California's 16th Congressional District election, 2018
- General election: Nov. 6
- Voter registration deadline: Oct. 22
- Early voting: Oct. 8 - Nov. 5
- Absentee voting deadline: Postmark Nov. 6
- Online registration: Yes
- Same-day registration: Yes
- Voter ID: No
- Poll times: 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Seven-term incumbent Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.) defeated former congressional staffer Elizabeth Heng (R) in the general election for California's 16th Congressional District on November 6, 2018.
Costa previously faced Heng in the June 5, 2018, top-two primary, receiving 53 percent of the vote to Heng's 47 percent.
Although the district supported the Democratic presidential nominee by 17 points or more between 2008 and 2016, Costa had faced a competitive general election challenge before. In 2014, he avoided losing his seat to Johnny Tacherra (R), winning by two percentage points, 51 percent to 49 percent.[1]
All 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives were up for election in 2018. The Democratic Party gained a net total of 40 seats, winning control of the chamber. This race was identified as a 2018 battleground that might have affected partisan control of the U.S. House in the 116th Congress. Heading into the election, the Republican Party was in the majority holding 235 seats to Democrats' 193 seats, with seven vacant seats. Democrats needed to win 23 GOP-held seats in 2018 to win control of the House. From 1918 to 2016, the president’s party lost an average of 29 seats in midterm elections.
As of the 2010 redistricting cycle, California's 16th Congressional District was located in the central portion of the state and included Merced County, portions of Fresno County, and southern Madera County.[2]
For more information about the top-two primary election, click here.
Candidates and election results
General election
General election for U.S. House California District 16
Incumbent Jim Costa defeated Elizabeth Heng in the general election for U.S. House California District 16 on November 6, 2018.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | Jim Costa (D) | 57.5 | 82,266 | |
| Elizabeth Heng (R) | 42.5 | 60,693 | ||
| Total votes: 142,959 | ||||
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Nonpartisan primary election
Nonpartisan primary for U.S. House California District 16
Incumbent Jim Costa and Elizabeth Heng advanced from the primary for U.S. House California District 16 on June 5, 2018.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | Jim Costa (D) | 53.0 | 39,527 | |
| ✔ | Elizabeth Heng (R) | 47.0 | 35,080 | |
| Total votes: 74,607 | ||||
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Candidate profiles
Party: Democratic
Incumbent: Yes
Political office: U.S. House of Representatives (assumed office: 2005), California State Senate (1995-2002), California State Assembly (1978-1994)
Biography: Costa was a third-generation family farmer in the San Joaquin Valley. He earned his B.A. in political science in 1974 from California State University, Fresno. He served in elected office, from the state legislature to the U.S. House of Representatives. He was a member of the Blue Dog Coalition and the Committee on Natural Resources.[3][4][5]
- Costa emphasized what he said were the results of his four decades of service in San Joaquin Valley: securing $290 million for water and $300 million for veterans. He said that the district "need[ed] leaders with the experience to find common sense solutions to the problems we face."[3][6]
- Costa focused on Valley water issues, including proposing an alternative way of funding water storage by allowing locally owned water facilities regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers to use non-federal funds.[7][8]
- Costa said that Heng missed votes in 10 elections and was missing in action in the Valley.[9]
Party: Republican
Incumbent: No
Political office: None
Biography: Heng attended Stanford University, where she was elected student body president, and earned her MBA from the Yale University School of Management. Heng served as an inauguration director for President Donald Trump (R) in 2016 and worked for the House Foreign Affairs Committee with Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.).[10][11]
- Heng said her parents' escape from Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge regime and her academic accomplishments under adverse conditions showed that the district's homes and cities could also be improved under difficult conditions.[12]
- Heng said her philosophy of governing was centered around the American Dream. She said she would sponsor legislation to reduce the national debt, oppose property tax increases, and advocate for infrastructure in the district to restore its agricultural business.[13]
- Heng released opposition ads saying that Costa had failed the district for 40 years and was more aligned with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi than his constituents.[14][15]
Polls
- See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls
| California's 16th Congressional District, 2018: Costa vs. Heng | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Poll sponsor | Undecided/Other | Margin of error | Sample size | |||||||||||||||
| SurveyUSA September 14-19, 2018 | KFSN-TV | 51% | 40% | 9% | +/-5.2 | 515 | |||||||||||||
| Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. | |||||||||||||||||||
Campaign finance
The chart below contains data from financial reports submitted to the Federal Election Commission.
