six attempts (an initial call plus five callbacks) were made to each telephone
number selected for inclusion into the sample. Callbacks were made at different times and on different days to increase the probability of
finding voters available for the interview. Where possible, appointments are made at specified dates and times to maximize convenience and
cooperation rates.
Data Processing
The data file resulting from CATI interviewing is itself virtually error-free. Even so, a final series of data checks were performed by means of
a specially designed cleaning program that scrutinizes each respondent record for internally inconsistent information. Once the data were
determined to be clean and error-free, the overall sample was weighted to align it to the proper statewide distribution of voters by
race/ethnicity and to other demographic and regional characteristics of the states registered voter population.
Guide to Reading the Tables

The following is an explanation of the detailed statistical tabulations contained in this report:
The question or questions upon which the data are based is shown at the top of each table
Tables are percentaged vertically with the raw percentage base appearing at the top of each column.
The data have been weighted. All percentages and frequencies reported in each table are therefore weighted tabulations.
In instances where percentages are calculated on small bases (e.g., when the unweighted base is fewer than 100 respondents)
the reader is urged to interpret the data with caution, since results are subject to larger levels of sampling error.
Throughout the tables an asterisk is used to denote a value of less than 1/2 of 1%. A hyphen indicates zero value. On some
tables the percentages may add to more than 100% due to multiple mentions.
Bases of subgroups used in the tabulations may add to less than the total number of respondents due to some respondents not
reporting that characteristic.
Subgroup Definitions
Southern California:
Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Imperial, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Kern, and San
Luis Obispo counties
Northern California:
all other 48 California counties
Coastal Counties:
San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Mateo,
San Francisco, Contra Costa, Alameda, Marin, Napa, Solano, Sonoma, Santa Clara, Mendocino, Humboldt and
Del Norte counties
Inland counties:
all other 38 California counties
Los Angeles:
Los Angeles County
San Diego/Orange:
San Diego County and Orange counties
Other South:
San Bernardino, Riverside, Imperial, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo
SF Bay Area:
San Francisco, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo
Central Valley:
Butte, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta,
Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehema, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba
Other North:
Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Del Norte, El Dorado, Humboldt, Inyo, Lake, Lassen, Mariposa, Mendocino,
Monterey, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, San Benito, Santa Cruz, Sierra, Siskiyou, Trinity, and Tuolumne
Estimates of Sampling Error

