THE INDEPENDENT AND NON-PARTISAN STATEWIDE SURVEY OF PUBLIC OPINION ESTABLISHED IN 1947 BY MERVIN D. FiElD.

Transcription

1 THE INDEPENDENT AND NON-PARTISAN STATEWIDE SURVEY OF PUBLIC OPINION ESTABLISHED IN 1947 BY MERVIN D. FiElD. 234 Front Street San Francisco (415) COPYRIGHT 1982 BY THE FIELD INSTITUTE. FOR PUBLICATION BY SUBSCRIBERS ONLY. Release #-1164 Release date: Friday, April 23, 1982 PROPOSITIONS 1, 5 AND 6 PRISON CONSTRUCTION BOND ISSUE AND ELIMINATION OF GIFT AND INHERITANCE TAX MEASURES NOT GENERATING MUCH VOTER INTEREST. By Mervin D. Field Director, The California Poll IMPORTANT: Contract for this service is subject to revocation if publication or broadcast takes place before release date or if contents of report are divulged to persons outside of subscriber staff prior to release time. (ISSN ) A prison construction bond referendum (Proposition 1) and a pair of initiatives that would eliminate state gift and inheritance taxes (Props. 5 and 6) are not as yet generating much voter interest. However, among the minority who have been attending to these issues, most appear ready to support them at the polls on June 8. Proposition 1 was passed by the legislature last year. It asks voters to approve the sale of $495 million worth of bonds to be used for the construction, renovation and maintenance of new state prisons. Propositions 5 and 6 deal with state gift and inheritance taxes. measures are virtually identical in that they would both repeal all exist ing state gift and inheritance taxes. The The fiscal impact of each would be to reduce state revenues by about $130 million in and $365 million in becomes law. If both measures pass, the one with the largest majority As can be seen from the tables below, 70% to 76% of the public has not seen or heard anything about these measures, but those who have are dividing in favor of each initiative. Prop. 5 Prop. 6 Prop. 1 (Gift and (Gift and (Prison inheritance inheri tance construction) taxes) taxes) % % % Have not seen or heard Have seen or heard Would now vote. YES/FOR NO/AGAINST UNDECIDED The California Poll has operated continuously since 1947 as an independent, impartial media sponsored public opinion news service. The Poll is one of the services provided by The Field Institute, a non profit, non-partisan organization devoted to the study of public opinion and behavior on social and political issues. The Field Institute is dedicated to encouraging the widest possible dissemination of social survey findings to the public and for the public benefit. The Institute receives its support from academic, governmental, media, and private sources.

2 " The California Poll #1164 page two -The degree of awareness and present vote disposition on these issues parallels California Poll findings for other ballot propositions in the initial stages of a campaign. Typically, during the early stages of a ballot measure campaign those who have heard of the measure are more likely to be supporters rather than opponents. They may have been introduced to the measure through the signature process, have followed developments in Sacramento or for some reason have a special interest in it. If there is little or no campaigning and the propositions generate little public awareness, supporters then have a good chance to maintain their edge throughout much of the pre-election period among those aware of the issue. However, if any real contest develops and a measure's elements are debated and discussed in the media or in a formal campaign, public awareness can increase rapidly. When this occurs, a much larger proportion of the public will report knowing something about the issue, and whether it passes or fails, the final vote more nearly reflects the views of an informed electorate. Proposition 1 is being sponsored by State Senator Robert B. Presley (D-Riverside) who, along with Governor Jerry Brown, submitted ballot arguments pointing to the overcrowded state prison facilities. They say: "The issue is simple--if we wish to continue to lock up serious repeat and violent offenders to protect society, we must have additional cells in which to hold them. The alternative is the release of prisoners to the communities before their sentences are completed." Attorney General George Deukmejian, who authored the "use a gun, go to prison" law, argues in the ballot pamphlet: "New prisons must be built if we are going to continue to protect the public. We have no real choice other than to build new facilities in order to remove violent criminals from the community. If we do not build new prisons, and soon, courts may prevent us from placing additional criminals behind bars." There is a campaign organization opposing Proposition 1 which argues that the interest costs on the bond issue over the next twenty years would total $500 million and that this is an "incredibly expensive" way to pay for prisons.

