Kansas Speaks 2012 Statewide Public Opinion Survey

Transcription

1 Kansas Speaks 2012 Statewide Public Opinion Survey Prepared For The Citizens of Kansas By The Docking Institute of Public Affairs Fort Hays State University Copyright October 2012 All Rights Reserved

2 Fort Hays State University 600 Park Street Hays, Kansas Telephone: (785) FAX: (785) Gary Brinker, PhD Director Jian Sun, PhD Research Scientist Michael S. Walker, MS Assistant Director Lynette Boys Administrative Specialist Catherine Rockey Survey Center Manager Mission: To Facilitate Effective Public Policy Decision-Making. The staff of the Docking Institute of Public Affairs and its University Center for Survey Research are dedicated to serving the people of Kansas and surrounding states.

3 Kansas Speaks 2012 Prepared By: Jian Sun, Ph.D. Research Scientist Gary Brinker, Ph.D. Director Chapman Rackaway, Ph.D. Policy Fellow Docking Institute of Public Affairs Prepared For: The Citizens of Kansas In pursuit of Fort Hays State University s Public Affairs Mission Copyright October 2012 All Rights Reserved

4 Table of Contents List of Figures..ii Executive Summary.1 Introduction and Methods.7 Analysis Section 1: Overall Quality of life in Kansas Section 2: Economy Section 3: Taxes Section 4: State Government...34 Section 5: Energy Policy...41 Section 6: Public Policy Issues..50 Section 7: Presidential Election.. 66 Section 8: Changes from 2009 to Appendix A: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample.77 Appendix B: Mail Survey Questionnaire...79 The Docking Institute of Public Affairs: Kansas Speaks 2012 Page i

5 List of Figures Figure 1. Rating of Kansas as Overall Place to Live.. 8 Figure 3. Rating of Kansas as an Overall Place to Live by Party Affiliation.. 9 Figure 3. Rating of Kansas as an Overall Place to Live by Race 10 Figure 4. Rating of Kansas as an Overall Place to Live by Voting Behavior. 10 Figure 5. Rating of Kansas Economy.. 11 Figure 6. Rating of Kansas Economy by Education.. 11 Figure 7. Rating of Kansas Economy by Income. 12 Figure 8. Rating of Kansas Economy by Party Affiliation..13 Figure 9. Rating of Kansas Economy by Voting Behavior. 13 Figure 10. Satisfaction Levels with Governor s and State Party Leaders Effort to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy 14 Figure 11. Satisfaction Levels with Governor s Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Education. 15 Figure 12. Satisfaction Levels with Governor s Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Party Affiliation. 15 Figure 13. Satisfaction Levels with Governor s Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Voting Behavior 16 Figure 14. Satisfaction Levels with ic Party Leaders Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Age 17 Figure 15. Satisfaction Levels with ic Party Leaders Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Gender. 17 Figure 16. Satisfaction Levels with ic Party Leaders Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Income 18 Figure 17. Satisfaction Levels with ic Party Leaders Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Party Affiliation Figure 18. Satisfaction Levels with Party Leaders Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Education.. 19 Figure 19. Satisfaction Levels with Party Leaders Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Party Affiliation 19 Figure 20. Satisfaction Levels with Party Leaders Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Race 20 Figure 21. Concerns with the Threat from the Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals or Families Welfare 20 Figure 22. Concerns with the Threat from the Economic Conditions in Kansas Individuals or Families Welfare by Age 21 The Docking Institute of Public Affairs: Kansas Speaks 2012 Page ii

6 Figure 23. Concerns with the Threat from the Economic Conditions in Kansas Individuals or Families Welfare by Education. 21 Figure 24. Concerns with the Threat from the Economic Conditions in Kansas Individuals or Families Welfare by Gender 22 Figure 25. Concerns with the Threat from the Economic Conditions in Kansas Individuals or Families Welfare by Income 22 Figure 26. Concerns with the Threat from the Economic Conditions in Kansas Individuals or Families Welfare by Party Affiliation 23 Figure 27. Opinions on Changes of Income Tax, Sales Tax, and Property Tax. 24 Figure 28. Opinions on Income Tax Change by Education. 24 Figure 29. Opinions on Income Tax Change by Party Affiliation 25 Figure 30. Opinions on Sales Tax Change by Education Figure 31. Opinions on Sales Tax Change by Gender. 26 Figure 32. Opinions on Sales Tax Change by Income. 27 Figure 33. Opinions on Sales Tax Change by Race 27 Figure 34. Opinions on Sales Tax Change by Voting Behavior. 28 Figure 35. Opinions on Property Tax Change by Income 28 Figure 36. Opinions on Property Tax Change by Party Affiliation. 29 Figure 37. Tax Changes on Different Groups 30 Figure 38. Tax Change on Middle Class by Education 30 Figure 39. Tax Change on Middle Class by Income.. 31 Figure 40. Tax Change on Large Corporation by Gender. 32 Figure 41. Tax Change on Large Corporation by Income. 32 Figure 42. Tax Change on Top Income Earners by Party Affiliation. 33 Figure 43. Tax Change on Large Corporation by Party Affiliation. 33 Figure 44. Tax Change on Small Businesses by Party Affiliation 34 Figure 45. Rating of Kansas State Government. 34 Figure 46. Rating of Kansas State Government by Education. 35 Figure 47. Rating of Kansas State Government by Party Affiliation 35 Figure 48. Satisfaction with Performance of the Kansas Legislature and Governor 36 Figure 49. Satisfaction with Performance of the Kansas Legislature by Education.. 37 Figure 50. Satisfaction with Performance of the Kansas Legislature by Party Affiliation 37 Figure 51. Satisfaction with Performance of Governor Brownback by Education 38 Figure 52. Satisfaction with Performance of Governor Brownback by Party Affiliation 38 Figure 53. Satisfaction with Performance of Governor Brownback by Voting Behavior 39 Figure 54. Opinion on Kansas Government Spending 39 The Docking Institute of Public Affairs: Kansas Speaks 2012 Page iii

7 Figure 55. Opinion on Kansas Government Spending by Education 40 Figure 56. Opinion on Kansas Government Spending by Hispanic Origin 40 Figure 57. Opinion on Kansas Government Spending by Party Affiliation.. 41 Figure 58. Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Coal, Oil, Wind, and Nuclear Energy 42 Figure 59. Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Coal by Education. 43 Figure 60. Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Oil by Age 43 Figure 61. Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Oil by Education 44 Figure 62. Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Oil by Income.. 44 Figure 63. Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Wind Energy by Gender 45 Figure 64. Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Wind Energy by Income 46 Figure 65. Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Wind Energy by Race. 46 Figure 66. Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Nuclear Energy by Gender. 47 Figure 67. Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Coal by Party Affiliation 48 Figure 68. Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Oil by Party Affiliation 48 Figure 69. Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Wind by Party Affiliation. 49 Figure 70. Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Nuclear by Party Affiliation 49 Figure 71. Opinion on State Funding for State Education and Social Services. 50 Figure 72. Opinion on State Funding for Grade Kindergarten through High School by Gender. 51 Figure 73. Opinion on State Funding for State Colleges and Universities by Gender. 51 Figure 74. Opinion on State Funding for Social Services by Gender 52 Figure 75. Opinion on State Funding for Grades Kindergarten through High School by Party Affiliation.. 52 Figure 76. Opinion on State Funding for State Colleges and Universities by Party Affiliation. 53 Figure 77. Opinion on State Funding for Social Services by Party Affiliation. 53 Figure 78. Opinion on State Funding for Grades Kindergarten through High School by Age 54 Figure 79. Opinion on State Funding for Grades Kindergarten through High School by Education. 55 Figure 80. Opinion on State Funding for State Colleges and Universities by Education 55 Figure 81. Opinion on State Funding for Social Services by Age 56 Figure 82. Opinion on State Funding for Social Services by Income 56 Figure 83. Opinion on State Funding for Social Services by Voting Behavior 57 Figure 84. Opinion on Effort to Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 57 Figure 85. Opinion on the Supreme Court s Decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 58 Figure 86. Opinion on Effort to Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by Gender 58 Figure 87. Opinion on Effort to Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by Party Affiliation 59 Figure 88. Opinion on Effort to Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by Voting Behavior 59 Figure 89. Opinion on the Supreme Court s Decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by Education. 60 The Docking Institute of Public Affairs: Kansas Speaks 2012 Page iv

8 Figure 90. Opinion on the Supreme Court s Decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by Party Affiliation. 61 Figure 91. Possession of a Government-issued Photo Identification. 62 Figure 92. Intension to Obtain a Government-issued Photo Identification 62 Figure 93. Possession of a Government-issued Photo Identification by Age 63 Figure 94. Possession of a Government-issued Photo Identification by Education. 63 Figure 95. Possession of a Government-issued Photo Identification by Race. 64 Figure 96. Possession of a Government-issued Photo Identification by Voting Behavior 64 Figure 97. Difficulty to Provide Birth Certification.. 65 Figure 98. Difficulty to Provide Birth Certification by Income. 65 Figure 99. Difficulty to Provide Birth Certification by Party Affiliation. 66 Figure 100. Vote in the 2012 Presidential Election. 67 Figure 101. Vote in the 2012 Presidential Election by Gender.. 67 Figure 102. Vote in 2012 Presidential Election by Income 68 Figure 103. Vote in the 2012 Presidential Election by Party Affiliation 68 Figure 104. Vote in the 2012 Presidential Election by Voting Behavior 69 Figure 105. Rating of Kansas as an Overall Place to Live: Figure 106. Rating of Kansas State Government: Figure 107. Concerns with the Threat from the Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals or Families Welfare: Figure 108. Tax Change on Top income Earners: Figure 109. Tax Change on Middle Class: Figure 110. Tax Change on Large Corporations: Figure 111. Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Oil: Figure 112. Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Wind: Figure 113. Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Nuclear Energy: Figure 114. Opinion on State Funding for Grades Kindergarten through High School: Figure 115. Opinion on State Funding for State Colleges and Universities: The Docking Institute of Public Affairs: Kansas Speaks 2012 Page v

9 Executive Summary The Docking Institute of Public Affairs at Fort Hays State University conducted the 2011 Kansas Speaks survey from May 21 to September 6, A random sample of adult residents of Kansas age 18 and older was surveyed by telephone or mail questionnaire to assess their attitudes and opinions regarding various issues of interest to Kansas citizens. The survey finds: More than eighty percent (86.7%) of respondents felt Kansas was a good, very good, or excellent place to live in, and 4.2% felt Kansas was a poor or very poor place to live in. respondents were more likely to feel that Kansas was at least a good place to live in than ic respondents. White respondents or those who had voted in November 2012 were more likely to rate Kansas as a very good or excellent place to live in. Almost half (46.8%) of respondents felt the Kansas economy was good, very good, or excellent. Respondents were less likely to feel the Kansas economy was poor or very poor when they had higher education (as compared with those who had lower education) or higher income (as compared with those who had lower income), identified themselves as s (as compared with s), or had voted in 2010 (as compared with those who did not vote). Thirty-seven percent (37%) of respondents were moderately or very satisfied with Governor Brownback s efforts and Kansas Party leaders efforts to improve the health of the Kansas economy, and 27.8% were moderately or very satisfied with Kansas ic Party leaders efforts. Respondents who were or were more likely to feel very or moderately satisfied with Governor Brownback s efforts to improve the health of the Kansas economy than ic respondents and independent voters. Respondents with higher education were less likely to feel so than those with lower education. Respondents who voted in 2010 were more likely to be very satisfied or very dissatisfied than those who did not vote. Younger respondents were less likely to feel very or moderately satisfied with ic Party leaders efforts to improve the health of the Kansas economy than older respondents. Male respondents were less likely to feel very or moderately satisfied with the ic Party leaders efforts than female respondents. Respondents were also less likely to feel very or moderately satisfied when they had higher family income (as compared with those who had lower income) or identified themselves as s or (as compared with ic respondents and those ic). 1

