Proposition 64 Analysis in San Diego County - trbas. · PDF fileProposition 64 Analysis in San...

Proposition 64 Analysis in San Diego County By Vince Vasquez

Executive Summary

x Overall, San Diego County voters supported Prop. 64 at the same level as voters statewide (57.02% vs. 57.1%).

x Comparing municipalities, five cities in San Diego County supported Prop. 64 at rates exceeding the countywide average, all of which are Democratic-leaning coastal communities. Only two cities had a majority No vote – Poway and National City.

x Evaluating results by Council District in the City of San Diego (Table 2), District 3 had the highest percentage of Prop. 64 voters – more than 3 out of 4 (76.56%) voters cast ballots in favor. Other districts which supported Prop. 64 higher than the citywide average (61.56%) includes the coastal districts (District 1 and 2), and District 9. No district had a majority No vote.

x Older coastal, downtown and uptown neighborhoods largely populate the Top 20 San Diego City neighborhoods in support of Prop. 64. Interestingly, out of 117 total neighborhoods, only seven generated a majority No vote – Miramar Ranch North, Bay Terraces, Otay Mesa West, Rancho Bernardo, Rancho Encantada, Alta Vista, and San Pasqual.

x A vote analysis by San Diego City community planning areas found that “No” areas overlap with “No” neighborhoods, and also include some North-of-the-8 suburban neighborhoods (Kearny Mesa, University, and Mission Valley). The full data table can be found in the Appendix. Out of 60 total community planning areas, only seven had a majority No vote – largely overlapping with the “No” city neighborhoods.

x From conducting thirty-two separate statistical tests, we identified, with a high degree of confidence, voter groups that cast majority votes in favor and in opposition to Prop. 64. In favor were Male voters, U.S. born voters, Voters ages 18-24, Voters ages 25-34; Voters ages 35-44; Voters ages 45-54; Voters ages 55-64; Democratic voters; and Independent and Third Party voters. Voters in opposition to Prop. 64 were Asian voters; Voters ages 65+; Republican voters; Homeowner voters; and Latino voters.

x As part of our statistical analysis, we tested whether voters who live near a site approved for a medical marijuana dispensary in the City of San Diego were more or less likely to support Prop. 64 than voters overall, and if so, whether they did so in a statistically meaningful way. We found no evidence that suggested there was a relationship between leaving near a dispensary site and how votes were cast on Prop. 64.

Introduction

The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, also known as Proposition 64, was passed overwhelmingly by California voters in November 2016, earning 57.1% of the vote. Understanding how the San Diego County electorate cast their ballots on the controversial issue would provide a better understanding of local public opinion, and instruct future advocacy campaigns and public policy development efforts. To get an in-depth look at the results, voter data from the San Diego County Registrar of Voters was analyzed using GIS mapping software, statistical techniques, and database software.

Methodology

First, GIS shapefiles for this project were obtained from the San Diego Geographic Information Service (SANGIS) Department. The list of shapefiles used includes the November 2016 presidential general election consolidated voter precincts, as well as shapefiles for San Diego County municipalities, City of San Diego neighborhoods, and community planning areas. Next, these data files were visually displayed using ArcGIS, a best-in-class GIS mapping software program. The Proposition 64 vote by precinct was obtained from the countywide canvas vote file generated from the San Diego County Registrar of Voters, and reformatted to display a percentage of the “Yes” vote by precinct. This data was then joined to the voter precinct shapefile in ArcGIS, and displayed using a color ramp.

Results

Overall, San Diego County voters supported Prop. 64 at the same level as voters statewide (57.02% vs. 57.1%). Examining the countywide vote by precinct (Figure 1), it’s clear that Prop. 64 support was strongest within the Democratic-leaning coastal communities, as well as the Uptown and college neighborhoods (UTC, College Area). Conversly, opposition was mostly concentrated to unincorporated county areas and suburban cities east of Interstate 15.

Figure 1: Proposition 64 Vote by Voter Precinct, San Diego County

Comparing municipalities (Table 1), five cities supported Prop. 64 at rates exceeding the countywide average, all of which are Democratic-leaning coastal communities. Only two cities had a majority No vote – Poway (50.04%) and National City (50.04%).

