Report Shows Impact of Student Voting in Local Elections

Report Shows Impact of Student Voting in Local Elections

Report Shows Impact of Student Voting in Local Elections

Student voting blocs were decisive is numerous local measures in Berkeley this year.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

This article was originally published by The Daily Cal.

A finalized report on election results released at the end of November provides a breakdown of votes on local measures and state propositions in precincts with large numbers of students.

According to the Alameda County election results, most residents of those precincts voted against Measure S, with a majority voting in favor of Measure R and state Proposition 30.

Although Councilmember Jesse Arreguin said that 30 percent of voters who vote in national and state elections usually do not vote in local elections, he said that he noticed more participation in the local elections this year than in previous years.

Measure S — which would have prohibited sitting on sidewalks in commercial districts between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. with limited exceptions — failed by a margin of just 4 percent.

A majority of the precincts near the campus with a high student population largely voted in opposition to the measure, which may have played a substantial role in its defeat.

“If you just look at the results of the precincts where there are high numbers of students … (students) really were the margin that defeated Measure S,” Arreguin said.

In District 8, which encompasses most of the east side of campus, 251 voters living between Bancroft Way, Channing Way and east of Piedmont Avenue voted against the measure, compared to the 125 voters who supported the measure, according to the report.

According to ASUC Senator Nolan Pack, student involvement played a large role in raising awareness about the sit-lie measure and its impacts on campus and the community.

“The Measure S campaign worked at an incredible ground gain,” Pack said. “People go door to door walking and talking about the impacts, and a lot of those canvassing were overwhelmingly students.”

Measure R — which will amend the existing city charter to eliminate the 1986 boundary lines and adjust district boundaries to reflect the city’s updated population — passed throughout the city with 65.92 percent of the vote.

Overwhelmingly high support was seen in precincts around the campus, which includes parts of Districts 4, 6, 7 and 8, which all border the campus and contain large student populations.

According to report, in one precinct on the south side of campus between Durant Avenue and Channing Way, 519 residents voted for Measure R, as opposed to the 94 residents who voted against the measure.

“Students acknowledge that this was an opportunity to have more of a voice and thus supported it in broad numbers,” Arreguin said.

Despite the city’s large student population, the current — and controversial — boundaries divide the city in such a way that it has not been possible to create a supermajority district of UC Berkeley students since the redistricting rules were established in 1986.

At the state level, Prop. 30 also drew enormous support from precincts with many students. Passed on Nov. 6, the proposition will increase the tax rate on Californians earning more than $250,000 and temporarily raise the state sales tax by a quarter of a percentage point to increase funding for K-12 education and universities.

More than 80 percent of residents in almost all precincts in District 7, which includes most of the south side of campus, voted in favor of the measure.

“Prop. 30 certainly sparked a lot of interest in students on the UC Berkeley campus … and that was really represented by large lines at the dorms,” said ASUC Chief Deputy of National Affairs Nicholas Kitchel. “(It’s) definitely an example of how students were driven to vote.”

We cannot back down

We now confront a second Trump presidency.

There’s not a moment to lose. We must harness our fears, our grief, and yes, our anger, to resist the dangerous policies Donald Trump will unleash on our country. We rededicate ourselves to our role as journalists and writers of principle and conscience.

Today, we also steel ourselves for the fight ahead. It will demand a fearless spirit, an informed mind, wise analysis, and humane resistance. We face the enactment of Project 2025, a far-right supreme court, political authoritarianism, increasing inequality and record homelessness, a looming climate crisis, and conflicts abroad. The Nation will expose and propose, nurture investigative reporting, and stand together as a community to keep hope and possibility alive. The Nation’s work will continue—as it has in good and not-so-good times—to develop alternative ideas and visions, to deepen our mission of truth-telling and deep reporting, and to further solidarity in a nation divided.

Armed with a remarkable 160 years of bold, independent journalism, our mandate today remains the same as when abolitionists first founded The Nation—to uphold the principles of democracy and freedom, serve as a beacon through the darkest days of resistance, and to envision and struggle for a brighter future.

The day is dark, the forces arrayed are tenacious, but as the late Nation editorial board member Toni Morrison wrote “No! This is precisely the time when artists go to work. There is no time for despair, no place for self-pity, no need for silence, no room for fear. We speak, we write, we do language. That is how civilizations heal.”

I urge you to stand with The Nation and donate today.

Onwards,

Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editorial Director and Publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x