Kansas Speaks 2014 Statewide Public Opinion Survey

Transcription

1 Kansas Speaks 2014 Statewide Public Opinion Survey Prepared For The Citizens of Kansas By The Docking Institute of Public Affairs Fort Hays State University Copyright October 2014 All Rights Reserved

2 Fort Hays State University 600 Park Street Hays, Kansas Telephone: (785) FAX: (785) Gary Brinker, PhD Director Jian Sun, PhD Research Scientist Michael S. Walker, MS Assistant Director Lynette Ottley Administrative Specialist Bradley Pendergast, MPA Survey Center Manager Mission: To Facilitate Effective Public Policy Decision-Making. The staff of the Docking Institute of Public Affairs and its University Center for Survey Research are dedicated to serving the people of Kansas and surrounding states.

3 Kansas Speaks 2014 Prepared By: Jian Sun, Ph.D. Research Scientist Gary Brinker, Ph.D. Director Chapman Rackaway, Ph.D. Policy Fellow Ryan L. Swayne Student Research Assistant Docking Institute of Public Affairs Prepared For: The Citizens of Kansas In pursuit of Fort Hays State University s Public Affairs Mission Copyright October 2014 All Rights Reserved

4 Table of Contents List of Figures... ii Executive Summary... 1 Introduction and Methods... 5 Analysis... 6 Section 1: Overall Quality of Life in Kansas... 6 Section 2: Economy Section 3: Taxes Section 4: State Government and Politicians Section 5: Energy Policy Section 6: Public Policy Issues Section 7: Election Appendix A: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample The Docking Institute of Public Affairs: Kansas Speaks 2014 Page i

5 List of Figures Figure 1: Rating of Kansas as a Place to Live... 6 Figure 2: Rating of Kansas as a Place to Live by Party Affiliation... 7 Figure 3: Rating of Kansas as a Place to Live by Race... 7 Figure 4: Rating of Kansas Economy... 8 Figure5: Rating of Kansas Economy by Party Affiliation... 8 Figure 6: Satisfaction with Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy... 9 Figure 7: Satisfaction with Governor Brownback s Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Party Affiliation Figure 8: Satisfaction with Governor Brownback s Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Age Figure 9: Satisfaction with the ic Party Leader s Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Party Affiliation Figure 10: Satisfaction with the ic Party Leader s Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Mexican or Hispanic Origin Figure 11: Satisfaction with the Party Leader s Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Party Affiliation Figure 12: Satisfaction with the Party Leader s Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Age Figure 13: Level of Concern with the Threat from Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals or Families Welfare Figure 14: Level of Concern with the Threat from Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals or Families Welfare by Party Affiliation Figure 15: Level of Concern with the Threat from Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals or Families Welfare by Level of Education Figure 16: Level of Concern with the Threat from Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals or Families Welfare by Income Figure 17: Level of Concern with the Threat from Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals or Families Welfare by Gender Figure 18: Level of Concern with the Threat from Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals or Families Welfare by Age Figure 19: Belief about Kansas Government Spending Figure 20: Belief about Kansas Government Taxes and Spending Figure 21: Preferences for Increasing Taxes and Spending (Percent Yes) Figure 22: Preferences for Decreasing Taxes and Spending (Percent Yes) Figure 23: Increase Income Tax by Party Affiliation Figure 24 Increase Sales Tax by Age The Docking Institute of Public Affairs: Kansas Speaks 2014 Page ii

6 Figure 25: Increase Property Tax by Income Figure 26: Increase Higher Education Funding by Party Affiliation Figure 27: Increasing Higher Education Funding by Age Figure 28: Decreasing Income Tax by Party Affiliation Figure 29: Decreasing Income Tax by Education Figure 30: Decrease Income tax by Income Figure 31: Decrease K-12 Funding by Party Affiliation Figure 32: Decreasing Higher Education Funding by Party Affiliation Figure 33: Decrease Higher Education Funding by Age Figure 34: Decrease Social Services Funding by Party Affiliation Figure 35: Tax Changes on Various Groups Figure 36: Tax Changes on Top Income Earners by Party Affiliation Figure 37: Tax Changes on Top Income Earners by Level of Education Figure 38: Tax Changes on Middle Class by Party Affiliation Figure 39: Tax Changes on Large Corporations by Party Affiliation Figure 40: Tax Change on Small Businesses by Party Affiliation Figure 41: Satisfaction with the Overall Performance of the Kansas Government Figure 42: Satisfaction with the Overall Performance of Kansas Legislature by Party Affiliation Figure 43: Satisfaction with the Overall Performance of U.S. Congressperson by Party Affiliation Figure 44: Satisfaction with the Overall Performance of U.S. Congressperson by Level of Education Figure 45: Satisfaction with the Overall Performance of State Senator by Party Affiliation Figure 46: Satisfaction with the Overall Performance of State Representative by Party Affiliation Figure 47: Approval of Government Officials in Office Figure 48: Approval of Pat Roberts as Senator by Party Affiliation Figure 49: Approval of Pat Roberts as Senator by Age Figure 50: Approval of Jerry Moran as Senator by Party Affiliation Figure 51: Approval of Sam Brownback as Governor by Party Affiliation Figure 52: Approval of Sam Brownback as Governor by Gender Figure 53: Approval of Sam Brownback as Governor by Age Figure 54: Approval of Barack Obama as President by Party Affiliation Figure 55: Approval of Barack Obama as President by Hispanic Origin Figure 56: Approval of Barack Obama as President by Race Figure 57: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Coal, Oil, Wind Energy, and Biofuel Figure 58: Opinion on Devoting Resources to Coal Development by Party Affiliation Figure 59: Opinion on Devoting Resources to Coal Development by Level of Education The Docking Institute of Public Affairs: Kansas Speaks 2014 Page iii

7 Figure 60: Opinion on Devoting Resources to Oil Development by Party Affiliation Figure 61: Opinion on Devoting Resources to Oil Development by Level of Education Figure 62: Opinion on Devoting Resources to Wind Energy Development by Party Affiliation Figure 63: Opinion on Devoting Resources to Biofuel Development by Age Figure 64: Belief about the Cause of Erratic Weather in Kansas Figure 65: Belief about the Cause of Erratic Weather in Kansas by Party Affiliation Figure 66: Belief about the Cause of Erratic Weather in Kansas by Level of Education Figure 67: Belief about Kansas Teachers Right to Due Process Figure 68: Belief about Kansas Teachers Right to Due Process by Party Affiliation Figure 69: Opinion on Therapeutic use of Marijuana in Kansas Figure 70: Opinion on Therapeutic Use of Marijuana in Kansas by Party Affiliation Figure 71: Policy Preference for Recreational Marijuana in Kansas Figure 72: Policy Preference for Recreational Marijuana in Kansas by Party Affiliation Figure 73: Policy Preference for Recreational Marijuana in Kansas by Age Figure 74: Support Open Carry of Weapons in Kansas Figure 75: Opinion of Open Carry of Weapons in Kansas by Party Affiliation Figure 76: Opinion of Open Carry of Weapons in Kansas by Gender Figure 77: Opinion of Open Carry of Weapons in Kansas by Age Figure 78: Opinion of Policy Regarding Undocumented Aliens Figure 79: Opinion of Policy Regarding Undocumented Aliens by Party Affiliation Figure 80: Opinion of Policy Regarding Undocumented Aliens by Hispanic Origin Figure 81: Vote for Kansas Governor in November Figure 82: Vote for Kansas Governor in November by Party Affiliation Figure 83: Vote for Kansas Governor in November by Gender Figure 84: Vote for Kansas Governor in November by Age Figure 85: Vote for Kansas Secretary of State in November Figure 86: Kansas Secretary of State Election by Party Affiliation Figure 87: Kansas Secretary of State Election by Race Figure 88: Kansas Secretary of State Election by Opinion on Undocumented Aliens Figure 89: Voting Behavior in November 2012 Election Figure 90: Registration Status Figure 91: Reason for Not Registered The Docking Institute of Public Affairs: Kansas Speaks 2014 Page iv