Table 1: Proposition 64 Vote, by Municipality

Municipality Name Yes Vote % Yes No Vote % No Carlsbad 34,117 56.94 25,798 43.06

Chula Vista 50,607 51.55 47,565 48.45 Coronado 4,548 50.86 4,395 49.14 Del Mar 1,774 64.91 959 35.09 El Cajon 15,817 51.69 14,781 48.31 Encinitas 22,668 65.23 12,082 34.77

Escondido 25,333 52.09 23,302 47.91 Imperial Beach 5,474 62.04 3,350 37.96

La Mesa 15,810 59.11 10,939 40.89 Lemon Grove 5,601 56.52 4,308 43.48 National City 7,540 49.96 7,551 50.04

Oceanside 39,952 56.87 30,294 43.13 Poway 12,265 49.96 12,285 50.04

San Diego 343,690 61.56 214,614 38.44 San Marcos 18,455 54.53 15,386 45.47

Santee 13,612 52.27 12,430 47.73 Solana Beach 4,561 61.23 2,888 38.77

Vista 18,152 56.86 13,773 43.14 Unincorporated

County 104,860 50.02 104,778 49.98

Total 744,836 57.02 561,478 42.98

Evaluating results by Council District in the City of San Diego (Table 2), District 3 had the highest percentage of Prop. 64 voters – more than 3 out of 4 (76.56%) voters cast ballots in favor. Other districts which supported Prop. 64 higher than the citywide average (61.56%) includes the coastal districts (District 1 and 2), and District 9. No district had a majority No vote. The citywide display of vote by precinct (Figure 2 and 3) shows that most of the No vote was concentrated in the northern neighborhoods, areas east of Interstate 15, and ethnically diverse neighborhoods south of Interstate 8. The Yes vote was mostly found in older neighborhoods bordering Balboa Park, coastal communities, and residences immediately surrounding UC San Diego and San Diego State University. Census data reveals that these areas are mostly populated by older, Caucasian, higher educated residents with higher levels of annual household income than the countywide average. For a closer illustrated look, District maps were generated (Figures 4 through 12).

Table 2: Proposition 64 Vote, by Council District, City of San Diego

Council District Yes Vote % Yes No Vote % No District 1 43,514 60.87 27,977 39.13 District 2 48,235 68.27 22,414 31.73 District 3 60,434 76.56 18,502 23.44 District 4 26,694 56.22 20,790 43.78 District 5 38,302 51.58 35,958 48.42 District 6 34,233 57.16 25,654 42.84 District 7 40,129 59.08 27,793 40.92 District 8 23,580 52.84 21,042 47.16 District 9 28,569 66.36 14,484 33.64

x Figure 2: Proposition 64 Vote by Voter Precinct, City of San Diego

Figure 3: Proposition 64 Vote by Voter Precinct, Council Districts, City of San Diego

Figure 4: Proposition 64 Vote by Voter Precinct, District 1, City of San Diego

San Diego City Neighborhoods

An analysis of vote totals by San Diego City neighborhoods was conducted, using a ArcGIS polygon conversion tool and the official City of San Diego neighborhood boundary shapefile provided by the county GIS department. Due to length, the entire table can be found in the Appendix of this report. Ranking the top 20 neighborhoods by the percentage of “Yes” vote, Ocean Beach came out on top, with more than 8 out of ten (81.2%) voters casting Yes votes. Older coastal, downtown and uptown neighborhoods largely populate the remaining Top 20 slots. Interestingly, out of 117 neighborhoods, only seven generated a majority No vote – Miramar Ranch North, Bay Terraces, Otay Mesa West, Rancho Bernardo, Rancho Encantada, Alta Vista, and San Pasqual. Those areas are largely populated with older Asian and Caucasian residents, mostly homeowners and precincts which lean Republican on Election Day.

Table 3: Top 20 “Yes on 64” San Diego City Neighborhoods

Neighborhood Name Total Yes Vote

Total No Vote

Total Vote % Yes

OCEAN BEACH 5,690 1,319 7,009 81.2% HILLCREST 7,562 1,835 9,397 80.5% GOLDEN HILL 3,245 860 4,105 79.0% UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS 6,506 1,738 8,244 78.9% NORTH PARK 15,337 4,100 19,437 78.9% NORMAL HEIGHTS 3,582 974 4,556 78.6% BURLINGAME 791 222 1,013 78.1% SOUTH PARK 1,882 553 2,435 77.3% TORREY PINES 2,314 684 2,998 77.2% EAST VILLAGE 3,936 1,184 5,120 76.9% LITTLE ITALY 1,353 420 1,773 76.3% ADAMS NORTH 2,364 747 3,111 76.0% GASLAMP 537 192 729 73.7% PARK WEST 3,419 1,227 4,646 73.6% PACIFIC BEACH 14,709 5,348 20,057 73.3% CORTEZ 1,642 617 2,259 72.7% COLLEGE WEST 3,696 1,460 5,156 71.7% MIDTOWN 1,783 714 2,497 71.4% MISSION BEACH 1,094 450 1,544 70.9% COLLEGE EAST 2,648 1,100 3,748 70.7%