| Name | Party | Receipts* | Disbursements** | Cash on hand | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jim Costa | Democratic Party | $1,856,798 | $2,363,583 | $109,890 | As of December 31, 2018 |
| Elizabeth Heng | Republican Party | $1,298,559 | $1,267,198 | $31,361 | As of December 31, 2018 |
|
Source: Federal Elections Commission, "Campaign finance data," 2018. This product uses the openFEC API but is not endorsed or certified by the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
* According to the FEC, "Receipts are anything of value (money, goods, services or property) received by a political committee." |
|||||
Satellite spending
Satellite spending, commonly referred to as outside spending, describes political spending not controlled by candidates or their campaigns; that is, any political expenditures made by groups or individuals that are not directly affiliated with a candidate. This includes spending by political party committees, super PACs, trade associations, and 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups.[16][17][18]
This section lists satellite spending in this race reported by news outlets in alphabetical order. If you are aware of spending that should be included, please email us.
Race ratings
- See also: Race rating definitions and methods
Ballotpedia provides race ratings from four outlets: The Cook Political Report, Inside Elections, Sabato's Crystal Ball, and DDHQ/The Hill. Each race rating indicates if one party is perceived to have an advantage in the race and, if so, the degree of advantage:
- Safe and Solid ratings indicate that one party has a clear edge and the race is not competitive.
- Likely ratings indicate that one party has a clear edge, but an upset is possible.
- Lean ratings indicate that one party has a small edge, but the race is competitive.[19]
- Toss-up ratings indicate that neither party has an advantage.
Race ratings are informed by a number of factors, including polling, candidate quality, and election result history in the race's district or state.[20][21][22]
| Race ratings: California's 16th Congressional District election, 2018 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race tracker | Race ratings | ||||||||
| October 30, 2018 | October 23, 2018 | October 16, 2018 | October 9, 2018 | ||||||
| The Cook Political Report | Likely Democratic | Likely Democratic | Likely Democratic | Likely Democratic | |||||
| Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales | Solid Democratic | Solid Democratic | Solid Democratic | Solid Democratic | |||||
| Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball | Likely Democratic | Safe Democratic | Safe Democratic | Safe Democratic | |||||
| Note: Ballotpedia updates external race ratings every two weeks throughout the election season. | |||||||||
District analysis
- See also: The Cook Political Report's Partisan Voter Index
- See also: FiveThirtyEight's elasticity scores
The 2017 Cook Partisan Voter Index for this district was D+9, meaning that in the previous two presidential elections, this district's results were 9 percentage points more Democratic than the national average. This made California's 16th Congressional District the 124th most Democratic nationally.[23]
FiveThirtyEight's September 2018 elasticity score for states and congressional districts measured "how sensitive it is to changes in the national political environment." This district's elasticity score was 1.00. This means that for every 1 point the national political mood moved toward a party, the district was expected to move 1.00 points toward that party.[24]
Noteworthy endorsements
This section lists noteworthy endorsements issued in this election, including those made by high-profile individuals and organizations, cross-party endorsements, and endorsements made by newspaper editorial boards. It also includes a bulleted list of links to official lists of endorsements for any candidates who published that information on their campaign websites. Please note that this list is not exhaustive. If you are aware of endorsements that should be included, please click here.
Campaign advertisements
Jim Costa
Support
|
|
|
Oppose
|
|
Elizabeth Heng
Support
|
|
|
Oppose
|
Campaign themes
These were the policy positions listed on the top candidates' websites, if available.
