turnout

When Vice President Dan Quayle tarred Murphy Brown as a symbol of the “poverty of values” that he claims helped fuel the Los Angeles riots, it was more than another bizarre turn in an already screwball political ride. His attack on “lawless social anarchy” resonates with the rhetoric of the Religious Right. That is no accident. This group assumes great importance as the Bush-Quayle campaign faces the tricky dynamics of a three-way race in the fall.

Quayle’s scolding also exposed a common theme in GOP legislative primaries throughout California, particularly in Orange and San Diego counties. How Republican voters respond could define the soul of the state GOP, the political future of Gov. Pete Wilson and the direction of public policy and spending.

Four years ago, the Religious Right mobilized around the politics of evangelists like Pat Robertson. Now the Robertson crowd has joined with other pro-life groups in stealth campaigns to capture low-visibility local offices.

This strategy has quietly surfaced in California. In GOP primaries in 13 legislative districts, a statewide coalition of Christian fundamentalists is fielding and financing right-wing candidates against moderates backed by Wilson loyalists. Among the more prominent contests:

— Conservative fundamentalist Barbara Alby, of Sacramento’s Capitol Christian Center, is challenging incumbent B.T. Collins (R-Carmichael), the governor’s hand-picked candidate, for the 5th Assembly District nomination.

— In Pasadena, Bill Hoge, running for the GOP nomination in the 44th A.D., enjoys the backing of several fundamentalist Christian groups. Former La Canada-Flintridge Mayor Barbara Pieper, a pro-abortion rights Republican with long-time ties to Wilson, is the moderate candidate.

— Redondo Beach Mayor Brad Parton is the Right’s man in the South Bay’s 53rd Assembly District. Campaign literature from opponent Dan Walker, a Torrance City Council member, blasts Parton for his “attempts to impose his fundamentalist religious views on others.”

On economic issues, there’s little difference among GOP contenders. Most are fiscal conservatives who oppose new taxes and support pro-business agendas. The split comes over social issues. Couched in terms of “traditional family values,” the Right’s agenda is relentlessly anti-gay, anti-choice and anti-Wilson.

Since Wilson took office last year, he’s made it clear he wants to remake the California Legislature into an instrument of his moderate political will. To do that, he has to break the grip of conservatives in the GOP Assembly caucus. That’s what the 1992 primaries were supposed to accomplish. But caucus hard-liners, whose goal is to dump Wilson allies from leadership posts, have joined with the Religious Right to take on Wilsonistas.

The most intense battles are being fought in the governor’s back yard–San Diego. A string of right-wing victories there could be fatal to Wilson’s policy agenda and to his political viability.

For a while, the governor’s people worked to keep this unhappy political prospect suppressed. But when Wilson learned how well organized the conservatives were, he dropped his neutrality and endorsed four GOP moderates running for the Assembly in the San Diego area. Since all four districts lean Republican, the GOP nominee should have the advantage in the general election.

In the 75th, right-wing candidate Connie Youngkin, head of San Diego’s Operation Rescue, trumpets herself as a “Pro-Family Tax Fighter.” She has downplayed her anti-abortion rights activism in the face of attacks from Wilson’s candidate, Poway Mayor Jan Goldsmith.

The nomination battle in the 77th pits political consultant Steve Baldwin, and his army of Christian activists, against former Chula Vista Mayor Greg Cox. Baldwin, who helped engineer Religious Right victories in 1990 races for local offices, opposes abortion and gun control. Wilson-endorsed Cox does not.

In the 78th, former Assemblyman Jeff Marston, a pro-choice moderate, faces Dan Van Tieghem, executive director of the Christian Coalition of California. And in the 76th, Wilson likes former Del Mar Mayor Ronnie Delaney against anti-abortion conservative Dick Daleke.

Conservatives Youngkin, Baldwin and Van Tieghem have all been targeted by the California Abortion Rights Action League as “Enemies of Choice.” Their nominations could assume added importance if the U.S. Supreme Court, as expected, tosses the abortion-rights issue to the state legislatures. These religious conservatives would also likely wield long budget knives, first and most deeply, at health and social welfare programs.

What’s all this got to do with California’s primary?

Religious fundamentalists have boosted their voting numbers by “in-pew” registration drives. Add to this the fact that conservatives tend to be better organized, more motivated and more ideologically committed than middle-of-the-road voters. They turn out.

And with so many competitive races, turnout will likely determine many a political race.