8 Executive Summary The Docking Institute of Public Affairs at Fort Hays State University conducted the 2014 Kansas Speaks survey from September 10 to September 27, A random sample of adult residents of Kansas age 18 and older was surveyed by telephone to assess their attitudes and opinions regarding various issues of interest to Kansas citizens. The survey finds: The majority (85%) of respondents felt Kansas is at least a good place to live, and only 3% felt it is a poor or very poor place to live. The rating was higher among respondents and respondents who were Asian or white. Half () of respondents said the Kansas economy was at least in good condition. s and voters leaning tended to rate the state s economy more highly. One-third (33%) of respondents were satisfied with Governor Brownback s efforts to improve the Kansas economy, and 47% were dissatisfied. Satisfaction was higher among the younger and respondents. Just under one-third (31%) of respondents were very or moderately satisfied with leaders efforts to improve the Kansas economy, while 43% were very or moderately dissatisfied. Dissatisfaction was higher among the older and ic respondents. One-third (33%) of respondents were very or moderately satisfied with ic leaders efforts to improve the Kansas economy, while 37% were very or moderately dissatisfied. The rating was higher among s and those respondents of Hispanic ethnicity. More than sixty percent (61%) of respondents were very or moderately concerned that economic conditions in Kansas will threaten their families welfare. Concerns tended to be higher among the ic, older, less-educated, female, and lower-income respondents. When asked about Kansas government spending only, 29% percent of respondents said that Kansas government spending should be increased, 35% said it should be decreased, and 37% said it should remain the same. When asked about Kansas government spending together with taxation, of respondents favor somewhat or much lower taxes and spending, 24% favored somewhat or much higher taxes and spending, and 26% favored no change. Among those respondents who favored somewhat or much higher taxes and spending, 74% preferred income tax increase, 49% preferred sales tax increase, 32% preferred property tax increase, 97% supported increased funding for grades kindergarten through high school (K- 12), 82% supported increased funding for state colleges and universities, and 89% supported 1

9 increased funding for social services. Support for income tax increase was higher among s. In general, younger respondents tended to be more supportive of sales tax increase. Property tax increase received higher support among high-income respondents. Support for increased funding for state colleges and universities was higher among ic and older respondents. Among those respondents who favored somewhat or lower taxes and spending, 72% preferred income tax cut, 57% preferred sales tax cut, preferred property tax cut, 16% supported funding cut for grades kindergarten through high school (K-12), 33% supported a funding cut for state colleges and universities, and 17% supported a funding cut for social services. Support for income tax cut was higher among respondents and those with higher education and higher incomes. s were more likely to support funding cut for K- 12, higher education and social services. The support for a funding cut for state colleges and universities was also higher among older respondents. Two-thirds (66%) of respondents favored increasing taxes on large corporations. The support for increasing taxes was higher among s, voters leaning ic and voters. More than half (58%) of respondents favored increasing taxes on top income earners. s and less-educated tended to be more supportive of decreasing taxes on top income earners. Only 7% of respondents favored increased taxes on the middle class. s and those respondents leaning ic were more likely to support tax increase. Only 6% of respondents favored increased taxes on small businesses. s, voters leaning and voters were more likely to support decreasing taxes on small businesses. One-fourth (25%) of respondents were very or moderately satisfied with the performance of the Kansas Legislature, while 43% were very or moderately dissatisfied. The ratings of the Kansas Legislature tended to be lower among ic respondents. More than one-third (37%) of respondents were very or moderately satisfied with the performance of their U.S. Congresspersons. The satisfaction level was lower among uppereducated and ic respondents. Almost forty percent (38%) of respondents were very or moderately satisfied with their state senators. The rating was lower among s, respondents leaning ic and voters. 2

10 More than forty percent (44%) of respondents were very or moderately satisfied with their state representative. The rating was lower among s, respondents leaning ic and voters. The job approval rating for U.S. Senator Pat Roberts was 35%. The rating was higher among and younger respondents. The job approval rating for U.S. Senator Jerry Moran was 44%. The rating was higher among s, voters leaning, and voters. The job approval rating for Governor Sam Brownback was 34%. The rating was higher among s, male and younger respondents. The job approval rating for President Barack Obama was. The rating was higher among s, African-American respondents and respondents of Hispanic ethnicity. Three-fourths (75%) of respondents felt it was extremely important or important for Kansas to devote resources to the development of wind energy. The support level was higher among those respondents who were s, leaning ic and. Sixty percent () of respondents felt it was extremely important or important for Kansas to devote resources to the development of oil energy, and 44% felt so for the development of coal. The support levels of oil and coal were higher among those less educated and respondents. More than half (52%) of respondents felt it was extremely important or important for Kansas to devote resources to the development of biofuel. Younger respondents were more likely to say developing biofuel was extremely important or important. Only 4% of respondents felt the drought and severe storms experienced in Kansas recently were due exclusively to the burning of fossil fuels, while 54% thought the erratic weather patterns were due mostly or exclusively to natural causes. In general, the less-educated and respondents were more likely to feel the erratic weathers pattern were due exclusively or mostly to natural causes. More than eighty percent (82%) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Kansas teachers should have the right to appeal dismissals by their administrators through a due process hearing, whereas 18% disagreed or strongly disagreed. s and those respondents leaning were less supportive of this right. About sixty percent (59%) of respondents believed that Kansas physicians should be allowed to prescribe marijuana to patients for the therapeutic benefits, whereas opposed allowing 3

11 therapeutic use of marijuana. The support for therapeutic use of marijuana was lower among s. A majority (58%) of respondents favored criminalizing recreational possession and consumption of marijuana as either felony or misdemeanor, and 42% support decriminalizing the recreational possession and consumption. The support for decriminalization was higher among ic and younger respondents. Thirty-one percent (31%) favored a policy similar to Colorado. Almost half (48%) of respondents strongly or somewhat supported allowing weapons to be openly carried in public, and 38% opposed that. The support for open carry was higher among s, male respondents and those who were younger than 55 years. A little more than half (53%) of respondents favored deporting all or most undocumented aliens, and 47% favored deporting some or allowing all to stay in the U.S. ic respondents and those respondents of Hispanic ethnicity were more likely to favor deporting some undocumented alien or allowing all to stay. When asked about voting choice for the gubernatorial election in November, 36% of respondents indicated they would vote for incumbent Governors Sam Brownback and Jeff Colyer, 37% would vote for ic nominees Paul Davis and Jill Docking, and 9% would vote for the Libertarian nominees Keen Umbehr and Josh Umbehr. Brownback and Colyer received higher support among and male respondents. Davis and Docking received higher support among s, female respondents, and those who were 55 years and older. When asked about their choices in the Secretary of State election in November, 44% of respondents said they would vote for the incumbent Secretary of State, Kris Kobach, and 39% said they would vote for the ic candidate Jean Schodorf. Support for Kobach was higher among and white respondents. Support for Schodorf was higher among s and non-white respondents. Those who favored deporting all or most undocumented aliens were more likely to vote for Kobach. Twenty percent () of respondents did not vote in the November 2012 election. Among them, 45% were not registered. Among those who were not registered, 31% chose not to register, 12% did not register by the deadline and 12% did not have the proper proof of citizenship documents. 4

12 Introduction and Methods The Docking Institute of Public Affairs at Fort Hays State University surveyed a random sample of adult residents of Kansas age 18 and older to assess attitudes and opinions regarding various issues of interest to Kansas citizens. The survey sample consists of random Kansas landline telephone numbers and cellphone numbers. From September 10 to September 27, a total of 1,777 Kansas residents were contacted through either landline telephone or cellphone, and 952 of them completed the survey, resulting in a 53.6% response rate (952/1,777). At a 95% confidence level, the margin of error for the full sample of 952 is 3.2%. A margin of error of 3.2% means that there is a 95% probability that findings among the sample vary no more than +/- 3.2% from the value that would be found if the entire population of interest (adult Kansas residents) were surveyed, assuming no response bias. Sample demographics were compared to known Census-based distributions (see Appendix A). The sample matches closely with all Census-based distributions except race, Hispanic origin and age. The survey had higher response rates among Kansas residents who are white, non-hispanic and those over 55. Therefore, the overall population estimates are biased toward the opinions of white, non-hispanic and older Kansans. The following analysis contains seven sections: 1) Overall Quality of Life in Kansas. This section shows how Kansans generally feel about Kansas as a place to live. 2) Economy. This section shows results to questions addressing various economic concerns to citizens. 3) Taxes. This section shows results to opinion questions regarding fair and effective personal and business taxation policies. 4) State Government and Politicians. This section presents the results of citizens ratings of the state government in general, as well as their state elected officials and politicians. 5) Energy Policy. A key component of this study is to assess the level of citizen support for public resources being devoted to developing various sources of energy production, including oil, coal, wind, and biofuel. 6) Public Policy Issues. This section looks at citizens opinions on several key policy issues, such as Kansas teachers collective bargaining rights, climate change, openly carrying weapons in public places, recreational use of marijuana, and undocumented aliens. 5

