At the bottom of each piece, small print states the mailers are not meant to reflect the official views of any political party or to imply any endorsement by a political party or its candidates.
But the fliers would likely resonate with Santa Monica voters who lean toward Democratic candidates, support abortion rights and have often voted to support education initiatives.
Feingold said the fliers were designed to look official and that voters were likely to accept them as such because the “No on JJ” campaign was not listed as paying for them.
“If you’re a Democrat in Santa Monica and you get this piece and you see all these Democrats above a statement urging you to vote against JJ, what are you going to think?” said Feingold. “The average voter isn’t going to read the fine print; they are going to infer the Democratic Party is against the living wage.”
When the “Democratic Ballot Guide” piece hit mailboxes on the afternoon before polls opened, the state chair of the Democratic party, Art Torres, and Santa Monica’s congressman, Harry Waxman, issued statements denouncing the flier and reiterating their support for the proposed living wage ordinance.
But by then, Feingold said, the damage had been done. To get the margin of votes by which the proposal was defeated, the mailers would have to sway no more than a dozen voters in each of Santa Monica’s 66 polling precincts. “I would argue with anyone that believed those deceptive mailers didn’t trick 12 voters in each precinct into voting against the living wage,” Feingold said.
Still, some political pundits said the outcome was not all that surprising, since it’s common for measures with a well-financed opposition to lose, and that it’s very likely the three fliers in question had an impact on the election.
“When there is a lot of money against a ballot measure it tends to go down,” said Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, a private think tank that analyzes ballot measures and the campaigns mounted for and against them.
“Voters go against ballot measures when they are confused,” he said. “They will vote no if they are even slightly unsure.”
Despite the alleged dirty tricks, SMART officials said they remain energized for another fight. Though no second campaign is officially in planning yet, supporters predict it will take less than a year to bring forward a new living wage ordinance.
However, it is far from certain that any new proposal would have a better chance. Nearly 66 percent of Santa Monica residents are renters who move in and out of the city every two years on average, which means the voters’ frame of reference on the living wage battle is constantly being eroded.
In addition, Santa Monica residents as a group are slowly becoming wealthier and more conservative. Annual polls taken by the city show that residents’concerns about affordable housing, for example, have dropped despite the fact that few income-restricted units have been added to the city. Meanwhile, concerns about ridding the city of its homeless population have soared.
To some observers, those results indicate that residents who make enough money to pay $1,500 to $2,000 a month for the average one-bedroom apartment in Santa Monica have different concerns than residents who lived in the city ten years ago under rent control.
“The demographics of the city are apparently changing,” said Roy Urlich, a campaign watcher for Common Cause, a watchdog group focusing on ethics in government.
“The fact that the living wage ordinance didn’t pass indicates to me that the city is losing its working class and lower-middle class population because of gentri-fication. We are seeing high-priced units being snatched up, and rent control no longer seems to be having much effect.”
“The fact that the living wage ordinance didn’t pass indicates to me that the city is losing its working class and lower-middle class population because of gentrification.” — — ROY URLICH Common Cause, campaign watcher
Urlich also blames local media, which he says has failed to aptly inform voters about malicious or deceptive ads. Lacking a forum for debate and a means to inform readers of what’s happening locally, Urlich says, voters are forced to rely more on direct mail to make their decisions.
“It’s clear that without a strong local media, if you spend a lot of money you can defeat even a good ballot measure,” he said. “Especially when there’s advertising that may or may not be truthful.”
Robert Stern said he heard more discontent from Santa Monica residents he knows personally than ever before, with many saying they felt disconnected from the living wage debate.
“How many people who work in the hotels can afford to live in Santa Monica?” he asked. “It was a feel-good measure that wouldn’t affect a lot of locals.”
However, both Stern and Urlich agreed that had the election this year been more typical in terms of voter turnout for gubernatorial elections, or had this been a presidential election year, the living wage measure would likely have passed.
“The higher the turnout in Santa Monica, the more liberal the vote,” Stern said. “Homeowners are going to vote every two years regardless of what’s at stake, and they are more conservative.”
Living wage supporters remain undaunted. They point out that regardless of Santa Monica’s shifting demographics, their polls still show widespread support.
“I don’t think this election was a referendum on the changing politics in Santa Monica,” said Feingold, reiterating his belief that SMART’s victory was snatched away by deceptive mailers. “People don’t like to be tricked and lied to, and when they find out what happened, that will only translate into more support for a living wage.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on November 11, 2002. Read the original PDF.