# 1994 California Proposition 187

Elections in California :
Federal governmentU.S. President
1852
1856
1860
1864
1868
1872
1876
1880
1884
1888
1892
1896
1900
1904
1908
1912
1916
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
Dem
Rep
2000
Dem
Rep
2004
Dem
Rep
2008
Dem
Rep
2012
Dem
Rep
2016
Dem
Rep
2020
Dem
Rep
2024
Dem
Rep
U.S. Senate
1849
1850
1852 sp
1856
1857 sp
1860
1860 sp
1868
1872
1873
1873 sp
1878
1880
1885
1886 sp
1887
1891
1891 sp
1893
1895 sp
1897
1900 sp
1903
1905
1909
1911
1914
1916
1920
1922
1926
1928
1932
1934
1938
1940
1944
1946
1946 sp
1950
1952
1954 sp
1956
1958
1962
1964
1968
1970
1974
1976
1980
1982
1986
1988
1992
1992 sp
1994
1998
2000
2004
2006
2010
2012
2016
2018
2022
2022 sp
2024
2024 sp
2028
2030
U.S. House of Representatives
1849
1851
1852
1854
1856
1859
1861
1863
1864
1867
1868
1871
1872
1875
1876
1879
1880
1882
1884
1886
1888
1890
1892
1894
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
12th
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1987
5th sp
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2001
32nd sp
2002
2004
2005
5th sp
48th sp
2006
50th sp
2007
36th sp
2008
12th sp
2009
10th sp
32nd sp
2010
2011
36th sp
2012
2014
2016
2017
34th sp
2018
2020
25th sp
2022
22nd sp
2024
16th
20th sp
30th
45th
47th
2026 :
State governmentExecutive Governor
1849
1851
1853
1855
1857
1859
1861
1863
1867
1871
1875
1879
1882
1886
1890
1894
1898
1902
1906
1910
1914
1918
1922
1926
1930
1934
1938
1942
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2003 (recall)
2006
2010
2014
2018
2021 (recall)
2022
2026
Lieutenant governor
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Attorney general
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Secretary of state
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Treasurer
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Controller
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Insurance commissioner
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Superintendent
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Board of equalization
2018
2022
Legislature Senate
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Special
Assembly
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2021 (79th sp)
2022 (17th sp)
2024
Special
Judiciary Court of appeals
1994
1998
2002
2006
Elections by year
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2008
Feb
Jun
Nov
2009
2010
Jun
Nov
2012
Jun
Nov
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
State propositions1910–1919
1911
4
7
8
1960–1969
1964
14
1970–1979
1978
6
8
13
1980–1989
1982
8
1986
64
65
1988
98
99
1990–1999
1994
187
1996
196
209
215
218
1998
6
10
227
2000–2009
2000
21
22
36
39
2003
53
54
2004
1A
55
56
57
58
59
60
60A
61
62
63
64
65
66
69
71
2005
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
2006
81
82
83
85
87
89
90
2008
91
92
93
94, 95, 96, and 97
98 and 99
1A
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2009
1A
1B
1C
1D
1E
1F
2010–2019
2010
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2012
29
30
32
34
37
38
39
2014
1
2
41
42
45
46
47
48
2016
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
2018
68
69
70
71
72
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2020–2029
2020
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2022
1
26
27
28
29
30
31
2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
32
33
34
35
36
Full list :
Los Angeles CountyLos Angeles County Board of supervisors
1980
1996
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Ballot measures
1980
A
2008
R
2012
B
J
2016
M
Elections
2020
2022
2024
Los Angeles Mayor
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1909 (sp)
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1929
1933
1937
1938
1941
1945
1949
1953
1957
1961
1965
1969
1973
1977
1981
1985
1989
1993
1997
2001
2005
2009
2013
2017
2022
2026
City attorney
2009
Ballot measures
1986
U
2017
S
Elections
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019 (sp)
2020
2022
2023 (sp)
2024
Long Beach Mayor
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022 :
Orange CountyOrange County Board of supervisors
2018
2020
2022
2024
District attorney
2018
Anaheim Mayor
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Irvine Mayor
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Costa Mesa Municipal
1947
1953
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
SacramentoMayor
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024 :
San Diego CountySan Diego County Board of supervisors
2020
San Diego Mayor
1887
1889
1891
1893
1895
1897
1899
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1927
1929
1931
1932
1935
1939
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983 (sp)
1984
1986 (sp)
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2005 (sp)
2008
2012
2013–14 (sp)
2016
2020
2024
2028
City attorney
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
City council
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Special :
San FranciscoMayor
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1931
1935
1939
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983 (recall)
1983
1987
1991
1995
1999
2003
2007
2011
2015
2018 (sp)
2019
2024
District attorney
2019
2022 (recall)
2022 (sp)
2024
Board of supervisors
1977
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Board of education
2018
2022 (recall)
Ballot measures
2024
G
Elections
2004
Mar
Nov
2005
2006
Jun
Nov
2007
2008
Feb
Jun
Nov
2009
2010
Jun
Nov
2011
2012
Jun
Nov
2013
2022
Feb :
San JoseMayor
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2024 :
Other localities
Bakersfield
Mayoral elections:
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Fresno
Mayoral elections:
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Oakland
Mayoral elections:
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2024
2025
Riverside
Mayoral elections:
1997
2001
2005
2009
2012
2016
2020
2024
San Bernardino
Mayoral elections:
2005
2009
2014
2018
2022
Stockton
Mayoral elections:
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024 :
vte :
California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative to establish a state-run citizenship screening system and prohibit illegal immigrants from using non-emergency health care, public education, and other services in the State of California. Voters passed the proposed law at a referendum on November 8, 1994. The law was challenged in a legal suit the day after its passage, and found unconstitutional by a federal district court on November 11. In 1999, Governor Gray Davis halted state appeals of this ruling.
Passage of Proposition 187 reflected state residents' concerns about illegal immigration into the United States. Opponents believed the law was motivated by bigotry against illegal immigrants of Hispanic or Asian origin; supporters maintained that their concerns were economic: that the state could not afford to provide social services for so many people who had entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. The California Legislative Analyst's Office later said that the cost of verification would be greater than any fiscal benefits of the ballot measure. As the state's demographics have shifted to include more immigrants, the reversal of Proposition 187 has been cited as a reason for the decline of the California Republican Party.

