Methodology

220-3702

Support for a Ballot Measure to

Cut Carbon Through a Tax SwapKey Findings From a Washington Statewide Voter

Survey Conducted August 22-28, 2013 CONFIDENTIAL

2

Methodology Telephone survey of 600 randomly-selected

Washington voters likely to vote in the November 2014 election. Interviews were conducted via landline and cell phones Survey was conducted August 22 – 28, 2013

The margin of sampling error is +/-4.0 percent at the 95 percent confidence level; margins of error for population subgroups will be higher.

Some percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding

Structure paralleling prior surveys conducted for Americans for Sustainable Growth

3

Key Findings Voters start out ambivalent about a tax swap ballot measure, with

equal numbers in favor and opposed (40 percent to 40 percent). The base of support is liberal Democrats, but even they are lukewarm

in their initial support. An explanation increases overall support for the measure to a

majority, but only one in five say that they would “definitely” vote “yes.”

A sales tax cut and tax incentives for clean energy are the most popular elements of the measure.

After pro and con messaging, support for the measure settles at 50 percent in favor and 44 percent opposed – though still with more intensity on the “no” side.

Support for the Carbon Washington measure is very similar to that for measures tested by Americans for Sustainable Growth, at least after messaging – though fewer voters are “definitely” committed to a “yes” vote on the Carbon Washington measure.

4

Issue Context

5

Governor Jay Inslee

The Washington State Legislature

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

16% 34%

37%

17%

28%

13%

11%

20%

21%

Very Fav. Smwt. Fav. Smwt. Unfav. Very Unfav. HO/DKE/NHO

40%

50% 30%

39%

A plurality of voters holds favorable views of Governor Jay Inslee and the Washington State Legislature.

3. I'm going to read you the names of some people and organizations active in public life. For each you have heard of, please tell me whether you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of that person or group.

6

Initial Support for the Ballot Measure

7

Ballot Language Tested

Initiative Measure 587 concerns taxes. This measure would impose a carbon pollution tax on certain fossil fuels, reduce the state sales tax one percentage point, eliminate the business and occupation tax on manufacturers, and increase certain tax credits.

Language mirrors that received from the Attorney General, with the exception of the substitution of this phrase for “greenhouse gas emissions tax.”

8

Definitely yes

Probably yes

Undecided, lean yes

Undecided, lean no

Probably no

Definitely no

Undecided0% 15% 30% 45%

10%

23%

7%

7%

16%

17%

20%

Total Yes40%

Total No40%

If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure?

Voters are evenly split on the initiative, with a significant minority undecided.

Q4.

9

Liberals Moderates Conservatives0%

20%

40%

60%

49%

41%

35%

31% 38

%

50%

20%

21%

16%

Total Yes Total No Undecided

(% of Sample) (29%)

Ballot Question by Ideology

(32%)(33%)

4. If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure?

Differences are largely ideological, with conservatives offering more opposition.

10

Strong Democrats

Strong Republicans

Democrats Independents Republicans0%

20%

40%

60%

52%

38%

50%

34%

34%

30%

48%

29%

46% 48%

19%

14% 21

%

20%

18%


(% of Sample) (22%)

Ballot Question by Party ID

(25%)(42%)


A similar pattern follows by party identification – with both independents and Democrats more

opposed.

(15%) (33%)

11

Liberal Moderate/Conservative

Liberal/Moderate

Conservative0%

20%

40%

60% 56%

42%

39%

32%

28% 33

% 40%

51%

16% 24

%

21%

17%


(% of Sample) (17%)

Ballot Question by Party by Ideology

(24%) (23%)(10%)

Democrats Republicans


Combining these variables puts patterns of support in the sharpest relief.

12

Men Women0%

20%

40%

60%

37% 44

%

41%

38%

22%

18%


(% of Sample) (47%)

Ballot Question by Gender

(53%)


Both male and female voters are divided on the issue.

13

18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65-74 75+ 18-49 50+ 65+0%

20%

40%

60%

48%

40% 44

%

38%

36%

47%

44%

39%

40%

28%

49%

31%

44%

40%

38%

37% 42

%

39%

24%

12%

24%

19% 24

%

15% 20

%

20%

21%


(% of Sample) (17%)

Ballot Question by Age

(8%) (28%)(38%)(13%) (34%) (19%) (9%) (62%)


The youngest voters tend to be the most supportive of the idea.

