Prop 66

THE INDEPENDENT AND NON-PARTISAN SURVEY
OF PUBLIC OPINION ESTABLISHED IN 1947 AS
THE CALIFORNIA POLL BY MERVIN FIELD
Field Research Corporation
222 Sutter Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94108-4411
(415) 392-5763 FAX: (415) 434-2541
EMAIL: fieldpoll@field.com
www.field.com/fieldpollonline
Field Research Corporation is an Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
THE
FIELD
POLL
COPYRIGHT 2004 BY FIELD RESEARCH CORPORATION. FOR PUBLICATION BY SUBSCRIBERS ONLY.
Release #2129 Release Date: Saturday, August 14, 2004
PROPOSITIONS 66 AND 64
VOTERS APPEAR DISPOSED TO PUT LIMITS
ON STATE’S “THREE STRIKES” LAW.
TORT REFORM PROPOSAL TRAILING.
IMPORTANT: Contract for this service is
subject to revocation if publication or broadcast
takes place before release date or if contents are
divulged to persons outside of subscriber staff
prior to release time. (ISSN 0195-4520)
by Mark DiCamillo and Mervin Field
California voters appear to be quite one-sided in their support of Proposition 66, the initiative that
would put limitations on the state’s “three strikes” criminal sentencing law.
A Field Poll completed July 30 – August 8 found that about four in ten voters (38%) had heard of
Prop. 66 and after all voters were read a summary of the description of Prop. 66 that will appear on
the November ballot, the division of sentiment was 69% Yes, 19% No, and 12% no opinion.
The wording of the summary that was read to voters was as follows:
“Proposition 66 is the “Limitations on Three Strikes Law; Sex Crimes,
Punishment” initiative. It limits the “Three Strikes” law to violent and/or serious
felonies and permits limited re-sentencing under new definitions. It also increases
punishment for specified sex crimes against children. Fiscal impact: Net savings
of up to several hundred million dollars annually, primarily to the prison system
and local jail and court-related costs of potentially more than 10 million dollars
annually. If the election were being held today, would you vote YES or NO on
Proposition 66?”
Support for the initiative is broad-based, with majorities of Democrats and Republicans, men and
women, as well as conservatives and liberals currently on the Yes side.
The Field Poll #2129
Saturday, August 14, 2004 Page 2
Table 1
Voter preferences regarding Proposition 66, the
“Limitations on Three Strikes Law” Initiative
(among likely voters)
Yes No Undecided
Total Statewide – August 69% 19 12
– May 76% 14 10
Party (August)
Democrats 77% 14 9
Republicans 60% 28 12
Non-partisans/others 68% 15 17
Gender (August)
Men 64% 24 12
Women 73% 15 12
Political ideology (August)
Conservative 59% 29 12
Middle-of-the-road 70% 19 11
Liberal 80% 5 15
Note: Wording of the ballot summary in the May survey differed somewhat from the official ballot label summary
which was read to voters in the August measure.
Voter misunderstanding?
After the initiative qualified for the ballot and The Field Poll released its first survey on the
measure in early June, there were some speculation in the news media that voters might not have
fully understood the intent of Prop. 66. In an attempt to determine if there was any
misunderstanding about the initiative in the current survey, a follow up question was added.
The results indicate that the large majority of voters understands the initiative’s main intent.
Three-fourths (74%) correctly say that it is their understanding that, if Prop. 66 were enacted,
criminals whose third strike conviction is for a non-violent or less serious crime would not
automatically get a long prison sentence. This compares to just one in six voters (16%) who
mistakenly believe that under Prop. 66 criminals convicted of a third strike crime of any kind
would still automatically get a long prison sentence.
Large majorities of both those intending to vote Yes and those intending to vote No appear to have
an accurate understanding of the intent of Prop. 66.
The Field Poll #2129
Saturday, August 14, 2004 Page 3
Table 2
Which statement is closer to your understanding of what
Prop. 66 would do if it were to become law?
(among likely voters)
Total
voters
Yes
voters
No
voters
Undecided
voters*
Criminals whose third strike
conviction is for a non-violent or
less serious crime would not
automatically get a long prison
sentence
74% 81% 68% 45%
Criminals convicted of a third strike
crime of any kind would still
automatically get a long prison
sentence
16 15 20 20
Don’t know 10 3 12 35
* Small sample base.