## Background and passage

In 1994, California had an estimated 1.3 million illegal immigrants. Some residents were increasingly concerned about the costs of providing services to the families of such illegal immigrants.
The Republican assemblyman Dick Mountjoy of Monrovia introduced Proposition 187 to the state legislature as the "Save Our State" (SOS) initiative. It gained enough signatures to be placed on the ballot as a statutory initiative during the general election on November 8, 1994. Originally one of several immigration reform bills placed before the California legislature in the early 1990s, polls surveying community responses showed that Proposition 187 began with widespread support—a 37-point lead in July 1994, and 62-29% lead among likely voters by September 1994. Proponents of the bill estimated that California spent $3 billion per year on services for illegal immigrants, about half of which provided education to children of illegal immigrants.
Governor Pete Wilson, a Republican, was a prominent supporter of Proposition 187, which ultimately became a key issue during his 1994 re-election campaign against Democratic opponent Kathleen Brown. After facing record low approval ratings during his first term, Wilson trailed Brown in opinion polls by more than 20% early during the gubernatorial campaign. Commentators considered his aggressive support of the Proposition 187 as crucial to his re-election. In the days leading up to the election, Wilson said that he would require all state and local government employees to report suspected illegal immigrants to the Attorney General's Office if Proposition 187 passed. State Attorney General Dan Lungren, also running for re-election, agreed to enforce emergency regulations to implement the law immediately after the election.
During the United States Senate election in California, 1994 campaign, the incumbent Senator Dianne Feinstein and Republican challenger Michael Huffington both adopted tough policies against illegal immigration. The candidates each revealed that they had previously hired illegal immigrants for housekeeping and childcare. Unlike Feinstein, Huffington had hired a housekeeper who was an illegal immigrant after the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which made it illegal to knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Feinstein was narrowly re-elected.
President Bill Clinton urged Californians to reject Proposition 187 as an impediment to federal policy on immigration. After stating that "it is not wrong for you Californians to want to reduce illegal immigration," Clinton asked voters to allow the federal government to "keep working on what we're doing." In November 1994, Clinton publicly criticized the ballot measure, stating that it “is not the answer” to the issues stemming from illegal immigration. In the days leading up to the ballot measure vote, Latino students organized large protests of Proposition 187 across the state, including a mass boycott of high schools. Their protests often included waving the Mexican flag, a controversial symbol that was described by opponents as counterproductive.
On November 8, 1994, California voters approved the proposition by a wide margin: 59% to 41%. According to the Los Angeles Times exit polls, 63% of non-Hispanic white voters and 23% of Latino voters voted for Proposition 187; African-American and Asian voters were closely divided between those voting for and against the law. Although non-Hispanic whites comprised 57% of California's population at the time, they represented 81% of voters in the 1994 general election. Latinos totaled 8% of voters, although they comprised 26% of the state's population.
Among those who voted on the initiative, 78% of Republicans and 62% of independents voted for it, while 64% of Democrats opposed it.
Section 1 of Proposition 187 provides this introduction:
   The People of California find and declare as follows:
   That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal aliens in this state. That they have suffered and are suffering personal injury and damage caused by the criminal conduct of illegal aliens in this state. That they have a right to the protection of their government from any person or persons entering this country unlawfully.