13 7) Election. This section presents citizens intended choice of the next Governor and Secretary of State of Kansas and their voter registration status as related to the requirement of proof of citizenship. These sections present not only descriptive analyses of respondents answers to each question, but also statistically significant relationships with key demographic variables to see how citizens in various social categories differ in their opinions and policy preferences on various issues. Except for the questions asking about respondents demographic information, all the survey questions are displayed verbatim under those graphs presenting descriptive analyses. Analysis Section 1: Overall Quality of Life in Kansas Respondents were asked to rate Kansas generally as a place to live. Among those 948 respondents who provided valid answers to this question, 85% rated Kansas as a good or better place to live. Only 3% rated Kansas as a poor or very poor place to live (Figure 1). Figure 1: Rating of Kansas as a Place to Live As a place to live, Kansas is (n=948) 23% 33% 29% 12% 2% 1% Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Question: In general, how would you rate Kansas as a place to live? Respondent s opinions of the quality of life in Kansas were significantly related to respondent s party affiliation. Compared with ic respondents, voters leaning ic, and voters, respondents and those leaning were more likely to feel that Kansas was at least a good place to live. More than three-fourths (76%) of respondents who considered themselves strong s said that Kansas was an excellent or very good place to live. In contrast, less than half (44%) of respondents who considered themselves strong s rated the same (Figure 2). Respondents opinion of the quality of live in Kansas also varied among different races. All Asian respondents rated Kansas as a good or very good place to live. White respondents were more likely to rate Kansas as a good or better place to live than biracial, American Indians, or Black or African Americans (Figure 3). 6

14 Figure 2: Rating of Kansas as a Place to Live by Party Affiliation 9 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 6% 4% 1% 6% 8% 2% 4% 2% 3% 15% 17% 15% 15% 17% 28% 29% 43% 33% (n=168) 37% 34% 25% 29% (n=83) (n=140) 21% (n=156) 37% 41% 34% 12% (n=107) 22% 28% 19% 16% (n=59) (n=105) Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent Figure 3: Rating of Kansas as a Place to Live by Race 9 1% 2% 29% 34% 24% 3% 3% 6% 3% 13% 32% 31% 32% 31% 57% 16% 19% 43% 13% 38% 25% 13% 13% 13% 29% 32% 26% Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent White (n=747) Black or African American (n=31) Biracial (n=16) Asian (n=7) American Indian (n=16) Other (n=31) 7

15 Section 2: Economy When asked to rate the Kansas economy, half () of 924 respondents who provided valid answers said it was at least good, while only 15% said Kansas had a poor or very poor economy (Figure 4). Rating of the economy was significantly associated with respondent s party affiliation. s and voters leaning were more likely to rate the Kansas economy good or better than s, voters leaning ic, and voters (Figure 5). Figure 4: Rating of Kansas Economy 2% The economy of Kansas is (n=924) 12% 36% 35% 12% 3% Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Question: In general, how would you rate the Kansas economy? Figure 5: Rating of Kansas Economy by Party Affiliation 9 2% 7% 1% 9% 2% 8% 5% 7% 14% 14% 26% 41% 19% 17% 8% 12% 4% 1% 3% 2% (n=164) 33% 31% 38% (n=76) 49% (n=139) 39% 31% 29% (n=155) (n=107) 2% 3% 14% 23% 41% 29% (n=58) 35% 9% (n=102) Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent 8

16 When asked how satisfied respondents were with efforts made by Governor Brownback to improve the health of the Kansas economy, 33% indicated that they were at least moderately satisfied. Thirty-one percent (31%) indicated they were at least moderately satisfied with Party leaders ideas to improve the health of the Kansas Economy, and 33% indicated they were at least moderately satisfied with the ic Party leaders ideas to improve the health of the Kansas Economy (Figure 6). Figure 6: Satisfaction with Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy Satisfaction with Governor Brownback's Efforts to Improve Kansas Economy (n=905) 8% 25% 27% Satisfaction With Party Leaders' Ideas to Improve Kansas Economy (n=822) 7% 24% 26% 21% 22% Satisfaction with ic Leaders' Ideas to Improve Kansas Economy (n=801) 6% 27% 19% 18% Very Satisfied Moderately Satisfied Neutral Moderately Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Question: How satisfied are you with Governor Brownback s efforts to improve the health of the Kansas economy? How satisfied are you with the Kansas Party Leader s ideas and the Kansas ic Party Leader s ideas to improve the health of the Kansas economy? Significant differences were found in satisfaction with Governor Brownback s efforts to improve the health of the Kansas economy with regard to party affiliation. In general, s and voters leaning ic were more likely to be dissatisfied with Governor Brownback s efforts to improve the health of the Kansas economy as compared to s and voters leaning (Figure 7). correlation exists between age and satisfaction with Governor Brownback s efforts to improve the health of the Kansas economy. Older respondents were more likely to be moderately or strongly dissatisfied than younger respondents (Figure 8). 9

17 Figure 7: Satisfaction with Governor Brownback s Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Party Affiliation 9 11% 13% 8% 23% 19% 19% 22% 33% 54% 22% (n=166) 22% 17% 35% 6% (n=77) 32% (n=139) 24% 22% 27% 26% 11% 19% 14% 16% 11% 5% 8% 5% (n=147) (n=106) 25% (n=57) (n=102) Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 8: Satisfaction with Governor Brownback s Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Age 9 8% 18% 25% 38% 16% 26% 21% 29% 33% 34% 24% 23% 18% 22% 15% 27% 25% 19% 23% Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied 8% 5% 4% 8% (n=60) (n=76) (n=94) (n=122) (n=182) 65+ (n=289) A strong correlation was found between party affiliation and satisfaction with the Kansas ic Party leader s ideas to improve the health of the Kansas economy. s and voters leaning ic were much more likely to be moderately or very satisfied with ic Party leader s ideas than s, voters leaning, and 10

18 voters (Figure 9). A correlation was also found with regard to Hispanic or Mexican ethnicity and satisfaction with the Kansas ic Party Leader s ideas to improve the health of the Kansas economy. More than half (53%) of Hispanic respondents reported at least moderate satisfaction, compared to only 31% of non-hispanic respondents (Figure 10). Figure 9: Satisfaction with the ic Party Leaders Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Party Affiliation 9 37% 25% 27% 23% 17% 8% 14% 3% 1% 1% 4% 5% (n=146) 22% 23% 39% (n=70) 29% 34% (n=119) 16% 38% (n=132) 5% 5% 6% 9% 11% 7% 25% 55% 42% (n=95) 31% 11% (n=55) 19% 53% 15% (n=99) Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 10: Satisfaction with the ic Party Leaders Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Mexican or Hispanic Origin 9 5% 33% 48% Mexican or Hispanic (n=42) 19% 26% 5% 5% Not Mexican or Hispanic (n=699) Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied 11

19 Figure 11 and Figure 12 show how people s satisfaction with Party leader s efforts to improve the health of the Kansas economy varies by party affiliation and age. s and voters leaning were more likely to be satisfied with Party leaders efforts than s, leaning ic, and voters (Figure 11). In general, older respondents were more likely to express strong and moderate dissatisfaction than younger respondents (Figure 12). Figure 11: Satisfaction with Party Leaders Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Party Affiliation 9 6% 8% 7% 15% 16% 24% 52% 19% (n=154) 32% 38% 24% 15% 12% 7% 7% 9% 9% 6% 5% 1% 2% 2% (n=72) 28% (n=128) 23% 19% 42% (n=132) 44% 26% (n=100) 28% 37% (n=54) 51% 26% (n=98) Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied 12

