The spatial association of the vote for some elective offices and Proposition 14 in California, 1964 and 1966

On November 3, 1964 the voters of California overwhelmingly passed \nProposition 14, an initative measure designed to do away with the Rumford \n(fair housing) Act.1 In the months that preceded this vote the campaign for \n1nd against Proposition 14 was heated, and there was widespread specttlation \nas to the effect of this proposition on the vote for United States \nSenator in the same election. Proposition 14 played an important role \nin the campaign of Pierre Salinger, a vocal opponent, and also, if by \ndefault, in the campaign of George Murphy, who remained relatively silent \non the issue. In May, 1966, the State Supreme Court ruled that Proposition \n14 was unconstitutional, thus restoring the authority of the Rumford Act. \nThe now two-year-old and legally impotent proposition was by no means \ndead. The State Poll, published in the Los Angeles Times in September, \n1965, showed that the race relations was the issue of number one importance \nto the electorate of California.2 The results of a State Poll published in \nthe Los Angeles Times in June, 1966, indicated that the race relations was \nthe number two issue and that Proposition 14, this time mentioned \nspecifically, was the ninth most important issue identified.3 Proposition 14 played a role in the conduct of the campaigns of many of the candidates \nfor election in 1966 and was a common issue raised by the press in their \ndaily appraisals of the campaigns. Following the November, 1966, elections \nProposition 14 played a prominent role in the analyses of Governor Brown's \ndefeat.