THE TIMES POLL : Drivers Give Up on Hope of Auto Rate Cuts

Disheartened by court suits and delays, the vast majority of California’s motorists have given up on ever receiving the insurance rate rollbacks promised by Proposition 103, and they blame both the insurance industry and state government, especially Commissioner Roxani Gillespie, The Times Poll has found.

Many drivers accuse Gillespie of siding unfairly with insurance companies in the prolonged battle over implementation of the landmark ballot initiative that voters narrowly passed nearly a year ago.

In a statewide survey designed to gauge citizen attitudes on a broad range of issues, the poll also found:

--Abortion remains a volatile issue and, politically, it generally pays to be pro-choice. A clear majority of Republican and Democratic voters alike favor abortion, and this sets the state apart from the rest of America, which is closely divided on the issue. When Californians are asked to choose between a mythical candidate for governor who is “pro-choice” and one who is “pro-life,” the pro-choice entry wins hands down.

--There is little public support for the sweeping ballot measure offered by Gov. George Deukmejian and the Legislature that would raise gasoline taxes to finance highway construction. The majority of people seem to oppose state tax increases for any purpose, but they are far more inclined to accept higher taxes for fighting drugs, improving education or providing health care for the poor than for upgrading highways or expanding public transportation.

--The overwhelming majority of Californians want more gun control, specifically a 15-day waiting period before purchase of any firearm and a 15-round limit on ammunition clips.

--The majority of citizens in Southern California and the San Francisco Bay Area complain that the quality of life has deteriorated in the state during the last decade, and the most frequently cited culprit is “too many people.”

The Times Poll, directed by I. A. Lewis, interviewed 1,393 California adults by telephone from last Saturday through Tuesday, a period of intense activity by all sides in the protracted insurance war. Gillespie was trying to invoke a freeze on increases in auto insurance rates and the Farmers group of companies was attempting to ignore her and hike rates anyway, leading to a court test that sided with Gillespie, at least for now.

After months of similar skirmishing and tedious deliberations, car owners now hold little hope of ever seeing the 20% reduction in policy rates promised by Proposition 103. Only 19% of those interviewed still think they will get the rate cuts; 71% have concluded that they will not.

The insurance industry is blamed by almost half the people. But Gillespie also is faulted by about one-third. Deukmejian--who is seen as having “failed to show leadership”--and the Legislature do not escape condemnation either, each being blamed by about one-fifth of those interviewed.

Gillespie, 48, who was an insurance executive before joining the Deukmejian Administration, has been considering running next year for the new elective office of state insurance commissioner, which was created by Proposition 103. (Currently, the insurance commissioner is appointed by the governor.) But The Times Poll showed that Gillespie would have a very tough time taking her case to the voters.

She is accused by 4 in 10 people of siding mostly with the insurance industry. Only 1 in 7 thinks she has been “fair.”

Among registered voters, only 14% have a favorable impression of Gillespie; 45% view her unfavorably. And although she is a Republican, she has no party constituency; Gillespie is even more unpopular among GOP voters than she is among Democrats.

In fact, she may not be as respected as the insurance industry she regulates. Of those interviewed, 42% said they “often” or “almost always trust insurance companies to do what is right.” However, 51% said they “seldom” or “almost never” trust the companies.

“There is no doubt about it, the insurance industry can bank on a sizable balance of public good will,” Pollster Lewis said. “But they have certainly been making huge withdrawals over the last few years.”

As for how insurance policies should be priced, more than three-fourths of those interviewed said it should be based solely on the motorist’s driving record. Nearly two-thirds opposed basing rates on where people live--the “territorial system” that has been the cornerstone of industry pricing policy for decades.

Los Angeles County residents, whose premiums are especially high because of where they live, were the most adamantly opposed to territorial rating. But a majority of people in Northern California also were opposed--presumably not realizing that, unlike in Los Angeles, most of their premiums likely would rise if territorial ratings were eliminated.

Under Proposition 103, insurance rates were supposed to have been based on a motorist’s safety record, miles driven and years of driving experience. Gillespie recently ordered companies to stop basing premiums on where a driver lives, but she later canceled the order and set Insurance Department hearings for November to resolve the matter.

Not surprisingly, 9 in 10 people throughout the state think insurance rates now are too high.

But, in contrast to a decade ago, few Californians today think taxes are too high. And most people want to keep it that way, the poll showed.

Taxes currently rank at the bottom of voter concerns. Only 3% of the registered voters who were interviewed picked taxes as “the most important problem” facing California. Far exceeding anything else on the list of priority problems was “crime and drugs,” chosen by 73%, followed far back by education, 23%; auto insurance, 20%, and the environment, 20%. Then came health care, 12%; transportation, 10%, and ethics in government, 6%. Each person was allowed up to two answers.

When asked, however, which government programs they would “be more willing to accept higher taxes for,” nothing was acceptable to a majority of voters. Drawing the most support as justifiable reasons for raising taxes were “strengthening education” and “fighting drugs,” each chosen by 43%. Then came “expanding health care for the poor,” 29%; “cleaning up the environment,” 20%; “improving public transportation,” 13%; “upgrading the highway system,” 8%, and “developing parks,” 2%.

None of these responses bodes well for the ambitious gas tax-transportation ballot measure painstakingly negotiated last spring by the Republican governor and Democratic legislative leaders.