20 Figure 12: Satisfaction with Party Leaders Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Age 9 13% 14% 15% 28% 39% 33% 33% 16% 27% 29% 15% 17% 22% 26% 31% 19% 18% 24% 26% 24% 19% Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied 11% (n=54) 4% 5% 5% 8% 7% (n=70) (n=87) (n=115) (n=171) 65+ (n=258) Respondents were asked how concerned they were that the Kansas economy would seriously threaten their personal or their family s welfare in the coming year. Almost one-third (32%) of respondents indicated that they were very concerned, and 29% were moderately concerned (Figure 13). Respondent s concern level is associated with party affiliation, education, family income, gender and age. s and independent voters leaning ic were more likely to be moderately or very concerned (Figure 14). In general, respondents with higher education were less likely to be moderately or very concerned (Figure 15). Respondents with lower family incomes tended to express a higher level of concern (Figure 16). A higher percentage of females (67%) indicated that they were moderately or very concerned as compared to males (54%) (Figure 17). In general, younger respondents expressed a lower level of concern than older respondents (Figure 18). 13

21 Figure 13: Level of Concern with the Threat from Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals or Families Welfare Concerned That the Kansas Economy will Threaten You or Your Familly's Welfare (n=909) 32% 29% 19% Very Concerned Moderately Concerned Slightly Concerned Not Concerned Question: How concerned are you that the Kansas economy will seriously threated you or your family s welfare in the coming year? Figure 14: Level of Concern with the Threat from Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals or Families Welfare by Party Affiliation 9 31% 26% 21% 23% 27% 25% 21% 26% 19% 16% 11% 14% 15% 16% 19% 21% 24% 31% 41% 27% 34% 24% 43% 33% 37% 33% 34% Not Concerned Slightly Concerned Moderately Concerned Very Concerned (n=169) (n=81) (n=139) (n=153) (n=107) (n=59) (n=104) 14

22 Figure 15: Level of Concern with the Threat from Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals or Families Welfare by Level of Education 9 14% 13% 4% 17% 36% 28% 46% 42% 18% 22% 19% 18% 22% 24% 25% 35% 28% 27% 23% 29% 31% 27% 34% 35% 19% 27% 19% Not Concerned Slightly Concerned Moderately Concerned Very Concerned Less than high school (n=28) High school diploma or equivalency (n=171) Some college (n=224) Associates or Technical degree (n=87) Bachelors degree (n=204) Masters or law degree (n=106) Doctoral degree (n=26) Figure 16: Level of Concern with the Threat from Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals or Families Welfare by Income 9 25% 65% 11% 12% 27% 19% 13% 22% 46% 13% 18% 34% 35% 19% 19% 25% 26% 31% 29% 25% 26% 29% 38% 31% 14% 27% 21% 22% Not Concerned Slightly Concerned Moderately Concerned Very Concerned Less than $10,000 (n=20) $10,000- $24,999 (n=84) $25,000- $34,999 (n=72) $35,000- $49,999 (n=125) $50,000- $74,999 (n=166) $75,000- $99,999 (n=120) $100,000- $149,999 (n=91) $150,000 or more (n=37) 15

23 Figure 17: Level of Concern with the Threat from Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals or Families Welfare by Gender 9 15% 18% 23% Not Concerned 32% 22% 25% Slightly Concerned Moderately Concerned 35% 29% Very Concerned Female (n=441) Male (n=396) Figure 18: Level of Concern with the Threat from Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals or Families Welfare by Age 9 26% 26% 23% 11% 16% 18% 31% 27% 24% 21% 22% 24% 27% 16% 24% 32% 16% 34% Not Concerned Slightly Concerned Moderately Concerned Very Concerned 16% 29% 31% 38% 37% 32% (n=62) (n=76) (n=100) (n=123) (n=187) 65+ (n=292) 16

24 Section 3: Taxes and Spending When asked about Kansas government spending, 29% of respondents said that Kansas government spending should be increased, 35% said it should be decreased, and 37% said it should remain the same. Respondents were then informed that the Kansas Government has to produce tax revenue for every dollar it spends. Some people would prefer the government to have lower taxes and less spending, while others would prefer the government to have higher taxes and more spending. When taxes appeared together with spending in the question, the support for decreased spending (in conjunction with lower taxes) increased. Half () of respondents favor somewhat or much lower taxes and spending. About one-fourth (24%) said they favor somewhat or much higher taxes and spending, and 26% said they would favor keeping the current level of taxes and spending (Figure 20). Figure 19: Belief about Kansas Government Spending Kansas Government Spending Should (n=804) 29% 37% 35% Be Increased Remain the Same Be Decreased Question: Do you believe that Kansas government spending should be increased, remain the same, or be decreased? Figure 20: Belief about Kansas Government Taxes and Spending 3% Kansas Government Taxes and Spending Should be (n=914) 21% 26% 31% 19% Much Higher Somewhat Higher Remain the Same Somewhat Lower Much Lower Question: Kansas Government has to produce tax revenue for every dollar it spends. Some people prefer the government to have lower taxes and less spending. Others favor higher taxes and more government spending. Which of the following do you prefer? 17

25 Respondents were asked a different set of questions with regard to their beliefs about Kansas government taxes and spending on several specific categories. Among those who preferred much or somewhat higher level of taxes and spending, 74% indicated that they preferred an increase in income tax, 49% preferred sales tax increase, and 32% preferred property tax increases. Almost all (97%) respondents who preferred higher taxes and spending indicated that they would like an increase in the funding for grades kindergarten through high school (K-12), 89% preferred increased funding for social services and 82% preferred increased funding for state colleges and universities (Figure 21). Among those who preferred much or somewhat lower taxes and spending, favored lower property tax, 72% favored lower income tax, 57% favored lower sales tax, 33% favored lower spending in higher education, 17% favored lower spending in social service and 16% favored lower spending in K-12 education (Figure 22). Figure 21: Preferences for Increasing Taxes and Spending Income Tax (n=202) 74% Sales Tax (n=208) 49% Property Tax (n=205) 32% Funding for K-12 (n=213) 97% Funding for Higher Education (n=205) Funding for Social Services (n=205) 82% 89% 9 Question: Would you increase Income, Sales, or Property tax? Would you increase state education funding for grades K-12? Would you increase state education funding for colleges and universities? Would you increase state funding for social services, such as senior and disability services? 18

26 Figure 22: Preferences for Decreasing Taxes and Spending Income Tax (n=435) 72% Sales Tax (n=436) 57% Property Tax (n=435) Funding for K-12 (n=439) 16% Funding for Higher Education (n=428) 33% Funding for Social Services (n=435) 17% Question: Would you decrease Income, Sales, or Property tax? Would you decrease state education funding for grades K-12? Would you decrease state education funding for colleges and universities? Would you decrease state funding for social services, such as senior and disability services? Among those respondents who favored higher taxes and spending, s and voters were more likely to favor an increase in income tax than s (Figure 23). Younger respondents were more likely to be supportive of sales tax increase than older respondents, with the exception of the age group (Figure 24). Respondents with higher family income tended to be more supportive of property tax increase than those with lower family income (Figure 25). In terms of preference for increased spending, s were more likely to support increasing funding for higher education than s (Figure 26). In general, respondents who were older than 35 years tended to be more supportive of a spending increase in higher education than younger respondents (Figure 27). 19

27 Figure 23: Preference for Increasing Income Tax by Party Affiliation 9 58% 42% (n=12) 42% 58% (n=12) 29% 28% 25% 32% 71% 72% 75% 68% (n=17) (n=29) Yes No (n=52) (n=25) 13% 87% (n=46) Figure 24: Preference for Increasing Sales Tax by Age 23% 67% 38% 43% 44% 64% 77% 63% 57% 56% 33% 36% (n=13) (n=21) (n=24) (n=23) (n=45) 65+ (n=77) Yes No 20

28 Figure 25: Preference for Increasing Property Tax by Income 9 81% 77% 74% 65% 52% 29% Less than $10,000 (n=20) 19% 23% 26% $10,000- $24,999 (n=84) $25,000- $34,999 (n=72) $35,000- $49,999 (n=125) $50,000- $74,999 (n=166) 35% $75,000- $99,999 (n=120) 48% $100,000- $149,999 (n=91) 71% $150,000 or more (n=37) Yes No Figure 26: Preference for Increasing Higher Education Funding by Party Affiliation 9 58% 42% (n=12) 25% 75% (n=12) 13% 87% (n=15) (n=29) Yes 28% 72% No 18% 16% 82% 84% (n=56) (n=25) 2% 98% (n=48) 21