In any survey based on a sampling, there is some sampling error introduced into the data by the process of sampling itself. When the sample
has been drawn using random processes, it is possible to apply probability principles to determine the potential range of such error. While
survey samples of human populations rarely, if ever, meet all of the criteria theoretically required for the application of these principles, it is
customary to use them as an approximation of error that is introduced as a result of sampling. The table below shows the range of error that
is associated with samples of various sizes, assuming the use of the 95% confidence level, which is customary for most public opinion
surveys. For example, if 50% of the random subsample of 434 likely voters answered yes to a specific question, this statistic would have a
sampling error of plus or minus 4.8 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.
Approximate percentage distribution of replies to question
Approximate
sample size
100
200
300
450
900
10%
+/- 6.0
+/- 4.3
+/- 3.5
+/- 2.9
+/- 2.2
30%
+/- 9.2
+/- 6.5
+/- 5.3
+/- 4.4
+/- 3.1
50%
+/- 10.0
+/- 7.1
+/- 5.8
+/- 4.8
+/- 3.4
70%
+/- 9.2
+/- 6.5
+/- 5.3
+/- 4.4
+/- 3.1
90%
+/- 6.0
+/- 4.3
+/- 3.5
+/- 2.9
+/- 2.2
There are many other possible sources of error other than sampling variability in this and any other public opinion survey. The overall design
and execution of the survey minimized the potential for these other sources of error.
Questions Asked
Proposition 32 is the Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction, Contributions to Candidates initiative. It prohibits unions from using
payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. It applies same use prohibition to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or
government contractors. It prohibits union and corporate contributions to candidates and their committees and prohibits government
contractor contributions to elected officers or their committees. Fiscal Impact: Increased costs to state and local government, potentially
exceeding 1 million dollars annually, to implement and enforce the measure's requirements. If the election were being held today,
would you vote YES or NO on Proposition 32? (ASKED OF A RANDOM SUBSAMPLE OF LIKELY VOTERS)
Thinking about who has influence in California politics Do you think labor unions have too much, too little or about the right amount
of influence in California politics? (ASKED OF A RANDOM SUBSAMPLE OF LIKELY VOTERS)
Do you think corporations have too much, too little or about the right amount of influence in California politics? (ASKED OF A RANDOM
SUBSAMPLE OF LIKELY VOTERS)
As you may know, to help deal with its long-run fiscal problems, California has just passed a law that reduces the pension benefits for newly
hired state and local government workers. It leaves current workers benefits largely unchanged but requires that they contribute more to pay for
it. Do you think this law went too far in cutting benefits, handled the problem about right or has it not gone far enough in cutting benefits?
(ASKED OF ALL LIKELY VOTERS)
Page 79
Sep 19, 2012 08:38
September 2012 Field Poll
Table 76
Q18. Proposition 32 is the Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction, Contributions to Candidates initiative. It prohibits
unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. It applies same use prohibition to payroll deductions, if
any, by corporations or government contractors. It prohibits union and corporate contributions to candidates and their
committees and prohibits government contractor contributions to elected officers or their committees. Fiscal Impact:
Increased costs to state and local government, potentially exceeding 1 million dollars annually, to implement and enforce
the measure's requirements.If the election were being held today, would you vote YES or NO on Proposition 32?
Base : Likely voter (Form A).
Region
Area
----------------------- ----------------------------------North/South Coast/Inlnd