10 Respondents were more likely to feel very satisfied or moderately satisfied with Party leaders efforts to improve the health of the Kansas Economy when they had lower levels of education (as compared with those with higher education), were s or (as compared with s and those ic), or were white (as compared with other racial groups). About seventy percent (69.5%) of respondents were very concerned or moderately concerned that the Kansas economy would seriously threaten them or their families welfare. Older respondents were more likely to feel very concerned or moderately concerned than younger respondents. Respondents with lower education were more likely to feel concerned that those with higher education. Female respondents were more likely to feel concerned than male respondents. Respondents with lower family income were more concerned than those with higher income. s and those ic were more likely to be concerned than s and those. Most of the respondents prefer to leave the tax rates for income tax, sales tax, and property tax at their current levels. About sixteen percent (16.4%) of respondents thought that income tax should be significantly or somewhat increased. More than twenty percent (21.7%) of respondents thought that sales tax should be significantly or somewhat increased, and 52.2% of respondents thought that property tax should be somewhat or significantly decreased (Figure 27). Respondents with higher education were more likely to say the income tax should be somewhat or significantly increased than those with lower education, so were s and those ic as compared with s and those. Respondents were more likely to support sales tax to be somewhat increased or significantly increased when they had higher education (as compared with those with lower education), higher income (as compared with those with lower income), or voted in 2010 (as compared with those who did not vote). White respondents were more likely to support sales tax increase than other racial groups. Respondents with lower family income were more likely to support property tax increase than those with higher family income, so were those respondents who were s or ic as compared with those who were and. More than half (51.5%) of respondents thought taxes on small businesses should be decreased. Almost sixty percent (57.7%) of respondents believed that taxes on large corporations should be increased. 2

11 Almost one-third (31.9%) of respondents thought that taxes on middle class should be decreased, and 63.5% said taxes on middle class should remain the same. More than half (55.8%) of respondents taxes on top income earners should be increased, while only 9.1% said they should be decreased. Respondents with higher education were more likely to support tax increase on middle class. Except for those respondents whose family income was $150,000 or more, respondents with lower family income were more likely to support tax increase on middle class. Male respondents were less likely to support tax increase on large corporations than female respondents, so were respondents with higher family income as compared with those with lower family income. Respondents who were strong s, s, independent ic and independent were more likely to support tax increases on top income earners, large corporations, and, to a lesser, small businesses than s and respondents. About forty percent (40.3%) of respondents felt that the Kansas state government s performance was at good, very good, or excellent. In general, respondents with higher education were less likely to feel the Kansas state government was poor or very poor. ic respondents and those ic were less likely to think the Kansas state government was excellent or very good than respondents, those, and independent voters. Thirty percent (3) of respondents were moderately or very satisfied with the performance of the Kansas legislature. Respondents with higher education were more likely to feel very or moderately dissatisfied with the performance of the Kansas legislature than those with lower income, so were those respondents who were s or ic as compared with those who were or. Almost forty percent (39.6%) of respondents were moderately or very satisfied with the performance of Governor Brownback. Respondents with higher education were more likely to be very or moderately dissatisfied with the performance of Governor Brownback. respondents, independent voters, and those who voted in 2010 were more likely to be moderately or very satisfied with Governor Brownback s performance. 3

12 About half (50.4%) of respondents thought Kansas government spending should be decreased, 31.8% thought it should remain the same, and 17.7% thought it should be increased. In general, respondents with higher education were more likely to support Kansas government spending to be increased. Hispanic respondents were also more likely to support spending increase than non-hispanic respondents. Respondents who were ic and ic were more likely to support spending increase than those who were or. About three quarters (75.3%) of respondents thought it was extremely important or important for Kansas to develop wind energy. About two thirds (66.9%) of respondents thought it was extremely important or important for Kansas to develop oil. Half (50.9%) of respondents thought developing coal was extremely important or important. Less than forty percent (37.1%) of respondents felt developing nuclear energy was extremely important or important. In general, respondents with higher education were more likely to think it was not at all important or somewhat important for Kansas to develop coal. Respondents were less likely to think it was extremely important or important for Kansas to develop oil when they had higher education (as compared with those with lower education), had higher family income (as compared with those with lower family income), or were 35 years to 64 years old (as compared with those who were younger and older). Respondents were less likely to think it was extremely important or important for Kansas to develop wind energy when they were male (as compared with female respondents), or African American or biracial (as compared with other racial groups), or when they had higher family income (as compared with those with lower family income). Male respondents were more likely to support the development of nuclear energy than female respondents. As compared with respondents and those, ic respondents and those ic were generally less likely to say it was extremely important or important for Kansas to devote resources to the development of coal, oil, and nuclear energy, but more likely to say it was extremely important or important for Kansas to devote resources to the development of wind energy. Almost sixty percent (57.9%) of respondents thought the state funding for grades kindergarten through high school (K-12) should be increased. 4

13 More than a third (35.3%) of respondents thought the state funding for state colleges and universities should be increased, and 48.8% preferred to keep the funding at its current level. Almost half (47%) of respondents thought the state funding for social services should be increased. Female respondents were more likely to support a state funding increase for K-12 and higher education and social services than male respondents. Compared with respondents and those, ic respondents and those ic were more likely to support a state funding increase for education and social services. Younger respondents were more likely to support a state funding increase for K-12 education than older respondents. In general, respondents with higher education were more likely to support a state funding increase for K-12 education and state colleges and universities. Except for respondents who were 65 years old and older, older respondents were more likely to support a state funding increase for social services. Respondents were less likely to support increased state funding for social services when they had higher family income or had voted in Before the U.S. Supreme Court issued the decision to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in June 2012, 46.2% of respondents strongly or somewhat supported the effort to repeal the act. Male respondents were more likely to support repealing ObamaCare than female respondents. ic respondents and those ic were less likely to support the repealing effort than independent voters, s and those. Respondents who voted in 2010 were more likely to support the repealing effort than those who did not vote. After the U.S. Supreme Court issued the decision to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in June 2012, 61.2% of respondents thought that the Supreme Court had made the wrong decision to uphold the act. Respondents with higher education were more likely to think the Supreme Court made the right decision. ic respondents and those ic were more likely to think the Supreme Court made the right decision than those who were, independent, and independent. Almost all (97.9%) of respondents currently had a government-issued photo identification. Among those who did not have one, 55.6% said they intended to obtain one. 5

14 Respondents who were 65 years old and older were much less likely to have a governmentissued photo identification than those who were younger than 65 years. Respondents who did not vote in 2010 were less likely to have such identification than those who voted. African American and those who consider themselves as being in other racial group were also less likely to have such identification than other racial groups. Almost twenty percent (19.3%) of respondents indicated that it would be somewhat or very difficult for them to provide their birth certification. In general, respondents with higher family income were less likely to feel it was somewhat or very difficult to provide birth certification than those with lower family income. respondents and those ic were more likely to feel somewhat or very difficult than those respondents who were, independent, and independent. More than forty percent (44.3%) of respondents indicated that they would have voted for Mitt Romney if the 2012 Presidential Election had been held on the day they were surveyed, and 30.2% would had voted for Barack Obama. Male respondents were more likely to vote for Mitt Romney, and female respondents were more likely to vote for Barack Obama. ic respondents and those ic were more likely to vote for Barack Obama, and independent voters, respondents and those were more likely to vote for Mitt Romney. Respondents who did not vote in 2012 were more likely to be undecided than those who voted. Respondent s rating of Kansas as a place to live declined between 2009 and Respondent s rating of the Kansas state government declined between 2009 and Compared with 2009, respondents became more concerned in 2012 that the Kansas economy would seriously threaten their or their families welfare in the coming year. Compared with 2009, respondents in 2012 were more likely to support a tax increase on top income earners and large corporations, and more likely to support unchanged tax on middle class. Respondent s support of oil energy development increased from 2009 to Respondent s support of wind and nuclear energy declined from 2009 to Respondent s support of coal did not change significantly. Respondent s support to increase state funding for K-12 increased between 2009 and The support of state funding for state colleges and universities declined from 2009 to

15 Introduction and Methods The Docking Institute of Public Affairs at Fort Hays State University surveyed a random sample of adult residents of Kansas age 18 and older to assess attitudes and opinions regarding various issues of interest to Kansas citizens. The survey was administered through both telephone and mail, utilizing an addressed-based sampling technique to facilitate the most representative sample possible. Respondents for whom telephone numbers were available were surveyed by telephone. Those respondents for whom no phone number was available were mailed the questionnaire and a selfaddressed business reply envelope. The telephone survey was conducted from May 21 to August 27, 2012, when 1,415 households were contacted via telephone. A total of 753 households completed the telephone survey, resulting in a 53.2% response rate (753/1,415). The survey questionnaires were mailed to 3,087 households on July 23, By September 6, the end of the data collection period, 34 mail invitations were returned as undeliverable, and 175 questionnaires were completed and mailed back to the Docking Institute. The valid population size for the mail survey was thus 3,053 (3,087 34), and the response rate for the mail survey was 5.7% (175/3,053). With a total of 928 households completing the survey, the overall response rate was 20.8% (928/4,468). At a 95% confidence level, the margin of error for the full sample of 928 is 3.22%, assuming no response bias. A margin of error of 3.22% means that there is a 95% probability that findings among the sample vary no more than +/- 3.22% from the value that would be found if the entire population of interest (adult Kansas residents) were surveyed, assuming no response bias. Sample demographics were compared to known Censusbased distributions (see Appendix A). The sample matches closely with all Census-based distributions except race, Hispanic origin and age. The survey had higher response rates among Kansas residents who are white, non-hispanic and those over 55. Therefore, the overall population estimates are biased toward the opinions of white, non-hispanic and older Kansans. This following analysis contains eight sections. The first seven sections present not only descriptive analyses of respondents answers to each question, but also statistically significant relationships with key demographic variables to see how citizens in various social categories differ in their opinions on various issues. The last section compares respondents answers in 2012 with those in 2009, the year Kansas Speaks was inaugurated. These eight sections are: 1) Overall Quality of life in Kansas. This section shows how Kansans generally feel about Kansas as a place to live. 2) Economy. This section shows results to questions addressing various economic concerns to citizens. 7

16 3) Taxes. This section shows results to opinion questions regarding fair and effective personal and business taxation policies. 4) State Government. This section presents the results of citizens ratings of the state government in general, as well as their state government elected officials. 5) Energy Policy. A key component of this study is to assess the level of citizen support for public resources being devoted to developing various sources of energy production, including oil, coal, wind, and nuclear. 6) Public Policy Issues. This section looks at citizens opinions on several key policy issues, including health care, education, and issues related to the election. 7) Presidential Election. This section presents citizens intended choice of the next President of the United States. 8) Changes from 2009 to Kansas Speaks asks a set of questions every year since This section presents significant differences between respondents answers to those questions in 2012 and those in Analysis Section 1: Overall Quality of life in Kansas Respondents were asked to rate Kansas generally as a place to live. Among those 923 respondents who provided valid answers to this question, 19.7% said Kansas was an excellent place to live in, 34.9% felt Kansas was a very good place to live in, and 32.1% believed Kansas was a good place to live in. Only 2.7% of respondents said Kansas was a poor place to live in, and 1.5% answered very poor (Figure 1). Figure 1: Rating of Kansas as an Overall Place to Live (n=923) As a place to live, Kansas is 19.7% 34.9% 32.1% 9.1% 2.7% 1.5% 2 8 Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Question: In general, how would you rate Kansas as a place to live? 8

