Table 2: Voter Attitudes Toward Governor Gray Davis
Vo t e r
Appro va l*
M ar. 1999 Au g . 1999 Oct . 1999
Table 3: California General Obligation Bond Ratings
Fa vo r
Re ca ll
5 4 %
Apr. 1 - 6 , 2003
59
Jul . 1 - 1 3
54
Aug. 1 0 -13
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
55**
D ur i ng
53**
1999
57**
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J u n . 2000
61
Sep. 2 5 -28
Au g . 2000
56
Sep. 2 9 -O c t . 1
J an . 2001
57
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------------
D ur i ng
M ay 2001
36
Actual El e c t i on Re s ul t
2000
Fav or R e c a l l
Dec. 2001
38
J an . 2002
39
Apr. 2002
39
McCl i ntoc k
J u l. 2002
41
Camej o
A a 3
58**
Sep. 3 - 7
38
A A -
Ja n. 1999
Moody’s & P o o r ’s
51**
62
F i tch
A s of
S ta n d a rd
46% *
F eb. 2000
Sep. 2001
A+
A A ( F e b.)
A A - ( Au g.)
A a 2 ( S e p.)
A A ( Se p.)
55.4%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Schwarz e ne g g e r
48.6%
During
Bustama nt e
31.5%
2001
13.5%
2.8%
A a 3 ( Ma y )
A + ( Ap r.)
A 1 ( N ov.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sep. 2002
39
D ur i ng
Apr. 2003
24
2002
J u l. 2003
23
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Au g . 2003
22
D ur i ng 2003
A ( D e c .)
B B B ( D e c .)
A ( D e c.)
A 2 ( F e b.) B B B ( J u l.)
* Reg is t ered v oters.
A 3 ( A ug.)
* * Lik ely vo t ers.
Ba a 1 ( D e c.)
Source: California Field Poll at: http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2081.pdf http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2095.pdf California Secretary of State at: h t t p : / / w w w. s o s . c a . g o v / e l e c t i o n s / s o v / 2 0 0 3 _ s p e c i a l / r e c a l l _ q u e s t i o n . p d f h t t p : / / w w w. s o s . c a . g o v / e l e c t i o n s / s o v / 2 0 0 3 _ s p e c i a l / g o v. p d f
Note: Interim warnings by the rating agencies that may have been issued between rating changes are not included. Downgrades are in italics. S o u r c e : C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e Tr e a s u r e r. A v a i l a b l e a t : h t t p : / / w w w. t r e a s u r e r. c a . g o v / r a t i n g s / h i s t o r y. a s p
bond would repay the state for its power purchases, When the May revise did come out, it included various
the state would still run a deficit and pull down its
cuts. However, Governor Davis tried to preserve as
reserve. As a result, state bond ratings were lowered
much of his January education proposals as possible.
by Moody’s. Republicans criticized the governor ’s
“I’m not going to let our commitment to education
plan as fiscally imprudent. And the legislative analyst
backslide,” he said.
31
But in fact the education
proposals were trimmed. For example, the proposed
warned that even the slimmed down May revise would lead to a negative reserve.
lengthening of the middle school academic year was retained, but the number of added days was reduced.
Governor Davis, however, denied that the reserve would go negative. “Reserves are for rainy days…
Even with the various May revise spending cuts
We’re getting out our umbrella,” he said. 3 2 By June,
relative to January, and assuming that the electricity
state Senator Steve Peace (D-El Cajon)—later to
137