Posts tagged ‘Oregon Jan. 2010 Special Election’

Ballot Return Demographics for Jan. 2010 Oregon Election: Gender

image002

Men and women who voted returned their ballots at almost the exact same rate.

This graph represents the share of those who eventually voted who had returned their ballots by the date indicated. All ballots were returned by Jan. 26.

Sources of data: Oregon Secretary of State; Labels and Lists of Bellevue, Washington. The analysis is entirely by Lindholm Company, LLC.

January 2010 Special Voter Turnout by Precinct: Eugene Metro

image006

Whereas the overall color pattern might appear fitting for Lane County, the colors in the map are actually keyed to the statewide average turnout. Blue is the lowest turnout percentage. Green is a turnout below the statewide average. Yellow is a turnout above the statewide average. Red is the highest turnout.

In general, turnout was higher in rural areas than in the urban areas, including small cities. Demographic factors probably explain this. Voters in rural areas are generally older.

For a more detailed view please see the pdf at: lane-turnout

image008

The turnout was lower in Springfield and in the more liberal areas of Eugene. This makes sense based alone on the demographics of voters in those areas, without considering the ideology.

For a more detailed view please see the pdf at: eugene-springfield-turnout

Source of precinct geography: Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). Source of voter participation data: Oregon Secretary of State

January Special Voter Turnout by Precinct: Tri-County Region

image002

The colors in the maps are keyed to the statewide average turnout of 62%. Blue is the lowest turnout percentage. Green is a turnout below the statewide average. Yellow is a turnout above the statewide average. Red is the highest turnout.

Turnout was south of Portland and in rural Washington County. Turnout was lowest in Multnomah County and in central Washington County.

For a more detailed view please see the pdf at: tri-county-turnout

image004

The turnout was higher in west Portland than in east Portland and the west slope area.

For a more detailed view please see the pdf at: portland-turnout

Source of precinct geography: Metro. Source of voter participation data: Oregon Secretary of State

Historical Share of Oregon Voters from Multnomah Co. and Tri Counties

image0026

Some commentators have looked at the measure 66 and 67 election results and argued that Multnomah County has too much power.

This graphic shows the evolution of the share of all State of Oregon voters who are from either Multnomah County or the entire Tri-County region (Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties) at General Elections from 1930 through 2008.

The share of Multnomah County voters has been steadily dropping since the 1930s. Any suggestion that Multnomah County has too much power certainly isn’t backed up by by the voter share.

The share of Tri-County voters stays pretty constant in the low to mid 40 percent range.

What is happening, however, is that Multnomah County is voting much more in lockstep than it was in the 1930s, or in any earlier period for that matter. The percentage margins for measures 66 and 67 dwarfed that for 1990’s Measure 5. The partisanship is also much more pronounced than earlier.

An interesting comparison of the Democratic voter registration in Multnomah County and the rest of Oregon is at this post: http://lindholmcompanyblog.com/?p=1247 and the Presidential vote is at this post: http://lindholmcompanyblog.com/?p=1235

This kind of division in attitudes really does seem to be leading to a division between Portland and the Other Oregon.

 Source of data: Oregon Secretary of State.

1990’s Measure 5 Vote by County

image012

The comparison of measures 66 and 67 with measures 28 and 30 was the first attempt to gain some perspective on what happened Tuesday. Taking a longer term view is another attempt.

The passage of measures 66 and 67, being the first tax increase passed by Oregon voters since 1930, could be a watershed event. The passage of Measure 5 in 1990 certainly was a watershed event. These two events bear some comparison.

Counties voting  in favor of 1990’s Measure 5 (Property Tax Limitation) are in green. Those voting against are in tan.

The county-by-county votes for measures 66 and 67 are at this post: http://lindholmcompanyblog.com/?p=2351

In might appear strange to compare measures 20 years apart, and to compare what some think is the ultimate arch conservative measure in recent Oregon history, Measure 5, and what some others think are the arch liberal ones, measures 66 and 67, but the county-by-county vote pattern for Measure 5 is similar to the pattern for measures 66 and 67. Most of the supportive counties were in northwest Oregon.