Jim Costa
| “ |
Valley Water
Agriculture
Housing Crisis
Transportation
Clean Air & Water
Law & Order
Education
Veterans
Health Care
|
” |
| —Costa for Congress[26] | ||
Elizabeth Heng
| “ |
Elizabeth’s philosophy of governing is centered around the American Dream. She believes that we need to provide people with the opportunities and ability to achieve success through hard work and determination. Her brother posted to Facebook on January 20, 2017, '33 years ago my parents [as refugees] came to the United States with nothing but determination. Today we are standing on the same platform with the President. #Progress.' Nowhere else in this world would that statement have been possible. Elizabeth has dedicated her life to public service and wants to continue to protect the fundamental core values of this country. No one in Washington is talking about what we want our country to look like 10 years from now—how do we want to solve these problems? There’s only finger pointing and hostile rhetoric coming from the 24 hour news cycle from our current politicians. She is sick of the noise and lack of solutions. Elizabeth will lead on the future vision for our country and work towards common sense solutions that empower people’s day to day lives, so we can give every American their best shot at accomplishing their dream. Accountability for Members of Congress
Workplace Dignity
Tech & Innovation
Water & Agriculture
Diversity & Freedom
Education & Opportunity
Fiscal Responsibility & the Economy
Business and Jobs
Immigration Reform
Healthcare
Energy & Sustainability
National Security
School Safety
Seniors & Retirement
Veterans
|
” |
| —Elizabeth Heng for Congress[27] | ||
Noteworthy events
Facebook rejection of Heng campaign advertisement
On August 3, 2018, Facebook rejected one of Elizabeth Heng's campaign ads that featured video content about how the Cambodian genocide affected her family. Facebook said the ad did not follow the company's advertisement guidelines. The rejection notice also said, "We don't allow ads that contain shocking, disrespectful or sensational content, including ads that depict violence or threats of violence. Facebook did not note what specific content of the ad violated guidelines.[28]
Heng said, "It is unbelievable that Facebook could have such blatant disregard for the history that so many people, including my own parents, have lived through. I’m sure it is shocking for some people to hear about this kind of injustice, but this is reality."[28]
After five days, Facebook reversed its decision and restored the video, finding that the ad's content used historical imagery in a biographical context.[29]
Watch the ad below:
|
Social media
Twitter accounts
Tweets by RepJimCosta Tweets by Elizabeth Heng
Facebook accounts
Click the icons below to visit the candidates' Facebook pages.
Republican district won by Hillary Clinton
This district was one of 25 Republican-held U.S. House districts that Hillary Clinton (D) won in the 2016 presidential election.[30] Nearly all were expected to be among the House's most competitive elections in 2018.
Click on the table below to see the full list of districts.
Click here to see the 13 Democratic-held U.S. House districts that Donald Trump (R) won.
Pivot Counties
- See also: Pivot Counties by state
There are no Pivot Counties in California. Pivot Counties are counties that voted for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012 and for Donald Trump (R) in 2016. Altogether, the nation had 206 Pivot Counties, with most being concentrated in upper midwestern and northeastern states.
In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton (D) won California with 61.7 percent of the vote. Donald Trump (R) received 31.6 percent. In presidential elections between 1900 and 2016, California voted Republican 53.33 percent of the time and Democratic 43.33 percent of the time. In the five presidential elections between 2000 and 2016, California voted Democratic all five times. In 2016, California had 55 electoral votes, which was the most of any state. The 55 electoral votes were 10.2 percent of all 538 available electoral votes and were 20.4 percent of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the election.
