THE TIMES POLL : Opposition to School Vouchers Rises Sharply

California voters have turned sharply and solidly against Proposition 174, the school voucher initiative, in the last month under the assault of a $6-million advertising campaign by opponents, the Los Angeles Times Poll has found.

Two weeks before the Nov. 2 special statewide election, the voucher proposal trailed among registered voters by 59% to 26%. Those who said they were likely to vote opposed the measure by an even greater margin, 66% to 27%.

The poll also found that voters were inclined to support, by a narrow margin, Proposition 172, which would make permanent a temporary half-cent statewide sales tax to aid local government. Sentiment was running against another measure, Proposition 170, to make it easier to pass local school bond issues.

There has been a sharp increase in voter awareness of the voucher measure and a hardening of opinion on it since the last survey a month ago, Times Poll Director John Brennan said. In September, only 48% of the voters said they knew something about Proposition 174. That figure had soared to 79% among the 1,301 registered voters surveyed from Saturday through Tuesday.

Three-quarters of the registered voters say that they have made up their minds and that there is no chance they will change positions before the election. This reflects “a very high level of commitment for a ballot proposition,” Brennan said.

There is no such solidification, however, on Proposition 172.

When half the registered voters were read the measure’s title as it appears on the ballot--emphasizing the benefits to local police and fire departments without mentioning the sales tax--sentiment ran 47% in favor and 29% against.

But when the effect of the measure was explained to the other half of the sample--including mention of a sales tax--voters divided almost evenly, 42% for and 40% against.

However, among those most likely to vote, Proposition 172 was leading regardless of the manner in which the question was posed--by 49% to 34% 35% when sales taxes were mentioned and by 44% to 34% when it was not.

Nearly half the potential voters said they could change their minds on the sales tax measure between now and Election Day.

Another local finance measure was trailing by 49% to 32%. Proposition 170 would allow school bond issues to be approved by a majority vote instead of the two-thirds margin that has been in the state Constitution for decades. The bonds would be financed by increases in local property taxes. Among likely voters, the margin was slightly wider: 53% against, 34% in favor and 13% undecided.

The overall poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 points among registered voters, and 5 points among likely voters.

Proposition 174, the school voucher plan, was trailing in every major demographic group, including those thought to be its natural constituency--registered Republicans and conservatives. The only group that favored Proposition 174 was parents of children who are already in private schools--about 5% of the total sample.

The initiative would amend the state Constitution to allow parents who want to send their children to private school to receive a $2,600 annual voucher from the state--about half the amount spent for each public school pupil in a year--for each child’s tuition and other costs. The measure also provides a manner in which public schools can become voucher schools and for the Legislature to regulate voucher schools, but only by a three-fourths vote in each house.

The initiative originally was qualified by petition gatherers for the June, 1994, primary election, but was rescheduled when Gov. Pete Wilson called the special election for Nov. 2.

Supporters include former Reagan-Bush Cabinet secretaries William Bennett and Jack Kemp. The opposition includes most of the education establishment in California, including teacher unions that have mounted an extensive campaign. Opponents have outspent supporters by about 6 to 1.

The opposition has run a statewide television advertising blitz since the last Times poll was conducted, emphasizing that the voucher plan is “a risk we can’t afford to take.” The advocates have begun a limited campaign in behalf of Proposition 174, primarily in Southern California.

Brennan said the opposition advertising appeared to have had an impact. More than half the voters have seen or heard commercials or received direct mail or telephone calls in their homes from Proposition 174 foes. Only 35% reported having some contact from the proponents.

When asked why they oppose Proposition 174, respondents volunteer that they fear a voucher plan will destroy the public school system (25%) or at least will drain needed money from the public schools (19%). The idea of having unregulated voucher schools also was mentioned by 19% although the state has only minimal control over private schools now. These responses generally mirror the opposition arguments in the commercials.

Supporters like the idea of parents having a choice of schools for their children (36%), think they will get a better education in private school (24%) and because public schools aren’t working (22%).

Opposition to Proposition 174 does not translate into an endorsement for the public school system, Brennan said. Virtually no one (1%) said they oppose the amendment because they think the public system is making satisfactory progress on reforms now, he said.