First,I’ll look at the geographic similarities. One key similarity, the measures were all rejected in eastern Oregon.

Also, in both measures, Portland’s Tri-County region passed the measure. The yes margin from Tri-County as a percentage of the total margin:
Measure 66: 103% (Multnomah 95%)
Measure 67: 123% (Multnomah 116%)
Measure 5: 115% (Multnomah 45%)
In all three cases the measures won in Tri-County and overcame the “no” vote from the rest of the state.

One difference between the two elections was how Multnomah County compares with the rest of the state. In the case of measures 66 and 67, Multnomah’s was so strongly in favor that matched its fifth of the voters the other four-fifths from the rest of the state. However, in the case of 1990’s Measure 5, Multnomah only accounted for 45% of the Measure 5 margin. Still a big deal, but less that half the influence.

Another difference is how Benton and Lane, two of the strongest yes counties for measures 66 and 67, opposed Measure 5. Though Benton has become much more liberal in the past 20 years, Lane always was pretty liberal.

Together, these similarities and differences imply that there are two distinct factors driving the votes: an economic and an ideological. The ideological difference is simply that Measure 5 reduced a tax and measures 66 and 67 increased taxes. This is a Democratic vs. Republican divide, etc.

The economic side of the issue helps define the difference between the Tri-County area and the other parts of the state. First, all three measures increased the relative funding for the state government over local governments leading to an increased centralization of power. The Measure 5 property tax reduction shifted relative funding away from local entities and to the state. Measures 66 and 67 increased state taxes such that local governments won’t be able to tax that money.

Second, all three measures increased the overall progressivity of Oregon’s tax system measure 5 by shifting from a regressive property tax to a more progressive income tax and measures 66 and 67, by increasing the progressivity of the personal and corporate income taxes.

There are other economic implications of both votes that are similar, such as regarding the overall volatility of state revenue, etc. These seem more remote from voters, however.

The implications of the results of this election are just beginning to appear. There will certainly be much more on this topic in the coming months and years.

Source of data: Oregon Secretary of State. The vote counts for measures 66 and 67 are based on the January 27, 2010, 4:41 AM Oregon Secretary of State Update.

Shift from Measures 28/30 to Measures 66/67

image014

Measures 28, 30, 66, and 67 were the income tax measures on Oregon’s ballot during special elections during the past decade. As such, their respectively voting patterns bear comparison.

This map divides Oregon’s 36 counties into thirds. Green counties shifted the most in favor from measures 28 and 30 to measures 66 and 67. Tan counties shifted the least in favor or against measures 28 and 30 to measures 66 and 67. The middle third are colored a light green.

The biggest shifts were  in counties in northwest Oregon. These counties were also the most favorable to measures 66 and 67.

Source of data: Oregon Secretary of State.

Measure 28 and Measure 30 Vote by County

image010

Counties in green voted for both measures. Counties in tan voted against both measures.

Measures 28 and 30 were the two earlier income tax measures on the ballot in 2003 and 2004, respectively.  They were put on the ballot by a Republican legislature.

The pattern for measures 28 and 30 were similar to measures 66 and 67. Almost all of the supportive counties were in northwest Oregon. Clearly the difference was in the margin of vote.

Source of data: Oregon Secretary of State.

Key Demographics of Measures 66 and 67

image0065

The surveys are denoted as follows in: 912:  November 30 through December 2, 2009, 1001: January 4 through 6, 2010, and 1002: January 18 through 20, 2010.

An interesting characteristic is the movement of respondents with household incomes greater than $30,000. The Republicans shifted against the measure and Democrats shifted in favor of the measure during January. The segments each included about 60% or so of each party’s respondents.

METHODOLOGY:

Measure 66 Ballot Question Wording:
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Measure 66: Raises tax on household income at and above $250,000 (and $125,000 for individual filers). Reduces income taxes on unemployment benefits in 2009. Provides funds currently budgeted for education, health care, public safety, other services.
IF YES/NO: Is that strongly or somewhat? IF DON’T KNOW: Which way do you lean?
 