Presidential results by legislative district
The following table details results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections by state Assembly districts in California. Click [show] to expand the table. The "Obama," "Romney," "Clinton," and "Trump" columns describe the percent of the vote each presidential candidate received in the district. The "2012 Margin" and "2016 Margin" columns describe the margin of victory between the two presidential candidates in those years. The "Party Control" column notes which party held that seat heading into the 2018 general election. Data on the results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections broken down by state legislative districts was compiled by Daily Kos.[35][36]
| In 2012, Barack Obama (D) won 58 out of 80 state Assembly districts in California with an average margin of victory of 38.4 points. In 2016, Hillary Clinton (D) won 66 out of 80 state Assembly districts in California with an average margin of victory of 40.3 points. Clinton won 11 districts controlled by Republicans heading into the 2018 elections. |
| In 2012, Mitt Romney (R) won 22 out of 80 state Assembly districts in California with an average margin of victory of 12.2 points. In 2016, Donald Trump (R) won 14 out of 80 state Assembly districts in California with an average margin of victory of 13 points. |
| 2016 Presidential Results by State Assembly District | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Obama | Romney | 2012 Margin | Clinton | Trump | 2016 Margin | Party Control |
| 1 | 39.63% | 57.31% | R+17.7 | 36.09% | 56.75% | R+20.7 | R |
| 2 | 64.68% | 30.51% | D+34.2 | 62.20% | 28.98% | D+33.2 | D |
| 3 | 42.41% | 54.46% | R+12.1 | 39.47% | 53.31% | R+13.8 | R |
| 4 | 63.16% | 33.86% | D+29.3 | 63.03% | 29.95% | D+33.1 | D |
| 5 | 41.27% | 55.92% | R+14.7 | 38.51% | 54.85% | R+16.3 | R |
| 6 | 38.59% | 59.09% | R+20.5 | 41.17% | 52.02% | R+10.9 | R |
| 7 | 67.59% | 29.61% | D+38 | 67.63% | 25.69% | D+41.9 | D |
| 8 | 51.72% | 45.62% | D+6.1 | 51.77% | 41.03% | D+10.7 | D |
| 9 | 60.56% | 37.52% | D+23 | 61.47% | 32.89% | D+28.6 | D |
| 10 | 73.76% | 23.28% | D+50.5 | 75.65% | 17.96% | D+57.7 | D |
| 11 | 60.96% | 36.87% | D+24.1 | 58.86% | 35.17% | D+23.7 | D |
| 12 | 45.19% | 52.50% | R+7.3 | 43.11% | 51.05% | R+7.9 | R |
| 13 | 64.23% | 33.88% | D+30.4 | 62.97% | 31.79% | D+31.2 | D |
| 14 | 68.80% | 28.72% | D+40.1 | 69.55% | 24.47% | D+45.1 | D |
| 15 | 86.82% | 9.56% | D+77.3 | 87.39% | 7.04% | D+80.4 | D |
| 16 | 57.74% | 40.10% | D+17.6 | 64.47% | 29.23% | D+35.2 | R |
| 17 | 87.07% | 9.36% | D+77.7 | 88.12% | 6.95% | D+81.2 | D |
| 18 | 86.89% | 10.23% | D+76.7 | 85.89% | 8.44% | D+77.5 | D |
| 19 | 78.94% | 18.38% | D+60.6 | 81.63% | 13.34% | D+68.3 | D |
| 20 | 75.74% | 22.15% | D+53.6 | 75.52% | 19.12% | D+56.4 | D |
| 21 | 55.61% | 42.03% | D+13.6 | 54.63% | 39.46% | D+15.2 | D |
| 22 | 71.43% | 26.31% | D+45.1 | 75.16% | 19.75% | D+55.4 | D |