Even among those who say the public schools are not adequate, the change to a voucher system was not necessarily seen as the answer: They opposed the initiative 55% to 30%.

Historically, voter turnout is considered by experts to be a key to special elections, with Republicans and conservatives setting a better voting record, especially when there is an issue of special interest to them on the ballot. But there have been so few special elections in recent years, there is little statistical base on which to forecast voter turnout.

The turnout in the last statewide special was 37% in 1979, on the Gann spending limits initiative.

Brennan said the latest Times poll indicates relatively high interest in this election with half of all registered voters surveyed saying they are motivated to vote Nov. 2 because of the presence of Proposition 174. And as of now, all of the traditional high-turnout voter groups oppose the voucher measure.

How the Poll Was Conducted

The Times Poll interviewed 1,301 registered California voters, including 531 likely voters, by telephone from Oct. 16 to 19. Telephone numbers were chosen from a list of all exchanges in the state. Random-digit dialing techniques were used so that listed and non-listed numbers could be contacted. Interviewing was conducted in English and Spanish. Results were weighted slightly to conform with census figures for sex, race, age, education and labor force participation. Questions measuring support for Proposition 172 were asked of half-samples of approximately 650 registered voters and 265 likely voters. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the sample of all registered voters and plus or minus 5 points for all likely voters. For other sub-groups--including half-sampled questions--the error margin may be somewhat higher. Poll results can also be affected by other factors, such as question wording and the order in which questions are presented.

THE TIMES POLL: How the Propositions Are Faring

Proposition 174--the school vouchers Initiative--now trails by a wide margin. Proposition 170--to allow a majority vote for school bonds--is also behind. But Proposition 172--to extend the half-cent sales tax for local government--currently has an edge.

PROP. 170, AS WORDED ON BALLOT

If passed, Prop. 170 would allow voters to approve local school bond issues by a simple majority vote rather than the two-thirds vote required by current law. It would allow property taxes to exceed the 1% limit to repay schools bonds if voters approved that by a simple majority vote. If election were being held today, would you:

LIKELY VOTERS Vote for: 34% Vote against: 53% Don’t Know: 13% +

PROP. 172, AS WORDED ON BALLOT

If passed, Prop. 172 would provide a dedicated revenue source for public safety purposes. Revenues would be distributed to cities and counties for purposes such as police, sheriff’s, fire, criminal prosecution and corrections. If approved, the tax will be collected in all counties. However, a county would be eligible to receive tax revenues beginning Jan. 1, 19984 only if its board of supervisors votes to participate or voters within the county approve the measure by a majority vote. If election were being held today, would you:

LIKELY VOTERS Vote for: 44% Vote against: 34% Don’t Know: 22% +

PROP. 172, AS DESCRIBED IN SIMPLER DETAIL

If passed, Prop. 172 would make permanent a half-cent state sales tax, which is scheduled to expire on Jan. 1 Revenues from the tax would be available for use by local governments. If election were being held today would you:

LIKLEY VOTERS Vote for: 49% Vote against: 35% Don’t Know: 16% +

PROP. 174, AS WORDED ON BALLOT

If passed, Prop. 174, the Education Vouchers Initiative Constitutional Amendment, would permit the conversion of public schools to independent voucher-redeeming schools. It requires state funded vouchers for children enrolled in qualifying private schools and it restricts the regulation of such schools. If election were being held today, would you:

LIKLEY VOTERS Vote for: 27% Vote against: 66% Don’t Know: 7% +

Why are you voting for Prop. 174? (Asked only of those people who would be likely to vote in favor.) Top four responses listed.

REGISTERED VOTERS Allow parents greater choice: 36% Children will get better education: 24% Public schools aren’t working: 22% Force public schools to compete: 16% +

Why are you voting against Prop. 174? (Asked only of those people who would be likely to vote against the measure.) Top four responses listed.*

REGISTERED VOTERS Will destroy public schools: 25% Drain needed money from public schools: 19% Allows unregulated schools with poor curriculum: 19% Gives tax money to private schools: 13% * Accepted up to two replies