Cen----------- ----------San
tral S.F.
South North
InDiego/ Othr Val- Bay
Other
Total Cal
Cal
Coast land LA
Ornge South ey
Area North
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Unweighted
Weighted
434
254
180
333
101
108
92
48
65
101
20
Party Regis.
Gender
Likely Vote
----------------- ----------- ----------Not
NonLike- LikePart/
Fely
ly
Dem
Rep
Other Male male voter voter
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
187
141
106
206
228
462
278
184
340
122
115
88
67
76
88
29
206
144
111
205
257
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
434
462
- 100.0
Yes
173
37.5
108
38.8
65
35.5
118
34.6
56
45.7
29
24.8
46
52.3
26
39.6
31
41.3
32
36.7
9
30.1
48
23.5
75
52.0
50
44.5
86
42.1
87
33.8
173
37.5
No
201
43.5
120
43.2
81
44.1
157
46.0
45
36.6
61
53.1
30
34.3
27
40.9
31
40.5
38
43.4
14
47.8
107
51.7
53
36.6
42
37.3
86
42.0
115
44.7
201
43.5
No opinion
88
19.0
50
18.0
38
20.4
66
19.4
22
17.7
25
22.0
12
13.5
13
19.5
14
18.1
17
19.9
6
22.1
51
24.8
16
11.4
20
18.2
32
15.9
55
21.5
88
19.0
Adds to:
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----Rows
462
278
184
340
122
115
88
67
76
88
29
206
144
111
205
257
462
Respondents
462
278
184
340
122
115
88
67
76
88
29
206
144
111
205
257
462
Project #2012-004
Field Research Corporation
Page 80
Sep 19, 2012 08:38
Table 77
Age
Ethnicity
----------------------- ----------------------------------------White
nonViet65 or Hisp- LaAsian Chin- Kor- namTotal 18-39 40-49 50-64 Older anic tino Black total ese
ean
ese
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Unweighted
Weighted
434
97
95
119
158
250
57
19
101
34
23
37
Education
Generation
--------------------------------------- H.S. Some
Grad- ColPost
uate lege/ Col- Grad1st
2nd
3rd+
or
Trade lege uate
Gen
Gen
Gen
less Schol Grad Work
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
120
61
250
83
131
126
91
462
125
131
144
104
325
85
32
22
8
3
5
70
66
322
72
152
129
109
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Yes
173
37.5
54
43.5
34
25.5
52
36.1
42
40.0
133
41.0
21
25.1
10
32.1
10
43.8
4
52.7
2
66.1
2
36.7
22
31.3
24
36.3
127
39.3
28
38.3
51
33.6
47
36.6
47
43.4
No
201
43.5
43
34.6
82
62.4
66
45.7
43
41.6
129
39.6
49
57.5
13
42.2
8
35.9
3
38.3
1
21.6
1
19.1
33
47.2
33
50.7
133
41.3
35
48.5
64
42.3
55
42.5
47
43.1
No opinion
88
19.0
27
21.9
16
12.1
26
18.3
19
18.5
63
19.4
15
17.4
8
25.7
4
20.3
1
9.0
*
12.3
2
44.3
15
21.5
9
13.1
63
19.5
10
13.2
36
24.1
27
20.9
15
13.5
Adds to:
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----Rows
462
125
131
144
104
325
85
32
22
8
3
5
70
66
322
72
152
129
109
Respondents
462
125
131
144
104
325
85
32
22
8
3
5
70
66
322
72
152
129
109
Project #2012-004
Page 81
Sep 19, 2012 08:38
Table 78
Union
Household Income Marital Status
Status
----------------- ----------------- ----------------------- Political ideology
----------------------------Mar- Separ
Strng Mod. Mid.
Less
More ried/ Divor Never
Yes, Yes
Con- Con- of
Mod. Strng
Than $40
Than Live Wido Mar- Yes, Pub- Pri- No,
serv- serv- the
lib- libTotal -40K -99K $100K Tgthr -wed ried
Any lic
vate None ative ative Road eral eral
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Unweighted
Weighted
434
156
161
70
277
65
89
88
62
29
346
60
79
165
78
48
Tenure
----------Own
Rent
===== =====
283
132
462
120
196
103
305
58
99
111
66
46
351
68
89
193
76
33
330
116
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Yes
173
37.5
42
35.2
72
36.7
42
40.2
117
38.5
15
26.1
41
41.1
31
27.6
20
30.0
11
23.8
143
40.6
31
45.0
45
50.4
71
36.8
20
26.0
4
12.5
128
39.0
39
33.3
No
201
43.5
54
45.2
83
42.5
47
45.7
127
41.7
27
45.9
47
47.7
67
60.8
36
55.3
31
68.7
134
38.1
23
34.2
30
33.6
92
47.5
39
51.6
17
51.6
139
42.2
55
47.6
No opinion
88
19.0
24
19.6
41
20.8
15
14.1
60
19.8
16
27.9
11
11.2
13
11.6
10
14.7
3
7.5
75
21.3
14
20.8
14
16.0
31
15.8
17
22.4
12
35.9
62
18.8
22
19.1
Adds to:
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----Rows
462
120
196
103
305
58
99
111
66
46
351
68
89
193
76
33
330
116
Respondents
462
120
196
103
305
58
99
111
66