If turnout is low, the extremes of both parties–liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans–will benefit, which means that the Legislature will likely remain factionalized and frozen.

The U.S. Senate races might be affected as well, particularly the tight contests for the six-year seat. On the GOP ballot, a low turnout could help conservative commentator Bruce Herschensohn. But if moderate Republican women come out to support pro-choice candidates running for the Legislature and Congress, pro-choice Rep. Tom Campbell might benefit.

In any case, despite the whining of press and pundits, the California primary is not irrelevant. The stakes are high this year. They include the definition of this state’s goals and priorities. And the selection of leaders capable–or incapable–of moving toward them.

California voters won’t be conned to the polls just to protest or confirm presidential nominees. But they can’t stay home, if they care at all about the future of their communities and state.

Here, too, turnout will tell the tale.

Over the last decade, California became a national leader in voter accessibility and security, expanding options for when and how ballots can be cast while also strengthening election safeguards.

But those reforms came at a cost: speed. And in a political climate where unsupported conspiracies about election fraud can run rampant on social media — pushed, at times, by top political leaders — some fear the slow vote count is becoming a liability.

Election outcomes in recent years have become more drawn out in California, most recently taking about a week to determine the gubernatorial and Los Angeles mayoral candidates advancing to November’s runoff after hotly contested primaries. And in prior years, it’s taken even longer to determine tight U.S. House or state Senate seats.

That trade-off — election accessibility and security over quick results — has long been defended as a byproduct of California’s desire to make it as easy as possible to cast a ballot while ensuring accuracy and integrity, something backers say remains vital to a thriving democracy.

But some experts say the increasing backlash over the slow vote count sows distrust.

“We’ve allowed the long count to be normalized, … but that doesn’t mean it’s normal,” said Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, who has become an advocate for accelerating the state’s vote count. “There’s no question that voter confidence is eroding.”

A slower vote count does not signal any indication of fraud, despite unfounded claims over the last week by President Trump and others. Election officials and nonpartisan groups make clear that voter fraud remains extremely rare in the U.S., and there’s been no evidence of any such issues in California’s latest primary count.

But studies have found that voter trust slides as results lag, and this primary made clear that disinformation gains more traction the longer contests drag on, especially with lead changes.

That came to pass this primary, particularly as reality TV personality Spencer Pratt slowly lost his initial second-place ranking in the L.A. mayor’s race, before later batches of votes bumped him from the runoff — fueling an onslaught of social media hysteria: claims of so-called corruption and vote dumping, misinformed examples of alleged fraud and right-wing disinformation campaigns.

But making any substantive changes — particularly before November’s general election — would be an uphill battle, especially in deep-blue California, where Democrats tend to resist limits to voter access. And some are urging restraint.

“We should never drive policy based on conspiracy theories and lies,” said David Becker, the executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research. “That said, are there things California can do?”

Some suggestions, such as increased funding for county election offices and more education about early voting, would probably make some difference.

But the crux of the slow count comes from a flood of last-minute mail-in ballots — in a state with about one-eighth of the U.S. population. When a large percentage of California’s voters mail or drop off these ballots on or just before election day — as they tend to — it creates what Alexander calls the “pig in the python” effect: a major backlog of labor-intensive ballots to process, in a state that already handles the largest-volume ballot counts.

While verification occurs simultaneously during in-person voting, election officials in California are required to confirm a voter’s registration status, verify each voter’s signature and ensure each person did not vote elsewhere for each vote-by-mail ballot. Becker called it an “intensively human process” that cannot be sped through — but could be spread out by more early voting.

“It is a lot easier to report results out faster when ballots come in sooner,” Becker said.

Altering that process significantly enough to ease that bottleneck would likely come with other trade-offs, experts said, such as earlier deadlines to turn in certain ballots or more time-consuming ballot drop-offs — either of which might dissuade some voters from showing up. Mail-in ballots have overwhelmingly become Californians favorite way to vote, with more than 80% of voters using that method in every election since 2020.

But California didn’t become known for slow ballot counting overnight. Since the turn of the millennium, the state has taken several steps to increase voter access by expanding options for how, when and where voters can cast their ballot, while also strengthening its processes to become what the secretary of state’s office calls “the strongest voting security standards in the country.”

Those changes have included same-day voter registration, more early voting options, replacing neighborhood-specific polling places with vote centers, and most notably, universal vote-by-mail, which in 2021 required that all registered voters be mailed their ballot, which can be mailed back, returned to a secure drop box or vote center or ignored if the voter opts to vote in person.