An analysis of vote totals by San Diego City community planning area was also conducted, using the same tools. This found largely the same results as the analysis by neighborhood, but also picked up some North-of-the-8 suburban neighborhoods, including Kearny Mesa, University, and Mission Valley. The full data table can be found in the Appendix. Out of 60 total community planning areas, only seven had a majority No vote – largely overlapping with the “No” city neighborhoods.

Table 4: Top 20 “Yes on 64” San Diego City Community Planning Area Districts

Community Planning Area Name Total Vote Yes

Total Vote No

Total Vote % Yes

EAST ELLIOTT 2 - 2 100.0% OCEAN BEACH 6,241 1,573 7,814 79.9% GREATER NORTH PARK 19,806 5,285 25,091 78.9% GREATER GOLDEN HILL 5,127 1,413 6,540 78.4% MID-CITY:NORMAL HEIGHTS 5,946 1,721 7,667 77.6% UPTOWN 18,378 5,927 24,305 75.6% PACIFIC BEACH 14,709 5,348 20,057 73.3% DOWNTOWN 10,949 4,042 14,991 73.0% MISSION BAY PARK 369 144 513 71.9% COLLEGE AREA 6,344 2,560 8,904 71.2% MISSION BEACH 1,094 450 1,544 70.9% RESERVE 338 154 492 68.7% MID-CITY:KENSINGTON-TALMADGE 4,919 2,246 7,165 68.7% OLD TOWN SAN DIEGO 224 107 331 67.7% MISSION VALLEY 5,885 2,841 8,726 67.4% UNIVERSITY 16,842 8,348 25,190 66.9% MILITARY FACILITIES 111 61 172 64.5% KEARNY MESA 1,742 964 2,706 64.4% MILITARY FACILITIES 523 294 817 64.0% MID-CITY:CITY HEIGHTS 10,319 5,833 16,152 63.9%

Statistical Analysis

We conducted a statistical analysis of Prop. 64 election results, in order to determine, with a high degree of statistical certainty, which voter groups opposed and supported the ballot measure. We conducted thirty-two separate multiple linear regression tests using combinations of twenty-seven different variables of voters whom actually cast ballots in the November 2016 election, by precinct. These variables accounted for differences in party affiliation, age, gender, ethnicity, education and household income level.1 Variable data was retrieved using precinct-level raw data files from Political Data Inc., a political software service, and reformatted within Microsoft Excel to reflect a percentage of total precinct vote. We also used GIS software to conduct a proximity analysis, in order to examine whether there were differences in the Prop. 64 vote based on the proximity of the voter’s residence to an approved site for a medical marijuana dispensary in the City of San Diego. We used ArcGIS Online for the proximity analysis of addresses provided by the client, and generated a one mile buffer shapefile, which was intersected with the voter precinct shapefile within ArcGIS Desktop. The results were exported and reformatted to create a binary variable within Microsoft Excel.

The following variables were found to have statistically significant positive correlations with the percentage of Yes votes in a precinct (these are pro-64 voter groups):

x Male voters; x U.S. born voters; x Voters ages 18-24; x Voters ages 25-34; x Voters ages 35-44; x Voters ages 45-54; x Voters ages 55-64; x Democratic voters; x Independent and Third Party voters.

Variables that correlate with a higher percentage of “No” votes cast were (anti-64 voter groups):

x Asian voters;

1 Political Data Inc. creates its voter data variable files using data provided by individual voters at the time of registration, as well as information from the United States Census Bureau. The full list of variables used in this project includes: Democratic; Republican; Other Voters (Independents and Third Party); Female; Male; Asian; Latino; African American; Homeowner; Probable Renter; Age 18-24; Age 25-34; Age 35-44; Age 45-54; Age 55-64; Age 65+; Foreign Born; U.S. Born; Average Annual Household Income < $50,000; Average Annual Household Income $50,000 - $100,000; Average Annual Household Income $100,000+; Highest Level of Education – Some High School; Highest Level of Education – High School Grad; Highest Level of Education – Some College; Highest Level of Education – College Grad; Highest Level of Education – Graduate+; Within a one mile proximity to a medical marijuana dispensary site approved by the City of San Diego.

x Voters ages 65+; x Republican voters; x Homeowner voters; x Latino voters.