46
351
68
89
193
76
33
330
116
Project #2012-004
Page 82
Sep 19, 2012 08:38
Table 79
Q19. Do you think labor unions have too much, too little or about the right amount of influence in California politics?
Region
Area
Cen----------- ----------San
tral S.F.
South North
Other
Total Cal
Cal
Coast land LA
Ornge South ey
Area North
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Unweighted
Weighted
434
254
180
333
101
108
92
48
65
101
20
Party Regis.
Gender
Likely Vote
----------------- ----------- ----------Not
NonLike- LikePart/
Fely
ly
Dem
Rep
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
187
141
106
206
228
462
278
184
340
122
115
88
67
76
88
29
206
144
111
205
257
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
434
462
- 100.0
Too much
219
47.4
135
48.5
84
45.7
152
44.7
67
55.0
39
33.7
49
55.9
43
64.8
37
49.1
37
41.6
14
48.5
52
25.5
118
81.7
48
43.5
104
51.0
115
44.5
219
47.4
About the
right amount
147
31.8
86
31.0
61
32.9
114
33.5
33
26.9
50
43.2
20
22.8
13
18.8
21
27.3
35
39.6
9
31.9
93
45.0
12
8.5
42
37.5
65
31.9
82
31.7
147
31.8
Too little
70
15.1
39
14.2
30
16.4
52
15.4
17
14.2
20
17.5
16
18.1
3
4.2
15
19.8
12
13.5
4
13.5
46
22.4
10
6.8
14
12.3
28
13.6
42
16.2
70
15.1
No opinion
27
5.8
17
6.2
9
5.0
22
6.4
5
3.9
6
5.6
3
3.1
8
12.1
3
3.8
5
5.2
2
6.0
15
7.1
4
3.0
7
6.7
7
3.5
19
7.5
27
5.8
Adds to:
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----Rows
462
278
184
340
122
115
88
67
76
88
29
206
144
111
205
257
462
Respondents
462
278
184
340
122
115
88
67
76
88
29
206
144
111
205
257
462
Project #2012-004
Page 83
Sep 19, 2012 08:38
Table 80
Age
Ethnicity
----------------------- ----------------------------------------White
ean
ese
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Unweighted
Weighted
434
97
95
119
158
250
57
19
101
34
23
37
Education
Generation
--------------------------------------- H.S. Some
Grad- ColPost
2nd
3rd+
or
Trade lege uate
Gen
Gen
Gen
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
120
61
250
83
131
126
91
462
125
131
144
104
325
85
32
22
8
3
5
70
66
322
72
152
129
109
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Too much
219
47.4
57
45.5
57
43.1
68
47.4
55
53.1
182
55.8
24
28.2
6
17.5
8
38.0
2
23.2
1
55.5
1
11.4
19
27.7
30
46.4
168
52.2
29
40.0
84
55.5
60
46.3
46
42.4
About the
right amount
147
31.8
40
31.8
51
38.4
43
30.0
29
27.8
83
25.6
39
45.5
15
48.3
8
38.0
5
56.5
*
18.7
2
39.0
25
35.3
19
28.6
100
31.1
27
37.2
36
23.4
48
37.0
37
33.6
Too little
70
15.1
20
16.2
20
15.4
27
18.8
10
9.5
42
12.9
18
21.2
11
34.2
2
8.7
1
15.0
*
4.4
*
3.6
16
22.7
10
15.9
43
13.4
11
15.7
27
18.0
11
8.8
20
18.0
No opinion
27
5.8
8
6.5
4
3.1
5
3.8
10
9.7
18
5.7
4
5.0
3
15.2
*
5.3
1
21.4
2
46.0
10
14.3
6
9.1
11
3.3
5
7.0
5
3.1
10
7.9
7
6.0
Adds to:
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----Rows
462
125
131
144
104
325
85
32
22
8
3
5
70
66
322
72
152
129
109
Respondents
462
125
131
144
104
325
85
32
22
8
3
5
70
66
322
72
152
129
109
Project #2012-004
Page 84
Sep 19, 2012 08:38
Table 81
Union
Status
----------------------------Mar- Separ
Strng Mod. Mid.
Less
Yes, Yes
Con- Con- of
Mod. Strng
Than $40
serv- serv- the
Any lic
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Unweighted
Weighted
434
156
161
70
277
65
89
88
62
29
346
60
79
165
78
48
Tenure
----------Own
Rent
===== =====
283
132
462
120
196
103
305
58
99
111
66
46
351
68
89
193
76
33
330
116
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Too much
219
47.4
46
38.1
88
44.7
69
66.6
165
54.2
26
45.0
27
27.7
41
37.2
22
34.0
19
42.1
178
50.6
54
79.5
57
64.1
77
39.7
26
34.3
4
11.5
173
52.4
43
37.0
About the
right amount
147
31.8
40
33.4
65
33.4
29
28.1
87
28.6
14
24.7
45
45.8
48
43.5
30
46.1
18
39.5
99
28.1
3
4.4
17
18.9
74
38.2
40
53.5
13
38.2
100
30.4
40
34.2
Too little
70
15.1
28
23.4
30
15.3
4
4.3
38
12.5
9
16.0
22
22.7
21
18.6
12
18.7
8
18.3
49
14.0
11
15.6
7
8.2
30
15.4
6
8.5
15
46.9
41
12.5
25
21.6
No opinion
27
5.8
6
5.2
13
6.5
1
1.0
14
4.7
8
14.3
4
3.9
1
0.7
1
1.2
26
7.3
*
0.5
8
8.7
13
6.6
3
3.7
1
3.4
16
4.8
8
7.2
Adds to:
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----Rows
462
120
196
103
305
58
99
111
66
46
351
68
89
193
76
33
330
116
Respondents
462
120
196
103
305
58
99
111
66
46
351
68
89
193
76
33
330
116
Project #2012-004
Page 33
Sep 19, 2012 08:40
Table 27
Base : Likely voters (Form A).
Presidential
Preference
----------------Other
/UnRomdecTotal Obama ney
ided
===== ===== ===== =====
Unweighted
Weighted
434
249
138
47
Prop 30 (Brown)
----------------------------------------------------YES
NO
DK
----------------------------------------------------SomeSomeVery
what Not
Very what Not
upset upset upset
upset upset upset
if it if it if it
if it if it if it
pass- pass- pass- UndeTotal fails fails fails Total es
es
es
cided
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
239
68
88
83
140
58
44
38
55
Prop 38 (Munger)
----------------Yes
No
Don't
know
===== ===== =====
195
165
74
Prop 32 Vote
----------------Don't
Yes
No
know
===== ===== =====
161
183
90
462
269
152
41
246
61
91
94
162
69
51
43
54
193
191
77
173
201
88
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Too much
219
47.4
77
28.8
35.4
121
79.4
55.2
21
50.8
9.4
75
30.6
34.4
13
21.7
6.1
37
41.3
17.1
25
26.1
11.2
123
76.1
56.4
58
84.8
26.7
40
78.6
18.2
25
59.2
11.5
20
37.6
9.2
61
31.4
27.7
132
68.7
60.1
27
34.5
12.2
108
62.6
49.6
80
40.0
36.7
30
34.2
13.7
About the
right amount
147
31.8
120
44.7
82.0
14
9.4
9.7
12
30.0
8.3
115
46.6
78.2
31
50.6
21.1
39
42.9
26.5
45
47.6
30.5
16
9.9
11.0
5
7.0
3.3
5
10.1
3.5
6
14.5
4.2
16
29.7
10.8
96
49.7
65.4
24
12.7
16.6
26
34.1
18.0
44
25.3
29.8
78
38.6
52.9
25
29.0
17.3
Too little
70
15.1
50
18.8
72.5
15
10.1
22.0
4
9.4
5.5
42
17.2
60.9
14
23.5
20.7
10
10.7
13.9
18
19.5
26.3
20
12.6
29.3
6
8.2
8.1
4
7.7
5.6
11
25.5
15.6
7
12.7
9.8
30
15.8
43.7
28
14.7
40.3
11
14.4
16.0
14
8.2
20.4
37
18.6
53.8
18
20.5
25.8
No opinion
27
5.8
21
7.8
78.5
2
1.1
6.5
4
9.8
14.9
14
5.6
51.6
3
4.2
9.8
5
5.2
17.8
6
6.8
24.1
2
1.3
8.2
2
3.6
6.8
*
0.8
1.3
11
19.9
40.2
6
3.2
23.0
7
3.9
27.9
13
16.9
49.1
7
3.9
25.3
6
2.8
21.0
14
16.3
53.7
Adds to:
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----Rows
462
269
152
41
246
61
91
94
162
69
51
43
54
193
191
77
173
201
88
Respondents
462
269
152
41
246
61
91
94
162
69
51
43
54
193
191
77
173
201
88
Project #2012-004
Page 85
Sep 19, 2012 08:38
Table 82
Q20. Do you think corporations have too much, too little or about the right amount of influence in California politics?
Region
Area
Cen----------- ----------San
tral S.F.
South North
Other
Total Cal
Cal
Coast land LA
Ornge South ey
Area North
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Unweighted
Weighted
434
254
180
333
101
108
92
48
65
101
20
Party Regis.
Gender
Likely Vote
----------------- ----------- ----------Not
NonLike- LikePart/
Fely
ly
Dem
Rep
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
187
141
106
206
228
462
278
184
340
122
115
88
67
76
88
29
206
144
111
205
257
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
434
462
- 100.0
Too much
309
66.9
174
62.8
134
73.0
231
68.0
77
63.6
77
66.9
51
57.5
44
65.3
50
66.7
69
78.8
18
62.9
162
78.5
69
48.1
78
69.7
149
72.7
160
62.2
309
66.9
About the
right amount
77
16.7
47
16.9
30
16.4
58
17.0
19
15.8
20
17.4
16
18.0
7
10.6
13
17.0
13
14.4
9
30.4
25
12.0
32
22.4
20
18.0
34
16.4
44
17.0
77
16.7
Too little
48
10.5
35
12.7
13
7.1
27
8.0
21
17.4
9
7.6
14
16.1
12
17.3
10
12.6
3
3.6
1
4.0
14
6.8
30
21.0
4
3.6
15
7.1
34
13.1
48
10.5
No opinion
28
6.0
21
7.7
6
3.4
24
7.0
4
3.2
9
8.2
7
8.3
5
6.9
3
3.7
3
3.1
1
2.7
6
2.7
12
8.5
10
8.7
8
3.8
20
7.7
28
6.0
Adds to:
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----Rows
462
278
184
340
122
115
88
67
76
88
29
206
144
111
205
257
462
Respondents
462
278
184
340
122
115
88
67
76
88
29
206
144
111
205
257
462
Project #2012-004
Page 86
Sep 19, 2012 08:38
Table 83
Age
Ethnicity
----------------------- ----------------------------------------White
ean
ese
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Unweighted
Weighted
434
97
95
119
158
250
57
19
101
34
23
37
Education
Generation