Governor and Attorney General opposition
Voters in this survey were then told that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General
Bill Lockyer were opposed to Prop. 66 and asked if their opposition would have any affect on their
vote, and if so, in what direction. Almost four in five (78%) said that Schwarzenegger’s and
Lockyer’s opposition would not affect their vote. Among the small group who say they would be
affected, 10% said it would make them more likely to vote No, while 7% said it would make them
more inclined to vote Yes.
Table 3
How does Prop. 66’s opposition by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
and Attorney General Bill Lockyer affect your vote?
(among likely voters)
Total
voters
Yes
voters
No
voters
Undecided
voters*
Their opposition makes me
more inclined to vote
Yes 7% 9% 3% 2%
No 10 6 24 4
Has no effect 78 79 72 80
No opinion 5 6 1 14
* Small sample base.
The Field Poll #2129
Saturday, August 14, 2004 Page 4
Prop. 64 tort reform measure
Another initiative on the November ballot, which only 8% of likely voters were aware of in the
current survey, is Proposition 64, the “Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business
Competition Laws” initiative. When read a summary of its official ballot description, 41% of
voters lined up on the No side, 21% were in favor, and 38% were undecided.
The wording of the ballot summary is:
“Proposition 64 is the “Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business
Competition Laws” initiative. It allows individual or class action unfair business
lawsuits only if an actual loss is suffered and states that only government officials
may enforce these laws on the public’s behalf. Unknown state and local fiscal
impact depending on whether it increases or decreases the court work load and
the extent to which diverted funds are replaced. If the election were being held
today, would you vote YES or NO on Proposition 64?”
Table 4
Voter preferences regarding Prop. 64, the Limits on Private
Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws Initiative
(among likely voters)
No Yes Undecided
Total Statewide 41% 21 38
Party
Democrats 39% 24 37
Republicans 40% 25 35
Non-partisans/others 46% 10 44
– 30 –
The Field Poll #2129
Saturday, August 14, 2004 Page 5
Information About the Survey
Sample Details
The findings in this report are based on interviews conducted among a random sample of 500 Californians
likely to vote in the November general election. Interviews were conducted by telephone in English and
Spanish July 30 – August 8, 2004. Sampling was carried out using random digit dial methodology which
gives all voters, including those whose phone number is listed and unlisted, an equal chance of being
contacted. Up to five attempts were made to reach a randomly selected voter at each number dialed. After
the completion of interviewing the larger registered voter sample was weighted to Field Poll estimates of
the state’s total registered voter population.
According to statistical theory, the overall results in this report have a sampling error of +/- 4.5 percentage
points at the 95% confidence level. These are other possible sources of error in any survey in addition to
sampling variability. Different results could occur because of differences in question wording, sequencing
or through omissions or errors in sampling, interviewing or data processing. Extensive efforts were made
to minimize such potential errors.
Questions Asked
Have you seen, read or heard anything about Proposition 66, having to do with placing limits on the state’s
Three Strikes criminal sentencing law?
Proposition 66 is the “Limitations on Three Strikes Law; Sex Crimes, Punishment” initiative. It limits the
“Three Strikes” law to violent and/or serious felonies and permits limited re-sentencing under new
definitions. It also increases punishment for specified sex crimes against children. Fiscal impact: Net
savings of up to several hundred million dollars annually, primarily to the prison system and local jail and
court-related costs of potentially more than 10 million dollars annually. If the election were being held
today, would you vote YES or NO on Proposition 66?
Which of the following two statements is closer to your understanding of what Proposition 66 would do if
it were to become law: (SEE RELEASE FOR CATEGORIES READ)
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Bill Lockyer are opposed to Prop. 66. Does their
opposition make you more inclined to vote YES, more inclined to vote NO, or does it have no effect on
how you will vote on Prop. 66?
Have you seen, read or heard anything about Proposition 64, having to do with placing limits on the
enforcement of unfair business competition laws?
Proposition 64 is the “Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws” initiative. It
allows individual or class action unfair business lawsuits only if an actual loss is suffered and states that
only government officials may enforce these laws on the public’s behalf. Unknown state and local fiscal
impact depending on whether it increases or decreases the court work load and the extent to which diverted
funds are replaced. If the election were being held today, would you vote YES or NO on Proposition 64?