| 23 | 43.46% | 54.71% | R+11.2 | 43.95% | 50.78% | R+6.8 | R |
| 24 | 72.16% | 24.96% | D+47.2 | 78.19% | 15.93% | D+62.3 | D |
| 25 | 72.40% | 25.26% | D+47.1 | 73.61% | 20.90% | D+52.7 | D |
| 26 | 41.15% | 56.68% | R+15.5 | 41.54% | 52.93% | R+11.4 | R |
| 27 | 76.36% | 21.54% | D+54.8 | 77.76% | 17.29% | D+60.5 | D |
| 28 | 66.64% | 30.77% | D+35.9 | 70.63% | 23.08% | D+47.6 | D |
| 29 | 69.95% | 26.66% | D+43.3 | 70.00% | 22.96% | D+47 | D |
| 30 | 66.99% | 30.86% | D+36.1 | 66.70% | 27.32% | D+39.4 | D |
| 31 | 61.98% | 36.21% | D+25.8 | 62.13% | 32.93% | D+29.2 | D |
| 32 | 56.20% | 41.81% | D+14.4 | 56.50% | 37.98% | D+18.5 | D |
| 33 | 41.80% | 55.51% | R+13.7 | 40.02% | 54.61% | R+14.6 | R |
| 34 | 33.96% | 63.85% | R+29.9 | 34.07% | 60.21% | R+26.1 | R |
| 35 | 47.82% | 49.42% | R+1.6 | 49.57% | 43.43% | D+6.1 | R |
| 36 | 48.79% | 48.48% | D+0.3 | 49.94% | 43.86% | D+6.1 | R |
| 37 | 60.97% | 36.28% | D+24.7 | 64.27% | 29.21% | D+35.1 | D |
| 38 | 46.73% | 50.84% | R+4.1 | 49.64% | 44.39% | D+5.2 | R |
| 39 | 73.75% | 23.67% | D+50.1 | 74.64% | 19.80% | D+54.8 | D |
| 40 | 53.14% | 44.72% | D+8.4 | 54.08% | 40.01% | D+14.1 | R |
| 41 | 59.74% | 37.72% | D+22 | 62.82% | 31.27% | D+31.5 | D |
| 42 | 44.98% | 52.93% | R+7.9 | 45.61% | 49.70% | R+4.1 | R |
| 43 | 67.35% | 29.62% | D+37.7 | 68.94% | 25.45% | D+43.5 | D |
| 44 | 52.37% | 45.51% | D+6.9 | 57.12% | 36.99% | D+20.1 | D |
| 45 | 63.46% | 34.12% | D+29.3 | 67.36% | 27.39% | D+40 | D |
| 46 | 73.73% | 23.65% | D+50.1 | 76.20% | 18.48% | D+57.7 | D |
| 47 | 71.49% | 26.54% | D+44.9 | 70.10% | 24.80% | D+45.3 | D |
| 48 | 64.08% | 33.44% | D+30.6 | 65.60% | 28.50% | D+37.1 | D |
| 49 | 64.69% | 33.26% | D+31.4 | 67.57% | 27.17% | D+40.4 | D |
| 50 | 70.79% | 26.51% | D+44.3 | 76.72% | 18.33% | D+58.4 | D |
| 51 | 83.48% | 13.50% | D+70 | 84.05% | 10.19% | D+73.9 | D |
| 52 | 65.01% | 32.92% | D+32.1 | 65.78% | 28.71% | D+37.1 | D |
| 53 | 84.64% | 12.59% | D+72 | 84.83% | 9.63% | D+75.2 | D |
| 54 | 83.62% | 13.88% | D+69.7 | 85.15% | 10.12% | D+75 | D |
| 55 | 45.77% | 52.23% | R+6.5 | 49.92% | 44.61% | D+5.3 | R |
| 56 | 62.14% | 36.26% | D+25.9 | 64.21% | 31.24% | D+33 | D |
| 57 | 63.71% | 34.01% | D+29.7 | 65.92% | 28.39% | D+37.5 | D |
| 58 | 70.24% | 27.80% | D+42.4 | 72.54% | 22.26% | D+50.3 | D |
| 59 | 93.24% | 5.19% | D+88 | 90.70% | 5.09% | D+85.6 | D |
| 60 | 51.32% | 46.31% | D+5 | 52.48% | 41.97% | D+10.5 | D |
| 61 | 63.43% | 34.55% | D+28.9 | 62.47% | 31.62% | D+30.9 | D |
| 62 | 80.81% | 17.00% | D+63.8 | 82.05% | 13.06% | D+69 | D |
| 63 | 76.06% | 21.73% | D+54.3 | 77.35% | 17.38% | D+60 | D |
| 64 | 88.74% | 9.98% | D+78.8 | 86.21% | 9.61% | D+76.6 | D |
| 65 | 51.90% | 45.68% | D+6.2 | 56.73% | 37.28% | D+19.4 | D |
| 66 | 54.18% | 43.24% | D+10.9 | 59.97% | 33.60% | D+26.4 | D |
| 67 | 39.61% | 58.33% | R+18.7 | 38.89% | 55.94% | R+17.1 | R |
| 68 | 42.55% | 55.12% | R+12.6 | 49.42% | 44.58% | D+4.8 | R |