14

18-49 50+ 18-49 50+0%

20%

40%

60%

43%

33%

44%

43%

35%

45%

38%

39%

22%

22%

18%

18%


(% of Sample) (28%)

Ballot Question by Gender by Age

(19%) (34%)(19%)

Men Women


Older men are the most opposed demographic, based on the ballot question.

15

Men Women Men Women Men Women0%

20%

40%

60%

46% 52

%

33%

34%

31% 36

%

24% 32

%

50%

42% 51

%

45%

30%

16%

17% 24

%

18%

18%


(% of Sample) (26%)

Ballot Question by Party by Gender

(17%) (16%)(17%)



Among Republicans and independents, opposition is concentrated among men…

Independents

(11%)(14%)

16

18-49 50+ 18-49 50+ 18-49 50+0%

20%

40%

60%

50%

50%

37%

32% 38

%

31%

29%

29% 38

%

51%

46% 50

%

20%

22%

24%

18%

16% 19%


(% of Sample) (25%)

Ballot Question by Party by Age

(18%) (22%)(12%)



…and also older voters.

Independents

(16%)(9%)

17

Seattle East King Clark King SpokaneSnohomish Pierce Other0%

20%

40%

60%

44%

45%

27%

45%

30%

48%

41%

39%

23%

35%

55%

31%

55%

35%

33%

45%

33%

19%

18% 24

%

15%

17%

26%

16%


(% of Sample) (7%)

Ballot Question by City and County

(11%) (30%)(19%) (11%)


Voters are even ambivalent in Seattle and East King County.

City County

(6%) (11%) (35%)

18

Seattle/Tacoma Spokane Yakima Portland0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

44%

29% 36

%

26%35

%

57%

40%

60%

21%

13%

24%

14%


(% of Sample) (8%)

Ballot Question by Media Market

(72%) (11%) (9%)


Opposition runs high outside the Seattle media market.

19

$0-$25,000 $25,000-$50,000 $50,000-$75,000 $75,000-$100,000 $100,000+0%

20%

40%

60%

47%

47%

40% 44

%

42%

38%

36% 40

%

41%

40%

15% 17% 19%

14% 18

%


(% of Sample) (9%)

Ballot Question by Household Income

(24%)(22%)


Lower-income voters are modestly more supportive than higher-income ones.

(15%) (17%)

20

Ballot Measure Explanation Tested

Now let me give you a little more information about this measure. It would:

• Require coal, energy and oil companies and utilities to pay a carbon pollution tax of $30 per metric ton of carbon pollution created by their activities in Washington State;

• Gradually increase the amount of the tax each year to keep up with growth, creating incentives for these energy companies and utilities to reduce fossil fuel use and to invest in energy efficiency and use cleaner fuels;

• Use the revenue from the carbon tax to cut the Washington state sales tax from 6.5% to 5.5%; eliminate the business tax for Washington State manufacturers; and fund tax credits for low-income families and clean energy investments in Washington State; and

• Balance these tax reductions with revenue from the carbon pollution tax, so that the state’s overall tax revenues neither increase nor decrease.

21

Series1

0% 15% 30% 45%

10%

23%

7%

7%

16%

17%

20%

Total Yes40%

Total No40%


Q4/5.

Definitely yes

Probably yes

Undecided, lean yes

Undecided, lean no

Probably no

Definitely no

Undecided

Series1

-15% 0% 15% 30% 45%

19%

31%

5%

1%

14%

21%

9%

Total Yes55%

Total No36%

Ballot Question Explanation

After hearing more information, a majority of voters supports the measure.

22

Demographic Group Ballot Question Explanation Difference % of SampleAll Voters 40% 55% +14% 100%

Congressional District 9 36% 77% +40% 7%Clark County 27% 57% +30% 6%

Strong/Not Strong Democrats 49% 78% +29% 32%Liberal Democrats 56% 85% +29% 24%Strong Democrats 52% 81% +29% 22%

Seattle 44% 73% +29% 11%

Liberals 49% 77% +28% 29%

Democrats Ages 18-49 50% 79% +28% 18%

Democratic Men 46% 74% +28% 17%

Democrats 50% 77% +27% 42%

Union Members 35% 61% +27% 13%

Democrat Women 52% 79% +26% 25%

Democrats Ages 50+ 50% 76% +26% 24%

Union Households 32% 56% +24% 24%

Congressional District 3 23% 47% +24% 10%

4/5. If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure?

The explanation most greatly increases support among progressive base voters.

(Total % Yes)

23

Series1

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

23%

21%

19%

15%

14%

10%

10%

7%

5%

8%

Q6a.

In a few words of your own, why would you vote YES on this measure?

