Political Independents and Civic Engagement in California

Political Independents and Civic Engagement in California John L. Korey Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Pomona, CA 91768-4055 (909)869-3885 voice (909)869-6995 fax [email protected]

Edward L. Lascher, Jr. Associate Dean, College of Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies Professor of Public Policy & Administration California State University, Sacramento Sacramento, CA 95819-6109 (916)278-4864 voice (916)278-4678 fax [email protected]

Abstract This paper reflects a second stage of our ongoing research examining political independents in California, considering both party identification and voter registration. All of this work draws upon Field Poll surveys of California adults, most aggregated over many years. The paper at hand focuses especially on civic engagement. We expected to determine that “independents,” whether defined in terms of identification or registration, were less civically engaged than avowed partisans. We find some support for this hypothesis, but also some instances in which our expectations are not supported, although this may in part be the result of limited data in those areas. More specifically, we find that all types of independents are less likely than partisans to express certainty about voting in an upcoming election. Pure independents are consistently less likely to express opinions about major political figures/institutions, and this is sometimes true of decline to state voters as well. Our very limited evidence suggests that independents may be less likely to vote in accordance with their overall ideology. However, analysis of limited data about political knowledge does not support expectations of consistent differences between independents and partisans in this regard.

1

Political Independents and Civic Engagement in California What are we to make of the significant rise over the past several years in the portion of California adults who decline to state a political party preference when registering to vote? To what extent are such voters political independents in the sense political scientists have used the term? What are the attitudinal and behavioral implications? What are the implications for the ongoing controversy about the importance of independent voters? Such questions have motivated our ongoing research about independent and decline to state voters in California. The present paper offers a second round of findings in this area, building on the research we presented at the last WPSA Annual Meeting (Lascher and Korey 2009). Both works draw on analysis of Field Poll survey data over many years. The paper at hand focuses especially on the civic engagement of independent identifiers and decline to state voters, and how this compares to the civic engagement of political partisans. Our work is driven by intellectual curiosity about the fit between data that might constitute evidence that Californians are moving away from political parties, as well as some scholarship and commentary that suggests as much (Baldassare 2002; Weintraub 2008A & B), and influential research that provides grounds for skepticism. On the one hand, it is hard to ignore the fact that official California Secretary State figures show a steady rise in the portion of decline to state voters from a little above 10% in 1996 to almost 20% in 2007 (Lascher and Korey 2009). Perhaps this indicates California really has become “the un-party state” (Baldassare 2002). On the other hand, the seminal study by Keith et al. (1992) argues that most people who call themselves independents in fact lean toward one of the major political parties and act much like avowed partisans (we will follow Keith et al. and refer to such people as “leaners,” hereafter without quotation marks). This may also be the case for people who simply

2

do not wish to list a partisan preference on official registration materials. True, Keith et al. drew from data that are now more than two decades old, and much has changed politically since. But a recent update of the Keith et al. study using national survey data indicates that the conclusions of those scholars still hold (Abramowitz 2009). Furthermore, other political science work stresses the resurgence of partisanship among the entire American public (see for example Bartels 2000, and within California specifically Jacobson 2004). Additionally, we note that much commentary about the California electorate refers to “independents” without being clear about whether the basis for such categorization is how people register to vote or how they think of themselves. This may lead to serious misinterpretations if people who think of themselves as independents are not the same as those who fail to register a party preference, and the two groups behave differently. We believe many interested in California politics may benefit from disentangling registration from identification. Our research seeks to do that. The present work rests on the following key findings presented in our prior paper. 1. During the period since 1996, the number of decline to state voters has risen substantially and steadily, while the number of independent identifiers has stayed relatively stable. We stressed this in our prior paper and it will be important to future work, but we will give it only minimal attention in the paper at hand. 2. There is overlap in the “decline to state” and “independent identifier” categories but the two groups are not interchangeable. Many Field Poll surveys allow us to determine both how people are registered and how they identify themselves, with the latter based on questions similar to those in the American National Election Studies that produce the famous seven point party identification scale. Based on these data we found that, for example, only about a fourth of “decline to state” registrants also identified themselves as “pure