| 69 | 67.37% | 30.30% | D+37.1 | 71.94% | 22.33% | D+49.6 | D |
| 70 | 67.38% | 29.93% | D+37.5 | 68.13% | 25.09% | D+43 | D |
| 71 | 38.47% | 59.51% | R+21 | 38.19% | 56.26% | R+18.1 | R |
| 72 | 46.71% | 51.06% | R+4.4 | 51.40% | 43.13% | D+8.3 | R |
| 73 | 38.68% | 59.36% | R+20.7 | 43.89% | 50.38% | R+6.5 | R |
| 74 | 45.14% | 52.42% | R+7.3 | 50.71% | 43.29% | D+7.4 | R |
| 75 | 39.42% | 58.50% | R+19.1 | 43.22% | 50.68% | R+7.5 | R |
| 76 | 48.76% | 49.04% | R+0.3 | 53.11% | 40.38% | D+12.7 | R |
| 77 | 48.25% | 49.83% | R+1.6 | 55.16% | 38.94% | D+16.2 | R |
| 78 | 63.15% | 34.08% | D+29.1 | 67.48% | 25.85% | D+41.6 | D |
| 79 | 61.21% | 36.91% | D+24.3 | 64.24% | 30.04% | D+34.2 | D |
| 80 | 69.47% | 28.67% | D+40.8 | 73.15% | 21.34% | D+51.8 | D |
| Total | 60.35% | 37.19% | D+23.2 | 62.25% | 31.89% | D+30.4 | - |
| Source: Daily Kos | |||||||
District history
2016
Heading into the election, Ballotpedia rated this race as safely Democratic. Incumbent Jim Costa (D) defeated Johnny Tacherra (R) in the general election on November 8, 2016. Costa and Tacherra defeated David Rogers (R) in the top-two primary on June 7, 2016.[37][38]
| Party | Candidate | Vote % | Votes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 58% | 97,473 | ||
| Republican | Johnny Tacherra | 42% | 70,483 | |
| Total Votes | 167,956 | |||
| Source: California Secretary of State | ||||
| Party | Candidate | Vote % | Votes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic |
|
55.9% | 52,822 | |
| Republican | 32.8% | 31,028 | ||
| Republican | David Rogers | 11.2% | 10,606 | |
| Total Votes | 94,456 | |||
| Source: California Secretary of State |
||||
2014
The 16th Congressional District of California held an election for the U.S. House of Representatives on November 4, 2014. Incumbent Jim Costa (D) narrowly defeated Johnny Tacherra (R) in the general election.
| Party | Candidate | Vote % | Votes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 50.7% | 46,277 | ||
| Republican | Johnny Tacherra | 49.3% | 44,943 | |
| Total Votes | 91,220 | |||
| Source: California Secretary of State | ||||
State overview
Partisan control
This section details the partisan control of federal and state positions in California heading into the 2018 elections.
Congressional delegation
- Following the 2016 elections, Democrats held both U.S. Senate seats in California.
- Democrats held 39 of 53 U.S. House seats in California.
State executives
- As of May 2018, Democrats held seven of 10 state executive positions and the remaining three positions were officially nonpartisan.
- The governor of California was Democrat Jerry Brown.
State legislature
- Democrats controlled both chambers of the California State Legislature. They had a 55-25 majority in the state Assembly and a 27-13 majority in the state Senate.
Trifecta status
- California was a state government trifecta, meaning that Democrats held the governorship and majorities in the state house and state senate.
