Losses called temporary setbacks

Though California voters rejected propositions Tuesday to expand the rights of property owners and hike tobacco taxes, activists behind both measures said they were buoyed by the success of similar measures across the country and promised to renew their efforts.

The activists said that both propositions lost only narrowly and that although opponents held the line in California for now, momentum for their causes had been fueled by victories elsewhere.

Proposition 90 would have limited the ability of government agencies to seize private property for shopping centers and other private development. Its supporters cite nine other states where such limitations were passed.

And though a proposal to hike tobacco taxes, Proposition 86, was rejected by Californians, new taxes on cigarettes were approved in Arizona and South Dakota, and other anti-smoking measures were approved in Nevada, Ohio and Florida.

“We still have momentum,” said Cass Wheeler, chief executive officer of the American Heart Assn., a leader in the push for increased tobacco taxes. “We will come back to fight another day in California.”

Unlike the relatively modest 80-cent and $1 tax hikes on a pack of smokes approved by voters in Arizona and South Dakota, the California proposal attempted to quadruple the tax with a $2.60 increase.

Mark Baldassare, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, said voters may have balked at the size of the tax, as well as confusion about how the money would be spent. The proposal called for divvying the new revenue among many healthcare programs, including subsidies for hospitals that bankrolled it.

Tobacco companies blitzed the airwaves with advertisements warning that there were hidden goodies buried in the initiative meant to boost the profits of its sponsors.

“Voters saw there was a money grab by a special interest,” said Carla Hass, spokeswoman for the No on 86 campaign.

Even so, Baldassare said, support for an increased tobacco tax in concept remains strong.

“I have no doubt something like this will be back in California,” he said.

Organizers behind the failed property rights proposal also may have overreached. Landmark measures that passed in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon and South Carolina focused exclusively on barring governments from taking property for private projects. The measures were a reaction to a 2005 Supreme Court decision that specifically permits local and state governments to remove people from their homes and to give the property to developers.

The process has been used to build shopping malls, auto dealerships and big-box stores.

But in addition to banning such seizures, the California proposal included provisions requiring that state and local governments compensate property owners if they adopt any zoning provision, law or regulations that lowers the value of homes or businesses.

That alarmed business groups, government agencies and urban planners, who warned that the proposal could paralyze city planning and hamper the state’s ability to move forward with the road building, levee repairs and school construction projects in the $37-billion public works borrowing package approved Tuesday.

A broad bipartisan coalition sprang up against the measure and grew to include Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and such groups as the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Business Roundtable and the League of California Cities. Unions and environmentalists also joined the fight. The coalition spent millions fighting the measure.

Proponents, meanwhile, had almost no money in the bank as the election neared. They spent the bulk of their funding, which came from Manhattan real estate entrepreneur Howard S. Rich, getting the measure approved. Rich, a crusader for smaller government, also helped bankroll the property rights measures in other states.

On Tuesday, Proposition 90 captured 47.5% of the vote. In Arizona, a similarly ambitious measure passed with 65%.

“We are going to be back,” said Kevin Spillane, spokesman for the Protect Our Homes Coalition. “We had the entire state political establishment against us, the press was hostile, we were badly outspent by deceitful opponents who distorted the issues, and we narrowly lost. With even modest advertising we would have won.”

Potential donors in and out of the state “who sat on their hands this time around have seen it is clearly winnable,” Spillane said.

Of course, measures don’t always do better the second time around.

Proposition 85, which would have required parental notification 48 hours before a minor could obtain an abortion, was rejected by 54.2% of voters Tuesday, an even larger majority than that which defeated a virtually identical measure last year. That proposal, along with the tobacco tax hike and the property rights measure, was among the half-dozen items placed on the ballot through the costly and onerous signature-gathering process that were rejected by voters.

The others included Proposition 87, which would have levied new taxes on oil companies to promote the production of alternative fuels; Proposition 88, which would have increased school spending by tacking a $50 fee onto the property tax bill of most California homeowners; and Proposition 89, an attempt to introduce public campaign financing to the state. All were handily defeated.

Only two proposals put on the ballot through the initiative process were approved. They were Proposition 83, which forbids released sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school, and Proposition 84, a $5.4-billion bond for water quality improvements, flood control and environmental protection.