3 i' The California Poll U164 page three Opponents also argue that prison overcrowding could be reduced by shorter sentences, restitution instead of "jail time" and allowing for the release of non-violent prisoners three to six months before the end of their terms if prisons become overcrowded. The arguments in favor of Propositions 5 and 6 are that the taxes on an inheritance following a person's death are becoming too costly for survivors. A person's estate is now subject to state and federal inheritance taxes, probate costs, costs associated with conservatorship just before someone's death and a "death income tax." They argue that widows and orphans are often forced to sell or mortgage property to pay inheritance taxes. Opponents of Propositions 5 and 6 point out that passage of the measures would take away about $500 million from state revenues during the next two years at a time when California is facing growing budget deficits. They also argue that under recently revised state laws, widows are not now subject to inheritance taxes and there are considerable exemptions for orphans. Because inheritance taxes can be paid in installments over a fifteen year period, they claim this will diminish the need for inheritors to be forced to sell a farm or a business in order to pay inheritance taxes. -30

4 THE INDEPENDENT AND NON-PARTISAN STATEWIDE SURVEY OF PUBLIC OPINION ESTABLISHED IN 1947 BY MERVIN D. FIELD. 234 Front Street San Francisco (415) INFORMATION ABOUT THE SURVEY #1164 SAMPLE DETAILS The survey was taken among a representative cross section of 1,217 California adults. Interviewing was done by telephone March 18 through March 23, 1982 during the late afternoon and evening on weekdays and all day Saturday and Sunday. The findings reported in this report on Proposition 1 are based on 805 adults who considered themselves "absolutely certain" to vote. In order to cover a broad range of topics and still minimize possible respondent fatigue, the overall sample was divided into two approximately equal sized subsamples for questioning on Propositions 5 and 6. Subsample A containing 392 likely voters asked about awareness and voter disposition on Proposition 5, while subsample B containing 413 likely voters asked about awareness and voter disposition toward Proposition 6. QUESTIONS ASKED Have you seen or heard anything about Proposition 1, an initiative that will be on the June ballot having to do with prison construction? From what you have seen or heard would you vote FOR or AGAINST the prison construction measure? Have you seen or heard anything about an amendment, Proposition 5, on the June ballot having to do with state gift and inheritance taxes? From what you have seen or heard would you vote YES or NO on Proposition 5, the gift and inheritance tax measure? Have you seen or heard anything about an amendment, Proposition 6, that will be on the June election ballot having to do with state gift and inheritance taxes? From what you have seen or heard would you vote YES or NO on Proposition 6, the gift and inheritance tax measure? The California Poll has operated continuously since 1947 as ali independent, impartial media sponsored public opinion news service. The Poll is one of the services provided by The Field Institute, a non-profit, non-partisan organization devoted to the study of public opinion and behavior on social and political issues. The Field Institute is dedicated to encouraging the widest possible dissemination of social survey findings to the public and for the public benefit. The Institute receives its support from academic, governmental, media, and private sources.