--------------------------------------- H.S. Some
Grad- ColPost
2nd
3rd+
or
Trade lege uate
Gen
Gen
Gen
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
120
61
250
83
131
126
91
462
125
131
144
104
325
85
32
22
8
3
5
70
66
322
72
152
129
109
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Too much
309
66.9
85
67.8
91
68.9
106
73.6
58
55.5
208
63.8
65
76.0
27
83.3
12
55.0
5
61.2
2
60.8
1
25.7
46
66.1
46
70.8
214
66.2
48
65.6
96
63.4
92
71.1
73
67.5
About the
right amount
77
16.7
22
17.4
21
15.8
20
13.6
22
21.5
60
18.6
10
11.7
3
8.4
4
18.8
2
25.4
*
10.3
1
23.6
6
9.1
9
13.5
61
18.8
14
20.0
24
16.0
18
13.6
21
19.2
Too little
48
10.5
15
11.8
16
12.0
9
6.5
12
11.4
37
11.4
9
10.1
3
8.3
1
3.1
*
4.7
*
12.0
6
9.1
6
8.7
36
11.2
7
9.9
25
16.2
10
8.0
6
5.7
No opinion
28
6.0
4
2.9
4
3.4
9
6.3
12
11.6
20
6.2
2
2.2
5
23.1
1
8.7
*
17.0
3
50.7
11
15.6
5
6.9
12
3.7
3
4.5
7
4.4
9
7.3
8
7.5
Adds to:
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----Rows
462
125
131
144
104
325
85
32
22
8
3
5
70
66
322
72
152
129
109
Respondents
462
125
131
144
104
325
85
32
22
8
3
5
70
66
322
72
152
129
109
Project #2012-004
Page 87
Sep 19, 2012 08:38
Table 84
Union
Status
----------------------------Mar- Separ
Strng Mod. Mid.
Less
Yes, Yes
Con- Con- of
Mod. Strng
Than $40
serv- serv- the
Any lic
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Unweighted
Weighted
434
156
161
70
277
65
89
88
62
29
346
60
79
165
78
48
Tenure
----------Own
Rent
===== =====
283
132
462
120
196
103
305
58
99
111
66
46
351
68
89
193
76
33
330
116
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Too much
309
66.9
82
68.3
124
63.4
71
68.9
197
64.6
38
66.1
74
74.8
79
70.9
47
71.9
32
69.5
230
65.6
29
42.4
53
59.7
135
69.7
62
82.3
29
86.9
217
65.7
78
67.4
About the
right amount
77
16.7
16
13.3
36
18.6
22
21.0
56
18.3
8
13.5
13
13.4
16
14.0
12
18.2
4
7.8
62
17.6
12
17.2
19
21.8
32
16.4
13
17.1
1
3.6
56
16.9
21
18.2
Too little
48
10.5
14
11.6
21
10.9
9
8.8
35
11.5
7
11.9
6
6.2
13
11.6
4
6.5
9
18.9
35
10.1
22
32.9
8
8.5
18
9.4
*
0.4
35
10.5
13
11.2
No opinion
28
6.0
8
6.7
14
7.1
1
1.3
17
5.6
5
8.5
6
5.6
4
3.5
2
3.4
2
3.8
24
6.7
5
7.5
9
9.9
9
4.5
*
0.5
3
9.1
22
6.8
4
3.2
Adds to:
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----Rows
462
120
196
103
305
58
99
111
66
46
351
68
89
193
76
33
330
116
Respondents
462
120
196
103
305
58
99
111
66
46
351
68
89
193
76
33
330
116
Project #2012-004
Page 34
Sep 19, 2012 08:40
Table 28
Base : Likely voters (Form A).
Presidential
Preference
----------------Other
ided
===== ===== ===== =====
Unweighted
Weighted
434
249
138
47
Prop 30 (Brown)
----------------------------------------------------YES
NO
DK
----------------------------------------------------SomeSomeVery
what Not
Very what Not
upset upset upset
upset upset upset
if it if it if it
if it if it if it
es
es
cided
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
239
68
88
83
140
58
44
38
55
Prop 38 (Munger)
----------------Yes
No
Don't
know
===== ===== =====
195
165
74
Prop 32 Vote
----------------Don't
Yes
No
know
===== ===== =====
161
183
90
462
269
152
41
246
61
91
94
162
69
51
43
54
193
191
77
173
201
88
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Too much
309
66.9
218
81.1
70.7
63
41.2
20.3
28
68.8
9.0
181
73.6
58.7
45
73.2
14.5
69
75.6
22.2
68
71.8
21.9
88
54.0
28.3
34
49.7
11.1
28
55.2
9.0
25
59.5
8.2
40
75.0
13.0
149
77.1
48.3
105
54.7
33.9
55
71.4
17.8
106
61.5
34.5
147
73.0
47.5
56
63.5
18.0
About the
right amount
77
16.7
34
12.6
44.1
40
26.4
52.0
3
7.5
3.9
40
16.3
51.9
10
15.7
12.4
15
16.1
19.0
16
16.8
20.5
31
19.1
40.2
17
24.4
21.8
11
22.6
14.8
3
6.5
3.6
6
11.4
7.9
31
16.2
40.6
36
19.0
47.2
9
12.2
12.2
38
22.0
49.3
24
12.1
31.6
15
16.8
19.1
Too little
48
10.5
8
3.0
16.7
35
22.8
71.8
6
13.7
11.5
13
5.2
26.6
5
8.0
10.2
4
4.3
8.1
4
4.2
8.3
32
19.9
66.7
16
22.8
32.6
6
12.7
13.3
10
23.5
20.7
3
6.1
6.8
6
3.2
12.8
37
19.6
77.5
5
6.1
9.7
19
11.3
40.3
21
10.4
43.5
8
8.9
16.2
No opinion
28
6.0
9
3.3
31.8
15
9.7
53.4
4
10.1
14.8
12
4.9
44.0
2
3.1
6.9
4
3.9
12.9
7
7.1
24.2
11
7.0
41.3
2
3.1
7.6
5