## Key elements of Proposition 187

Proposition 187 included the following key elements:
* All law enforcement agents who suspect that a person who has been arrested is in violation of immigration laws must investigate the detainee's immigration status, and if they find evidence of illegality they must report it to the attorney general of California, and to the federal Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). They must also notify the detainee of his or her apparent status as an alien.
* Local governments are prohibited from preventing or limiting the fulfillment of this requirement.
* If government agents suspect anyone applying for benefits of being illegal immigrants, the agents must report their suspicions in writing to the appropriate enforcement authorities.
* People shall not receive any public social services until verified as a United States citizen or as a lawfully admitted alien.
* People shall not receive any health care services from a publicly funded health care facility until verified as a United States citizen or as a lawfully admitted alien.
* A public elementary or secondary school shall not admit or permit the attendance of any child until verified as a United States citizen or as a lawfully admitted alien.
* By 1996, each school district shall verify the legal status of each child enrolled within the district and the legal status of each parent or guardian of each child.
* A child who is in violation of the requirements above shall not continue to attend the school 90 days from the date of notice to the attorney general and INS.
* The attorney general must keep records on all such cases and make them available to any other government entity that wishes to inspect them.
* The manufacture, distribution, sale, or use of false citizenship or residency documents is a state felony punishable by imprisonment or fine.

## Opposition

Activists on campuses, churches, and ethnic communities in California and across the country rallied to express opposition to Proposition 187. Critics argued that the measure was xenophobic and discriminated against ethnic minorities, especially those of Latino origin. Others were fearful that the costs of a state-run citizenship screening system and the potential loss of federal funds would off-set any savings of denying public benefits to unlawful residents. The day after the law was approved, an alliance of Latino and civil rights groups, including Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and American Civil Liberties Union, filed lawsuits against the measure in state court. Multiple local governments outside California, including the city of Denver, Colorado, threatened to boycott the state altogether. Latino organizations announced that they would not hold conventions in California and urged a boycott by their members and supporters of Disneyland, a major tourist attraction.
In the weeks leading up to the election, opponents of Proposition 187 led a series of demonstrations. These events gathered several thousands of people. One of the largest protests of the proposition, as well as one of the largest protests in Los Angeles history, was held on October 16, 1994, when an estimated 70,000 people marched through the downtown area. The line of demonstrators stretched at least a mile long. 2 weeks later, 7,000 people participated in another rally against Proposition 187 that took the form of a concert in which dozens of musicians and speakers performed. Young people, particularly Hispanic students, organized their own protests. Most often, these involved campus walkouts. Students as young as middle schoolers participated. In one of the largest student-led demonstrations against Proposition 187, more than 10,000 young people walked out from more than 30 campuses in the Los Angeles Unified School District. The protest was held without endorsement by any official groups; instead, students had been encouraged to stay in school and stage sit-ins as an alternative.
Due to Proposition 187's statutes requiring children and their parents or legal guardians to prove their legal status, the California State Parent-Teacher Association joined in opposing the bill. The Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Gray Davis, who succeeded Wilson, campaigned against Proposition 187. Proposition 187 was widely supported by conservatives. However, some prominent conservatives, including former Congressman and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Jack Kemp, former Secretary of Education William Bennett, and unsuccessful Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron Unz, publicly opposed the initiative. The Mexican president, Carlos Salinas de Gortari, decried the law as xenophobic and harmful to the human rights of migrant laborers. One week after the bill was approved, Salinas proposed cross-border discussions to develop a "guest worker" program that would permit non-resident Mexicans to work legally in the United States. Such a program had been in place during World War II.