17 Respondent s opinion of the quality of life was significantly related to respondent s party affiliation. Compared with strong ic respondents and independent voters ic, respondents were more likely to feel that Kansas was at least a good place to live in. Almost seventy percent (68.6%) of respondents who considered themselves strong s said that Kansas was an excellent or very good place to live in, while 35.1% of respondents who considered themselves strong s said so (Figure 2). Respondents with different races and voting behaviors also varied significantly in their opinions on the quality of life. White respondents were more likely to say that Kansas was an excellent or very good place to live in than other racial groups. Black or African American respondents were least likely to say so. Among white respondents, 56.6% rated Kansas as an excellent or very good place to live in. Only 15.4% of African American respondents felt Kansas was excellent or very good to live in (Figure 3). More than half (56.6%) of respondents who voted in November 2010 said that Kansas was an excellent or very good place to live in. Forty percent () of respondents who did not vote in November 2010 said so (Figure 4). Figure 3: Rating of Kansas as an Overall Place to Live by Party Affiliation 0.6% 0.8% 1.3% 2.4% 1.9% 2.6% 1.1% 0.8% 2.3% 3.9% 7.4% 3.9% 1.9% 7.6% % 6.1% 8.4% 14.5% 25.8% 18.4% % 36.5% 33.3% 34.8% % 29.8% (n=178) 39.7% 25.6% (n=121) 41.7% 29.7% 15.2% (n=132) 21.9% (n=155) 42.2% 24.1% 10.8% 7.7% (n=83) 50. (n=52) 37.7% 21.1% 14. (n=114) Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent 9

18 Figure 3: Rating of Kansas as an Overall Place to Live by Race % 2.6% 8.8% 30.8% 36.4% 20.2% White (n=803) 15.4% 7.7% 15.4% 46.2% 7.7% % Black or African American (n=13) % 12.5% % Biracial (n=4) Asian (n=8) American Indian (n=5) 7.7% 15.4% % % Other (n=26) Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent Figure 4: Rating of Kansas as an Overall Place to Live by Voting Behavior % 36.3% 20.3% Voted in 2010 (n=757) 1.5% 2.5% 2.6% 3.4% 8.7% 10.2% 43.2% 26.3% 14.4% Did not vote in 2010 (n=118) Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent 10

19 Section 2: Economy When asked to rate the Kansas economy, 46.8% of 910 respondents who provided valid answers said it was at least good, while 19.4% said Kansas had a poor or very poor economy (Figure 5). Rating of the economy was significantly associated with respondent s highest education level. People with higher education were less likely to think the Kansas economy was poor or very poor. Among respondents with doctoral s, 3.4% felt the Kansas economy was poor. In contrast, of respondents who did not have high school diplomas felt so (Figure 6). Figure 5: Rating of Kansas Economy (n=910) The economy of Kansas is 0.7% 9.2% 36.9% 33.8% 15.4% Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Question: In general, how would you rate the Kansas economy? Figure 6: Rating of Kansas Economy by Education % 4.3% 3.8% 4.6% % 14.4% 14.5% 17.7% 22.7% 35.9% 28.2% 38.5% 33.3% 41.8% 3.4% 31. Very Poor Poor Fair Good % 41.9% 29.1% % 55.2% Very Good Excellent Less than high school (n=5) 9.1% 11.1% 6.3% 10.8% 7.7% 0.5% 1.3% 1. Some Bachelor's Master's or college (n=234) (n=195) law (n=104) High school diploma or equivalency (n=198) Associate or technical (n=79) 3.4% 6.9% Doctoral (n=29) 11

20 Respondents ratings of the economy varied significantly by their family income. Respondents who had higher family income were more likely to feel the Kansas economy was at least good and less likely to feel it was poor or very poor. Among respondents whose family incomes were less than $10,000 in 2011, 46.2% thought the Kansas economy was poor or very poor, while 25.1% felt it was at least good. Among respondents whose family income were $150,000 or more, 63.9% felt the Kansas economy was at least good, only 8.3% felt it was poor (Figure 7). Figure 7: Rating of Kansas Economy by Income % 23.1% 28.2% 4.5% 7.7% 3.8% 22.5% 12.5% 39.6% 39.4% 15.1% 31.1% 1.7% 1.9% 13.6% 12.5% 13.2% 31.3% 34.6% 36.8% 38.7% 43.8% 43.3% 24.3% 33.7% 20.5% 18.4% 2.6% % 11.3% 8.5% 7.7% 2.6% 1.1% 1.3% Less than $10,000 (n=39) $10,000 - $24,999 (n=111) $25,000 - $34,999 (n=104) $35,000 - $49,999 (n=106) $50,000 - $74,999 (n=176) $75,000 - $99,999 (n=104) $100,000 - $149,999 (n=76) 8.3% 27.8% 30.3% 58.3% 5.6% $150,000 or more (n=36) Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent Respondent s rating of the economy was significantly associated with the party affiliation and voting behavior variables. respondents were more likely to feel the Kansas economy was at least good than respondents who were s. About sixty percent (60.8%) of respondents who considered themselves strong s felt the Kansas economy was at least good, while 42.9% of respondents who considered themselves strong s felt the same (Figure 8). Respondents who voted in 2010 were less likely to say the Kansas economy was poor or very poor. Among those respondents who voted in 2010, 17.8% felt the Kansas economy was poor or very poor. Almost thirty percent (28.7%) of respondents who did not vote in 2010 felt so (Figure 9). 12

21 Figure 8: Rating of Kansas Economy by Party Affiliation % 2.3% 5.3% 8.4% % % 12.3% 26.9% 47.4% 13.1% 11.6% 12.3% 0.6% 1.5% (n=175) 28.1% 43. (n=121) 44.6% 30.5% 26.9% (n=130) 17.9% 37.7% 7.9% 7. (n=151) 15.7% 27.5% 43.4% 28.9% 29.4% 3.6% 3.9% 4.5% (n=83) 37.3% (n=51) 15.2% 37.5% 38.4% (n=112) Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent Figure 9: Rating of Kansas Economy by Voting Behavior % 14.6% 34.7% Voted in 2010 (n=747) 9.6% 19.1% % 35.7% 9.2% 8.7% 0.7% Did not vote in 2010 (n=115) Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent 13

22 The survey continued by asking respondents satisfaction levels with Governor Brownback s and state party leaders efforts to improve the health of the Kansas economy. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of respondents were moderately or very satisfied with Governor Brownback s efforts and Kansas Party leaders efforts to improve the health of the Kansas economy. The percentage of respondents who were moderately or very satisfied with Kansas ic leaders efforts was 27.8% (Figure 10). Respondent s satisfaction with Governor Brownback s efforts to improve the health of the Kansas economy was related to education, party affiliation and voting behavior. In general, respondents with higher education were less likely to be satisfied with Governor Brownback s efforts to improve the health of the Kansas economy. More than forty percent (43.6%) of respondents whose highest levels of education were high school or equivalent felt very satisfied or moderately satisfied with Governor Brownback s efforts, whereas 24.1% of respondents with doctoral s felt very satisfied or moderately satisfied (Figure 11). Respondents who were or were more likely to feel very satisfied or moderately satisfied with Governor Brownback s efforts than those who were ic or ic (Figure 12). Respondents who voted in 2010 were more likely to feel very satisfied or very dissatisfied with governor s efforts than those who did not vote (Figure 13). Figure 10: Satisfaction Levels with Governor s and State Party Leaders Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy Satisfaction with Brownback's efforts to improve Kansas economy (n=858) 9.5% 27.5% 22.4% 15.2% 25.4% Satisfaction with leaders' ideas to improve Kansas economy (n=842) % 14.7% 23.9% Satisfaction with ic leaders' ideas to improve Kansas economy (n=821) 5.5% 22.3% 30.8% 21.7% 19.7% Very Satisfied Moderately Satisfied Neutral Moderately Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Question: How satisfied are you with Governor Brownback s and state party leaders efforts to improve the health of the Kansas economy? 14

23 Figure 11: Satisfaction Levels with Governor s Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Education % Less than high school (n=4) 19.9% 11.8% 24.7% 9.7% 10.2% 7.9% High school diploma or equivalency (n=186) % 25.8% 28.9% Some college (n=225) 15.8% 23.7% 27.6% 16.7% 25. Associate or technical (n=76) 25.8% 19.4% 25.8% 12.4% Bachelor's (n=186) 42.7% 16.5% 16.5% 17.2% 15.5% 8.7% Master's or law (n=103) 34.5% 24.1% 20.7% 3.4% Doctoral (n=29) Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 12: Satisfaction Levels with Governor s Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Party Affiliation 5.4% 7.1% 14.9% 12.8% 20.8% % 41.7% 27.4% (n=168) % 25.5% 17.6% % 13.6% 22.9% % 15.7% 9.6% % 1.2% % 0.9% (n=114) 24.8% (n=125) 18.1% 32.6% (n=144) 50.6% 21. (n=81) 45.1% 11.8% (n=51) 61.1% (n=108) Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied 15

24 Figure 13: Satisfaction Levels with Governor s Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Voting Behavior % 16.3% 19.2% 14.7% % 26.8% 29.8% 10.4% 5.8% Voted in 2010 (n=723) Did not vote in 2010 (n=104) Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied Respondent s satisfaction with Kansas ic Party leaders efforts to improve the health of the Kansas economy was significantly associated with the age, gender, income, and party affiliation variables. Except for the youngest age group (18-24 years), younger respondents were less likely to feel very satisfied or moderately satisfied with Kansas ic Party leaders efforts. About one third (33.9%) of respondents who were 65 years old or older felt very satisfied or moderately satisfied with Kansas ic Party leaders efforts, while 13.9% of respondents who were years old felt so (Figure 14). Compared with male respondents, female respondents were more likely to feel very satisfied or moderately satisfied with ic Party leaders efforts (Figure 15). Respondents with lower family income were more likely to feel very satisfied or moderately satisfied with ic Party leaders efforts than those with higher family income (Figure 16), and respondents who were s or ic were more likely to be very satisfied or moderately satisfied with ic Party leaders efforts than respondents who were or (Figure 17). 16

25 Figure 14: Satisfaction Levels with ic Party Leaders Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Age 20.9% 18.4% 21.5% 21.4% 16.7% years (n=6) 18.6% 25.3% 46.5% 37.9% 29.6% 11.6% 17.2% 2.3% 1.1% 3.7% 5.3% 7.5% years (n=43) years (n=87) 25.2% 23.5% years (n=135) 27.8% 21.9% years (n=187) 19.8% 29.6% 26.4% 65 years and over (n=318) Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 15: Satisfaction Levels with ic Party Leaders Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Gender % 16.5% 19.3% 25.1% 33.3% 29.3% % 5.9% Male (n=355) Female (n=424) Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied 17

26 Figure 16: Satisfaction Levels with ic Party Leaders Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Income % 14.3% 31.4% 34.3% 5.7% 5.1% % 3.6% Less than $10,000 (n=35) 18.4% 21.2% 21.2% 17.6% 14.3% 20.4% 32.7% 23.5% 22.2% $10,000 - $24,999 (n=98) 20.2% 20.2% 32.3% $25,000 - $34,999 (n=99) 25.3% 27.3% $35,000 - $49,999 (n=99) 21.8% 35.2% 21.8% $50,000 - $74,999 (n=165) 33.7% 24.5% 18.4% $75,000 - $99,999 (n=98) $100,000 - $149,999 (n=69) $150,000 or more (n=31) Figure 17: Satisfaction Levels with ic Party Leaders Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Party Affiliation 9.2% % 19.4% 19.4% 26.1% 51.6% 17.4% 6.5% 4.3% 3.2% Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied % 29.1% 28.5% 20.2% 20.9% 7.6% 1.3% 0.9% 7.6% 0.8% 4.3% (n=158) 15.6% 28.4% 34.9% (n=109) 29.4% 26.9% 35.3% (n=119) 22.3% 22.3% 30.2% (n=139) 5.2% 3.9% % 11.8% 11.8% 23.4% 44.2% 13. (n=77) 39.2% 37.3% 7.8% (n=51) 27.5% 42.2% 16.7% (n=102) Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied Respondents with different education, party affiliations, and races varied in their satisfaction with Party leaders efforts to improve the health of the Kansas economy. Respondents were more likely to feel very or moderately satisfied with Party leaders efforts when they had lower levels of education (Figure 18), were s or (Figure 19), or were white (Figure 20). 18