As part of our statistical analysis, we tested whether voters who live near a site (one mile radius) approved for a medical marijuana dispensary in the City of San Diego were more or less likely to support Prop. 64 than voters overall, and if so, whether they did so in a statistically meaningful way. We found no evidence that suggested there was a relationship between leaving near a dispensary site and how votes were cast on Prop. 64.

Appendix

Table 5: San Diego City Neighborhoods, by % Yes on 64 Vote

Neighborhood Name Total Yes Vote

Total No Vote

Total Vote % Yes

OCEAN BEACH 5,690 1,319 7,009 81.2% HILLCREST 7,562 1,835 9,397 80.5% GOLDEN HILL 3,245 860 4,105 79.0% UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS 6,506 1,738 8,244 78.9% NORTH PARK 15,337 4,100 19,437 78.9% NORMAL HEIGHTS 3,582 974 4,556 78.6% BURLINGAME 791 222 1,013 78.1% SOUTH PARK 1,882 553 2,435 77.3% TORREY PINES 2,314 684 2,998 77.2% EAST VILLAGE 3,936 1,184 5,120 76.9% LITTLE ITALY 1,353 420 1,773 76.3% ADAMS NORTH 2,364 747 3,111 76.0% GASLAMP 537 192 729 73.7% PARK WEST 3,419 1,227 4,646 73.6% PACIFIC BEACH 14,709 5,348 20,057 73.3% CORTEZ 1,642 617 2,259 72.7% COLLEGE WEST 3,696 1,460 5,156 71.7% MIDTOWN 1,783 714 2,497 71.4% MISSION BEACH 1,094 450 1,544 70.9% COLLEGE EAST 2,648 1,100 3,748 70.7% CORE-COLUMBIA 1,362 567 1,929 70.6% CHEROKEE POINT 756 315 1,071 70.6% EL CERRITO 1,278 542 1,820 70.2% CORRIDOR 1,679 720 2,399 70.0% POINT LOMA HEIGHTS 5,809 2,536 8,345 69.6% ROLANDO 2,198 968 3,166 69.4% KENSINGTON 2,285 1,034 3,319 68.8% TALMADGE 2,634 1,212 3,846 68.5% MISSION VALLEY EAST 3,116 1,452 4,568 68.2% OLD TOWN 224 107 331 67.7% AZALEA/HOLLYWOOD PARK 733 353 1,086 67.5% MARINA 1,405 678 2,083 67.5% SHERMAN HEIGHTS 422 204 626 67.4%

MISSION HILLS 2,908 1,408 4,316 67.4% KEARNY MESA 1,103 536 1,639 67.3% LA JOLLA VILLAGE 1,810 901 2,711 66.8% MORENA 2,221 1,120 3,341 66.5% MISSION BAY 105 53 158 66.5% FAIRMONT PARK 777 410 1,187 65.5% UNIVERSITY CITY 12,786 6,778 19,564 65.4% MISSION VALLEY WEST 747 397 1,144 65.3% GRANT HILL 780 421 1,201 64.9% HORTON PLAZA 707 382 1,089 64.9% MIRAMAR 111 61 172 64.5% GRANTVILLE 2,805 1,578 4,383 64.0% REDWOOD VILLAGE/ROLANDO PARK 2,007 1,138 3,145 63.8%

BAY PARK 5,495 3,166 8,661 63.4% FOX CANYON 521 301 822 63.4% BIRDLAND 1,180 689 1,869 63.1% BAY HO 4,122 2,422 6,544 63.0% SWAN CANYON 531 315 846 62.8% RIDGEVIEW/WEBSTER 1,289 771 2,060 62.6% LINDA VISTA 4,780 2,865 7,645 62.5% MIDWAY DISTRICT 1,542 927 2,469 62.5% CASTLE 1,487 904 2,391 62.2% DEL MAR HEIGHTS 2,687 1,642 4,329 62.1% LOMA PORTAL 2,320 1,431 3,751 61.9% SERRA MESA 6,211 3,847 10,058 61.8% COLINA DEL SOL 439 273 712 61.7% EMERALD HILLS 1,058 659 1,717 61.6% NORTH CLAIREMONT 4,501 2,805 7,306 61.6% ROSEVILLE / FLEET RIDGE 2,282 1,481 3,763 60.6% SUNSET CLIFFS 1,229 802 2,031 60.5% LOGAN HEIGHTS 1,647 1,078 2,725 60.4% MOUNTAIN VIEW 2,115 1,385 3,500 60.4% CLAIREMONT MESA EAST 6,680 4,407 11,087 60.3% TERALTA EAST 1,072 712 1,784 60.1% MT HOPE 611 410 1,021 59.8% BROADWAY HEIGHTS 177 119 296 59.8% ENCANTO 2,804 1,911 4,715 59.5% TERALTA WEST 523 357 880 59.4% LINCOLN PARK 1,402 960 2,362 59.4%