Measure 67 Ballot Question Wording:
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Measure 67: Raises $10 Corporate Minimum Tax, Business Minimum Tax, Corporate Profits Tax. Provides funds currently budgeted for education, health care, public safety, other services.
IF YES/NO: Is that strongly or somewhat? IF DON’T KNOW: Which way do you lean?
 
Survey Methodology:
Identically structured surveys were conducted November 30 through December 2, 2009, January 4 through 6, 2010, and January 18 through 20, 2010.  400 live telephone interviews of likely January Oregon Special election voters were conducted . The margin of error at the sample median is 5 percent at the 95 percent confidence level for all three surveys.
 
These surveys were conducted as part of a long-term project studying Oregon politics and not for any political committee. Lindholm Research was not working for either the Yes or No sides.

Measure 66 and Measure 67: Evolution of Vote

The campaigns began as the first survey in the series was conducted. The series of surveys then can give a good estimation of campaign effectiveness and its timing.

image0025

Measure 66 enjoyed a steady gain over time. The “no” voters largely came on board in January.

image0044

 Measure 67 gained significantly in December and then seems to have stalled (perhaps it was waiting for Measure 66 to catch up?). As with Measure 66, the “no” voters largely came on board in January.

The January move of Measure 66 implies that the campaigns did matter and that Oregonians were significantly informed by the “yes” side.

METHODOLOGY:

The “FINAL” results for measures 66 and 67 are based on the January 27, 2010, 4:41 AM Oregon Secretary of State Update.

Measure 66 Ballot Question Wording:
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Measure 66: Raises tax on household income at and above $250,000 (and $125,000 for individual filers). Reduces income taxes on unemployment benefits in 2009. Provides funds currently budgeted for education, health care, public safety, other services.
IF YES/NO: Is that strongly or somewhat? IF DON’T KNOW: Which way do you lean?
 
Measure 67 Ballot Question Wording:
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Measure 67: Raises $10 Corporate Minimum Tax, Business Minimum Tax, Corporate Profits Tax. Provides funds currently budgeted for education, health care, public safety, other services.
IF YES/NO: Is that strongly or somewhat? IF DON’T KNOW: Which way do you lean?
 
Survey Methodology:
Identically structured surveys were conducted November 30 through December 2, 2009, January 4 through 6, 2010, and January 18 through 20, 2010. 400 live telephone interviews of likely January Oregon Special election voters were conducted . The margin of error at the sample median is 5 percent at the 95 percent confidence level for all three surveys.
 
These surveys were conducted as part of a long-term project studying Oregon politics and not for any political committee. Lindholm Research was not working for either the Yes or No sides.

Counties Voting for Measure 66 and Measure 67

image0081

Counties in green voted for both measures. Counties in tan voted against both measures.

The votes for measures 66 and 67 was highly correlated. The same counties voted “yes” or “no” on both measures.

The yes vote from the Tri-County area exceeded the no vote from the rest of the state. The yes margin from Tri-County as a percentage of the total margin:
Measure 66: 103% (Multnomah 95%)
Measure 67: 123% (Multnomah 116%).

This election was practically won by Multnomah County. Multnomah County provided 95% of the margin for Measure 66 and 116% of the margin for Measure 67. Multnomah’s yes margin alone more than matched the no margin in the rest of the state on Measure 67.

Lane County provided the second largest margin in support of measures 66 and 67.

Look a little deeper into the election, not only was there a geographic correlation, there was a demographic correlation. The measures did not start out so correlated. This developed over time. This correlation was clearly visible in the polling by Lindholm Research. See this post for more information on the increasing correlation between voting on measures 66 and 67: http://lindholmcompanyblog.com/?p=2310

All of the counties voting for measures 66 and 67 were in northwest Oregon. Later posts will place this geographic pattern in context.

METHODOLOGY:
The vote counts for measures 66 and 67 are based on the January 27, 2010, 4:41 AM Oregon Secretary of State Update.