27 Figure 18: Satisfaction Levels with Party Leaders Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Education % 19.5% % 12.2% 26.1% 27.1% 23.6% % 30.6% 18.5% 21.2% 34.7% 25.7% 44.4% Very Dissatisfied 14.8% Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Less than high school (n=5) 32.1% 10.3% 7.2% High school diploma or equivalency (n=184) 33.9% Some college (n=221) 30.6% 2.8% Associate or technical (n=72) 28.3% 7.1% Bachelor's (n=184) 17.8% 18.8% 25.9% 3. Master's or law (n=101) 14.8% Doctoral (n=27) Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 19: Satisfaction Levels with Party Leaders Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Party Affiliation % 7.8% % 21.6% (n=167) % 25.7% 45.1% 8. (n=113) 13.1% 14.8% 32.8% 36.9% 21.6% 13.6% 14.4% 14.3% 8.6% 7.7% 2.5% 2.9% % (n=122) 25.9% 17.3% 32.4% (n=139) 54.3% 23.5% (n=81) 28.6% 26.5% 28.6% (n=49) 61.5% 14.4% (n=104) Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied 19

28 Figure 20: Satisfaction Levels with Party Leaders Efforts to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Race % 14.7% 24.5% 30.7% 6.2% White (n=742) % 8.3% Black or African American (n=12) % 14.3% 14.3% Biracial (n=4) Asian (n=7) American Indian (n=5) % Other (n=25) Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied Respondents were also asked how concerned they were that the Kansas economy would seriously threaten them or their families welfare. About seventy percent (69.5%) of respondents were either very concerned or moderately concerned (Figure 21). Respondent s concern was significantly associated with the age, education, gender, family income, and party affiliation variables. As shown by Figures 22, 23, and 24, respondents were more likely to feel very concerned or moderately concerned when they were older, less educated, or female. Respondents who had lower family income, or identified themselves as s or ic were also more likely to be very concerned or moderately concerned (Figures 25 and 26). Figure 21: Concern with the Threat from the Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals or Families Welfare Concerned that the Kansas economy will threaten your or family's welfare % 18.5% 11.9% Very Concerned Moderately Concerned Slightly Concerned Not Concerned Question: How concerned are you that the Kansas economy will seriously threaten you or your family s welfare in the coming year? 20

29 Figure 22: Concerns with the Threat from the Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals or Families Welfare by Age 14.6% 7.4% 7.7% 11.1% 13.8% % 33.3% 28.7% 23.8% 17.6% 13.8% Not Concerned % 33.6% 33.7% 37.7% Slightly Concerned % 16.7% 31.3% 20.8% 31.9% % 34.7% Moderately Concerned Very Concerned years (n=6) years (n=43) years (n=87) years (n=135) years (n=187) 65 years and over (n=318) Figure 23: Concerns with the Threat from the Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals or Families Welfare by Education % 33.3% 9.8% 12.8% 15.2% 20.7% 34.8% 26.9% 3.8% 17.7% 34.2% 14.2% 11.4% 16.8% 22.9% 45.2% 36.2% 20.7% 44.8% Not Concerned Slightly Concerned Less than high school (n=6) 40.2% 39.6% High school diploma or equivalency (n=204) Some college (n=227) 44.3% Associate or technical (n=79) 23.9% Bachelor's (n=197) 29.5% Master's or law (n=105) 27.6% 6.9% Doctoral (n=29) Moderately Concerned Very Concerned 21

30 Figure 24: Concerns with the Threat from the Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals or Families Welfare by Gender % 31.7% 30.2% Male (n=355) 16.2% 37.4% 37.8% Female (n=424) 8.5% Not Concerned Slightly Concerned Moderately Concerned Very Concerned Figure 25: Concerns with the Threat from the Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals or Families Welfare by Income % 5.4% 7.6% 10.3% 14.3% 17.1% 21.4% % 13.1% 11.9% 10.7% 15.9% 20.3% 18.4% 38.3% 37.9% 41.7% 17.3% 22.7% 22.9% 31.4% Not Concerned Slightly Concerned % 43.8% 32.7% 29.9% 29.1% 41.3% 18.7% % Moderately Concerned Very Concerned Less than $10,000 (n=39) $10,000 - $24,999 (n=112) $25,000 - $34,999 (n=105) $35,000 - $49,999 (n=107) $50,000 - $74,999 (n=177) $75,000 - $99,999 (n=103) $100,000 - $149,999 (n=75) $150,000 or more (n=35) 22

31 Figure 26: Concerns with the Threat from the Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals or Families Welfare by Party Affiliation % 12.3% 12.4% 16.3% % 20.7% 30.7% 32.3% 32.8% 38.3% 27.6% 40.5% 32.3% 23.3% 4.8% 5.9% 6.2% 14.3% 17.6% % 31.4% 32.7% 45.1% % Not Concerned Slightly Concerned Moderately Concerned Very Concerned (n=174) (n=120) (n=130) (n=153) (n=84) (n=51) (n=113) Section 3: Taxes Kansas has three primary revenue sources: income tax, sales tax, and property tax. Although the most commonly expressed preference was to leave all tax rates at their current levels, 16.4% of respondents thought that income tax should be significantly or somewhat increased. More than twenty percent (21.7%) of respondents thought that sales tax should be significantly or somewhat increased. More than half (52.2%) of respondents thought that property tax should be somewhat or significantly decreased (Figure 27). Respondents with different education and party affiliations varied in their opinions on income tax increase. The higher the respondent s education level, the more likely he or she was to support income tax increase (Figure 28). Respondents who were strong s, s or ic were more likely to say the income tax should be somewhat or significantly increased than respondents, those, and independent voters (Figure 29). 23

32 Figure 27: Opinions on Changes of Income Tax, Sales Tax, and Property Tax Sales tax (n=892) Income tax (n=882) Property tax (n=879) 2.2% 2.8% 0.7% 5.2% 19.5% 13.6% 41.9% 48.9% % 21.2% 23.8% % 10.9% Significantly Somewhat Remain the Same Somewhat Significantly Question: Kansas has three primary revenue sources: income tax, sales tax, and property tax. Thinking of the current Kansas economy, do you believe that each of the following taxes should be significantly increased, somewhat increased, remain the same, somewhat decreased, or significantly decreased? Figure 28: Opinions on Income Tax Change by Education % 33.3% % % 29.7% 50.8% 49.8% % 26.9% % 17.6% % 14.3% 32.1% 35.7% Significantly Somewhat Remain the Same Somewhat 2 1 Less than high school (n=6) 26.5% % 11.5% 8.7% % 2.6% 4.1% 2.9% High school diploma or equivalency (n=197) Some college (n=229) Associate or technical (n=78) Bachelor's (n=194) Master's or law (n=102) 7.1% Doctoral (n=28) Significantly 24

33 Figure 29: Opinions on Income Tax Change by Party Affiliation % 26.4% % 15.4% 12.8% 29.2% 29.1% 7.3% % 12.2% % Significantly Somewhat % 6.3% 1.1% (n=174) 57.9% 11.6% (n=121) 44.6% 44.6% (n=130) 10.8% 2.7% (n=148) 48.8% 24.4% 7.3% (n=82) (n=50) 45.9% 25.2% 7.2% (n=111) Remain the Same Somewhat Significantly Respondents opinions on sales tax increase were significantly related to education, gender, family income, race, and voting behavior in As the education level increased, the percentage of respondents who supported significant increase of sales tax also increased. The percentage of respondents who supported sales tax to be somewhat increased also followed the same pattern among respondents who did not have doctoral s (Figure 30). Male respondents and those who voted in 2010 were more likely to support sales tax to be somewhat increased or significantly increased (Figures 31 and 34). Among respondents whose family income was less than $100,000 in 2011, those with higher family income were more likely to support sales tax to be somewhat increased or significantly increased. Those respondents whose families earned $100,000 or more in 2011 were less likely to support a sales tax increase than those whose family income was between $75,000 and $99,999, but more likely to support a sales tax increase than those whose family income was less than $75,000 (Figure 32). Except for respondents who indicated they were of other races, white respondents were the most likely to support a sales tax increase (Figure 33). Respondents who voted in 2010 were also more likely to support a sales tax increase (Figure 34). 25

34 Figure 30: Opinions on Sales Tax Change by Education % % 22.8% 7.8% 24.7% % 9.2% 17.3% 2.9% 3.4% 13.5% 17.2% 45.2% Significantly Somewhat % 46.8% % 58.6% Remain the Same Somewhat % Less than high school (n=6) 12.4% 1.5% 1.7% 2.6% 2.6% 2.9% 3.4% High school diploma or equivalency (n=202) % Some college (n=231) Associate or technical (n=77) 23.5% Bachelor's (n=196) 35.6% Master's or law (n=104) 17.2% Doctoral (n=29) Significantly Figure 31: Opinions on Sales Tax Change by Gender % 10.2% 19.4% 22.8% 45.9% 48.4% 24.4% 16.6% 2.6% 1.9% Male (n=355) Female (n=424) Significantly Somewhat Remain the Same Somewhat Significantly 26

35 Figure 32: Opinions on Sales Tax Change by Income % 31.7% 36.6% 7.3% Less than $10,000 (n=41) 11.8% 11.8% 26.4% 46.4% 15.5% $10,000 - $24,999 (n=110) 19.6% 47.1% 48.1% 18.6% 19.8% 2.9% 1.9% % 1.3% 2.7% $25,000 - $34,999 (n=102) 7.5% 22.6% $35,000 - $49,999 (n=106) 3.4% 18.1% 48.6% 46.6% % $50,000 - $74,999 (n=177) 8.7% 9.2% 12.6% $75,000 - $99,999 (n=103) 18.4% 32.4% 43.4% 27.6% 24.3% $100,000 - $149,999 (n=76) 2.7% 37.8% $150,000 or more (n=37) Significantly Somewhat Remain the Same Somewhat Significantly Figure 33: Opinions on Sales Tax Change by Race % % % 62.5% Significantly Somewhat % 28.5% Remain the Same Somewhat % 7.7% 2.1% White (n=794) 7.7% Black or African American (n=13) 27.5% 20. Biracial (n=4) Asian (n=8) American Indian (n=5) Other (n=25) Significantly 27

36 Figure 34: Opinions on Sales Tax Change by Voting Behavior % 19.9% 48.9% 20.9% 15.5% % Voted in 2010 (n=747) 14.7% 28.4% 37.9% Did not vote in 2010 (n=116) Significantly Somewhat Remain the Same Somewhat Significantly Respondents with different family incomes and party affiliations had different opinions on property tax change. In general, respondents who had higher family income were more likely to support a property tax decrease (Figure 35). Respondents who were strong s, s, or ic were more likely to support a property tax increase (Figure 36). Figure 35: Opinions on Property Tax Change by Income % % 32.4% 26.7% 23.4% 31.7% 31.8% % 36.4% 29.7% 11.8% 30.3% 16.7% 36.1% Significantly Somewhat Remain the Same % 37.1% 37.6% 38.3% 40.9% 48.5% 48.7% 38.9% Somewhat Significantly 1 Less than $10,000 (n=40) 7.6% % 5.6% 4.5% 9.2% % 1.1% 2.8% $10,000 - $24,999 (n=105) $25,000 - $34,999 (n=101) $35,000 - $49,999 (n=107) $50,000 - $74,999 (n=176) $75,000 - $99,999 (n=101) $100,000 - $149,999 (n=76) $150,000 or more (n=36) 28