SKYLINE 1,863 1,284 3,147 59.2% BARRIO LOGAN 1,036 722 1,758 58.9% VALENCIA PARK 2,011 1,406 3,417 58.9% LA JOLLA 10,214 7,166 17,380 58.8% FAIRMONT VILLAGE 715 503 1,218 58.7% CHOLLAS CREEK 588 414 1,002 58.7% CHOLLAS VIEW 651 465 1,116 58.3% SHELLTOWN 597 427 1,024 58.3% OAK PARK 2,646 1,920 4,566 58.0% ALLIED GARDENS 3,211 2,384 5,595 57.4% CLAIREMONT MESA WEST 3,610 2,682 6,292 57.4% STOCKTON 276 206 482 57.3% SORRENTO VALLEY 1,309 986 2,295 57.0% TIERRASANTA 6,390 4,824 11,214 57.0% JAMACHA LOMITA 2,074 1,600 3,674 56.5% CARMEL VALLEY 11,487 8,862 20,349 56.4% MIRA MESA 14,351 11,497 25,848 55.5% BLACK MOUNTAIN RANCH 2,679 2,174 4,853 55.2% BALBOA PARK 11 9 20 55.0% LAKE MURRAY 5,017 4,133 9,150 54.8% DEL CERRO 2,667 2,221 4,888 54.6% SOUTHCREST 840 713 1,553 54.1% EGGER HIGHLANDS 1,615 1,375 2,990 54.0% SAN CARLOS 3,915 3,348 7,263 53.9% PALM CITY 399 343 742 53.8% OTAY MESA 927 799 1,726 53.7% RANCHO PENASQUITOS 11,738 10,364 22,102 53.1% PARADISE HILLS 2,777 2,458 5,235 53.0% WOODED AREA 1,494 1,327 2,821 53.0% SCRIPPS RANCH 5,713 5,133 10,846 52.7% OCEAN CREST 2,134 1,970 4,104 52.0% TORREY HIGHLANDS 1,307 1,217 2,524 51.8% CARMEL MOUNTAIN 2,565 2,393 4,958 51.7% TIJUANA RIVER VALLEY 661 618 1,279 51.7% SABRE SPRINGS 2,317 2,188 4,505 51.4% NESTOR 2,865 2,706 5,571 51.4% SAN YSIDRO 3,916 3,721 7,637 51.3% NORTH CITY 1,849 1,850 3,699 50.0% MIRAMAR RANCH NORTH 3,001 3,023 6,024 49.8% BAY TERRACES 5,443 5,519 10,962 49.7%

OTAY MESA WEST 6,305 6,452 12,757 49.4% RANCHO BERNARDO 10,982 11,469 22,451 48.9% RANCHO ENCANTADA 652 713 1,365 47.8% ALTA VISTA 495 550 1,045 47.4% SAN PASQUAL 12 14 26 46.2%