Many Democratic voters this year waited to turn in their ballots due to the crowded pool of gubernatorial candidates, which probably exacerbated the already-slow process.

Still, that was expected. Election watchdogs and party officials from both parties tried to temper Californians’ expectations about the timing of results from the primary, reminding voters that it would likely take days if not weeks to call close races.

But when that exact process began to play out — particularly in the extremely tight contests for California governor and Los Angeles mayor — it almost immediately brought criticism and concern.

“None of the optics are good,” complained Roxanne Hoge, chair of the Los Angeles County Republican Party. “None of this is designed to inspire confidence.”

As Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office tried to dispel misinformation about California’s ballot tabulation process, the statement also said, “For the record: we wish the votes were counted faster, too.”

Not only would a speedier election count improve voter trust, which can often increase participation, Alexander said, it would also decrease harassment of election workers and help newly elected candidates step into their new roles faster — and eliminate a long limbo period for the losing candidate.

“We can get it right and do it faster, and we should,” Alexander said.

A 2023 law allowed counties to provide voters an opportunity to cast their vote-by-mail ballot as an in-person ballot, by submitting it sans envelope and signing for it at a vote center, which reduces the verification process required by election workers. About half of California counties have adopted some option of this expedited process, according to the California Voter Foundation, some calling it “Sign, scan and go!” or the “naked ballot” option, but more widespread implementation of this could help speed up the count, Alexander said. Los Angeles County, which processes more ballots than many states, has not yet implemented this time-saving option.

California also allows ballots, if postmarked by election day, to be accepted up to a week after polls close — though that policy may soon be forced to change depending how the Supreme Court rules on a case challenging ballots arriving after election day. Still, these late-arriving ballots don’t account for a large share of the delays in California: in 2024, only about 2.5% of all ballots arrived in the mail after election day.

But some election observers point out that even when compared with states with similarly run elections, California still lags behind.

“California simply counts the ballots it has too slowly and its elections offices are underfunded,” election analysts Eli McKown-Dawson and Nate Silver recently wrote in a Substack piece. “If you want people to be confident in your electoral system, a good first step is to build one that works properly.”

And while seven other states also automatically mail voters ballots, experts say it’s hard to make direct comparisons with California. Some critics often point to Colorado as an example of a state with similarly ubiquitous mail-in voting, yet a much faster count than California. But the scale of states’ elections are so different: In 2024, California processed about 13 million vote-by-mail ballots; not even 3 million were counted in Colorado.

Some have also pointed out that despite all the ways California has worked to expand voter accessibility, turnout hasn’t dramatically changed. California remains relatively in the middle of the pack when it comes to voter turnout across the U.S., and while the state has seen some spikes in turnout during certain election years, there’s been no noticeable uptick over the last 15 years, according to a review of data from 2008 to 2024.

But Becker contended that there are many factors that can influence voter turnout, in particular, California’s strong blue tilt.

“Perceived competitiveness” — or lack thereof — often keeps voters from the polls, as can uninspiring campaigns or even the weather, Becker said, but he was adamant that shouldn’t be a reason to make it harder for people to vote.

“Accessibility is always worth it,” Becker said.

Hoge, the GOP chair, had a different take, highlighting concerns about the voter registration process as well as the slow count — though she has been clear that the latter doesn’t necessarily signal fraud.

She has continued to push a more tempered narrative to many Republican leaders, including from the White House. On X, she shared a post that fact-checked a photo of vote tabulations from L.A. County, which appeared to — erroneously — show reality TV personality Spencer Pratt receiving no new votes in a daily vote count. And she boosted a video that dispelled rumors about Democrats stealing votes and ones about widespread fraud in California’s process.

“It’s a horrible roller coaster,” Hoge said about California’s election results. “It doesn’t make sense, and the fact that you’re just noticing it today doesn’t mean that it’s newly not making sense. … But until we win, we can’t change it.”

No matter what California might change or improve, Becker said he is confident it won’t stop the criticism or campaigns of misinformation. He also said that most elections in California are called relatively quickly — take the state’s pick for president, which is usually confirmed on election night — but it’s a small share of extremely tight races that take longer, because they require a more complete count to call a winner.

“It doesn’t matter how fast California counts its ballots, … we would be seeing similar conspiracy theories, maybe just with a different framing,” Becker said. “California ends up being a very effective bogeyman.”

Staff writer Kevin Rector contributed to this report.