29 Figure 27: Preference for Increasing Higher Education Funding by Age 9 27% 73% (n=15) 42% 58% (n=19) 26% 74% (n=23) Yes 17% 83% (n=24) No 7% 93% (n=45) 13% 87% 65+ (n=75) Among those respondents who favored lower taxes and spending, respondents and those leaning tended to favor a decrease in income tax more often than not very strong s and those leaning ic. s fell in the same range as s in terms of their support for decreased income taxes (Figure 28). In general respondents with higher education levels were more likely to favor an income tax decrease (Figure 29). Similarly, respondents with higher family incomes were generally more supportive of an income tax decrease (Figure 30). Respondents who favored lower taxes and spending in general did not favor decreasing education funding for K-12 schools. However, the support level of respondents with different party affiliations still varied significantly. s, those leaning and voters were more likely to favor lower spending on K-12 schools, as compared with s and those leaning ic (Figure 31). s and those respondents leaning were also more likely to support lower spending on higher education (Figure 32). Generally, younger respondents were less likely to support lower funding for higher education than older respondents (Figure 33). respondents were much more likely to support lower funding for social services than voters (no matter if they were leaning or leaning ic) and ic respondents (Figure 34). 22

30 Figure 28: Preference for Decreasing Income Tax by Party Affiliation 9 17% 83% (n=109) 24% 76% (n=40) (n=83) (n=79) Yes 32% 68% No 55% 45% (n=22) 45% 55% (n=20) (n=27) Figure 29: Preference for Decreasing Income Tax by Education 9 Less than high school (n=14) 36% 32% 64% 68% High school diploma or equivalency (n=102) Some college (n=111) Associates or Technical degree (n=44) 15% 13% 85% 87% Bachelors degree (n=99) Masters or law degree (n=30) Doctoral degree (n=4) Yes No 23

31 Figure 30: Preference for Decreasing Income Tax by Income 9 73% 27% Less than $10,000 (n=11) 41% 59% $10,000- $24,999 (n=49) 21% 24% 25% 79% 76% 75% $25,000- $34,999 (n=33) $35,000- $49,999 (n=62) $50,000- $74,999 (n=64) 15% 85% $75,000- $99,999 (n=55) 27% 73% $100,000- $149,999 (n=41) 8% 92% $150,000 or more (n=13) Yes No Figure 31: Preference for Decreasing K-12 Funding by Party Affiliation 9 74% 87% 87% 88% 96% % (n=106) 13% 13% 13% (n=39) (n=85) (n=80) Yes No 4% (n=23) (n=21) (n=31) 24

32 Figure 32: Preference for Decreasing Higher Education Funding by Party Affiliation 9 55% 65% 73% 77% 81% 81% 45% 35% 27% 23% 19% 19% (n=106) (n=37) (n=83) (n=77) Yes No (n=22) (n=21) (n=27) Figure 33: Preference for Decreasing Higher Education Funding by Age 9 96% 77% 73% 68% 52% 69% 4% (n=28) 23% 27% (n=39) (n=48) Yes 32% (n=62) No 48% (n=99) 31% 65+ (n=114) 25

33 Figure 34: Preference for Decreasing Social Services Funding by Party Affiliation 9 78% 68% 86% 89% 91% 95% 93% 22% 32% 14% 11% 9% 5% 7% (n=111) (n=38) (n=83) (n=79) Yes No (n=23) (n=21) (n=30) Tax increases and reductions can be targeted at different people or businesses. Respondents were asked their opinions about tax increases and reductions targeted at large corporations, top income earners, the middle class, and small businesses. About two-thirds (66%) of respondents believed that taxes on large corporations should be increased, and 58% believed that taxes on top income earners should be increased. In contrast, a majority (52%) of respondents felt taxes on small businesses should be decreased, and 58% thought taxes on the middle class should remain the same (Figure 35). Figure 35: Tax Changes on Various Groups Taxes on Large Corporations (n=858) 66% 23% 12% Taxes on Top Income Earners (n=868) 58% 33% 9% Taxes on the Middle Class (n=877) 7% 58% 35% Taxes on Small Businesses (n=869) 6% 42% Increased Remain the Same Decreased Question: Tax increases and reductions can be targeted at different people or businesses. Please tell us whether you think taxes on the following groups should increase, remain the same, or decrease. 52% 26

34 s and voters leaning were less likely to support a tax increase on top income earners, as compared with ic respondents, those leaning ic, and voters. As Figure 36 shows, 36% of respondents who considered themselves strong s believed that taxes on top income earners should be increased, whereas the percentages among s and those voters leaning ic were all more than. Respondents with lower levels of education were more likely to support tax cuts on top income earners than those with higher education (Figure 37). s and voters leaning ic were more likely to support tax increases on both the middle class and large corporations, although the support for tax increases on the middle class was, in general, much lower than the support for tax increases on large corporations (Figures 38 and 39). ic respondents and those leaning ic were less likely to support a tax reduction on small businesses than respondents, those leaning and voters (Figure 40). Figure 36: Tax Changes on Top Income Earners by Party Affiliation 9 17% 13% 9% 6% 3% 3% 4% 16% 14% 16% 46% 36% (n=162) 42% 49% 45% 42% (n=78) (n=138) 63% (n=145) 81% 83% 81% (n=107) (n=58) (n=103) Decreased Remained The Same Increased 27

35 Figure 37: Tax Changes on Top Income Earners by Level of Education 9 23% 31% 13% 28% 7% 8% 9% 34% 39% 37% 4% 8% 26% 35% Decreased 46% 59% 59% 53% 54% 58% Remained The Same Increased Less than high school (n=26) High school diploma or equivalency (n=169) Some college (n=218) Associates or Technical degree (n=83) Bachelors degree (n=198) Masters or law degree (n=104) Doctoral degree (n=26) Figure 38: Tax Changes on the Middle Class by Party Affiliation 9 42% 34% 35% 27% 25% 32% Decreased 56% 52% 61% 59% 61% 65% 59% Remained The Same Increased 2% (n=165) 7% 5% 7% (n=82) (n=140) (n=147) 12% 11% 9% (n=107) (n=57) (n=103) 28

36 Figure 39: Tax Changes on Large Corporations by Party Affiliation 9 21% 32% 15% 13% 9% 28% 35% 21% 3% 4% 8% 21% 5% 8% 47% 57% 51% 71% 9 75% 87% Decreased Remained The Same Increased (n=161) (n=79) (n=136) (n=146) (n=105) (n=57) (n=101) Figure 40: Tax Changes on Small Businesses by Party Affiliation 9 67% 55% 54% 34% 34% 38% Decreased Remained The Same 56% 55% Increased 29% 38% 38% 4% 1% (n=165) (n=80) 7% 7% (n=137) (n=147) (n=107) 5% 7% (n=58) (n=101) 29

37 Section 4: Government and Politicians When asked to evaluate the performance of the Kansas Legislature, 43% of respondents indicated they were very or moderately dissatisfied ; only 25% indicated some level of satisfaction. Thirty- seven percent (37%) of respondents said that they were moderately or very satisfied with the overall performance of their U.S. Congressperson, and 38% said they were moderately or very dissatisfied. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of respondents were moderately or very satisfied with their state senators, while 33% were moderately or very dissatisfied. When asked about level of satisfaction with regard to their state representatives, 44% of respondents said they were at least moderately satisfied, and only 27% expressed some level of dissatisfaction (Figure 41). Figure 41: Satisfaction with the Overall Performance of the Kansas Government Kansas Legislature (n=912) 4% 21% 33% 22% 21% U.S. Congressperson (n=859) 27% 23% 18% 21% State Senator (n=830) 11% 27% 28% 16% 17% State Representative (n=824) 12% 32% 29% 13% 14% Very Satisfied Moderately Satisfied Neutral Moderately Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Question: How satisfied are you with the overall performance of the Kansas Legislature? your U.S. congressperson? the state senator in your district? the state representative in your district? Respondents satisfaction with the overall performance of the Kansas Legislature is related to their party affiliation. s and those respondents leaning were more likely to be moderately or very satisfied with the performance of Kansas Legislature than ic respondents, those leaning ic and voters (Figure 42). The satisfaction level with the overall performance of U.S. Congressperson is associated with party affiliation and education. respondents and those leaning expressed much higher satisfaction (moderately or very satisfied) than s, those leaning ic and voters (Figure 43). In general, respondents with higher levels of education were more likely 30