Table 6: San Diego City Community Planning Area Districts, by % Yes on 64 Vote

Community Planning Area Name Total Vote Yes

Total Vote No

Total Vote % Yes

EAST ELLIOTT 2 - 2 100.0% OCEAN BEACH 6,241 1,573 7,814 79.9% GREATER NORTH PARK 19,806 5,285 25,091 78.9% GREATER GOLDEN HILL 5,127 1,413 6,540 78.4% MID-CITY:NORMAL HEIGHTS 5,946 1,721 7,667 77.6% UPTOWN 18,378 5,927 24,305 75.6% PACIFIC BEACH 14,709 5,348 20,057 73.3% DOWNTOWN 10,949 4,042 14,991 73.0% MISSION BAY PARK 369 144 513 71.9% COLLEGE AREA 6,344 2,560 8,904 71.2% MISSION BEACH 1,094 450 1,544 70.9% RESERVE 338 154 492 68.7% MID-CITY:KENSINGTON-TALMADGE 4,919 2,246 7,165 68.7% OLD TOWN SAN DIEGO 224 107 331 67.7% MISSION VALLEY 5,885 2,841 8,726 67.4% UNIVERSITY 16,842 8,348 25,190 66.9% MILITARY FACILITIES 111 61 172 64.5% KEARNY MESA 1,742 964 2,706 64.4% MILITARY FACILITIES 523 294 817 64.0% MID-CITY:CITY HEIGHTS 10,319 5,833 16,152 63.9% MIDWAY-PACIFIC HIGHWAY 429 244 673 63.7% LINDA VISTA 7,087 4,032 11,119 63.7% MID-CITY:EASTERN AREA 8,920 5,083 14,003 63.7% PENINSULA 12,693 7,499 20,192 62.9% TORREY PINES 2,694 1,647 4,341 62.1% SERRA MESA 6,080 3,801 9,881 61.5% CLAIREMONT MESA 24,322 15,435 39,757 61.2% LOS PENASQUITOS CANYON 542 350 892 60.8% MILITARY FACILITIES 271 179 450 60.2% SOUTHEASTERN SAN 7,288 4,844 12,132 60.1%

DIEGO,SOUTHEASTERN LA JOLLA 10,289 7,186 17,475 58.9% ENCANTO NEIGHBORHOODS,SOUTHEASTERN 8,598 6,070 14,668 58.6%

BARRIO LOGAN 758 541 1,299 58.4% TIERRASANTA 7,032 5,088 12,120 58.0% TORREY HILLS 398 298 696 57.2% CARMEL VALLEY 9,004 6,889 15,893 56.7% NCFUA SUBAREA II 814 646 1,460 55.8% MIRA MESA 15,650 12,478 28,128 55.6% BLACK MOUNTAIN RANCH 2,679 2,174 4,853 55.2% NAVAJO 15,621 12,715 28,336 55.1% BALBOA PARK 11 9 20 55.0% VIA DE LA VALLE 174 144 318 54.7% DEL MAR MESA 748 657 1,405 53.2% RANCHO PENASQUITOS 11,280 9,929 21,209 53.2% SKYLINE-PARADISE HILLS 12,157 10,861 23,018 52.8% SCRIPPS MIRAMAR RANCH 6,001 5,416 11,417 52.6% OTAY MESA 3,061 2,769 5,830 52.5% CARMEL MOUNTAIN RANCH 2,565 2,393 4,958 51.7% TIJUANA RIVER VALLEY 661 618 1,279 51.7% TORREY HIGHLANDS 1,765 1,652 3,417 51.7% SABRE SPRINGS 2,317 2,188 4,505 51.4% SAN YSIDRO 3,916 3,721 7,637 51.3% OTAY MESA-NESTOR 11,184 10,876 22,060 50.7% MIRAMAR RANCH NORTH 2,695 2,715 5,410 49.8% PACIFIC HIGHLANDS RANCH 1,451 1,467 2,918 49.7% RANCHO BERNARDO 10,982 11,469 22,451 48.9% RANCHO ENCANTADA 652 713 1,365 47.8% SAN PASQUAL 12 14 26 46.2% FAIRBANKS RANCH COUNTRY CLUB 201 256 457 44.0% RESERVE 18 25 43 41.9%

About Vince Vasquez

Vince Vasquez is an independent data analyst based in Carlsbad. Professionally, Vasquez is the Senior Economist at the National University System, a higher education institution headquartered in Torrey Pines. He has worked in the public policy research field since 2004. He has conducted dozens of media interviews on elections and voter dynamics, including the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Associated Press, and the national ABC News. He has authored fourteen studies on local and state election cycles since 2010. Vasquez earned a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science at the University of California – San Diego, and a Master in Public Administration from the Keller Graduate School of Management. He has used GIS software professionally since 2009, and has completed training for Tableau software. Vasquez has attended the Leadership Institute’s Campaign Management School, and has worked as a formal and informal advisor on local and statewide campaigns.

Proposition 64 Analysis in San Diego County - trbas. · PDF fileProposition 64 Analysis in San...

Documents

Transcript of Proposition 64 Analysis in San Diego County - trbas. · PDF fileProposition 64 Analysis in San...