9.6
17.5
4
10.5
16.2
4
7.6
14.7
7
3.5
24.5
13
6.7
46.6
8
10.3
28.9
9
5.3
33.2
9
4.5
32.6
9
10.8
34.2
Adds to:
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----Rows
462
269
152
41
246
61
91
94
162
69
51
43
54
193
191
77
173
201
88
Respondents
462
269
152
41
246
61
91
94
162
69
51
43
54
193
191
77
173
201
88
Project #2012-004
Page 106
Sep 19, 2012 08:38
Table 103
Q26. As you may know, to help deal with it's long-run fiscal problems, California has just passed a law that reduces the pension
benefits for newly hired state and local government workers. It leaves the workers' benefits largely unchanged but requires
that they contribute more to pay for it. Do you think this law went too far in cutting benefits, handled the problem about
right or has it not gone far enough in cutting benefits?
Base : Likely voters
Region
Area
Cen----------- ----------San
tral S.F.
South North
Other
Total Cal
Cal
Coast land LA
Ornge South ey
Area North
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Unweighted
Weighted
902
529
373
692
210
224
196
95
124
217
46
Party Regis.
Gender
Likely Vote
----------------- ----------- ----------Not
NonLike- LikePart/
Fely
ly
Dem
Rep
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
409
292
201
437
465
935
565
370
673
262
234
181
133
144
184
60
415
301
218
420
515
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
902
935
- 100.0
Gone too far
167
17.8
102
18.1
64
17.4
120
17.8
47
17.9
47
20.1
31
17.0
22
16.9
23
15.7
31
16.7
13
21.9
111
26.8
26
8.7
29
13.4
76
18.1
90
17.6
167
17.8
About right
368
39.4
214
37.9
154
41.6
262
38.9
106
40.5
84
36.1
65
35.9
57
42.8
59
40.9
75
40.9
28
46.4
161
38.8
111
36.8
96
44.0
161
38.4
207
40.2
368
39.4
Not far
enough
243
26.0
146
25.9
97
26.1
166
24.7
77
29.2
53
22.9
53
29.4
33
24.8
43
29.8
48
25.9
13
21.8
67
16.1
131
43.4
45
20.7
123
29.4
119
23.2
243
26.0
No opinion
157
16.8
102
18.1
55
14.9
125
18.6
32
12.3
49
20.9
32
17.7
21
15.6
20
13.6
30
16.5
6
9.8
76
18.3
34
11.1
48
21.9
59
14.1
98
19.0
157
16.8
Adds to:
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----Rows
935
565
370
673
262
234
181
133
144
184
60
415
301
218
420
515
935
Respondents
935
565
370
673
262
234
181
133
144
184
60
415
301
218
420
515
935
Project #2012-004
Page 107
Sep 19, 2012 08:38
Table 104
Age
Ethnicity
----------------------- ----------------------------------------White
ean
ese
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Unweighted
Weighted
902
202
199
237
330
493
126
43
228
74
51
80
Education
Generation
--------------------------------------- H.S. Some
Grad- ColPost
2nd
3rd+
or
Trade lege uate
Gen
Gen
Gen
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
261
127
509
184
274
247
192
935
248
264
282
221
647
180
61
47
17
5
10
137
133
660
151
316
256
210
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Gone too far
167
17.8
47
18.8
47
17.8
48
17.1
41
18.7
90
14.0
46
25.5
29
47.5
7
15.7
2
9.2
1
24.7
1
13.3
32
23.6
20
15.2
114
17.3
37
24.8
58
18.5
37
14.3
34
16.2
About right
368
39.4
95
38.1
112
42.3
122
43.3
78
35.1
274
42.3
62
34.6
9
14.9
20
42.5
8
45.2
2
46.0
3
30.6
52
37.9
57
42.6
256
38.8
45
29.9
116
36.6
115
44.7
93
44.0
Not far
enough
243
26.0
54
22.0
61
23.0
83
29.6
62
27.9
178
27.6
44
24.5
10
16.4
12
25.4
5
28.2
1
12.7
2
21.1
25
18.4
42
31.5
176
26.6
45
29.5
88
27.7
57
22.3
54
25.5
No opinion
157
16.8
52
21.0
45
17.0
28
10.1
41
18.3
105
16.1
28
15.4
13
21.2
8
16.4
3
17.5
1
16.6
3
35.0
28
20.1
14
10.8
114
17.3
24
15.9
54
17.2
48
18.7
30
14.3
Adds to:
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----Rows
935
248
264
282
221
647
180
61
47
17
5
10
137
133
660
151
316
256
210
Respondents
935
248
264
282
221
647
180
61
47
17
5
10
137
133
660
151
316
256
210
Project #2012-004
Page 108
Sep 19, 2012 08:38
Table 105
Union
Status
----------------------------Mar- Separ
Strng Mod. Mid.
Less
Yes, Yes
Con- Con- of
Mod. Strng
Than $40
serv- serv- the
Any lic
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Unweighted
Weighted
902
309
317
187
576
136
183
176
125
59
726
105
190
338
153
101
Tenure