38 to be dissatisfied than those with lower levels of education (Figure 44). Party affiliation is also strongly correlated with respondents satisfaction with the overall performance of their state senator and representative. respondents and those leaning expressed much lower dissatisfaction with the performance of their state senator and representative (Figures 45 and 46). Figure 42: Satisfaction with the Overall Performance of the Kansas Legislature by Party Affiliation 9 5% 17% 11% 22% 23% 24% 41% 39% 48% 22% 22% Very Dissatisfied 44% 38% 39% 25% 23% 31% 23% 21% 19% 32% 22% Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied 12% (n=166) 13% 4% 4% 1% 6% 7% 11% 2% 1% (n=81) (n=137) (n=147) (n=106) (n=57) (n=101) 31

39 Figure 43: Satisfaction with the Overall Performance of U.S. Congressperson by Party Affiliation 9 9% 11% 14% 16% 19% 18% 37% 22% (n=158) 22% 43% 9% (n=77) 19% 35% 17% (n=132) 27% 18% 27% 24% 13% 4% 1% (n=135) 37% 24% 25% (n=102) 32% 21% 26% 16% 15% 21% 6% 4% (n=53) 43% 16% (n=100) Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 44: Satisfaction with Overall Performance of U.S. Congressperson by Level of Education 9 9% 41% 32% 18% Less than high school (n=22) 21% 14% 28% 12% 8% High school diploma or equivalency (n=156) 21% 19% 26% 31% Some college (n=208) 16% 24% 28% 14% 11% Associates or Technical degree (n=83) 21% 16% 25% 25% Bachelors degree (n=192) 36% 22% 11% 24% 6% 9% Masters or law degree (n=99) 43% Very Dissatisfied 22% 13% 13% Doctoral degree (n=23) Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied 32

40 Figure 45: Satisfaction with the Overall Performance of State Senator by Party Affiliation 9 9% 8% 17% 36% 28% (n=150) 18% 25% 8% 11% (n=73) 13% 38% (n=126) 22% 17% 25% 6% 4% 4% 4% (n=132) 29% 28% 22% 25% 38% 21% (n=97) 15% 15% 16% (n=53) 36% 21% 23% (n=92) Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 46: Satisfaction with the Overall Performance of State Representative by Party Affiliation 9 3% 11% 11% 7% 4% 16% 22% 22% 28% 39% 27% (n=151) 41% 33% 14% (n=70) 28% (n=125) 15% 28% 32% 9% (n=134) 23% 23% 39% 27% 16% 4% 8% 6% (n=94) 16% (n=51) 16% 29% (n=93) Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied 33

41 Respondents were asked if they approve or disapprove of the jobs certain government officials were doing in office, including U.S. Senators Jerry Moran and Pat Roberts, Governor Sam Brownback and President Obama. Figure 47 shows that U.S. Senator Jerry Moran had an approval rate of 44%, the highest among those four political figures. President Obama had the lowest approval rate, which was. Figure 47: Approval of Government Officials in Office Pat Roberts (n=948) 35% 18% 46% Jerry Moran (n=947) 44% 31% 25% Sam Brownback (n=948) 34% 16% Barack Obama (n=943) 11% 59% Approve Not Sure Disapprove Question: Do you approve or disapprove of the job Pat Roberts is doing as United States Senator? the job Jerry Moran is doing as United States Senator? the job Sam Brownback is doing as Governor? the job Barack Obama is doing as President? The job approval rating for Senator Pat Roberts varied significantly by party affiliation and age. The rating was much higher among respondents as compared with voters and s (Figure 48). The rating went down as the age variable increased (Figure 49). Party affiliation is also related with the ratings for Senator Jerry Moran and Governor Sam Brownback. The ratings for both Senator Moran and Governor Brownback were higher among respondents and those leaning (Figures 50 and 51). The approval ratings for Governor Brownback were also higher among male respondents, as compared with female respondents, and among younger age groups, especially among those younger than 35 years (Figures 52 and 53). President Obama s rating is significantly related with party affiliation, Hispanic origin and race. He received much higher ratings among s and those leaning ic, African-American respondents and respondents of Hispanic ethnicity (Figures 54, 55 and 56). 34

42 Figure 48: Approval of Pat Roberts as Senator by Party Affiliation 9 27% 28% 12% 12% 71% 56% 69% 61% (n=170) (n=83) 19% (n=139) 22% 28% (n=156) 13% 16% (n=107) 17% 27% (n=59) 69% 16% (n=105) Disapprove Not Sure Approve Figure 49: Approval of Pat Roberts as Senator by Age 9 22% 48% 29% 29% 35% 24% 42% 42% 49% 49% 19% 31% 12% 38% 56% 12% 32% Disapprove Not Sure Approve (n=63) (n=76) (n=101) (n=124) (n=188) 65+ (n=298) 35

43 Figure 50: Approval of Jerry Moran as Senator by Party Affiliation 9 13% 19% 68% 18% 19% 28% 33% 54% 48% 26% 34% 31% 29% 31% 34% 36% 49% 21% Disapprove Not Sure Approve (n=170) (n=83) (n=140) (n=155) (n=108) (n=59) (n=105) Figure 51: Approval of Sam Brownback as Governor by Party Affiliation 9 22% 11% 35% 18% 45% 53% 81% 68% 78% 15% Disapprove 67% (n=170) 47% (n=83) (n=138) 28% (n=156) 8% (n=108) 5% 27% (n=59) 9% 13% (n=105) Not Sure Approve 36

44 Figure 52: Approval of Sam Brownback as Governor by Gender 9 54% 15% 47% 16% Disapprove Not Sure Approve 37% Female (n=448) Male (n=399) Figure 53: Approval of Sam Brownback as Governor by Age 9 36% 39% 43% 54% 53% 58% 22% 17% 24% 17% 17% Disapprove Not Sure Approve 42% 43% 34% 29% 32% (n=64) (n=76) (n=101) (n=124) (n=187) 65+ (n=298) 37

45 Figure 54: Approval of Barack Obama as President by Party Affiliation 9 94% 2% 4% (n=169) 7% 13% (n=83) 86% 8% 6% (n=139) 58% 15% 27% (n=156) 19% 21% 59% 59% (n=108) 31% (n=59) 13% 11% 76% (n=104) Disapprove Not Sure Approve Figure 55: Approval of Barack Obama as President by Hispanic Origin 9 61% 29% Disapprove Not Sure Approve Mexican or Hispanic (n=45) Not Mexican or Hispanic (n=814) 38

46 Figure 56: Approval of Barack Obama as President by Race 9 63% 27% 19% 13% 68% 44% 19% 17% 38% 33% 44% 44% 34% 13% 28% 38% Disapprove Not Sure Approve White (n=747) Black or African American (n=31) Biracial (n=16) Asian (n=6) American Indian (n=16) Other (n=32) Section 5: Energy Policy The survey asked about the importance for Kansas to develop coal, oil, wind and biofuel energy. Respondent s support for the development of wind energy was very high; 75% said it was extremely important or important. Support for the development of oil was nearly as high, with saying it was extremely important or important. More than half (52%) of respondents felt developing biofuel was extremely important or important. Coal had the lowest support; 44% of respondents believed it was extremely important or important (Figure 57). Figure 57: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Coal, Oil, Wind Energy, and Biofuel Wind (n=845) 45% 18% 7. Oil (n=843) 25% 35% 25% 15% Biofuel (n=802) 24% 28% 29% Coal (n=806) 17% 27% 32% 23% Extremely Important Important Somewhat Important Not at all Important Question: How important is it for Kansas to devote resources to the development of the following energy sources: Coal, Oil, Wind, Biofuel (ethanol biodiesel)? 39