*

evan.halper@latimes.com

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Statewide ballot measures

How the 13 statewide propositions on Tuesday’s ballot fared, and the total spending approved:

**

Prop. 1A Transportation funds

Limits the state’s ability to use gas sales taxes for anything but transportation projects. Yes

**

Prop. 1B Transportation bonds

$19.9-billion bond measure for improving freeways and local roads and public transit services. Yes

**

Prop. 1C Housing bonds

$2.9-billion bond measure to build affordable housing and assist lower-income home buyers. Yes

**

Prop. 1D Education facilities bonds

$10.4-billion bond measure for construction/improve-ment of facilities for schools, colleges and universities. Yes

**

Prop. 1E Flood control bonds

$4.1-billion bond measure for levee improvements and flood control projects. Yes

**

Prop. 83 Sex offender restrictions

Increases punishments for some sex offenders and bars registered offenders from living near schools or parks. Yes

**

Prop. 84 Water and resource bonds

$5.4-billion bond measure for water supply improvements, parks and environmental projects. Yes

**

Prop. 85 Abortions for minors

Would have required notification of the parent or guardian of a minor 48 hours in advance of an abortion. No

**

Prop. 86 Cigarette tax

Would have added $2.60 tax per pack to be spent on hospitals and health programs. No

**

Prop. 87 Oil tax

Would have taxed oil pumped in California to pay for a $4-billion program to develop alternative energy sources. No

**

Prop. 88 Property tax

Would have added $50 annual parcel tax to pay for K-12 education programs. No

**

Prop. 89 Campaign financing

Would have raised taxes on corporations to pay for state political campaigns and restricted political contributions. No

**

Prop. 90 Property rights

Would have prohibited seizure of private property by eminent domain for non-government uses. No

--

Source: California secretary of state

**

Analyzing the vote for selected propositions

Proposition 1B*

Yes: 61%

No: 39%

*

Proposition 1C*

Yes: 57%

No: 43%

*

Proposition 1D*

Yes: 57%

No: 43%

*

Proposition 1E*

Yes: 64%

No: 36%

*

Proposition 86*

Yes: 49%

No 52%

*

Proposition 87*

Yes: 45%

No: 55%

**

* Percentages are from actual returns. Uncounted absentee and provisional ballots are not included.

--

1B

Highway safety

Q. Party registration

*--* % of all voters Yes No 45% Democrat 71% 29% 10% Independent 58% 42% 42% Republican 53% 47%

*--*

**

Q. Party ideology

*--* % of all voters Yes No 33% Liberal 69% 31% 29% Moderate 65% 35% 38% Conservative 51% 49%

*--*

**

Q. Gender

*--* % of all voters Yes No 50% Male 59% 41% 50% Female 63% 37%

*--*

**

Q. Race/ethnicity

*--* % of all voters Yes No 75% White 58% 42% 6% Black 74% 26% 12% Latino 71% 29% 3% Asian 76% 24%

*--*

**

Q. Age

*--* % of all voters Yes No 6% 18-29 62% 38% 19% 30-44 58% 42% 38% 45-64 40% 37% 65 and older 64% 30%

*--*

**

Q. Education

*--* % of all voters Yes No 46% Less than college 62% 38% 54% College degree or more 60% 40%

*--*

**

Q. Region

*--* % of all voters Yes No 21% L.A. County 64% 36% 48% Rest of So CA 58% 42% 13% Bay Area 73% 27% 18% Rest of Nor CA 59% 41%

*--*

--

1C

Housing/emergency shelter

Q. Party registration

*--* % of all voters Yes No 45% Democrat 74% 26% 10% Independent 58% 42% 42% Republican 41% 59%

*--*

**

Q. Party ideology

*--* % of all voters Yes No 33% Liberal 76% 24% 29% Moderate 60% 40% 38% Conservative 40% 60%

*--*

**

Q. Gender

*--* % of all voters Yes No 50% Male 53% 47% 50% Female 63% 37%

*--*

**

Q. Race/ethnicity

*--* % of all voters Yes No 75% White 54% 46% 6% Black 78% 22% 12% Latino 73% 27% 3% Asian 70% 30%

*--*

**

Q. Age

*--* % of all voters Yes No 6% 18-29 63% 37% 19% 30-44 59% 41% 38% 45-64 40% 37% 65 and older 54% 46%

*--*

**

Q. Education

*--* % of all voters Yes No 46% Less than college 60% 40% 54% College degree or more 56% 44%

*--*

**

Q. Region

*--* % of all voters Yes No 21% L.A. County 63% 37% 48% Rest of So CA 52% 48% 13% Bay Area 72% 28% 18% Rest of Nor CA 59% 41%

*--*

--

1D

Kindergarten/university facilities

Q. Party registration

*--* % of all voters Yes No 45% Democrat 74% 26% 10% Independent 58% 42% 42% Republican 38% 62%

*--*

**

Q. Party ideology

*--* % of all voters Yes No 33% Liberal 74% 26% 29% Moderate 63% 37% 38% Conservative 37% 63%

*--*

**

Q. Gender

*--* % of all voters Yes No 50% Male 53% 47% 50% Female 61% 39%

*--*

**

Q. Race/ethnicity

*--* % of all voters Yes No 75% White 53% 47% 6% Black 76% 24% 12% Latino 71% 29% 3% Asian 67% 33%