----------Own
Rent
===== =====
600
262
935
225
384
243
621
115
197
211
139
79
724
121
215
354
166
69
671
224
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Gone too far
167
17.8
52
23.0
71
18.6
28
11.7
94
15.1
25
21.4
48
24.3
52
24.8
35
24.9
22
27.5
114
15.8
15
12.8
31
14.3
64
18.2
35
21.1
17
24.2
111
16.5
45
20.2
About right
368
39.4
90
39.9
150
39.2
102
42.2
247
39.9
38
33.2
82
41.4
95
45.1
59
42.3
37
47.5
273
37.7
31
25.6
84
39.1
143
40.4
75
45.6
32
47.2
267
39.8
89
39.8
Not far
enough
243
26.0
38
17.1
109
28.4
71
29.1
190
30.7
20
17.0
33
16.5
36
17.3
26
19.0
11
13.6
207
28.5
60
49.4
71
33.0
85
24.1
16
9.8
11
15.4
196
29.2
43
19.1
No opinion
157
16.8
45
20.1
53
13.8
41
17.0
89
14.3
33
28.4
35
17.8
27
12.8
19
13.8
9
11.5
130
18.0
15
12.2
29
13.6
61
17.3
39
23.5
9
13.2
97
14.5
47
20.9
Adds to:
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----Rows
935
225
384
243
621
115
197
211
139
79
724
121
215
354
166
69
671
224
Respondents
935
225
384
243
621
115
197
211
139
79
724
121
215
354
166
69
671
224
Project #2012-004
Page 41
Sep 19, 2012 08:40
Table 35
Presidential
Preference
----------------Other
ided
===== ===== ===== =====
Unweighted
Weighted
902
523
286
93
Prop 30 (Brown)
----------------------------------------------------YES
NO
DK
----------------------------------------------------SomeSomeVery
what Not
Very what Not
upset upset upset
upset upset upset
if it if it if it
if it if it if it
es
es
cided
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
480
133
188
159
292
130
87
75
130
Prop 38 (Munger)
----------------Yes
No
Don't
know
===== ===== =====
390
360
152
Prop 32 Vote
----------------Don't
Yes
No
know
===== ===== =====
161
183
90
935
542
319
74
480
131
197
153
333
153
101
79
121
386
407
142
173
201
88
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Gone too far
167
17.8
122
22.6
73.4
35
10.9
20.8
10
13.1
5.8
101
21.1
60.7
28
21.2
16.6
42
21.4
25.3
31
20.6
18.8
47
14.0
28.0
19
12.2
11.2
14
13.9
8.4
14
17.6
8.4
19
15.5
11.3
84
21.8
50.4
57
14.1
34.3
25
17.8
15.3
24
14.0
14.5
53
26.4
31.9
11
13.0
6.9
About right
368
39.4
234
43.1
63.5
108
34.0
29.5
26
35.3
7.1
230
47.9
62.4
57
43.7
15.5
92
46.7
25.0
81
52.9
21.9
97
29.0
26.3
32
21.2
8.8
41
40.3
11.1
24
29.6
6.4
42
34.2
11.3
178
46.2
48.4
152
37.3
41.2
38
26.6
10.3
70
40.2
18.9
81
40.2
21.9
35
39.4
9.4
Not far
enough
243
26.0
78
14.4
32.2
140
43.9
57.6
25
33.5
10.2
73
15.2
30.1
18
14.1
7.6
35
17.6
14.3
20
13.2
8.3
151
45.2
62.1
90
58.8
37.1
34
33.3
13.8
27
34.2
11.2
19
15.6
7.8
58
15.1
24.0
166
40.8
68.3
19
13.1
7.7
65
37.8
26.9
39
19.2
15.9
20
23.2
8.4
No opinion
157
16.8
108
19.9
68.7
36
11.3
22.8
13
18.1
8.5
76
15.8
48.2
27
21.0
17.4
28
14.2
17.8
21
13.4
13.0
39
11.8
24.9
12
7.8
7.5
13
12.5
8.1
15
18.5
9.3
42
34.7
26.8
65
16.9
41.3
32
7.8
20.3
60
42.4
38.4
14
8.1
9.0
29
14.2
18.1
21
24.4
13.6
Adds to:
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----Rows
935
542
319
74
480
131
197
153
333
153
101
79
121
386
407
142
173
201
88
Respondents
935
542
319
74
480
131
197
153
333
153
101
79
121
386
407
142
173
201
88
Project #2012-004

Field Poll Tabulations

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Field Poll Tabulations

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

FIELD

FOUNDED IN 1945 BY MERVIN FIELD

Tabulations From a Survey of California Voters About Proposition 32,

September 21, 2012

Guide to Reading the Tables

all other 48 California counties

all other 38 California counties

Los Angeles County

San Diego County and Orange counties

Estimates of Sampling Error

Field Research Corporation

Field Research Corporation

Field Research Corporation

Field Research Corporation

Field Research Corporation

Field Research Corporation

Field Research Corporation

Field Research Corporation

Field Research Corporation

Field Research Corporation

Field Research Corporation

Gone too far

Field Research Corporation

Gone too far

Field Research Corporation

Gone too far

Field Research Corporation

Gone too far

Field Research Corporation

S-ar putea să vă placă și