The most common reason for voters to support the measure is its reduction of the sales tax,

followed by its positive effects on the environment…

(Open-End, Asked of Supporters Only, Top Responses Shown)

Reduces sales/Individual’s taxImposes carbon pollution tax/Penalty/Holds polluting companies

accountableWill reduce carbon pollution/Clean air

Will invest in finding/Using cleaner energy sources

Good for environment/Planet (general)

Reduces use of fossil fuel

Eliminates business and occupation tax

Tax credits for low income families

Creates incentives for reducing fossil fuel use/Pollution

Need more information/Other/DK

24Q6a. (Open-ended)

Verbatim Comments From Supporters

Partly because I used to work for a utility company that used

fossil fuels, and how they affect the

environment. Also I’m a business owner and if there’s any way to

lower my taxes I’m all for it.

Anything that lowers our taxes is beneficial, and less pollution in

our air is also beneficial.

Well, I don’t like the carbon tax – but

lowering the B&O tax for business and the

sales tax has a positive effect.

We need to transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. One way to do that is to provide incentives.

We have a very regressive tax system where the poor pay a higher percentage of

taxes. Maybe this measure will help

correct this. Also, it will reduce pollution.

The oil and coal companies need to be

taxed for all of the crap they put into the

air. Also, it might make them more likely

to start doing some research into cleaner

energy sources.

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

110% 15% 30% 45%

24%9%8%8%7%6%6%6%5%5%

14%

Q6b.

In a few words of your own, why would you vote NO on this measure?(Open-End, Asked of Supporters Only, Top Responses Shown)

…while many voters who are against the measure worry that the cost of the tax will

be passed on to consumers.

Tax cost will pass to consumers/Energy prices will raise

Oppose carbon taxes/credits (specific)

Oppose new taxes (general)Businesses are taxed enough/Oppose more business Taxes

Oppose lowering/Eliminating business taxSkeptical of seriousness of carbon/Fossil fuel dangers

Measure will not deliver on promises (general)Revenue neutral/Trading one tax for another - won’t increase

state revenue/lower taxesMeasure is deceptive

Too complicated/Too many issues

Need more information/Other/DK

26Q6b. (Open-ended)

Verbatim Comments from Opponents

Because I think small businesses would be impacted the most…

the bigger businesses get credits, the

smaller companies wouldn’t. So they would be the ones

paying for it.

I’m opposed to any kind of carbon tax.

These “green” issues are being forced onto

the taxpayer, and these types of taxes drive businesses out

of state.

I own utility stock. I don’t think utilities

should have to pay for all these things.

Because it is an effort to impose additional

taxes on fuel companies, which are

going to be translated into

additional costs for the consumers.

I think I’m confused about this measure. There are too many

conflicting statements in it.

I don’t think it would be a revenue-neutral

proposal, I think the tax reduction portion of this measure is intended to

get voter approval – but I don’t think it would assist in the state’s

budget deficit.

27

Series1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

39%

44%

35%

27%

35%

27%

29%

34%

10%

11%

12%

14%

12%

12%

12%

15%

7%

11%

9%

Strng. Supp. Smwt. Supp. Smwt. Opp.Strng. Opp. DK/NA

The most compelling provisions of the measure focus on reducing taxes.

Q9. ^Not Part of Split Sample

The final structure of the measure has not yet been decided. Here are some specific potential provisions of the measure; please tell me whether it sounds like something you would support

or oppose.

Total Support

Total Oppose

75% 22%

71% 22%

65% 24%

61% 30%

Providing tax reductions for investments in clean energy and

energy efficiency

Lowering the state sales tax rate by one full percentage point, from

6.5% to 5.5%

Lowering the state sales tax rate by two full percentage points,

from 6.5% to 4.5%

Dedicating all of the revenue from the carbon pollution tax to reductions in sales taxes,

business taxes, and other tax cuts

289. The final structure of the measure has not yet been decided. Here are some specific potential provisions of the measure; please tell me whether it sounds like something you would support or oppose. ^Not Part of Split Sample

Total Support

Total Oppose

58% 34%

53% 38%

51% 32%

Series1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

21%

23%

21%

36%

29%

29%

15%

14%

20%

20%

24%

12%

8%

9%

17%

Strng. Supp. Smwt. Supp. Smwt. Opp.Strng. Opp. DK/NA

The carbon tax itself and a cut in business taxes are less broadly popular.