3

independents” (i.e. those who initially indicated they considered themselves independents rather than Republicans or Democrats and subsequently indicated they did not think of themselves as closer to either major party). While this is a significantly higher portion of independents than among the sample as a whole, we are still left with three of four decline to state voters expressing a partisan leaning in terms of identification. 3. Though they are not the same people, independent identifiers and independent registrants have similar social and political characteristics. We found a number of demographic similarities. For example, young people are more likely both to decline to state a party preference and identify themselves as pure independents. The present paper moves beyond focusing on aggregate trends and characteristics of party identifiers and registrants to consider similarities as well as differences in attitudes and behavior. We focus especially on civic engagement in four areas: level of interest in politicians and institutions, level of political knowledge, ideological consistency in candidate preferences, and voting participation. Future work will give more extensive consideration to political behavior, such as choices between types of candidates for public office. We will also consider whether, as the numbers of decline to state registrants has grown over time while the number of independent identifiers has stayed relatively stable, decline to state voters may have come to resemble pure independents less and leaners more. Data and Methods The data for this project come from The Field Poll, formerly known as The California Poll, conducted by the Field Research Corporation. Polling is carried out at least four times annually, more often in election years. We have examined those polls that included measures of both party registration and party identification. The study begins with 1996, when California began

4

experimenting with changes in laws governing participation in partisan primaries, and extends through the October 2007 poll, the last time to date that Field asked the standard party identification questions. We have excluded from the analysis a few polls because they included only likely voters, leaving us with a total of 30 surveys. From these we have further excluded respondents registering with a third party, as well as those with missing data for registration, identification, or both.

Since Field employs different weighting criteria depending on the

specific purposes of each survey, the data in the present analysis are unweighted. (See Korey and Lascher 2006, Appendix, for a more extensive discussion of this issue.) One difference between measuring political independence in terms of registration versus identification is that the former approach distinguishes independents (decline to state registrants) from minor party registrants, while the traditional party identification question (“[g]enerally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what?”) makes no such distinction. We should note that, in our analysis of party registration, we have excluded minor party registrants while, in looking at identification, we have followed the traditional approach (and would be unable to do otherwise, given the way the question is worded). Our central hypothesis is that, however defined, partisan independents are less involved politically than others. This hypothesis is consistent with prior research (e.g., Converse 1964; Keith et al. 1992). We seek to ascertain whether, if this is true, it is more or less so when independents are defined by registration or by identification. In the case of the latter, we also distinguish between pure partisans and leaners. The inquiry focuses on four specific areas: 

Lack of interest. A number of the surveys include questions asking respondents’ opinions of political actors and institutions. In some cases, respondents are asked whether they

5

approve or disapprove of someone’s job performance. In others, they are asked to rate their evaluations on a five point scale rating performance from very good to very poor. In both cases, we distinguish between those who are willing and able to provide a rating and those expressing no opinion. In general, the first format produces more “no opinion” responses than the second. While Field asks these questions of a variety of actors and institutions, we have limited our analysis to those regarding the state legislature and California’s two U.S. senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. We have done so because these three have been in place throughout the entire timeframe under discussion. (Feinstein and Boxer were both elected to the senate in 1992, Feinstein in a special election made necessary by the election of then Senator Pete Wilson as governor two years earlier.) 

Lack of knowledge. On a small number of surveys, Field includes purely factual questions (such as the month of the next primary). We distinguish between respondents providing correct answers and those unable to do so (including those not answering the question).



Voting inconsistency. Partisan elections in California virtually always pit a more liberal Democrat against a more conservative Republican. In recent years, runoff elections for the ostensibly nonpartisan office of superintendent of public instruction have involved similar choices, since a Republican and a Democrat have regularly emerged as the top two vote-getters in the primary. We examine the degree to which partisanship of voters serves as useful shorthand for voters, increasing consistency between voters’ ideologies and their choices of candidates.

6



Lack of voting participation. Sometimes, Field asks respondents whether they intend to vote in an upcoming election. Taking into account the tendency of respondents to overestimate their likelihood of participation, we distinguish between those who are certain that they will vote and those who are less than certain or who do not know. When Field asked about more than one upcoming election (a primary and a general election) we include only the election most proximate to the survey.