## Ethnic minority reactions

Reactions against the proposition varied between and within different ethnic minority groups. Latino communities are cited as having been the most active; Hispanic students in particular were marked as they marched in the streets with Mexican flags. Some sources claim that this reaction might have caused indecisive voters to vote in favor of the proposition. After the election, Harold Ezell, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service Director who helped author Proposition 187, maintained that the "biggest mistake the opposition made was waving those green and white flags with the snake on it. They should have been waving the American flag." When Hispanic students were criticized for waving Mexican flags during demonstrations in Los Angeles, community leaders responded to the controversy by saying that it was "a symbolic clinging to self-pride". But some movement leaders did attempt to address these criticisms. As the election drew near, organizers sold thousands of American flags at their demonstrations against Proposition 187.
Asian communities in particular were divided, with an overall majority of 57% supporting the proposition. As the bill became more visible, some Asian communities became increasingly active politically, with the Los Angeles Times reporting "massive organizing among California's communities of color, particularly the Latino and Asian communities". In fact, the largest organized group in support of Proposition 187 in October 1994 was the Asian Americans for Border Control in Sylmar, which had only ten members. On the other hand, Chinese, Japanese, Cambodian, Thai and Korean alliances and coalitions banded to form the Asian Pacific Islanders Against Proposition 187 which consisted of hundreds of members. Significantly, many consider the strong reactions by some Asian voters against Proposition 187 to be the first time such numbers of Asian Americans had come together, with around 60 organizations joining forces.

## Legal challenges

The constitutionality of Proposition 187 was challenged by several lawsuits. On November 11, 1994, three days after the bill's passage, Federal Judge W. Matthew Byrne issued a temporary restraining order against institution of the measure, which was filed by State Attorney General Dan Lungren. After Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a permanent injunction of Proposition 187 in December 1994, blocking all provisions except those dealing with higher education and false documents, multiple cases were consolidated and brought before the federal court. In November 1997, Pfaelzer found the law to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed on the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration. Pfaelzer also explained that Proposition 187's effect on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the congressional overhaul of the American welfare system, proved that the bill was a "scheme" to regulate immigration:
   "California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration. It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits."
Governor Wilson appealed the ruling, which brought the case to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But in 1999, the newly elected Democratic Governor Gray Davis had the case brought before mediation. His administration withdrew the appeal before the courts in July 1999, effectively killing the law.
The unenforceable sections of Proposition 187 remained on the books until 2014. In September of that year, California passed a bill, SB 396, that removed those sections from California's education, health and safety, and welfare codes, as a symbolic act after the overturn of Prop.187. Bill author Kevin de León said this "closes a dark chapter in our state’s history, and brings dignity and respect to the national immigration debate."

## Legacy

Noting a rapid increase in the number of Latinos voting in California elections, some analysts cite Wilson and the Republican Party's embrace of Proposition 187 as a cause of the subsequent failure of the party to win statewide elections. A 2006 study published in the American Journal of Political Science found that Republican support of Proposition 187 and 2 later state ballot initiatives—Proposition 209 in 1996, which ended affirmative action at governmental institutions, and Proposition 227 in 1998, which limited bilingual education in public schools—shifted both white and Latino voters in California away from identifying with the Republican Party and toward the Democratic Party. The authors of the study said that the "results raise serious questions about the long-term efficacy of racially divisive strategies for electoral gain." Studies published in 2001 and 2011 also show that Proposition 187 mobilized Hispanic voters for the Democratic Party. A 2016 article by pro-immigration researcher Alex Nowrasteh came to the same conclusion. However, a 2018 study questioned the conventional wisdom that Proposition 187 led to an abrupt realignment in Latino voters' political preferences.
Conservative group Eagle Forum instead argues that immigration, whether legal or not, made California's electorate more liberal. Fred Bauer of National Review concurs, adding that Democrats have usually controlled both branches of the California state legislature since the 1960s and that the Democratic Party has had consistently strong support among both white and Hispanic voters in California. Bill Whalen, a former aide to Wilson, in an article for Forbes, noted that Proposition 187 was popular among voters and that Republican struggles in California are partly due to women gradually moving away from the party for other reasons, particularly reproductive rights. Whalen also cited Schwarzenegger's reelection as governor in 2006, in which he won 39% of the votes cast by Latinos, as evidence that Proposition 187 did not harm Republicans' chances of being elected in California. Writing after Schwarzenegger's 2003 recall election victory, Debra J. Saunders of The Weekly Standard noted that he won the election despite voting for Proposition 187, which other publications had claimed would seriously jeopardize his bid.
Between 1995 and 2004 the following states passed similar ballot initiatives or laws: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma and Texas.
During Donald Trump's 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, his use of "anti-immigrant tactics" drew comparisons from media members to Wilson and California Proposition 187. Seema Mehta of the Los Angeles Times wrote, "Many have had a visceral reaction to Trump's proposals that include deporting 11 million people and building an enormous border wall. Protests greet Trump whenever he holds rallies in California."