Increasing the amount of the carbon pollution tax gradually, in

line with population and economic growth

^Establishing a new tax of $30 per metric ton of carbon pollution on companies

extracting or importing fossil fuels or importing electricity into

Washington

Eliminating the business tax on manufacturing

29

Support for a B&O Tax Cut

In August 2010, voters backed “eliminating B&O taxes for more than 375,000 small businesses” by a 65% to 27% margin.

The wording in the current survey may have left open the notion that large businesses would benefit, which is less appealing.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=S66KF0TqQrHG4M&tbnid=iZUJthAPTY3coM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://about.bankofamerica.com/en-us/partnering-locally/jl-manufacturing.html&ei=KXwqUrzWM4bc9AT54YHoDw&bvm=bv.51773540,d.eWU&psig=AFQjCNFGhkvXUbYYJ1am2NWBTQ609gfo9Q&ust=1378602406016917

30

Impact of Messaging

31

Supporters of this measure say we can cut dangerous carbon pollution and increase our state’s energy security by requiring big polluters to pay for the damage their pollution does to our health and the air, water, and climate. Taxing things we don’t want, like pollution, makes a lot more sense than taxing things we do want, like jobs and income. This measure implements this common sense idea by making polluters pay and cutting taxes for local businesses and families. This measure will reduce the state sales taxes by a full percentage point, saving the average local family over $200 per year. It will also fund a tax credit for working families, and entirely eliminate the business tax for local manufacturers, creating incentives for innovation, good-paying local jobs and investments in energy efficiency and clean energy. A similar policy next door in British Columbia has boosted economic growth and local job creation and has successfully reduced carbon pollution; we can do the same here. It’s a win-win for Washington: an opportunity to build a stronger local economy and to protect the world we pass along to our kids and grandkids.

Messages TestedOpponents of this measure say that it amounts to a multi-billion dollar energy tax, increasing electricity costs for local families and driving up the price of everything from food to the fuel we use to keep warm in winter – including at least a ten cent per gallon increase in gas prices. Even the sponsors of the program admit that it will cost the average state resident $350 per year in higher costs. These higher costs for energy will force large and small employers to lay off employees or even shut down. And we just can't trust the promise from state government that they will use the revenue to reduce taxes on consumers or businesses; we know that taxes will just go right back up again and go to wasteful government programs. Climate change might be an important issue, but this isn't the right way to solve the problem, and it's not what we need right now here in Washington.

32

Do you think you would vote yes in favor of Initiative 587 or no to oppose it?

After hearing both positive and negative messages, voters remain evenly split over the

measure – with a smaller undecided.

Q7 Split D/Q8 Split C Total.

Definitely yes

Probably yes

Undecided, lean yes

Undecided, lean no

Probably no

Definitely no

Undecided0% 15% 30% 45%

19%

24%

7%

3%

16%

25%

6%

Total Yes50%

Total No44%

33

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

40%

55%

67%

50%

40%36%

26%

43%

20%

9% 7% 7%

Total Yes

Total No

Undecided

Q4/Q5/Q8 Split D/Q7 Split D.

A positive initial framing lifts support for the measure, but does not inoculate against

negatives...If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure?

34

Ballot Question ExplanationOpponents'

Messages Only

Supporter's Messages After

Opponents' Messages

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

40%

55%

36%

50%

40%36%

57%

46%

20%

9% 7% 4%

Total Yes

Total No

Undecided

…while a negative initial frame suppresses support, but not to the degree that the measure

can’t bounce back.

Q4/Q5/Q7 Split C/Q8 Split C.


35

Segmenting the Electorate by Consistency of Support

Consistent Yes: Voters who consistently indicated they would vote for the measure.

Consistent No: Voters who consistently indicated they opposed the measure.

Swing: Voters who do not fall into any of the other categories – remaining consistently undecided or switching positions.

The following slide shows demographic groups that disproportionately fall into one category or the other.

Consis-tent Yes25%

Consistent No22%

Swing 52%

36

Consistent Yes Swing Consistent No

25% of the Electorate 52% of the Electorate 22% of the Electorate

Liberal Democrats Congressional District 9 Republican Men

Democrats Ages 18-49 Snohomish County Congressional District 3

Democratic Women Moderate/Conservative Democrats Conservative Republicans

Strong Democrats Ages 65-74 Strong Republicans

Democrats Family Member in Union Portland Media Market

Ages 18-29 Congressional District 2 Conservatives

Liberals Independents Ages 18-49 Republicans Ages 50+

Strong/Not Strong Democrats Congressional District 6 Independent Men

Democratic Men Republican Women Independents Ages 50+

Democrats Ages 50+ HH Income $50,000-$75,000 Republicans

Demographic Profile of the Segments

37

Positive Movers Negative Movers

20% of the Electorate 13% of the Electorate

Strong Democrats Liberal/Moderate Republicans

Congressional District 9 Congressional District 10

Democratic Men Pierce County

Democrats Ages 50+ Republicans Ages 50+

Moderate/Conservative Democrats Independents Ages 18-49

Democrats Congressional District 8

Strong/Not Strong Democrats Republican Women

Democratic Women Independent Women

Liberals Strong/Not Strong Republicans

Democrats Ages 18-49 Republicans

Movers – in either direction – have predictable profiles.