5 Poll Operation and Sponsorship The California Poll has operated continuously since 1947 as an independent, non-partisan media sponsored public opinion news service. The Poll is owned by Field Research Corporation and since 1976 has been operated by The Field Institute, a non-profit, non-partisan research group engaged in conducting studiesofpublicopinion on issues ofsocial significance. The Institute receives its financial support from academic, governmental. media and private sources. Survey Method Interviews in this survey were made by telephone. Sample homes are drawn in accordance with a probability sample design that gives all areas of. the state and all neighborhoods a properly proportionate chance to be included. Telephone numbers are randomly generated by computer in proportion to local prefix allocation density to remove non-listed telephone biases. Up to four calls are made to each number at different times to reach one adult in each household. An adult respondent is selected for the interview using an objective procedure to provide a balance of age and sex. Accuracy of the Findings Several factors must be considered in assessing the accuracy of the findings in this and other California Poll reports. One is the amount of tolerance in the findings due to the presence of random variations inherent in the sampling process itself. Another are any inaccuracies caused by judgemental factors such as question wording and sample design; and a third are the effects of external events. Sampling Tolerance The amount of sampling tolerance in these survey findings can be estimated quite precisely by the use of well-tested statistical formulas. The California Poll uses an advanced method known as replicated sampling that provides an empirically determined estimate of the range of so-called sampling error for each item of information developed by the sulvey. This method takes account of the size ofthe sample, the degree of variability in response to each item, sample design effects (clustering, weighting), and the effects of variable interviewer and coder performance. An estimate of the sampling error range for this survey is shown in the table bel9w. The sampling tolerance has been calculated at two statistical confidence levels which are customarily used by social scientists - the 95'70 and the 99'70 level. To use the table, first select the sample size on which the percentage in question is based. Then note the plus and minus range of sampling tolerance for the degree of confidence desired and apply this to the percentage figure. The resulting "high" and "low" estimates show the range within which we can have 95'70 (or 99'70) confidence that if the whole population of the state had been surveyed with the same questionnaire, the results of such a complete coverage would fall between the two figures obtained from the data in the table. The sample tolerance figures shown in the table are average figures derived from the actual experience of a number of recent surveys. They represent maximum tolerances for the sample bases shown, Le., for survey findings where the division ofopinion is around 50'70-50'70. Survey findings that show a more one-sided distribution of opinion, such as 70'70-30'70 or 90'70-10'70, are usually subject to slightly lower sampling tolerance than those shown in the table. Table of Sampling Tolerances for Data from Surveys of The California Poll Plus/minus percentage range of sampling tolerance at Sample Size 95'70 confidence 99'70 confidence WO Other Possible Sources of Error In addition to sampling error, there are other important sources of potential inaccuracies in these (and in other) poll findings. These sources include the effects of possibly biased or misleading questions, possible systematic omission of relevant segments of the population from the survey sample, and the effects of significant events that occur during or after the time the survey interviews are made. There is no standard measure of these effects; each must be evaluated judgmentally. Furthermore, since the influence of these factors on the ultimate accuracy of the survey findings may be many times greater than the amount of sampling error, it is important that they also be carefully weighed. So that the reader will have information needed to judge the possible importance of these effects, The California Poll provides this bulletin with each release, describing the question(s) used, the size and type of sample used, and the dates of interviewing. The California Poll has an excellent record for accuracy in reflecting public opinion during its 33 year history. The staff of The California Poll takes great care to formulate questions which we feel are objective and unbiased and to carefully supervise the data gathering phases and other research operations upon which the Poll's findings are based. Nevertheless, users of this (and any other public opinion polling data) should be continually mindful of all of the factors that influence any poll's accuracy Sampling error is not the only criterion, and we caution against citing only the sampling error figure alone as the measure of a survey's accuracy, since to do so tends to create an impression of a greater degree of precision than has in fact been achieved. Suggested copy for editors to use when presenting California Poll data in publication or newscast Surveys of the kind reported here by The California Poll are subject to variability due to sampling factors and to other possible sources of influence on their accuracy. The statewide sample results shown in this report are subject to a sampling tolerance of plus or minus approximately percentage points. The (reader) (viewer) (listener) should also be aware, however, that there are other possible sources of error for which precise estimates cannot be calculated. For example, different results might have been obtained from different question wording, and undetected flaws in the way the sampling and interviewing procedures were carried out could have a significant effect on the findings, Good polling practices diminish the chances of such errors, but they can never be entirely ruled out. It is also possible, of course, that events occuring since the time the interviews were conducted could have changed the opinions reported here. TI