47 Respondents opinions on devoting resources to coal and oil varied by party affiliation and education. s and those respondents leaning ic were less likely to think developing coal and oil was important or extremely important than s, those leaning and voters (Figures 58 and 60). In general, respondents with higher levels of education were less likely to think developing coal and oil is important or extremely important than those with lower levels of education (Figures 59 and 61). s and those leaning tended to be less supportive of wind energy than s, those leaning ic and voters (Figure 62). In general, younger respondents tended to have higher levels of support for biofuel than older respondents (Figure 63). Figure 58: Opinion on Devoting Resources to Coal Development by Party Affiliation 9 8% 11% 32% 35% 42% 21% 31% 26% 28% 37% 38% 35% 31% 16% 18% 29% 33% 24% Not at all Important Somewhat Important Important Extremely Important 25% 21% (n=156) (n=72) (n=132) 12% 13% 14% (n=142) (n=98) (n=55) (n=95) 40

48 Figure 59: Opinion on Devoting Resources to Coal Development by Level of Education 9 4% 43% 35% 33% 17% 17% 16% 17% Less than high school (n=26) 15% 33% High school diploma or equivalency (n=169) 23% 22% 25% 38% 34% Some college (n=218) 24% 25% Associates or Technical degree (n=83) Bachelors degree (n=198) 36% 29% 24% 12% 11% 16% Masters or law degree (n=104) 32% Doctoral degree (n=26) Not at all Important Somewhat Important Important Extremely Important Figure 60: Opinion on Devoting Resources to Oil Development by Party Affiliation 9 4% 19% 9% 9% 24% 25% 17% 25% 22% 23% 39% 37% 34% 27% 39% 31% 24% 32% 27% 33% Not at all Important Somewhat Important Important Extremely Important 38% 29% 33% 16% 14% 22% 16% (n=164) (n=75) (n=134) (n=146) (n=104) (n=59) (n=99) 41

49 Figure 61: Opinion on Devoting Resources to Oil Development by Level of Education 9 8% 12% 18% 15% 16% 24% 27% 25% 19% 28% 29% 26% 36% 36% 42% 42% 28% 34% 31% 32% 29% 23% 27% 26% 23% 16% Not at all Important Somewhat Important Important Extremely Important Less than high school (n=26) High school diploma or equivalency (n=163) Some college (n=216) Associates or Technical degree (n=85) Bachelors degree (n=200) Masters or law degree (n=101) Doctoral degree (n=25) Figure 62: Opinion on Devoting Resources to Wind Energy Development by Party Affiliation 9 13% 9% 8% 6% 8% 5% 15% 13% 14% 23% 24% 23% 31% 26% 27% 26% 25% 33% 1% 9% 34% Not at all Important Somewhat Important Important 38% 43% 36% 48% 53% 54% 56% Extremely Important (n=163) (n=80) (n=132) (n=151) (n=104) (n=59) (n=100) 42

50 Figure 63: Opinion on Devoting Resources to Biofuel Development by Age 9 21% 35% 15% 15% 16% 36% 22% 28% 29% 31% 29% 22% 25% 32% 27% 24% 28% Not at all Important Somewhat Important Important Extremely Important 34% 27% 27% 26% 22% (n=62) (n=73) (n=94) (n=120) (n=176) 65+ (n=248) Respondents were asked if they thought the drought and severe storms recently experienced in Kansas were the result of natural causes or due to extensive burning of fossil fuels. More than half (54%) of respondents believe that the erratic weather in Kansas is caused mostly or exclusively by natural causes. Only sixteen percent (16%) believe the erratic weather in Kansas is due mostly or exclusively to the burning of fossil fuels (Figure 64). s and those leaning ic were much more likely to think the burning of fossil fuels was the cause of the erratic weather than s, those leaning and voters (Figure 65). Respondents with higher levels of education were more likely to think the burning of fossil fuels contributed to the erratic weather than those with lower levels of education (Figure 66). 43

51 Figure 64: Belief about the Cause of Erratic Weather in Kansas (n=817) 4% Due Exclusively to the Burning of Fossil Fuels 27% 27% 12% Mostly Due to the Burning of Fossil Fuels Due to Natural Causes and the Burning of Fossil Fuels Equally Mostly Due to Natural Causes Due Exclusively to Natural Causes Question: Some people believe the drought and severe storms Kansas is experiencing are the result of natural causes. Others believe it is the result of extensive burning of fossil fuels. Do you believe this erratic weather pattern is: due exclusively to the burning of fossil fuels, mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels, due to natural causes and the burning of fossil fuels equally, mostly due to natural causes, or due exclusively to natural causes? Figure 65: Belief about the Cause of Erratic Weather in Kansas by Party Affiliation 9 48% 31% 26% 27% 15% 1% 4% 1% 9% 1% 5% (n=157) 33% (n=76) 26% 23% (n=134) 28% 34% 29% 24% 29% 9% 6% 3% 5% 4% (n=142) 16% 18% 16% 13% 36% (n=102) (n=55) 11% 18% 38% (n=98) Exclusively Natural Causes Mostly Natural Causes Fossil Fuels and Natural Causes Equally Mostly Fossil Fuels Exclusively Fossil Fuels 44

52 Figure 66: Belief about the Cause of Erratic Weather in Kansas by Level of Education 9 46% 31% 28% 29% 23% 22% 12% 27% Exclusively Natural Causes 25% 27% 29% 27% 23% 28% 31% 32% 32% 31% Mostly Natural Causes Fossil Fuels and Natural Causes Equally Mostly Fossil Fuels 29% Less than high school (n=24) 7% 13% 5% 4% 7% High school diploma or equivalency (n=153) Some college (n=208) Associates or Technical degree (n=82) 12% 3% 2% 4% Bachelors degree (n=200) 23% Masters or law degree (n=103) 27% Doctoral degree (n=26) Exclusively Fossil Fuels Section 6: Public Policy Issues The Kansas National Education Association (KNEA) recently filed suit claiming that the 2014 school funding bill unfairly restricted the collective bargaining rights of Kansas teachers, and that teachers should have the right to appeal dismissals by their administrators through a due process hearing. Respondents were asked if they agree or disagree that Kansas teachers should have this right. The question was asked in two versions. The first version was used from September 10 to September 19, and it informed the respondents of the law suit. The second version was used after September 20, which did not inform the respondents of the law suit. Figure 67 shows that once the law suit information was taken out of the question, respondents support of teachers right to due process decreased. Among the respondents who participated in the survey before September 20, 38% strongly agreed that teachers should have the right to appeal dismissals through a due process hearing, and 5% strongly disagreed. Among the respondents who participated since September 20, 31% strongly agree that teachers should have the right, and 6% strongly disagreed. Overall, 82% of respondents said they agree or strongly agree that teachers should have the right to a due process hearing, and 18% disagreed or strongly disagreed. respondents and those leaning were less supportive of this right than s, voters leaning ic and voters (Figure 68). 45

53 Figure 67: Belief about Kansas Teacher s Right to Due Process Version 1, KNEA Law Suit Mentioned (n=477) 38% 44% 14% 5% Version 2, KNEA Law Suit Not Mentioned (n=317) 31% 53% 6% Combined (n=794) 35% 47% 13% 5% 9 ly Agree Agree Disagree ly Disagree Question Version 1: Kansas National Education Association recently filed suit claiming the 2014 school funding bill unfairly restricted the collective bargaining rights of Kansas teachers, claiming that teachers should have the right to appeal dismissals by their administrators through a due process hearing. Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree that Kansas teachers should have this right? Question Version 2: Kansas National Education Association argues that Kansas teachers should have the right to appeal dismissals by their administrators through a due process hearing. Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? Figure 68: Belief about Kansas Teacher s Right to Due Process by Party Affiliation 9 11% 24% 48% 18% 4% 6% 4% 1% 2% 4% 8% 8% 11% 2% 15% 19% 42% 51% 54% 51% 44% 54% 45% 41% 31% 34% ly Disagree Disagree Agree ly Agree (n=153) (n=74) (n=124) (n=135) (n=106) (n=56) (n=96) 46

54 Respondents were asked their opinion on allowing Kansas physicians to prescribe marijuana to their patients for the therapeutic benefits. Figure 69 shows that 59% of respondents favored therapeutic use of marijuana, and opposed such use. Opinion on therapeutic use of marijuana varied by respondents party affiliation. s were much less likely to support therapeutic use of marijuana as compared with s and voters (Figure 70). Figure 69: Opinion on Therapeutic Use of Marijuana in Kansas Doctors Prescribe Marijuana for Therapeutic Use 59% Favor Don't Know Oppose Question: Do you favor or oppose allowing Kansas physicians to prescribe marijuana to their patients for the therapeutic benefits? Figure 70: Opinion on Therapeutic Use of Marijuana in Kansas by Party Affiliation 9 44% 47% 32% 26% 19% 19% 8% 14% 6% 12% 44% 13% 62% 64% 72% 69% 67% Oppose Don't Know Favor (n=167) (n=83) (n=139) (n=154) (n=108) (n=59) (n=105) 47