Findings Lack of Interest In their seminal study of independent voters, Keith et al. (1992) contrasted independents and partisans on a number of measures of civic engagement. One of these was interest in politics. Keith and his colleagues found that pure independents expressed the least interest in politics. By contrast, leaners compared favorably to weak avowed partisans with respect to political interest. While we do not have an analogous measure in our data set, we do have the previously mentioned questions over many years about approval of Senators Boxer and Feinstein as well as the state legislature. We would expect that most people would develop opinions about these topics, and that failure to do so would indicate a lack of political interest. Analyzing such data we find some support for our principal hypothesis. Table 1 presents our key findings in this area. Consider first the question of self-identification. We find that pure independents are more likely not to have an opinion about Boxer, Feinstein, and the state legislature than partisans (i.e., those who answered the initial question by expressing identification for a major party). These differences are always statistically significant and sometimes striking. For example, throughout almost three in 10 pure independents had no opinion about Senator Boxer’s performance, whereas less than one in five partisans failed to

7

express such an opinion. By contrast, there is no consistent pattern with respect to comparing leaners and partisan identifiers, suggesting that the two groups may be equally likely not to have opinions about major political figures and institutions. Table 1 about here If we examine political independence through the lens of registration rather than identification we still see differences which tend to run in the expected direction, but these are less consistent. Relative to those registering as partisans, decline to state voters are more likely not to express an opinion about the performance of Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein, or the state legislature. However, the difference with respect to approval of the state legislature is small and not statistically significant. We are better able to untangle the effects of identification and registration by focusing in depth on a question that separated some groups of respondents: approval of Barbara Boxer. Again, pure independents and decline to state voters differed notably with partisan identifiers and registrants, respectively. Table 2 presents the differences between pure independents and partisans controlling for how respondents are registered. Among registered partisans, those who do not think of themselves in partisan terms or lean toward a party (i.e., pure independents) are much more likely to have no opinion of Senator Boxer than those who identify or lean toward a party (29 percent versus 18 percent). Even among decline to state voters, the average percentage of “no opinion” responses is higher among pure independents than among other respondents, although the difference is not statistically significant. The bottom line is that we see hints that people who both decline to state a partisan preference at registration and may be considered pure independents in terms of party identification are those most likely not to have opinions about political figures and institutions—in other words, to be the least civically engaged. However, the

8

differences are not always large or statistically significant so they must be viewed with caution. It should be noted that we also ran the analysis using registration as the independent variable and identification as the control variable and the results were substantively equivalent. Table 2 about here Lack of Knowledge Keith et al. (1992:45) remark that “Pure Independents are consistently the most ignorant of all Americans. Strong partisans are a bit better informed than leaning Independents, and weak partisans are in third place.” Our data provide only limited opportunity to try to replicate these findings or to compare the level of knowledge of independent identifiers with that of independent registrants. The February 1996 survey did ask respondents to identify the month in which the upcoming presidential primary of that year would occur. (The correct answer was March.) In March on 1998, the following questions were asked: Do you happen to know what job or political office is now held by Al Gore? Whose responsibility is it to determine if a law is constitutional or not? Is it the responsibility of the president, the congress, or the Supreme Court? In order to override a presidential veto, does the U.S. Senate and house require a simple majority vote or a two-thirds majority vote? Do you happen to know which party -- the Democratic Party or the Republican Party -has the most members in the House of Representatives right now? Although officials of all branches of government take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, we take “the Supreme Court” to be the correct answer to the question asking who is responsible for determining the constitutionality of laws. Another question that was asked-- “Is one of the two major political parties more conservative than the other at the national level?”-was excluded on the ground that it involved too much subjective interpretation to be considered purely factual. 9

The results are shown in Table 3. Because of the limited sample size of the surveys, we do not attempt in this part of the analysis to examine those who were independent identifiers but not decline to state registrants, or the reverse. Table 3 about here Keeping in mind the tentativeness of any conclusions in this area given the limited data available, the political knowledge results do not meet expectations. There appears to be no consistent tendency for independents, whether defined as decline to state registrants or as independent identifiers, to be less knowledgeable than partisans. Most differences are small, not statistically significant and, in some cases, in the opposite of the expected direction. Only for the question about the month of the upcoming primary was there a fairly substantial and statistically significant (p