California Divided

Some good news for pessimists today: California is headed toward a political system dominated by a white minority which votes and sets public policy at the ballot box, while Latinos and other ethnic groups that make up the majority of California's population sit on the sidelines.

That's the message from a new survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California, which found that the state's "electorate does not reflect the size, the growth or the diversity of California's population."

In short, the vast influx of new Californians — mainly Latinos — are not showing up at the ballot box. Some can't get registered because of their immigration status; others just aren't engaged. The state is about 32% Latino, but when it comes to flexing their muscle at the ballot box, only about one in six adult Latinos is considered likely to vote.

White people are expected to be only one-third of the state's adults in 2040, the report said. But their power at the ballot box will remain strong — still representing a majority of voters in 25 years.

"We could be headed toward a dominance of the minority," said Mark Baldasarre, director of research for the PPIC.

Today, the voter who most reliably turns out to cast a ballot is a white, over 45-year-old homeowner, with a household income of more than $60,000. Californians who are not registered to vote are more likely Latino under-45 renters earning far less money.

Here is the rundown:

Not registered to vote:		Likely voters:
Latino 63% Black 3% Asian 8% White 24% Other 2%		White 72% Latino 14% Black 6% Asian 5% Other 3%

The PPIC said this disparity "can raise serious questions about the legitimacy of the democratic system." What does that mean for public policy?

If everyone voted, the state likely would see more government spending and higher taxes. It would overhaul Proposition 13's property tax cap and overturn term limits for lawmakers. It likely would approve $3 billion in affordable housing bonds on the November ballot.

And Arnold Schwarzenegger would have a much more difficult re-election fight — nonvoters dislike him far more than regular voters. In May, according to the PPIC, 61% of nonvoters said they disapproved of the governoror's performance, compared to 48% of the regular voters.

UPDATE: The Prop. 1C campaign -- affordable housing bond -- noted that a new PPIC poll shows 57% support from regular voters.

Comments

[db]

Some good news for pessimists today: California is headed toward a political system dominated by a white minority

Ah, gee, are you a racist or a moron? It's hard to tell.

[Wally Whateley]

Hey, doc, I'm here via Kevin Drum and Atrios. As they both note, "pessimist" is almost certainly not the word you're looking for. A minor concern? Maybe, but I'm a pessimist to an almost religious degree -- I predicted the results of the last election based solely on my near-infallible sense of What Would Suck Most -- and the implication that pessimists are made happy by racism is the type of thing that makes me cranky.

Why not edit the post to replace the word "pessimist" with "racist" or something more appropriate, just for accuracy's sake? Thanks...

[Ken Houghton]

So, since non-whites are not voting now, we should assume that they will not be voting, in the same proportion, 34-5 years from now?

If they can show a trend (i.e., steady state), I'll buy it. Otherwise, we need to keep in mind that this remains a democracy, NOT a republic.

[NLXJ]

Some good news for pessimists today:

What on earth does this mean? And how are you being a journalist by ignoring your readers' confusion on the line? It's an incoherent phrase.

and we could be "headed for the dominance of the minority"? But aren't we always, in America? Or are we all rich, here?

[Steve]

Here's a tip for the visitors: the problem is not that California will have a white minority. The problem is that the minority, despite being in the minority, will enjoy political control as though they were still in the majority.

In other words, this is actually a liberal critique. It's not that hard to figure out, but you have to read the entire first sentence of the post, and not simply react with alarm to the words "white minority."

[jskdn]

So Robert, what did you mean by "good news for pessimists." I don't understand what you meant and given what I've read by others, there are plenty of confused and differing interpretations of the phrase. Instead of trying to guess who has it right, I would like you to explain yourself.

[Catherine G]

My letter to the LA Times' Readers Representative:

I've read Salladay's blog once, twice, then three times. My conclusion is it's blatant racism.

I've lived in Los Angeles for 20 years, and though I'm not in love with the city, I've always felt the ethnic diversity was its greatest attribute. Now, along comes Salladay, with his 'white makes right ' attitude.

Salladay needs to explain himself or apologize. If he can't or won't, he needs to go. We don't need him here.

[Raven]

"Good news for pessimists" surely meant "More proof they were right about everything going wrong" -- but this would be better conveyed by "Evidence supporting pessimism" -- as pessimists themselves might prefer to be proven wrong.

[Robert Salladay]

Let me explain the "good news for pessimists" intro. It was not meant to be taken in a racial context or suggest in any way that the PPIC's pessimistic assessment of the future is "good."

The state's voter system is dividing along many lines: race, income, age, etc. The pessimism concerns the state's political system devolving into fewer and fewer people taking control of their own destiny through the ballot box.

