Dan Walters: Low turnout expected in California's June primary

Sacramento Bee ^ | 3/24/8 | Dan Walters

[SmithL]

One consequence of the state's first February presidential primary election – unintended, perhaps, but a consequence nevertheless – will almost certainly be an extraordinarily low voter turnout for the June 3 regular primary.

Primary elections generally see subpar turnouts, in part because independents have almost no motivation to vote.

But June's election will be especially devoid of motivation – no presidential contest or any other statewide candidate duel, only a handful of meaningful legislative or congressional primaries and just two statewide ballot measures, both of which deal with the very arcane issue of property seizures by local governments.

We'll have 15-plus million Californians registered to vote in June. But given the low turnouts of past primaries and the lack of motivating contests this year, it wouldn't be surprising if as few as 5 million of them actually cast ballots. And that will mean that even more than usual, the electorate will be dominated by hyper-partisans on the left and right – folks who view politics with almost religious fervor.

The prospect bodes ill for re-establishing comity and compromise in the Capitol. The primaries in 34 legislative districts whose incumbents are being forced out due to term limits will be decided by the most liberal voters in the Democratic districts and the most conservative ones in the Republican districts. That, if anything, will bring even more ideological polarization to the Capitol.

The greatest effect of an extra-low voter turnout in June, however, is likely to be on the two contending ballot measures dealing with eminent domain.

Proposition 98 is backed by conservative groups that would impose severe restrictions on the powers of local governments to seize property for private development. Proposition 99 is sponsored by local government groups and their allies as a much less restrictive reform.

[M203M4]

...and just two statewide ballot measures, both of which deal with the very arcane [????] issue of property seizures by local governments.

We are doomed.

[SierraWasp]

No we're NOT!!! Read this excerpt from the end of his writing!!!

"A measure that would have prohibited such seizures – Proposition 90 – was rejected by voters two years ago, but by just five percentage points in a relatively high-turnout general election with 8-plus million votes being cast.

Proposition 98 eliminates some of that measure's most controversial aspects. Unions, environmentalists, city officials and others who oppose Proposition 98 are openly worried that it could pass in a low-turnout election.

Their concern is reflected, apparently, in an unsuccessful lawsuit filed by the anti-Proposition 98 coalition, demanding that the portion of the measure prohibiting local rent control laws be featured in the "title and summary" that appears on the ballot.

Opponents are seizing on the anti-rent control provisions as an issue to persuade voters to reject Proposition 98, and their rather odd omission from the official summary issued by the attorney general's office undercuts the drive.

In the most general sense, Proposition 98 appeals to conservative voters, while liberals are more likely to favor Proposition 99, or oppose them both.

And if history is any guide, a low-turnout election would help Proposition 98. As voter participation falls, the electorate becomes skewed even more toward older, whiter and more affluent, home-owning voters, the ones most likely to dislike property seizures by government."