38

Comparisons to Americans for

Sustainable Growth Ballot Measure Concepts

39

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

-15% 0% 15% 30% 45%

22%

27%

6%

2%

10%

21%

12%

Series1

0% 15% 30% 45%

10%

23%

7%

7%

16%

17%

20%

Total Yes40%

Total No

40%

Q4.

Definitely yes

Probably yesUndecided,

lean yes

Undecided, lean no

Probably no

Definitely no

Undecided

Total Yes55%

Total No

33%

Carbon WashingtonAFSG I /

Cap and Dividend

The Carbon Washington ballot label is most realistic, but polls the lowest.

Series1

0% 15% 30% 45%

22%

23%

6%

3%

8%

24%

14%

AFSG II / Cap and Delegate

Total Yes51%

Total No

35%

40

Series1

0% 15% 30% 45% 60%

28%

29%

4%

2%

10%

23%

5%

Series1

0% 15% 30% 45% 60%

19%

31%

5%

1%

14%

21%

9%

Total Yes55%

Total No

36%

Q5.

Definitely yes


lean yes

Undecided, lean no

Probably no

Definitely no

Undecided

Total Yes60%

Total No

35%

Series1

0% 15% 30% 45% 60%

28%

25%

4%

2%

9%

26%

7%

Total Yes57%

Total No

36%

Support for the measures is comparable after an explanation, but Carbon Washington lacks

intensity.Carbon Washington

AFSG I / Cap and Dividend

AFSG II / Cap and Delegate

41

Series1

0% 15% 30% 45% 60%

28%

19%

5%

2%

10%

30%

6%

Series1

0% 15% 30% 45% 60%

19%

24%

7%

3%

16%

25%

6%

Total Yes50%

Total No

44%

Q7/8 Total.

Definitely yes


lean yes

Undecided, lean no

Probably no

Definitely no

Undecided

Total Yes52%

Total No

42%

Series1

0% 15% 30% 45% 60%

28%

21%

3%

1%

14%

27%

6%

Total Yes52%

Total No

42%

A similar pattern is evident after both pro and con messaging.

Carbon WashingtonAFSG I /

Cap and DividendAFSG II /

Cap and Delegate

42

Ballot Question Explanation After Pros and Cons

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

34%

36%

26%36%

36%

25%26% 28%25%

Carbon WA

AFSG I

AFSG II

None of the measures has a significant advantage among GOP voters – all start bad

and get worse.

Q4/Q5/Q7 Split D-Q8 Split C Combined.

(Total Yes Among Republicans)

43

Ballot Question Explanation After Pros and Cons

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

35% 35%

25%

30%33%

23%

18%24%

19%

Carbon WA

AFSG I

AFSG II

The Carbon Washington question polls better among conservatives initially, but

differences shrink with messaging. (Total Yes Among Conservatives)

Q4/Q5/ Q7 Split D-Q8 Split C combined

44

Conclusions

45

Conclusions Given current ballot language, the ballot measure would have a very

challenging path to victory. Low initial poll numbers would invite funded opposition, and with

disproportionate funding on the “no” side majority opposition is clearly in reach.

At the same time, the poll suggests a number of factors that could enhance support for the measure – particularly by strengthening the ballot language: Clarify that business tax cuts would benefit small businesses, rather than all

businesses. Clarify that tax incentives in the measure would encourage greater use of clean energy

and energy efficiency. Simplify the measure, perhaps by reducing the total number of tax increases it includes

– perhaps cutting the tax credit for working families. In addition to these changes, it is clear that the measure would require a

very well-funded “yes” campaign to remain in contention – not necessarily with as much funding as the “no” campaign, but with enough to get its message out.

1999 Harrison St., Suite 1290Oakland, CA 94612

Phone (510) 451-9521Fax (510) 451-0384

[email protected]

For more information, contact:

Methodology

Documents

Transcript of Methodology