37 Figure 36: Opinions on Property Tax Change by Party Affiliation % 26.4% % 15.4% 12.8% 29.2% 29.1% 7.3% % 12.2% % Significantly Somewhat % 6.3% 1.1% (n=174) 57.9% 11.6% (n=121) 44.6% 44.6% (n=130) 10.8% 2.7% (n=148) 48.8% 24.4% 7.3% (n=82) (n=50) 45.9% 25.2% 7.2% (n=111) Remain the Same Somewhat Significantly Tax increases and reductions can be targeted at different types of people or businesses. More than half (51.5%) of respondents thought taxes on small businesses should be decreased. In contrast, 57.7% of respondents believed that taxes on large corporations should be increased. Almost one-third (31.9%) of respondents thought that taxes on the middle class should be decreased, while only 9.1% said taxes on the top income earners should be decreased (Figure 37). Respondents with different education and family income levels differed in their opinions of tax changes on middle class. Respondents with higher education were more likely to support a tax increase on the middle class (Figure 38). In general, respondents who had higher family income were less likely to support decreasing taxes on the middle class (Figure 39). 29

38 Figure 37: Tax Changes on Different Groups Taxes on large corporations 57.7% 31.3% 10.9% Taxes on top income earners Taxes on middle class Taxes on small businesses 4.6% % 63.5% 44.5% 35.1% 51.5% 31.9% 9.1% Remain the Same Question: Tax increases and reductions can be targeted at different people or businesses. Please tell us whether you think taxes on the following groups should increase, remained the same, or decrease. Figure 38: Tax Change on Middle Class by Education % 34.8% 32.5% 22.1% 13.8% 13.8% % % % 72.1% Remain the Same % 1 Less than high school (n=6) 1.9% 2.2% 3.9% 5.8% High school diploma or equivalency (n=203) Some college (n=230) Associate or technical (n=76) Bachelor's (n=194) 17.2% 17.2% Master's or law (n=104) Doctoral (n=29) 30

39 Figure 39: Tax Change on Middle Class by Income % 40.9% 40.4% 28.3% 28.6% 27.5% % 5 Remain the Same % 54.5% 55.8% 68.9% 66.3% 68.6% 73.7% 59.5% % 4.5% 3.8% 2.8% 5.1% 3.9% 1.3% Less than $10,000 (n=41) $10,000 - $24,999 (n=110) $25,000 - $34,999 (n=104) $35,000 - $49,999 (n=106) $50,000 - $74,999 (n=175) $75,000 - $99,999 (n=102) $100,000 - $149,999 (n=76) 5.4% $150,000 or more (n=37) Respondent s opinion of tax change on large corporations was significantly related with the gender and family income variables. Female respondents were more likely to support a tax increase on large corporations. Almost two-third (66.2%) of female respondents felt that taxes on large corporations should be increased, whereas 48.1% of male respondents felt so (Figure 40). In general, respondents who had higher family income were less likely to support a tax increase on large corporations (Figure 41). 31

40 Figure 40: Tax Change on Large Corporation by Gender % 35.6% 48.1% Male (n=355) 6.3% 27.5% 66.2% Female (n=424) Remain the Same Figure 41: Tax Change on Large Corporation by Income % % 26.2% 9.8% 31.4% 4.9% % 13.5% % % % Remain the Same % % % % 1 Less than $10,000 (n=36) $10,000 - $24,999 (n=107) $25,000 - $34,999 (n=102) $35,000 - $49,999 (n=103) $50,000 - $74,999 (n=168) $75,000 - $99,999 (n=96) $100,000 - $149,999 (n=75) $150,000 or more (n=36) Respondents with different party affiliations varied in their opinions of tax changes on top income earners, large corporations, and small businesses. Respondents who were strong s, s, independent ic and independent were more likely to support tax increases on top income earners (Figure 42), large corporations (Figure 43), and, to a lesser, small businesses than s and respondents (Figure 44). 32

41 Figure 42: Tax Change on Top Income Earners by Party Affiliation % 7.6% 10.1% 10.1% 25.5% 41.2% 49.6% 1.2% % 5.3% 13.3% 23.5% % 28.1% 51.3% 40.3% 64.4% 87.8% 68.6% 81.4% Remain the Same (n=167) (n=119) (n=129) (n=149) (n=82) (n=51) (n=113) Figure 43: Tax Change on Large Corporation by Party Affiliation % 11.5% 19.7% 8.7% 24.7% 1.3% 10.1% % 13.9% % % 33.3% 49.6% 40.9% 39.4% 66.7% 88.6% % Remain the Same 1 (n=165) (n=113) (n=127) (n=150) (n=79) (n=50) (n=108) 33

42 Figure 44: Tax Change on Small Businesses by Party Affiliation % 51.7% 56.1% 54.1% 35.8% % 5 Remain the Same % 41.7% 41.9% 60.5% % % 1.7% 2.3% 4.1% 3.7% 4. (n=169) (n=116) (n=132) (n=148) (n=81) (n=50) 9. (n=111) Section 4: State Government In 2012, 40.3% of respondents felt that the Kansas state government s performance was at least good (Figure 45). Respondents with different education and party affiliations rated the Kansas state government differently. In general, respondents with higher education were less likely to feel the state government was poor or very poor (Figure 46). ic respondents and those ic were less likely to think the state government was excellent or very good than respondents, those, and independent voters (Figure 47). Figure 45: Rating of Kansas State Government (n=893) The Kansas state government is 1.6% % 26.1% 20.7% 12.9% Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Question: In general, how would you rate the Kansas State Government? 34

43 Figure 46: Rating of Kansas State Government by Education % 12.4% 18.5% 8.9% 20.4% 24.1% 15.1% 19.8% 19.4% 25.9% Very Poor Less than high school (n=5) 28.7% 36.4% 31.4% 4.1% 7.1% 3.8% 8.9% 2.2% 5.8% 2.5% 2.1% High school diploma or equivalency (n=195) 26.5% Some college (n=226) 32.9% 27.8% Associate or technical (n=79) 21.4% 34.9% Bachelor's (n=192) 26.2% 27.2% 7.4% 21.4% Master's or law (n=103) 29.6% 29.6% 3.7% 3.7% Doctoral (n=27) Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent Figure 47: Rating of Kansas State Government by Party Affiliation % 5.1% 7.1% 8.7% 12.1% 25.3% 41.4% 14.4% 3.4% 6.8% 1.7% 6.3% 5.4% 1.3% (n=174) 15.4% 27.4% 43.6% (n=117) 19.7% 28.3% 38.6% (n=127) 27.5% 24.8% 32.2% (n=149) 32.1% 23.1% 30.8% 20.5% 16.7% (n=78) 21.2% 28.8% % (n=52) 31.9% 26.5% 23.9% 15.9% (n=113) Very poor Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent 35

44 When asked to evaluate the performance of the Kansas legislature, 3% of respondents were very satisfied and 27% were moderately satisfied. Almost forty percent (39.6%) of respondents were very satisfied or moderately satisfied with the performance of Governor Brownback (Figure 48). Figure 48: Satisfaction with Performance of the Kansas Legislature and Governor Satisfaction with Governor Brownback's performance (n=891) Satisfaction with Kansas legislature's performance (n=890) 11.7% % 27.3% 19.8% 13.1% 20.4% 27.5% 22.2% 2 8 Very Satisfied Moderately Satisfied Neutral Moderately Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Question: How satisfied are you with the overall performance of the Kansas legislature and Governor Brownback? Respondents with different education and party affiliations differed in their satisfaction with the Kansas legislature. Respondents with higher education were more likely to be very or moderately dissatisfied with the Kansas legislature (Figure 49). ic respondents and those ic were more likely to feel very dissatisfied or moderately dissatisfied with the Kansas legislature than respondents and those independent voters (Figure 50). Respondent s satisfaction with Governor Brownback was associated with the education, party affiliation, and voting behavior variables. Respondents with higher education were more likely to be very or moderately dissatisfied with Governor Brownback (Figure 51). respondents and independent voters were more likely to be very or moderately satisfied with Governor Brownback than ic respondents and those ic (Figure 52). About forty percent (40.3%) of respondents who voted in 2010 felt very satisfied or moderately satisfied with Governor Brownback, 6% higher than those who did not vote (Figure 53). 36

45 Figure 49: Satisfaction with Performance of the Kansas Legislature by Education 16.1% 19.4% 11.5% 26.4% % 18.1% 17.6% 32.1% 20.7% % Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied % 34.2% 30.8% 28.2% 21.2% % 24.4% % % 13.8% Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied % 15.2% 17.2% Less than high school (n=6) 3.6% 2.6% 3.8% 2.6% 2.9% High school diploma or equivalency (n=193) Some college (n=227) Associate or technical (n=78) Bachelor's (n=193) Master's or law (n=105) Doctoral (n=29) Figure 50: Satisfaction with Performance of the Kansas Legislature by Party Affiliation % 12.7% 18.5% 52.6% 8.1% (n=173) 12.7% 11.6% 15.3% 36.4% 21.8% 33.9% 20.9% 18.1% 20.1% 19.2% 1.7% 3.9% 7.2% % (n=118) 26.4% 37.2% (n=129) 20.8% 24.2% 32.9% (n=149) 48.2% 26.5% (n=83) 36.5% 17.3% 26.9% (n=52) 46.4% 20.9% (n=110) Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied 37

46 Figure 51: Satisfaction with Performance of Governor Brownback by Education 22.3% 25.3% 16.7% % 10.5% 18.1% % 14.8% 25.6% 16.3% 48.6% 48.3% Very Dissatisfied 11.4% 13.8% Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Less than high school (n=4) 33.2% 30.6% % High school diploma or equivalency (n=193) Some college (n=229) 28.2% 7.7% Associate or technical (n=78) 27.6% 14.3% Bachelor's (n=196) % 13.3% 10.3% 7.6% 10.3% Master's or law (n=105) Doctoral (n=29) Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 52: Satisfaction with Performance of Governor Brownback by Party Affiliation % 4.5% 15.9% % 15.5% 8.5% 25.4% 15.5% 20.9% 37.3% 36.4% 23.5% 19.5% 25.5% 57.3% 23.2% 44.2% 13.5% % Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied % (n=176) 12.7% 11.6% (n=118) (n=129) 26.2% 5.4% (n=149) 13.4% 4.9% 1.2% (n=82) 11.5% 5.8% (n=52) 6.3% 11.7% 1.8% (n=111) Very Satisfied 38

47 Figure 53: Satisfaction with Performance of Governor Brownback by Voting Behavior % 17.6% 17.6% 12.5% 17.5% 30.6% 28.1% % 9.3% Voted in 2010 (n=743) Did not vote in 2010 (n=108) Very Dissatisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Neutral Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied When asked about Kansas government spending, 17.7% of respondents thought it should be increased, 31.8% thought it should remain the same, and 50.4% thought it should be decreased (Figure 54). Respondent s opinion on Kansas government spending was associated with the education, Hispanic origin, and party affiliation variables. Except for respondents whose education level was less than high school, the higher a respondent s education level, the more likely he or she was to support increase of government spending (Figure 55). Respondents of Hispanic origin were much more likely to support spending increases than respondents who were not Hispanic (Figure 56). ic respondents and those ic were more likely to support spending increases than respondents, and those who were and independent (Figure 57). Figure 54: Opinion on Kansas Government Spending Kansas government spending should be 17.7% 31.8% 50.4% Remain the Same Question: Do you believe that Kansas government spending should be increased, remain the same, or decreased? 39