## Exit poll

| Demographic Subgroup | Support | Oppose | % of Total Vote |
| All Voters | 59 | 41 | 100 |
| Counties ||||
| Los Angeles | 56 | 44 | 24 |
| San Diego and Orange | 67 | 33 | 23 |
| Bay Area | 45 | 55 | 17 |
| Central Valley | 66 | 34 | 15 |
| Inland Empire | 70 | 30 | 8 |
| Central Coast | 60 | 40 | 7 |
| North Coast | 68 | 32 | 6 |
| Party ID ||||
| Republican | 76 | 24 | 40 |
| Democrat | 40 | 60 | 40 |
| Independent | 61 | 39 | 20 |
| Political Ideology ||||
| Conservative | 76 | 24 | 37 |
| Moderate | 56 | 44 | 45 |
| Liberal | 32 | 68 | 18 |
| Sex ||||
| Male | 62 | 38 | 49 |
| Female | 56 | 44 | 51 |
| Ethnicity ||||
| White | 64 | 36 | 78 |
| White (Men) | 69 | 31 | 38 |
| White (Women) | 59 | 41 | 40 |
| Latino | 27 | 71 | 9 |
| Black | 52 | 48 | 7 |
| Asian | 52 | 48 | 6 |
| Age ||||
| 18-29 | 49 | 51 | 14 |
| 30-49 | 58 | 42 | 43 |
| 50-59 | 59 | 41 | 17 |
| 60+ | 66 | 34 | 26 |
| Income ||||
| Under $20,000 | 53 | 47 | 15 |
| $20,000-$40,000 | 60 | 40 | 25 |
| $40,000-$60,000 | 59 | 41 | 24 |
| Over $60,000 | 58 | 42 | 36 |
| Religion ||||
| Protestant | 69 | 31 | 48 |
| Catholic | 49 | 51 | 27 |
| Jewish | 45 | 55 | 5 |
| Other | 53 | 47 | 8 |
| No Preference | 48 | 52 | 12 |
| Residency ||||
| 1st/2nd Gen Citizen | 52 | 48 | 25 |
| 3rd Gen or more | 60 | 40 | 75 |