The proposal, destined for next June’s state ballot, would trigger a 9-cent-per-gallon increase in the gasoline tax, to be phased in over five years. The new tax revenues would finance improvements in the jammed highway system. Another $3 billion in bond issues--which also must be approved separately by voters--would pay for transit projects. Together, the taxes and bonds would finance an $18.5-billion, 10-year state transportation plan designed to ease traffic congestion.

But besides voter objections to raising taxes to pay for transportation projects, the ballot measure faces another problem: One of the things voters say they are most willing to pay higher taxes for is education. And under the ballot measure, elementary and secondary schools would lose some of the financial gains they won last year under Proposition 98. Under the new proposal, schools still would be guaranteed 40% of the state budget, as directed by Proposition 98, but they no longer would be entitled to the lion’s share of any state surplus.

When interviewers asked registered voters whether they would favor a ballot measure raising the gas tax by nine cents a gallon and also revising the state spending limit--another feature of the complex proposal--the reply was a resounding “no”: 53% no, 29% yes, 18% no opinion. Voters were adamantly opposed in every region of the state except the San Francisco Bay Area, where they were basically divided.

No abortion issue is now scheduled for next year’s ballot, but the issue’s political force likely will be felt anyway, the survey showed.

Abortion already had an impact this year on a special state Assembly race in San Diego, where Republican Tricia Hunter bucked party leaders by taking a pro-choice stand and two weeks ago won her hotly contested race. And in Orange County, Republican state Sen. John Seymour, a candidate for lieutenant governor, recently reversed his abortion position after weeks of public soul-searching and adopted a pro-choice stance.

To illustrate the potential impact of the abortion issue, The Times Poll asked half of the registered voters it interviewed to choose between two mythical candidates for governor--one described as “pro-choice” and the other as “pro-life.” The pro-choice candidate won big. The candidates’ positions on abortion were reversed for the other half of the voters, with each mythical contender retaining the same characteristics except for the pro-choice and pro-life positions. Again, the pro-choice candidate won easily.

When the voters were asked whether they are “more in favor of abortion or more opposed,” the answer was 5 to 3 in favor: 57% in favor, 34% opposed, 9% no opinion. It did not matter significantly whether the voter was a Democrat, a Republican or an independent. However, people who are not registered to vote are almost evenly divided on the issue.

A nationwide Times survey last July, by contrast, found that people from the rest of the country tilted slightly against abortion.

In the latest poll, more than one-third of the California voters on each side of the abortion question said they would oppose any candidate of their own party who took a position on abortion that they did not like.

The survey also found that stricter gun controls are desired by roughly two-thirds of Californians--whether they be voters or non-voters, southerners or northerners, Republicans or Democrats.

A 15-day waiting period for purchase of any gun--designed to give law enforcement time to check out a buyer’s criminal record--is favored by 84%. There already is a 15-day waiting period for handguns, but a bill to extend it to rifles and shotguns was blocked last month in the Legislature.

A 15-round limit for ammunition clips--used in assault rifles, among other firearms--is favored by 61%. Such legislation also was blocked in Sacramento last month.

People also were asked to assess the “quality of life” in California, and 57% said it has declined in the last decade. Residents of Los Angeles and Orange counties were the most negative. But only in the Central Valley did as many people believe that the quality of life had stayed the same or improved as thought that it had declined.

The biggest gripes, in order, were “too many people,” “deteriorating beaches” and “uncontrolled economic growth.”

The margin of error for a survey of this sample size is three percentage points in either direction. Of the 1,393 adults interviewed, 1,056 were registered voters. The error margin for only the voters was four points.

ABORTION AS AN ISSUE

WHICH HYPOTHETICAL CANDIDATE WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE AS GOVERNOR?

Slightly different questions ased of two separate groups of respondents. ‘Don’t know’ responses not shown.

DESCRIPTION OF CANDIDATES AS READ TO GROUP 1

Mr. A: He is about 55 years old, he was born and raised in Stockton, he is married with two children, he is a businessman and he is pro-choice.

Mr. B: He is about 60 years old, he was born and raised in Ojai, he is married with one child, his career has been as an attorney and he is pro-life.

Mr. B loses by 31 percentage points when he is described as pro-life.

Mr. A: 61% Mr. B: 30%

DESCRIPTION OF CANDIDATES AS READ TO GROUP 2

Mr. A: He is about 55 years old, he was born and raised in Stockton, he is married with two children, he is a businessman and he is pro-life.

Mr. B: He is about 60 years old, he was born and raised in Ojai, he is married with one child, his career has been as an attorney and he is pro-choice.

Mr. A loses by 10 percentage points when he is described as pro-life.

Mr. A: 40% Mr. B: 50% Source: L.A. Times Poll

SIZING UP PROP. 103

Do you think the drivers of California will ever receive the 20 percent automobile insurance reduction promised by prop. 103?

RESPONSE PERCENT YES 19% NO 71% DON’T KNOW 10%

Whose fault is that? Where do you place the blame?

BLAME/REASON *PERCENT Gov. George Deukmejian hasn’t showed leadership 18% Insurance Commisioner Roxani Gillespie has failed to act 32% Insurance industry has obstructed initiative 48% Legislature won’t pass enforcement laws 19% Prop. 103 sponsors drew up unworkable proposition 9% State Supreme Court has changed proposition from the original 8% No opinion 16%

NOTE: Total adds to more than 100% because of multipule responses.

Source: The Los Angeles Times Poll