48 Figure 55: Opinion on Kansas Government Spending by Education % 54.5% 61.1% 47.8% 34.7% 35.7% % 28.6% Remain the Same % 31.9% 33.5% 23.6% % Less than high school (n=6) 8.8% 12. High school diploma or equivalency (n=182) Some college (n=209) 15.3% Associate or technical (n=72) 21.2% Bachelor's (n=184) 33.7% 35.7% Master's or law (n=98) Doctoral (n=28) Figure 56: Opinion on Kansas Government Spending by Hispanic Origin Of Hispanic origin (n=5) 30.9% 17.1% Not of Hispanic origin (n=696) 52. Remain the same 40

49 Figure 57: Opinion on Kansas Government Spending by Party Affiliation % 53.6% 63.2% 56.2% 28.6% % 25.5% 28.3% % Remain the Same % 3.6% 6.3% (n=165) 40.2% (n=112) 26.4% 10.4% 13.9% (n=125) 29.9% (n=137) 41.4% (n=70) 24.5% (n=49) 46.2% (n=106) Section 5: Energy Policy The survey asked about the importance for Kansas to develop coal, oil, wind, and nuclear energy. Respondents support for the development of wind energy was very high. About three quarters (75.3%) of respondents thought it was extremely important or important for Kansas to develop wind energy. Support for developing oil energy ranked second. Support for developing nuclear energy was the lowest. Less than forty percent (37.1%) of respondents felt it was extremely important or important to develop nuclear energy (Figure 58). 41

50 Figure 58: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Coal, Oil, Wind, and Nuclear Energy Wind 49.6% 25.7% 15.6% 9.1% Oil 32.8% 34.1% 24.3% 8.8% Coal 19.4% 31.5% 28.8% 20.3% Nuclear 15.8% 21.3% 31.4% 31.5% Extremely Somewhat Not At All Question: How important is it for Kansas to devote resources to the development of the following energy sources? Respondents with different education varied in their opinion on the development of coal. In general, respondents with higher education were more likely to think it was not at all important or only somewhat important for Kansas to develop coal (Figure 59). Respondent s opinion on the development of oil energy was related to the age, education, and income variables. Respondents who were 35 years to 64 years old were less likely to think it was extremely important or important for Kansas to develop oil than those who were younger and older (Figure 60). In general, respondents with higher education were less likely to think it was extremely important or important for Kansas to develop oil than those with lower education (Figure 61), as were respondents with higher family income as compared with those with lower family income (Figure 62). 42

51 Figure 59: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Coal by Education % 16.7% 11.7% 28.7% % 16.9% 29.3% 32.4% 21.3% 20.8% 22.1% 24.7% 27.3% 29.9% % 17.2% % 27.6% 24.1% 20.7% Not At All Somewhat Extremely Less than high school (n=6) High school diploma or equivalency (n=188) Some college (n=225) Associate or technical (n=77) Bachelor's (n=186) Master's or law (n=100) Doctoral (n=29) Figure 60: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Oil by Age 8.5% 11.8% 9.4% 10.7% 6.4% % 25.5% 32.3% % 18.4% Not At All % 48.9% 33.3% 23.9% 35.5% 36.3% Somewhat % 37.7% 25.9% 38.8% Extremely years (n=6) years (n=43) years (n=87) years (n=135) years (n=187) 65 years and over (n=318) 43

52 Figure 61: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Oil by Education % 4.1% 7.4% 10.5% 9.9% 16.3% 21.6% 28.9% 30.2% 15.5% 13.8% 20.7% % 16.7% 35.2% 44.4% 33.8% 26.3% 37.2% 34.2% 34.9% % 41.4% 24.1% Not At All Somewhat Extremely Less than high school (n=6) High school diploma or equivalency (n=196) Some college (n=231) Associate or technical (n=76) Bachelor's (n=192) Master's or law (n=103) Doctoral (n=29) Figure 62: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Oil by Income 5.1% 5.5% % 8.6% 9.7% 9.7% 8.3% % 19.3% 24.8% 38.5% 31.2% 38.5% % 37.6% 23.6% 25.9% 40.6% 32.2% 27.4% 33.3% 19.4% % 30.6% 30.6% % 29.2% 30.6% Not At All Somewhat Extremely Less than $10,000 (n=39) $10,000 - $24,999 (n=109) $25,000 - $34,999 (n=101) $35,000 - $49,999 (n=106) $50,000 - $74,999 (n=174) $75,000 - $99,999 (n=103) $100,000 - $149,999 (n=72) $150,000 or more (n=36) 44

53 Respondents with different gender, income, and races differed in their opinions on the development of wind energy. Almost eighty percent (78.5%) of female respondents thought it was extremely important or important to develop wind energy in Kansas, 7.5% higher than that of male respondents (Figure 63). In general, respondents with higher family income were less likely to feel it was extremely important or important to develop wind energy in Kansas (Figure 64). Respondents who were African American or biracial were less likely to say it was extremely important or important to develop wind energy than other racial groups (Figure 65). Figure 63: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Wind Energy by Gender % 16.6% 24.9% 6.1% 15.4% 26.6% Not At All Somewhat % 51.9% Extremely Male (n=355) Female (n=424) 45

54 Figure 64: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Wind Energy by Income % 4.5% 4.9% 7.5% 13.1% 12.5% 12.2% 7.7% 12.6% 16.7% 12.3% 13.1% 18.3% % 20.7% 31.4% % % 16.2% 37.8% Not At All Somewhat % 47.1% 46.2% 54.3% 44.2% 41.9% 37.8% Extremely Less than $10,000 (n=39) $10,000 - $24,999 (n=111) $25,000 - $34,999 (n=102) $35,000 - $49,999 (n=106) $50,000 - $74,999 (n=175) $75,000 - $99,999 (n=104) $100,000 - $149,999 (n=74) $150,000 or more (n=37) Figure 65: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Wind Energy by Race % 25.6% 16.7% % % 12.5% 16.7% Not At All Somewhat % White (n=790) % Black or African American (n=12) % Biracial (n=4) Asian (n=8) American Indian (n=4) 58.3% Other (n=24) Extremely 46

55 Respondent s opinion on the development of nuclear energy was related to gender. Male respondents were more likely to support the development of nuclear energy. More than forty percent (43.7%) of male respondents thought it was extremely important or important for Kansas to devote resources to the development of nuclear energy. Less than a third (31.5%) of female respondents thought so (Figure 66). Respondents with different party affiliations varied in their opinions on energy policies. In general, ic respondents and those ic were less likely to say it was extremely important or important for Kansas to devote resources to the development of coal, oil, and nuclear energy, but more likely to say it was extremely important or important for Kansas to devote resources to the development of wind energy (Figures 67, 68, 69, and 70). Figure 66: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Nuclear Energy by Gender Male (n=355) 29.6% 33.7% Not At All 26.7% 23.7% % 19.6% 11.9% Female (n=424) Somewhat Extremely 47

56 Figure 67: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Coal by Party Affiliation % 10.3% 22.5% 34.2% 16.5% 17.1% 33.1% 26.7% 42.9% % Not At All % 37.6% 32.3% 36.3% 29.9% % Somewhat % (n169) 17.9% 18.1% 19.9% (n=117) (n=127) (n=146) 16.9% 10.4% (n=77) 18. (n=50) 25.2% 6.5% (n=107) Extremely Figure 68: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Oil by Party Affiliation % 2.5% 13.7% 25.6% 26.9% 37.2% 58.3% 8.6% % 29.7% 36.9% 39.8% % % 40.5% % 24.1% Not At All Somewhat % 21.9% 36.9% 16.5% % Extremely (n175) (n=121) (n=128) (n=149) (n=79) (n=50) (n=112) 48

57 Figure 69: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Wind by Party Affiliation % 26.7% % 20.7% 24.8% 13.8% 10.5% 13.2% 17.7% 28.9% 23.8% 3.7% 5.9% 8.6% 9.8% 19.8% 19.4% 1.8% 2.8% 32.1% Not At All Somewhat % 48.8% 44.6% 47.4% 67.9% 54.9% 63.3% Extremely (n176) (n=121) (n=130) (n=152) (n=81) (n=51) (n=109) Figure 70: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Nuclear by Party Affiliation % 30.2% 28.9% 18.9% (n159) 35.1% 28.1% (n=114) 27.6% 36.6% 21.1% 14.9% 14.6% (n=123) 39.7% 17.6% 19.9% (n=136) 32.5% 22.8% % 25.5% 15. (n=80) 47.1% 17.6% 9.8% 11.1% (n=51) 44.4% 33.3% 11.1% (n=99) Not At All Somewhat Extremely 49

58 Section 6: Public Policy Issues Respondents were asked if the current levels of state funding for grades kindergarten through high school (K 12), state colleges and universities, and social services (such as senior and disability services) should be increased, kept at the same level, or decreased. As Figure 71 shows, 57.9% of respondents thought the state funding for K 12 should be increased. The majority (48.8%) preferred to keep funding for higher education at its current level. Forty-seven percent (47%) of respondents thought the state funding for social services should be increased. Figure 71: Opinion on State Funding for State Education and Social Services Funding for K-12 schools 57.9% 34.1% 8. Funding for social services % 7.1% Funding for state colleges and universities 35.3% 48.8% 15.9% Kept at the Same Level Question: Think about the current level of state funding for grades kindergarten through high school, for state colleges and universities, and for social services, such as senior and disability services, would you say that the amount of funding should be increased, kept at the same level, or decreased? Female respondents opinions on state funding for education and social services were all significantly different from male respondents opinions. Female respondents were more likely to support state funding increases for education and social services than male respondents (Figures 72, 73, and 74). Respondents with different party affiliations also varied in their opinions on state funding for education and social services. Compared with respondents and those, ic respondents and those ic were more likely to support state funding increases for education and social services (Figures 75, 76, and 77). 50

59 Figure 72: Opinion on State Funding for Grades Kindergarten through High School by Gender % 8.1% 41.1% 28.2% 50.7% 63.8% Male (n=355) Female (n=424) Kept at the Same Level Figure 73: Opinion on State Funding for State Colleges and Universities by Gender % 13.3% 46.9% 52.1% 39.8% 28.7% Male (n=355) Female (n=424) Kept at the Same Level 51

60 Figure 74: Opinion on State Funding for Social Services by Gender % % 50.8% 53.3% 39.3% Male (n=355) Female (n=424) Kept at the Same Level Figure 75: Opinion on State Funding for Grades Kindergarten through High School by Party Affiliation 12.7% 7.6% 12.7% % 3.9% 2.7% 26.6% 19.6% 18.6% % 41.5% 36.5% 32.6% % 76.5% 78.8% Kept at the Same Level % 50.8% 58.3% 1 (n173) (n=118) (n=126) (n=144) (n=79) (n=51) (n=113) 52

61 Figure 76: Opinion on State Funding for State Colleges and Universities by Party Affiliation 18.7% 17.1% 25.2% 15.9% 5.2% % % 55.6% 52.8% 44.8% 48.1% % Kept at the Same Level % 27.4% % 46.8% % (n171) (n=117) (n=127) (n=145) (n=77) (n=50) (n=112) Figure 77: Opinion on State Funding for Social Services by Party Affiliation % 10.2% 55.2% 55.9% 15.6% 51.6% 4.1% 3.8% 2.6% 28.8% 32.7% 23.2% 45.9% % 33.9% 32.8% % 67.3% 65.2% Kept at the Same Level 1 (n174) (n=118) (n=128) (n=148) (n=80) (n=52) (n=115) 53

