Election Turnout Hit a New Low

After the terrorists struck and the buildings fell, Americans united in a surge of patriotism not seen in a generation. On Tuesday in California, citizens were asked to join in what may be the most patriotic ritual of all, the celebration of democracy known as voting.

Two out of three registered voters were no-shows.

Turnout has been falling for more than 30 years, but this primary election appears destined to make history: Never before has such a small fraction of the California populace cast ballots.

People had plenty of reasonable excuses: I was too busy. The ballot measures were confusing. The negative ads were a turn-off.

Analysts put forth other theories: The primary was too early. The Olympics were a distraction. There was no gubernatorial contest for Democrats.

Whatever the reason, election officials who had hoped the traumatic events of 9/11 would inject new life into the electorate were disappointed. As one disgusted poll worker said: “Patriotism is more than putting an American flag sticker on the back of your SUV.”

Unofficial results show that 31% of California’s registered voters went to the polls Tuesday. That number will climb by a few percentage points as counties tally some absentee and provisional ballots over the next week. But it is not expected to pass the previous historic low of 35% recorded in June 1994.

When computed as a percentage of those who were eligible to vote, rather than those who are registered, Tuesday’s turnout looks even worse. Officials say only 22% of those Californians who could have voted actually did.

Hoping for a Bump but Seeing a Slump

Secretary of State Bill Jones, who took office in 1994 with the dreamy goal of boosting turnout to 100%, calls the participation level “extremely discouraging.”

“We have done everything we can to encourage turnout, but voters have not made that connection between the politics of elections and the governance of California,” Jones said. “I was hopeful the tragedy of 9/11 might renew interest in voting. Clearly it has not.”

Jones was not the only elections chief hoping for a surge--nor was he the only one jolted by the reality of a decline. Minnesota experienced a bump in turnout in municipal elections held Sept. 11, an increase attributed to the gut-wrenching terrorist attacks. But in many other states since then, voter interest has dipped.

In Washington, for instance, turnout for the November general election--which featured two ballot initiatives on taxes--was 13 percentage points below the 1999 figure. Virginia and New Jersey elected governors in November, and turnout was down about 3% and 7%, respectively, from the previous governor’s races in 1997.

In Georgia, meanwhile, a special election to fill a state Senate seat was decided by just 3% of the electorate: “It’s always low in specials, but we usually get 15%,” lamented Georgia’s director of elections, Linda Beazley. “This is dismal. What’s wrong with our voters?”

In California, some say that it’s not lazy or busy voters but a peculiar conspiracy of circumstances that are to blame. The absence of a primary challenger to Gov. Gray Davis made the election less interesting to Democrats, and new primary rules affecting who may vote for which candidates might have discouraged other potential voters.

Early Primary Date Assessed Some Blame

In some areas, such as Los Angeles, some polling places didn’t open on time and in some cases ballots weren’t delivered. And, perhaps most important, surveys suggest that the unusually early date of this year’s primary--the earliest of any state’s--left many Californians unaware an election was coming up.

“We’ve changed the date and changed the rules so much that there’s bound to be confusion and less incentive to participate,” said Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation.

Moreover, she argued, the bitterly disputed Florida ballots that clouded the 2000 presidential election “may have left people feeling their vote doesn’t count at all.”

Nevertheless, there were meaty measures at stake Tuesday--a bond issue for parks and water, an effort to revise term limits--as well as hotly contested Democratic races for Assembly seats. That was particularly true in Los Angeles County, where turnout was a paltry 23%.

“There are plenty of important reasons to vote,” said Tony Miller, former acting secretary of state. “But people have other priorities. They don’t see it as a responsibility, and they aren’t focused on the political process.”

Nonvoters themselves offer myriad reasons for staying home Tuesday, illustrating why attacking the turnout problem is such a daunting task.

Some, like Jim Hodge of Fresno, reflect the well-documented cynicism in the electorate: “Politics are crooked,” declared Hodge, 54, a small-business owner. End of story.

Others say they feel guilty about not voting but also deterred by the avalanche of ads--many of them negative--on TV.

“I feel like I’m being scammed all the time,” said Anne Touloukian, 39, who works at a department store in the Sacramento suburb of Citrus Heights and last voted in 1992. “The ads say, ‘Vote for this so your child has clean water.’ I know there’s more to the story, but what? And who’s behind it?”

Others say they vote periodically, but not consistently. Tucker Farrar, 26, is a Princeton University graduate who listens to public radio and knew the names of most candidates seeking statewide office. He intended to vote, but in the end, decided to go to the gym instead.

“I know it’s terrible, and my fiancee and I even talked about how voting is a right, that we shouldn’t take it for granted,” Farrar said.

Was it inconvenient? “No, it was a two-minute drive away. I just didn’t get it together.”

Scholars say the tumbling turnout is a distress signal for democracy. If more people voted, they argue, politicians would react more to the needs of the masses than the wishes of special-interest groups. Others say it is simply unhealthy for people to be so detached from their political community.

“In these low-turnout elections, you have the broadest-based oligarchy in the world,” said Walter Dean Burnham, an elections expert at the University of Texas.

Reversing the Decline Defies Easy Solution

But reversing the decline is no simple matter. Making voting more convenient--allowing people to register at their Department of Motor Vehicles office, for instance, and relaxing rules governing absentee ballots--have failed to have much effect.

Some experts say it will take a wholesale effort--from an aggressive civics curriculum in schools to Internet voting--to reignite interest. A few advocate a harsher tonic--compulsory voting.

Australia, Belgium, Greece and many Latin American countries require citizens to vote--and threaten a variety of penalties, including jail time, for those who don’t. The idea has not exactly caught fire, but Arend Lijphart, a UC San Diego political scientist, believes compulsory voting is no worse than other mandated burdens, such as jury duty and school attendance.

“Most people in the United States react in horror to the idea,” Lijphart said. “But what kind of democracy do we have when only a third of the people vote? If government means by and for the people, can we really call ourselves a democracy?”

*

Times staff writers John Glionna and Bettina Boxall and Times researcher Patti Williams contributed to this report.