*--*

**

Q. Age

*--* % of all voters Yes No 6% 18-29 65% 35% 19% 30-44 59% 41% 38% 45-64 42% 37% 65 and older 53% 47%

*--*

**

Q. Education

*--* % of all voters Yes No 46% Less than college 55% 45% 54% College degree or more 58% 42%

*--*

**

Q. Region

*--* % of all voters Yes No 21% L.A. County 59% 41% 48% Rest of So CA 53% 47% 13% Bay Area 72% 28% 18% Rest of Nor CA 56% 44%

*--*

--

1E

Disaster preparedness/flood prevention

Q. Party registration

*--* % of all voters Yes No 45% Democrat 77% 23% 10% Independent 63% 37% 42% Republican 52% 48%

*--*

**

Q. Party ideology

*--* % of all voters Yes No 33% Liberal 75% 25% 29% Moderate 69% 31% 38% Conservative 51% 39%

*--*

**

Q. Gender

*--* % of all voters Yes No 50% Male 62% 38% 50% Female 66% 34%

*--*

**

Q. Race/ethnicity

*--* % of all voters Yes No 75% White 61% 39% 6% Black 75% 25% 12% Latino 76% 24% 3% Asian 75% 25%

*--*

**

Q. Age

*--* % of all voters Yes No 6% 18-29 61% 39% 19% 30-44 61% 39% 38% 45-64 36% 37% 65 and older 66% 34%

*--*

**

Q. Education

*--* % of all voters Yes No 46% Less than college 64% 36% 54% College degree or more 64% 36%

*--*

**

Q. Region

*--* % of all voters Yes No 21% L.A. County 67% 33% 48% Rest of So CA 59% 41% 13% Bay Area 78% 22% 18% Rest of Nor CA 65% 35%

*--*

--

Proposition 86

Tax on cigarettes

Q. Party registration

*--* % of all voters Yes No 45% Democrat 62% 38% 10% Independent 53% 47% 42% Republican 31% 69%

*--*

**

Q. Party ideology

*--* % of all voters Yes No 33% Liberal 64% 36% 29% Moderate 52% 48% 38% Conservative 30% 70%

*--*

**

Q. Gender

*--* % of all voters Yes No 50% Male 47% 53% 50% Female 49% 51%

*--*

**

Q. Race/ethnicity

*--* % of all voters Yes No 75% White 45% 55% 6% Black 62% 38% 12% Latino 57% 43% 3% Asian 63% 37%

*--*

**

Q. Age

*--* % of all voters Yes No 6% 18-29 51% 49% 19% 30-44 49% 51% 38% 45-64 63% 37% 65 and older 48% 52%

*--*

**

Q. Education

*--* % of all voters Yes No 46% Less than college 42% 58% 54% College degree or more 53% 47%

*--*

**

Q. Region

*--* % of all voters Yes No 21% L.A. County 52% 48% 48% Rest of So CA 43% 57% 13% Bay Area 58% 42% 18% Rest of Nor CA 51% 49%

*--*

--

Proposition 87

Alternative energy

Q. Party registration

*--* % of all voters Yes No 45% Democrat 65% 35% 10% Independent 52% 48% 42% Republican 21% 79%

*--*

**

Q. Party ideology

*--* % of all voters Yes No 33% Liberal 71% 29% 29% Moderate 46% 54% 38% Conservative 21% 79%

*--*

**

Q. Gender

*--* % of all voters Yes No 50% Male 43% 57% 50% Female 47% 53%

*--*

**

Q. Race/ethnicity

*--* % of all voters Yes No 75% White 42% 58% 6% Black 57% 43% 12% Latino 49% 51% 3% Asian 62% 38%

*--*

**

Q. Age

*--* % of all voters Yes No 6% 18-29 52% 48% 19% 30-44 47% 53% 38% 45-64 54% 37% 65 and older 41% 59%

*--*

**

Q. Education

*--* % of all voters Yes No 46% Less than college 40% 60% 54% College degree or more 48% 52%

*--*

**

Q. Region

*--* % of all voters Yes No 21% L.A. County 49% 51% 48% Rest of So CA 38% 62% 13% Bay Area 62% 38% 18% Rest of Nor CA 47% 53%

*--*

--

Note: Numbers may not total 100% where some answer categories are not shown. Poll results can be found at: www.latimes.com/timespoll

*

How the poll was conducted: The Los Angeles Times Poll interviewed 3,679 voters as they exited 64 polling places across California on Tuesday, Nov. 7. Precincts were chosen based on the pattern of turnout in past statewide elections. The survey was a self-administered, confidential questionnaire in English and Spanish. The margin of sampling error for the entire sample is plus or minus 2 percentage points; for some subgroups, the error margin may be higher. The survey was adjusted to account for absentee voters and those who declined to participate when approached, using actual returns, demographic estimates collected by interviewers and a pre-election survey of absentee voters. Interviews were conducted by Davis Research of Calabasas.