62 Besides gender and party affiliation, the age and education variables were also related to respondent s opinion on state funding for grades kindergarten through high school (K-12). In general, as the age variable increased, the percentage of respondents who supported increased state funding for K- 12 decreased (Figure 78). Except for the respondents with less than high school education, respondents with higher education were more likely to support a state funding increase for K-12 (Figure 79). Respondent s opinion on state funding for state colleges and universities was also positively associated with the education variable. Respondents with higher education in general were more likely to support state funding increase (Figure 80). Besides gender and party affiliation, age, income, and voting behavior were also associated with respondent s opinion on state funding for social services. Except for respondents who were 65 years old and older, older respondents were more likely to support state funding increases for social services (Figure 81). Respondents with higher family income were less likely to support increased state funding (Figure 82). Respondents who voted in 2010 were also less likely to support increased state funding than those who did not vote (Figure 83). Figure 78: Opinion on State Funding for Grades Kindergarten through High School by Age % 8.7% 5.1% 8.6% 9.1% 33.3% 20.5% 32.8% 32.6% 32.8% 36.8% % 72.7% 58.7% % 54.1% Kept at the Same Level years (n=6) years (n=43) years (n=87) years (n=135) years (n=187) 65 years and over (n=318) 54

63 Figure 79: Opinion on State Funding for Grades Kindergarten through High School by Education 8.2% 9.9% 5.5% 9.2% 4.8% 7.1% % 30.9% 30.1% 35.4% % % 59.2% 64.4% 55.4% 70.2% 71.4% Kept at the Same Level 1 Less than high school (n=5) High school diploma or equivalency (n=195) Some college (n=223) Associate or technical (n=73) Bachelor's (n=195) Master's or law (n=104) Doctoral (n=28) Figure 80: Opinion on State Funding for State Colleges and Universities by Education % % 11.1% 9.7% 17.9% % 47.8% 55.6% 52.6% 40.8% Kept at the Same Level % % 33.2% 27.8% 36.6% 36.3% Less than high school (n=5) High school diploma or equivalency (n=194) Some college (n=226) Associate or technical (n=72) Bachelor's (n=190) Master's or law (n=103) Doctoral (n=28) 55

64 Figure 81: Opinion on State Funding for Social Services by Age 16.7% 10.9% 15.6% 7.1% 6.1% 5.3% % 41.4% 39.1% 51.4% % Kept at the Same Level % 43.3% 51.4% 54.8% 43.3% % years (n=6) years (n=43) years (n=87) years (n=135) years (n=187) 65 years and over (n=318) Figure 82: Opinion on State Funding for Social Services by Income 2% 4% 7% 4% 9% 1 14% 17% % 42% 37% 54% 52% 47% 51% 42% 5 Kept at the Same Level % 55% 56% 42% 44% 35% 42% 1 Less than $10,000 (n=41) $10,000 - $24,999 (n=106) $25,000 - $34,999 (n=102) $35,000 - $49,999 (n=104) $50,000 - $74,999 (n=176) $75,000 - $99,999 (n=101) $100,000 - $149,999 (n=74) $150,000 or more (n=36) 56

65 Figure 83: Opinion on State Funding for Social Services by Voting Behavior % 6.1% 35.1% 47.6% 58.8% 45.1% Voted in 2010 (n=743) Did not vote in 2010 (n=114) Kept at the Same Level The survey asked about respondents opinion on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of The telephone survey started before June 28, 2012, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued the decision to uphold the act. The mail survey started after June 28, Before the Supreme Court issued the decision, the telephone survey asked if the respondent supports or opposes the effort to repeal the act. After the Supreme Court s decision, both telephone and mail surveys asked respondents if they believed the Supreme Court had made the right decision. Before the Supreme Court issued the decision, 46.2% of the respondents who participated in the telephone survey strongly supported or somewhat supported the effort to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Figure 84). After the Supreme Court issued the decision, 61.2% of respondents thought that the Supreme Court had made the wrong decision to uphold the act (Figure 85). Figure 84: Opinion on Effort to Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (n=426) Repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 38.2% % 6.1% 32.2% ly Support Somewhat Support Neutral Somewhat Oppose ly Oppose Question: In early 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives proposed a bill to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, commonly known as Obama Care. How strongly do you support or oppose the effort to repeal this legislation? 57

66 Figure 85: Opinion on the Supreme Court s Decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (n=423) 7.1% 31.7% The Supreme Court made the right decision 61.2% The Supreme Court made the wrong decision I am not sure Question: in June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on the legality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, commonly known as Obama Care. Do you believe the Supreme Court made the right decision? Respondent s opinion on the effort to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was associated with gender, party affiliation and voting behavior. Male respondents were more likely to strongly support or somewhat support the effort to repeal the Act than female respondents (Figure 86). ic respondents and those ic were less likely to strongly support or somewhat support the effort to repeal the Act than those who were, independent, and independent (Figure 87). Those respondents who voted in 2010 were more likely to strongly support or somewhat support the effort to repeal the Act than those who did not vote (Figure 88). Figure 86: Opinion on Effort to Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by Gender % 31.4% 4.1% 7.9% 10.7% 5.3% 16.5% 9.9% % Male (n=355) Female (n=424) ly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support ly Support 58

67 Figure 87: Opinion on Effort to Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by Party Affiliation % 18.8% 2.1% 4.2% 8.4% 5.3% 20.8% 63.2% (n=95) 2.1% 11.9% 54.2% (n=48) 25.4% % 10.2% 47.5% (n=59) 8.2% 23.3% 12.3% 30.1% (n=73) % 8.6% 2.9% 17.1% (n=35) % 5.4% 22.2% 5.6% 5.6% (n=18) 55.4% 12.2% 9.5% 17.6% (n=74) ly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support ly Support Figure 88: Opinion on Effort to Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by Voting Behavior % 5.6% 12.5% 6.6% % 35.7% ly oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral % 16.7% Somewhat Suppor Stongly Support Voted in 2010 (n=376) Did not vote in 2010 (n=42) 59

68 Respondents with different education and party affiliations varied in their opinions on the Supreme Court s decision to uphold the Patient and Affordable Care Act. Respondents who had higher education were more likely to think the Supreme Court made the right decision to uphold the Act (Figure 89). ic respondents and those ic were more likely to think the Supreme Court made the right decision than those who were, independent, and independent (Figure 90). Figure 89: Opinion on the Supreme Court s Decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by Education % % 68.5% 56.1% 64.1% 44.7% 4.3% 14.3% The Supreme Court made the wrong decision Not Sure % 6.7% 3.6% 6.8% % 27.9% 29.3% 29.1% 51.1% 57.1% The Supreme Court made the right decision Less than high school (n=4) High school diploma or equivalency (n=90) Some college (n=111) Associate or technical (n=41) Bachelor's (n=103) Master's or law (n=47) Doctoral (n=14) 60

69 Figure 90: Opinion on the Supreme Court s Decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by Party Affiliation % 85.3% % 8.5% 13.3% 11.1% 75.6% % % The Supreme Court made the wrong decision Not Sure % 10.3% 10. (n=81) 4.4% (n=68) 10. (n=70) 38. (n=71) (n=45) 56.3% (n=32) (n=33) The Supreme Court made the right decision Kansas passed its voter ID law in 2011, which required people to show a passport or a birth certification when they register to vote and present a photo ID at the polls, although the voter registration requirement will not apply to the 2012 election. The survey asked if the respondent currently had a government-issued photo identification. Figure 91 shows that 97.9% of respondents currently had a government-issued photo identification. The survey continued asking those who did not have a photo identification if they intended to obtain one prior to the November 2012 election. More than half (55.6%) of respondents said they intended to obtain one (Figure 92). Respondents who were 65 years old and older were much less likely to have a government-issued photo identification than those who were younger than 65 years (Figure 93). Respondents who did not vote in 2010 were less likely to have such identification than those who voted (Figure 94). African American and those who consider themselves as being in other racial group were also less likely to have such identification than other racial groups (Figure 95). 61

70 Figure 91: Possession of a Government-issued Photo Identification (n=878) 2.1% I currently possess a government-issued photo identification 97.9% I do not possess a government-issued photo identification Question: Do you currently possess a government-issued photo identification (for example, driver s license, passport, state identification card)? Figure 92: Intension to Obtain a Government-issued Photo Identification (n=18) 44.4% 55.6% I intend to obtain a photo identification prior to the November 2012 election I do not intend to obtain a photo identification prior to the November 2012 election Question: Do you intend to obtain a photo identification prior to the November 2012 election? 62

71 Figure 93: Possession of a Government-issued Photo Identification by Age 99% 98% 0.7% 1.5% 3.6% I do not possess a government-issued photo identification 97% 96% 95% % 98.5% 96.4% I currently possess a governmentissued photo identification 94% years (n=6) years (n=47) years (n=94) years (n=142) years (n=201) 65 years and over (n=366) Figure 94: Possession of a Government-issued Photo Identification by Education 3.9% 0.4% % I do not possess a government-issued photo identification % 99.6% % I currently possess a governmentissued photo identification 2 1 Less than high school (n=5) High school diploma or equivalency (n=203) Some college (n=234) Associate or technical (n=78) Bachelor's (n=196) Master's or law (n=104) Doctoral (n=29) 63

72 Figure 95: Possession of a Government-issued Photo Identification by Race 1.5% 98% 96% 7.7% 94% 92% 98.5% % I do not possess a government-issued photo identification 88% 86% 92.3% 88.5% I currently possess a government-issued photo identification 84% 82% White (n=798) Black or African American (n=13) Biracial (n=4) Asian (n=8) American Indian (n=5) Other (n=26) Figure 96: Possession of a Government-issued Photo Identification by Voting Behavior % 4.3% 98.3% 95.7% Voted in 2010 (n=757) Did not vote in 2010 (n=117) I do not possess a government-issued photo identification I currently possess a government-issued photo identification 64

73 Respondents were also asked how difficult it would be if they were asked to provide their birth certificate. Almost twenty percent (19.3%) of respondents indicated that it would be somewhat or very difficult for them to provide their birth certificate (Figure 97). In general, respondents with higher family income were less likely to feel it was somewhat difficult or very difficult to provide their birth certificate (Figure 98). ic respondents and those ic were more likely to feel it would be somewhat difficult or very difficult to provide their birth certificate than those respondents who were, independent, and independent (Figure 99). Figure 97: Difficulty to Provide Birth Certification (n=874) How difficult is it to provide your birth certification 56.6% % 5.8% Very Easy Somewhat Easy Somewhat Difficult Very Difficult Question: If you were asked to provide your birth certification right now, would it be very easy, somewhat easy, somewhat difficult, or very difficult? Figure 98: Difficulty to Provide Birth Certification by Income % 9.8% 7.4% 15.2% % 25.9% 27.6% 26.8% 7.5% 18.9% 20.8% 2.8% 7.8% 6.8% 5.4% 14.7% 7.8% 8.1% 8.1% 16.2% 22.5% 26.6% 24.3% Very Difficult Somewhat Difficult % 55.2% 52.8% 55.9% 61.8% 68.9% 62.2% Somewhat Easy Very Easy 1 Less than $10,000 (n=41) $10,000 - $24,999 (n=108) $25,000 - $34,999 (n=105) $35,000 - $49,999 (n=106) $50,000 - $74,999 (n=177) $75,000 - $99,999 (n=102) $100,000 - $149,999 (n=74) $150,000 or more (n=37) 65

74 Figure 99: Difficulty to Provide Birth Certification by Party Affiliation % % 4.6% 4.9% 9.1% 10.7% 13.1% 8.5% 24.7% 23.3% 22.9% 28.9% 23.8% 24.7% 9.6% 9.6% 21.2% 19.3% 13.5% 23.7% Very Difficult Somewhat Difficult % 55.4% 57.7% 64.1% 45.7% 55.8% 47.4% Somewhat Easy Very Easy 1 (n176) (n=121) (n=130) (n=153) (n=81) (n=52) (n=114) Section 7: Presidential Election The survey asked respondents who they would vote for if the 2012 Presidential Election had been held on the day they were surveyed. Respondents were most likely (44.3%) to indicate that they would vote for Mitt Romney. Less than a third (30.2%) said they would vote for Barack Obama (Figure 100). Male respondents were more likely to vote for Mitt Romney, while female respondents were more likely to vote for Barack Obama (Figure 101). Except for those respondents whose family income was $150,000 or more in 2011, respondents with higher family income were more likely to vote for Mitt Romney (Figure 102). ic respondents and those ic were much more likely to vote for Barack Obama than respondents and those. respondents and those were much more likely to vote for Mitt Romney than ic respondents and those ic. Among independent voters, 31.1% would vote for Mitt Romney and 23% would vote for Barack Obama (Figure 103). Among both those respondents who voted in 2010 and those who did not voted in 2010, people were more likely to vote for Mitt Romney than Barack Obama. More than a third (34.2%) of those respondents who did not vote in 2010 were undecided or did not know who to vote for when they were surveyed, which was much higher than the percentage of undecided respondents who voted in 2010 (Figure 104). 66