[Phil]

Oh for gosh sakes folks. Bob's a decent reporter and far from a racist. (Why people trot that phrase out so quickly is beyond me...)

Then again, Bob certainly doesn't need me to defend him.

The "pessimist" comment simply states the obvious. We can make voter registration the easiest thing in the world, but if folks CHOOSE not to participate, that's their decision.

[eugene]

I dunno, if a blog is only a few days old, I'd be interested in changing a bad opening phrase pretty quickly, instead of leaving it out there to confuse and possibly mislead people.

Why not just be straight up about it and say "some bad news for democracy and political inclusion in California..."?

[Oldwoman]

Oh come on!
I'm a 'white liberal democrat' and I knew exactally what was inferred by the first sentence-and surely it wasn't intended as racist.

Are we all so on the edge we are looking for offence where there is none?

Remember readers, there is a difference between Print jornalism and blogging. With the first, there are several proof reads and editing to 'catch' these words that could be misconstrued. Give the guy a break.

[Chuck]

Either you are completely able to use the English language to express your ideas with confusion, or you intended to imply that it was good news that the future minority white race will maintain political control over the state machinery. I'm not sure which one it is, but I'm pretty sure it disqualifies you from writing a prominent blog.

[Jacob Richter]

"Let me explain the "good news for pessimists" into. It was not meant to be taken in a racial context..."

The "racial context" was pretty clearly established by Salladay in the remainder of the post, so I don't see how he can claim that he is being misinterpreted. If Salladay is not racist he's a hopelessly hackish writer.

[lieinveigleobfuscate]

If it quacks like a racist . . . and so yet another MSM-supported blogger flames himself out.

[Bob Johnson]

Mr. Salladay, I will tell you the same thing I have told several other reporter-friends who have taken up blogging: You will grow to hate your blog. With a burning passion.

Today's response to your first post is a perfect example of why many long-time reporters end up hating blogging. Not only does your blog become your taskmaster, it provides "open season" on your every word.

I am guessing that your wording was simply sloppy -- far more sloppy than anything you'd get in print.

Good luck here. My advice? Pull the plug today. Your life will be much better for it.

[Phoenix Democrat]

I put up a post on the Daily Kos site expressing my respectful disagreement with Kos saying your comments were in no way racist. What you were saying that this is "good news for pessimists" (racists), but this was in no way "good news" period.

[Ormond Otvos]

Robert. Perhaps you forgot that editing is now in your hands. I, too, think that the ambiguity of the first sentence of your first blog post is distracting people from your brilliance. Just change it, and post that you did, not because it was racist but because it was poorly edited by you.

It won't hurt, and you can save all the BS.

[Sam Jackson]

Came here via Drum and Kos...just to say that not all regular Kos readers and drim readers think this was racist. i couldn't understand the pessimist reference...the update helps but not fully. however, I certainly didn't think it was racist or even addressed to racists.
i am sure they will reconsider their views, but us minions will have spewed our venom here by then.

[Sam Jackson]

Came here via Drum and Kos...just to say that not all regular Kos readers and drim readers think this was racist. i couldn't understand the pessimist reference...the update helps but not fully. however, I certainly didn't think it was racist or even addressed to racists.
i am sure they will reconsider their views, but us minions will have spewed our venom here by then.

[Calinator]

Did you writers who thought this blog was racist read the whole article? I don't think so.

Who said the news has to make you comfortable?

[Doris]

The pessimists are likely part of the minorities that do not vote. Those numbers bode ill for any social justice campaigns out there.

If you are a racist, you would view those numbers with optimism as it would help you feel vindicated in your view as to the general inferiority of other races.

So, while I agree that the opening sentence is somewhat ambiguous, I do not think that Reporter Salladay is a racist.

All ya'll ought to go to the doctor for that knee-jerk reaction. . .

[Seattle John]

Such nitpicking is ridiculous, I can't belive Kos directed me here.

THis isn't racist and even if a blogger or anybody wants to spout off their true intentions or feelings I think that is far more valuable than hiding behind comfortable cultural sensitivities.

We're all people and as such everybody harbors a few discriminatory thoughts. albeit towards different races or just towards people that don't dress and like the same music as you.

Honesty furthers the debate much more progressively than anal witch hunts by the overly sensitive.

[truth machine]

Mr. Salladay,

you need to take into account the fact that most people are morons and/or illiterate, incapable of comprehending that "good news for pessimists" is bad news.

[RNinNC]

Welcome to trial by fire! I got what you meant, but next time you should say it a bit more clearly. At least you see that we liberal Democrats are not beholden to one point of view - I myself see no racism in what you said, more like dry cynicism.