## Results

| County | Yes | Yes | No | No | Total |
| County | # | % | # | % | Total |
| Alameda | 160,367 | 40.37% | 236,910 | 59.63% | 397,277 |
| Alpine | 449 | 65.17% | 240 | 34.83% | 689 |
| Amador | 9,194 | 71.14% | 3,730 | 28.86% | 12,924 |
| Butte | 47,518 | 69.79% | 20,571 | 30.21% | 68,089 |
| Calaveras | 11,166 | 71.18% | 4,521 | 28.82% | 15,687 |
| Colusa | 3,878 | 77.24% | 1,143 | 22.76% | 5,021 |
| Contra Costa | 154,462 | 51.90% | 143,152 | 48.10% | 297,614 |
| Del Norte | 5,136 | 68.87% | 2,322 | 31.13% | 7,458 |
| El Dorado | 38,445 | 70.63% | 15,988 | 29.37% | 54,433 |
| Fresno | 116,977 | 65.95% | 60,395 | 34.05% | 177,372 |
| Glenn | 6,044 | 76.76% | 1,830 | 23.24% | 7,874 |
| Humboldt | 25,291 | 53.20% | 22,245 | 46.80% | 47,536 |
| Imperial | 14,905 | 62.87% | 8,802 | 37.13% | 23,707 |
| Inyo | 5,427 | 74.82% | 1,826 | 25.18% | 7,253 |
| Kern | 109,710 | 72.78% | 41,040 | 27.22% | 150,750 |
| Kings | 15,528 | 68.97% | 6,986 | 31.03% | 22,514 |
| Lake | 13,152 | 67.15% | 6,434 | 32.85% | 19,586 |
| Lassen | 5,979 | 73.52% | 2,154 | 26.48% | 8,133 |
| Los Angeles | 1,145,622 | 56.04% | 898,500 | 43.96% | 2,044,122 |
| Madera | 20,151 | 75.06% | 6,694 | 24.94% | 26,845 |
| Marin | 43,284 | 41.27% | 61,606 | 58.73% | 104,890 |
| Mariposa | 5,251 | 73.10% | 1,932 | 26.90% | 7,183 |
| Mendocino | 16,054 | 53.82% | 13,774 | 46.18% | 29,828 |
| Merced | 27,531 | 70.20% | 11,685 | 29.80% | 39,216 |
| Modoc | 2,788 | 72.08% | 1,080 | 27.92% | 3,868 |
| Mono | 2,396 | 67.86% | 1,135 | 32.14% | 3,531 |
| Monterey | 55,205 | 60.27% | 36,386 | 39.73% | 91,591 |
| Napa | 24,031 | 56.67% | 18,373 | 43.33% | 42,404 |
| Nevada | 26,462 | 69.67% | 11,519 | 30.33% | 37,981 |
| Orange | 510,651 | 67.10% | 250,416 | 32.90% | 761,067 |
| Placer | 52,330 | 69.12% | 23,380 | 30.88% | 75,710 |
| Plumas | 6,189 | 73.04% | 2,285 | 26.96% | 8,474 |
| Riverside | 243,880 | 70.88% | 100,210 | 29.12% | 344,090 |
| Sacramento | 207,010 | 59.35% | 141,774 | 40.65% | 348,784 |
| San Benito | 6,933 | 59.02% | 4,813 | 40.98% | 11,746 |
| San Bernardino | 237,880 | 68.80% | 107,862 | 31.20% | 345,742 |
| San Diego | 508,803 | 67.37% | 246,457 | 32.63% | 755,260 |
| San Francisco | 69,313 | 29.27% | 167,473 | 70.73% | 236,786 |
| San Joaquin | 81,525 | 64.55% | 44,782 | 35.45% | 126,307 |
| San Luis Obispo | 54,500 | 62.89% | 32,155 | 37.11% | 86,655 |
| San Mateo | 101,786 | 47.36% | 113,134 | 52.64% | 214,920 |
| Santa Barbara | 76,628 | 58.04% | 55,388 | 41.96% | 132,016 |
| Santa Clara | 212,054 | 47.99% | 229,795 | 52.01% | 441,849 |
| Santa Cruz | 43,261 | 47.22% | 48,351 | 52.78% | 91,612 |
| Shasta | 40,316 | 74.94% | 13,482 | 25.06% | 53,798 |
| Sierra | 1,160 | 70.65% | 482 | 29.35% | 1,642 |
| Siskiyou | 13,159 | 72.29% | 5,043 | 27.71% | 18,202 |
| Solano | 56,075 | 57.42% | 41,575 | 42.58% | 97,650 |
| Sonoma | 79,063 | 49.40% | 80,988 | 50.60% | 160,051 |
| Stanislaus | 67,292 | 67.51% | 32,388 | 32.49% | 99,680 |
| Sutter | 16,623 | 75.09% | 5,515 | 24.91% | 22,138 |
| Tehama | 13,914 | 75.13% | 4,605 | 24.87% | 18,519 |
| Trinity | 3,740 | 69.05% | 1,676 | 30.95% | 5,416 |
| Tulare | 55,579 | 71.26% | 22,418 | 28.74% | 77,997 |
| Tuolumne | 13,624 | 69.71% | 5,921 | 30.29% | 19,545 |
| Ventura | 143,111 | 65.52% | 75,321 | 34.48% | 218,432 |
| Yolo | 24,398 | 49.33% | 25,057 | 50.67% | 49,455 |
| Yuba | 10,337 | 73.57% | 3,713 | 26.43% | 14,050 |
| Totals | 5,063,537 | 58.93% | 3,529,432 | 41.07% | 8,592,969 |