75 Figure 100: Vote in the 2012 Presidential Election 17.7% 7.8% 44.3% Mitt Romney Barack Obama 30.2% Undecided/Don t Know Other Question: If the 2012 Presidential Election were held today, who would you vote for? Figure 101: Vote in the 2012 Presidential Election by Gender % 7.2% 13.4% 21.7% 26.3% 52.1% 33.4% 37.7% Other Undecided/Don't Know Barack Obama Mitt Romney Male (n=355) Female (n=424) 67

76 Figure 102: Vote in the 2012 Presidential Election by Income % 35.9% 30.8% 13.2% 18.9% 32.1% 5.8% 8.6% 7.5% 7.8% % 11.5% 10.8% % 28.7% 27.5% % 27.9% 8.3% 19.4% 27.8% Other Undecided/Don't Know Barack Obama % 35.8% 40.4% % 53.9% 53.3% 44.4% Mitt Romney Less than $10,000 (n=39) $10,000 - $24,999 (n=106) $25,000 - $34,999 (n=104) $35,000 - $49,999 (n=105) $50,000 - $74,999 (n=174) $75,000 - $99,999 (n=102) $100,000 - $149,999 (n=75) $150,000 or more (n=36) Figure 103: Vote in the 2012 Presidential Election by Party Affiliation % 7.6% 11.1% 12.8% % 17.6% 15.9% 10.1% 7.9% 33.1% 2.4% % 23.1% 2.7% 8.1% Other % 64.7% 65.1% % 53.8% 85.6% Undecided/Don't Know Barack Obama 2 1 (n177) (n=119) (n=126) 31.1% (n=148) 2.4% (n=82) 13.5% (n=52) 3.6% (n=111) Mitt Romney 68

77 Figure 104: Vote in the 2012 Presidential Election by Voting Behavior % 14.9% 12.6% Other % Undecided/Don't Know 45.9% % Barack Obama Mitt Romney Voted in 2010 (n=743) Did not vote in 2010 (n=111) Section 8: Changes from 2009 to 2012 Kansas Speaks has asked a set of questions every year since Respondents answers in 2012 to 11 of those questions were significantly different from those in This section presents those significant differences. Respondents ratings of Kansas as a place to live and the Kansas state government in 2012 declined as compared with In 2009, 64.2% of respondents rated Kansas as an excellent or very good place to live in. However, the percentage dropped to 53.1% in The percentage of respondents who felt Kansas was a poor or very poor place to live in was 1.5% in 2009, increasing to 3.1% in 2012 (Figure 105). When rating the Kansas state government, 51.2% of respondents thought the Kansas state government was at least good and 17.1% thought it was poor or very poor in In 2012, 47.4% of respondents thought the Kansas state government was at least good and 22.8% rated it as poor or very poor (Figure 106). 69

78 Figure 105: Rating of Kansas as an Overall Place to Live: % 1.2% % 6.9% 8.1% 27.3% 41.5% 22.7% (n=1218) 2012 (n=750) Question: How would you rate Kansas as a place to live? 32.7% 34.1% Very poor Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Figure 106: Rating of Kansas State Government: % 6.9% 13.4% 15.9% 31.7% 29.8% 41.9% 38.7% 7.8% 7.1% 1.5% 1.6% 2009 (n=1166) 2012(n=723) Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent Question: How would you rate the Kansas state government? 70

79 Compared with 2009, respondents became more concerned in 2012 that the Kansas economy would seriously threaten their or their families welfare in the coming year. In 2012, 35% of respondents answered very concerned and 34.9% answered moderately concerned. In 2009, the percentages were 28.7% and 33.2% respectively (Figure 107). Figure 107: Concerns with the Threat from the Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals or Families Welfare: % 12.8% 23.1% 33.2% 28.7% 17.2% 34.9% (n=1214) 2012 (n=725) Not Concerned Slightly Concerned Moderately Concerned Very Concerned Question: How concerned are you that the Kansas economy will seriously threaten you or your family s welfare in the coming year? Respondents opinions of tax changes on top income earners, middle class, and large corporations in 2012 were significantly different from those in In 2012, 55% of respondents felt that the tax on top income earners should be increased, which was 13.7% higher than 2009 (Figure 108). The percentage of respondents who supported decreased taxes on the middle class dropped from 41.1% in 2009 to 30.1% in The percentage of respondents who felt the taxes on the middle class should remain the same increased by 10.7% from 2009 to 2012 (Figure 109). In 2009, 51.9% of respondents thought the taxes on large corporations should be increased. In 2012, 58.3% of respondents thought corporate taxes should be increased (Figure 110). 71

80 Figure 108: Tax Change on Top Income Earners: % 41.1% 41.3% 2009 (n=1169) 2012 (n=700) Question: Please tell us whether you think tax on the top income earners should increase, remain the same, or decrease. 9.3% 35.7% 55. Remain the Same Figure 109: Tax Change on Middle Class: % 54.5% 30.1% 65.2% 4.4% 4.7% 2009 (n=1192) 2012 (n=718) Remain the Same Question: Please tell us whether you think tax on the top middle class should increase, remain the same, or decrease. 72

81 Figure 110: Tax Change on Large Corporations: % 11.1% 33.3% 51.9% % 58.3% Remain the Same Question: Please tell us whether you think tax on the top large corporation should increase, remain the same, or decrease. Respondents opinions on devoting resources to energy sources in 2012 also differed significantly from The percentage of respondents who supported the development of oil increased from 2009 to In 2012, 34.6% of respondents felt it was extremely important for Kansas to devote resources to the development of oil, increasing from 28.4% in 2009 (Figure 111). Respondent s support of wind energy and nuclear energy declined from 2009 to In 2009, 62.6% of respondents felt it was extremely important to devote resources to the development of wind energy and only 3.2% felt it was not at all important. In 2012, 48.1% of respondents felt it was extremely important to develop wind energy, and the percentage of respondents who felt it was not at all important rose to 9.7% (Figure 112). In 2009, 51.2% of respondents felt it was extremely important or important to devote resources to the development of nuclear energy. In 2012, 35% of respondents felt so. In four years, the percentage of respondents who felt it was not at all important to devote resources to the development of nuclear energy increased from 20.7% to 33.1% (Figure 113). 73

82 Figure 111: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Oil: % 8.1% 24.9% % 34.3% 28.4% 34.6% 2009 (n=1192) 2012 (n=700) Not At All Somewhat Extremely Question: How important is it for Kansas to devote resources to the development of oil? Figure 112: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Wind Energy: % 10.3% 9.7% 16.5% % Not At All % Somewhat % % Extremely (n=1205) 2012 (n=701) Question: How important is it for Kansas to devote resources to the development of wind energy? 74

83 Figure 113: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Nuclear Energy: % 33.1% 8 Not At All % Somewhat % % Extremely % 2009 (n=1128) 2012 (n=640) Question: How important is it for Kansas to devote resources to the development of nuclear energy? Respondents opinions on state funding for K-12 and higher education also changed significantly from 2009 to The percentage of respondents who supported increased state funding for grades kindergarten through high school increased from 52.4% to 58% from 2009 to 2012, while the percentage of respondents who support unchanged state funding declined from 40.9% to 33.4% (Figure 114). Support for state funding for state colleges and universities declined between 2009 and In 2009, 43.3% of respondents said that state funding for state colleges and universities should be increased. In 2012, only 37.4% said so. The percentage of respondents who supported decreased funding for colleges and universities increased from 9.1% in 2009 to 15.4% in 2012 (Figure 115). 75

84 Figure 114: Opinion on State Funding for Grades Kindergarten through High School: % 8.5% 40.9% 33.4% 52.4% (n=1169) 2101 (n=691) Kept at the Same Level Question: Think about the current level of state funding for grades kindergarten through high school, would you say that the amount of funding should be increased, kept at the same level, or decreased? Figure 115: Opinion on State Funding for State Colleges and Universities: % 47.6% 43.3% 15.4% 47.2% 37.4% 2009 (n=1153) 2012 (n=687) Kept at the Same Level Question: Think about the current level of state funding for state colleges and unversities, would you say that the amount of funding should be increased, kept at the same level, or decreased? 76

85 Appendix A: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample Gender Hispanic Origin Race Household Income Education Age Social Indicators Sample (n=870) Study Population* Male 45.1% 49.6% Female 54.9% 50.4% (n=767) 0.8% 10.5% (n=861) White 93.5% 83.8% Black or African American 1.5% 5.9% Biracial 0.5% 3. Asian 0.9% 2.4% American Indian 0.6% 1. Other % (n=761) Less than $10, % 7. $10,000-$24, % 17.6% $25,000- $34, % 11.5% $35,000-$49, % 15.5% $50,000-$74, % 19.9% $75,000-$99, % 12. $100,000-$149, % $150,000 or more 4.9% 5.8% (n=857) Less Than High School 0.7% 10.8% High School Diploma 23.9% 27.8% Some College 27.4% 24.2% Associates or Technical Degree 9.2% 7.4% Bachlor's Degree 23.1% 19.3% Masters, Law Degree, or Doctoral Degree 15.7% 10.5% (n=865) Years Old 0.7% 13.6% Years Old 5.5% 17.8% Years Old % Years Old 16.6% 19.1% Years Old 23.2% 15.6% 65 Years and Older 42.9% 17.7% 77

86 Appendix A (cont.): Demographic Characteristics of the Sample Political Party Affiliation Years Living in Kansas Participation in 2010 Election Social Indicators Sample (n=838) Study Population* 21.2% n/a 14.6% n/a Leaning 15.8% n/a 18.5% n/a Leaning 10. n/a 6.2% n/a 13.7% n/a (n=863) 1 to 20 Years 14.9% n/a 21 to 40 Years 25.1% n/a 41 to 60 Years 30.1% n/a More Than 60 Years 29.8% n/a (n=877) Voted 86.5% n/a Did Not Vote 13.5% n/a (n=118) Registered to Vote Yes 54.2% n/a No 45.8% n/a * Source: U.S. Census Bureau 78

87 Appendix B: Mail Survey Questionnaire 79

88 KANSAS SPEAKS When Kansas speaks, Kansas listens. For the following questions, please circle the number corresponding to your answer. Skip any question for which you have no opinion or response. Q1. In general, how would you rate Kansas as a place to live, the Kansas economy, and the Kansas state government? Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor As a place to live, Kansas is The Kansas economy is The Kansas state government is Q2. How satisfied are you with the overall performance of the Kansas legislature and Governor Brownback? Overall performance of the Kansas legislature Overall performance of Governor Brownback Very Satisfied Moderately Satisfied Neutral Moderately Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Q3. How satisfied are you with Governor Brownback s and state party leaders efforts to improve the health of the Kansas economy? Governor Brownback's efforts to improve the health of the Kansas economy Kansas ic Party leaders' ideas to improve the health of the Kansas economy Kansas Party leaders' ideas to improve the health of the Kansas economy Very Satisfied Moderately Satisfied Neutral Moderately Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Q4. How concerned are you that the Kansas economy will seriously threaten you or your family s welfare in the coming year? Very Concerned Moderately Concerned Slightly Concerned Not Concerned