55 Colorado recently legalized the recreational use of marijuana by adults over the age of 21. Respondents were asked what their public policy preference is for the recreational use of marijuana in Kansas. Overall, 58% of respondents wanted to criminalize possession or consumption of marijuana in Kansas as either a misdemeanor or felony, 11% preferred decriminalization of possession or consumption of recreational marijuana by person over 21, and 31% preferred a policy similar to the one in Colorado, which allows the sale of recreational marijuana with a substantial state tax (Figure 71). The support for criminalization was higher among respondents and those leaning, with more than two-thirds favoring punishing possession or consumption of marijuana as a misdemeanor or felony. Less than of respondents who were s or leaning ic supported criminalization (Figure 72). In general, older respondents were more likely to favor criminalizing possession or consumption of marijuana, and younger respondents were more likely to favor decriminalize possession and consumption of marijuana. The majority of respondents under the age of 45 believed Kansas should adopt a policy similar to Colorado. Less than one-fourth of respondents younger than 45 believed that possession or consumption of marijuana in Kansas should remain a felony (Figure 73). Figure 71: Policy Preference for Recreational Marijuana in Kansas (n=821) 33% 25% 11% 31% Possession or Consumption Should Remain a Felony Changing Punishment for Marijuana Possession or Consumption from Felony to Misdemeanor Decriminalization of Recreational Marijuana in Kansas by Persons over 21, NOT Allowing Retail Marijuana Stores Remove All Criminal Penalties for Possession or Consumption of Marijuana by Persons over 21, Similar to Policy in Colorado Question: Colorado recently legalizes the recreational use of marijuana by adults over the age of 21. Which best describes your policy preference for the recreational use of marijuana in Kansas? Possession or consumption of marijuana should remain a felony in Kansas, Changing the punishment for marijuana possession or consumption from a felony to a misdemeanor, or removing all criminal penalties for the possession or consumption of marijuana in Kansas by persons over 21, similar to the policy in Colorado. 48

56 Figure 72: Policy Preference for Recreational Marijuana in Kansas by Party Affiliation 21% 21% 23% 7% 4% 8% 34% 41% 39% 42% 24% 28% 49% 47% 32% 37% 12% 24% 17% 16% 17% 26% 25% 17% 22% (n=156) (n=78) (n=136) (n=147) (n=103) (n=56) (n=96) Remove All Criminal Penalties for Possession or Consumption of Marijuana by Persons over 21, Similar to Policy in Colorado Decriminalization of Recreational Marijuana in Kansas by Persons over 21, NOT Allowing Retail Marijuana Stores Changing Punishment for Marijuana Possession or Consumption from Felony to Misdemeanor Possession or Consumption Should Remain a Felony Figure 73: Policy Preference for Recreational Marijuana in Kansas by Age 9 15% 48% 43% 47% 34% 13% 11% 15% 11% 22% 26% 21% 21% 45% 35% 29% 23% 22% (n=61) (n=75) (n=94) (n=120) (n=180) 65+ (n=271) Remove All Criminal Penalties for Possession or Consumption of Marijuana by Persons over 21, Similar to Policy in Colorado Decriminalization of Recreational Marijuana in Kansas by Persons over 21, NOT Allowing Retail Marijuana Stores Changing Punishment for Marijuana Possession or Consumption from Felony to Misdemeanor Possession or Consumption Should Remain a Felony 49

57 When asked about their opinions regarding openly carrying weapons in public, 48% of respondents strongly or somewhat supported allowing weapons to be openly carried in public, whereas 38% opposed it (Figure 74). The support of open carry was much higher among respondents, those leaning, and voters than among s and those leaning ic (Figure 75). Male respondents were more supportive of open carry than female respondents (Figure 76), and respondents who were younger than 55 years were more supportive than those who were older (Figure 77). Figure 74: Opinion on Openly Carrying Weapons in Kansas Openly Carrying Weapons in Public (n=859) 33% 15% 15% 12% 26% ly Support Somewhat Support Neutral Somewhat Oppose ly Oppose Question: Legal gun owners in Kansas can currently carry their weapons openly in public. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, are neutral, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose allowing weapons to be openly carried in public? Figure 75: Opinion on Openly Carrying Weapons in Kansas by Party Affiliation 9 6% 7% 14% 15% 58% 18% 17% 12% 13% 9% 17% 19% 19% 26% 9% 15% 16% 37% 38% 34% 41% 11% 47% 24% 14% 14% 53% 16% 12% 11% 15% 7% ly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support ly Support (n=168) (n=83) (n=140) (n=155) 12% 13% (n=107) (n=59) (n=102) 50

58 Figure 76: Opinion on Openly Carrying Weapons in Kansas by Gender 9 33% 15% 13% 15% 25% 9% 17% 14% 41% ly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support ly Support Female (n=444) Male (n=397) Figure 77: Opinion on Openly Carrying Weapons in Kansas by Age 9 9% 12% 13% 14% 12% 14% 19% 14% 34% 38% 19% 8% 23% 24% 15% 11% 14% 19% 45% 42% 28% 15% 15% 32% 13% 11% 13% 23% ly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support ly Support (n=64) (n=76) (n=101) (n=124) (n=186) 65+ (n=294) 51

59 Respondents were asked about their opinion on policies regarding undocumented aliens. More than a third (39%) of respondents favored deporting all undocumented aliens, and only of respondents favored allowing all undocumented aliens to remain in the United States (Figure 78). s and those leaning ic were more likely to say deport some undocumented aliens or allow all undocumented aliens to remain in the U.S. than s, those leaning and voters (Figure 79). Respondents of Mexican or Hispanic ethnicity were much more likely to favor a policy that only deported some undocumented aliens or allowed them to remain in the U.S. than non-hispanic respondents (Figure 80). Figure 78: Opinion on Policies Regarding Undocumented Aliens Opinion on Undocumented Aliens (n=800) 39% 14% 37% Deport All Deport Most Deport Some Allow All to Remain in the U.S Question: Which of the following best describes your opinion on policies regarding undocumented aliens? Would you support: deporting all undocumented aliens, deporting most undocumented aliens, deporting some undocumented aliens, or allowing all undocumented aliens to remain in the U.S.? Figure 79: Opinion of Policy Regarding Undocumented Aliens by Party Affiliation 9 4% 7% 5% 19% 16% 61% (n=159) 31% 35% 29% 33% (n=75) 19% 41% 42% (n=133) 12% 13% 34% 13% (n=149) 12% 6% 5% 16% (n=102) 21% 17% 52% 55% 21% 22% (n=52) (n=94) Allowing All Undocumented Aliens to Remain in the US Deporting Most Undocumented Aliens Deporting Some Undocumented Aliens Deporting All Undocumented Aliens 52

60 Figure 80: Opinion of Policy Regarding Undocumented Aliens by Hispanic Ethnicity 9% 9 27% 36% Allowing All Undocumented Aliens to Remain in the US Deporting Some Undocumented Aliens 51% 15% Deporting Most Undocumented Aliens 2% Deporting All Undocumented Aliens Hispanic Origin (n=41) Non- Hispanic Origin (n=755) Section 7: Election When asked about their voting choice for the gubernatorial election in November, 36% of respondents indicated that they would vote for incumbent Governors Sam Brownback and Jeff Colyer, 37% said they would vote for ic nominees Paul Davis and Jill Docking, 9% would vote for the Libertarian nominees Keen Umbehr and Josh Umbehr and 18% had not decided (Figure 81). Support for Brownback and Colyer was higher among respondents and those leaning, and Davis and Docking received higher support among voters, ic respondents, and those leaning ic (Figure 82). Female respondents were more likely to support Davis and Docking, and male respondents were more likely to support Brownback and Colyer (Figure 83). Respondents who were 55 years and older were more likely to vote for Davis and Docking than those respondents under 55 years (Figure 84). 53