The answer? Yes, or almost certainly yes.  The record, according to John Wildermuth, is 28%:

In the state’s nonpresidential primary last June, nearly 60 percent of the votes came in by mail but total turnout was only 28 percent, the lowest ever for a statewide vote.(SF Chronicle 5/17/09)

From early turnout results, the numbers have been shockingly low. The last numbers I’ve heard had LA at 6% turnout, even with some municipal elections going on. Those numbers will certainly climb with the post-work rush, but I’m not expecting anything huge.

So…Congratulations Arnold, I’m sure you are very proud of that record.

UPDATE: I meant to include a few resources. Here is the SoS results page. The mobile version here. And if the site goes down, you can check the results on Twitter.

And, more evidence of low turnout. From the LA Times:

By 4 p.m., voter turnout in Los Angeles County was 11.57%. In a comparable statewide election in 2005, turnout had reached 27% by the same time.(LA Times 5/19/09)

UPDATE 2: The thing about this extremely low turnout is that it says that the voters aren’t all “enraged” about tax revolution. They just want the politicians to do their job, and they want the Governor to show some real leadership. In other words, they want a functioning government.

I am working for the No on 1A Campaign, however, I am not working for any other No campaign. My opinions should not be construed to be those of the campaign, especially when it comes to the remaining measures.

As the California Democratic Party endorsements showed, progressives are struggling with the May 19 elections.  On one side, you see some pretty progressive elected officials, like Bass and Steinberg, and organizations, like the California Teachers Association. Yet, it is clear that none of these fronts are really unified.  Not all of the legislators are supporting the May 19 props. Asms. Sandre Swanson and Warren Furutani are opposing Prop 1A.  And the education community is not unified either:

“It’s not comfortable to be in the position of disagreeing with our state organization,” said Betty Olson-Jones, president of the Oakland Education Association, which represents about 2,800 teachers, counselors, nurses and librarians in the city’s public schools.

Still, Olson-Jones said, “We really cannot, in all good conscience, support any measure that would cap and cut vital social services, because they are needed by our students.”(OakTrib 4/29/09)

In fact, Bay Area Progressives seem to be a major problem for the Yes on 1A-F campaign.  The Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, a large and active bunch, went no on the whole lot, and the San Francisco Young Democrats went No on A, C, D, and E. And yesterday, the SF Bay Guardian, the progressive newspaper of the Bay Area, went no on all 6 measures. They make similar points to the Calitics endorsements, specifically that the measures will “lock the state in a fiscal straitjacket.”

We’ve listened to both sides, researched the measures in depth, and concluded that the best choice for Californians is to reject Propositions 1A through 1F. The proposal may address (most of) this year’s budget woes and keep the state running for a while, but it will create a fiscal straightjacket on the order of Proposition 13 that will damage California and undermine any progressive policy hopes for many, many years into the future. If the voters accept this deal today, they’ll come to regret it. (SFBG 4/29/09)

The Guardian also acknowledged the growing progressive discontent with the measures. It was on full display at the CDP convention, and doesn’t look to be quieting down. The Prop 1A spending cap just makes the package a difficult pill to swallow, and the Props D & E cuts to vital services don’t  endear themselves to progressives either.

UPDATE: This Field Poll (PDF) on the fact that Californians don’t want more taxes but don’t want cuts is quite relevant to the discussion. Of twelve subject areas that Field asked about, Californians only support cuts to prisons (59%…oh, me too!) and state parks (51%).  Other spending programs are widely supported, with law enforcement cuts (23%) and education cuts (25%) being the least popular.

Somewhere along the line, Californians have come to believe that we can have our cake and eat it too. That we can have impossibly low taxes and yet still provide the services that our state needs.  Where, oh where, could they have heard that.  Oh, right, that’s pretty much the Bush Administration in a nutshell, and how Arnold came to power in 2003 with his “car tax” rhetoric. The negative effects of the constant tax-cutting message of people like Arnold and those on his right flank has come home to roost.  And we as Democrats have been shy about telling any other story.  The poll bears this out by reporting that about 70% of Californians support the 2/3 majority for taxation.

California is in an impossible situation, the voters expect everything, and expect to pay nothing for it. I’m beginning to think that Treasurer Lockyer wasn’t really that far off when he said that higher ed institutions might not open up next year.  That might not even be the worst of our problems if Californians don’t begin to conceptualize how government actually works.

The No on 1D/E Campaign, which recently merged, have released an internal poll (PDF) from Tulchin Research.  The data is consistent with a previous PPIC poll. Prop 1D (First 5) is slightly ahead 48-42, and Prop 1E (Mental health) is down 44-46. More spin details from the No campaign:

   *  A solid majority of voters describe the measures as “deceptive” (56%).

   * Nearly half of the voters are concerned they will “cut funding for children and the mentally ill” (45%).

   * There are nearly twice as many voters who strongly oppose Props 1D & 1E.

   * The voters most likely to cast a ballot are more likely to vote NO than less likely voters.

   * “Definite” voters reject Proposition 1E (42% Yes – 48% NO).

   * “Definite” voters split their opinion on Proposition 1D (46% Yes – 45% NO).

   * Nearly 1 in 5 voters (18%) believe that Props 1D & 1E hurt programs and services, particularly for children and the mentally ill.

   * 16% of voters describe the initiatives as “deceptive” or “dishonest.”

Either way, being below 50% at this point is just a really bad position. It is possible to make up some grouund with a ton of money, but the yes campaign will be swimming upstream from the general drift towards no.  In a low-turnout special election, that drift is likely to be more visible.

All I’m saying is that if I were on the “Budget Reform Now” campaign, I’d be getting pretty nervous right now.