2018 elections
- See also: California elections, 2018
California held elections for the following positions in 2018:
- 1 Senate seat
- 53 U.S. House seats
- Governor
- Seven other state executive positions
- 20 of 40 state Senate seats
- 80 state Assembly seats
- Two state Supreme Court justices
- 35 state Court of Appeals judges
- Local trial court judges
- School board members
Demographics
| Demographic data for California | ||
|---|---|---|
| California | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 38,993,940 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 155,779 | 3,531,905 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 61.8% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 5.9% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 13.7% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 0.7% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0.4% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 4.5% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 38.4% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 81.8% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 31.4% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $61,818 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 18.2% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in California. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
As of July 2016, California had a population of approximately 39,000,000 people, with its three largest cities being Los Angeles (pop. est. 4.0 million), San Diego (pop. est. 1.4 million), and San Jose (pop. est. 1 million).[39][40]
State election history
This section provides an overview of federal and state elections in California from 2000 to 2016. All data comes from the California Secretary of State.
Historical elections
Presidential elections, 2000-2016
This chart shows the results of the presidential election in California every year from 2000 to 2016.
| Election results (President of the United States), California 2000-2016 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | First-place candidate | First-place candidate votes (%) | Second-place candidate | Second-place candidate votes (%) | Margin of victory (%) |
| 2016 | 61.7% | 31.6% | 30.1% | ||
| 2012 | 60.2% | 37.1% | 23.1% | ||
| 2008 | 61.1% | 37% | 24.1% | ||
| 2004 | 54.4% | 44.4% | 10% | ||
| 2000 | 53.5% | 41.7% | 11.8% | ||
U.S. Senate elections, 2000-2016
This chart shows the results of U.S. Senate races in California from 2000 to 2016. Every state has two Senate seats, and each seat goes up for election every six years. The terms of the seats are staggered so that roughly one-third of the seats are up every two years.
| Election results (U.S. Senator), California 2000-2016 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | First-place candidate | First-place candidate votes (%) | Second-place candidate | Second-place candidate votes (%) | Margin of victory (%) |
| 2016 | 61.6% | 38.4% | 23.2% | ||
| 2012 | 62.5% | 37.5% | 25% | ||
| 2010 | 52.2% | 42.2% | 10% | ||
| 2006 | 59.5% | 35.1% | 24.4% | ||
| 2004 | 57.8% | 37.8% | 20% | ||
| 2000 | 55.9% | 36.6% | 19.3% | ||
Gubernatorial elections, 2000-2016
This chart shows the results of the four gubernatorial elections held between 2000 and 2016. Gubernatorial elections are held every four years in California.
| Election results (Governor), California 2000-2016 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | First-place candidate | First-place candidate votes (%) | Second-place candidate | Second-place candidate votes (%) | Margin of victory (%) |
| 2014 | 60% | 40% | 20% | ||
| 2010 | 53.8% | 40.9% | 12.9% | ||
| 2006 | 55.9% | 39.0% | 16.9% | ||
| 2002 | 47.3% | 42.4% | 4.9% | ||
Congressional delegation, 2000-2016
This chart shows the number of Democrats and Republicans who were elected to represent California in the U.S. House from 2000 to 2016. Elections for U.S. House seats are held every two years.
Trifectas, 1992-2017
A state government trifecta occurs when one party controls both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's office.
California Party Control: 1992-2025
Twenty years with Democratic trifectas • No Republican trifectas
Scroll left and right on the table below to view more years.
| Year | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Governor | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | D | D | D | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D |
| Senate | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D |
| Assembly | D | D | D | S | R | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D |
See also
- California's 16th Congressional District election (June 5, 2018 top-two primary)
- United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018
- United States House of Representatives elections, 2018
Footnotes
- ↑ Daily Kos, "Presidential Results by District," accessed August 15, 2018
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Counties by Congressional Districts," accessed June 8, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Jim Costa, "About," accessed September 16, 2018
- ↑ Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress, "Jim Costa," accessed August 15, 2018
- ↑ NECA, "Meet The Candidates: Congressman Jim Costa," August 10, 2018
- ↑ YouTube, "Jim Costa – Delivering," September 15, 2018
- ↑ McClatchyDC, "More critical water storage is finally coming to California. It took nearly 40 years," September 13, 2018
- ↑ Jim Costa, "Valley Water," accessed September 30, 2018
- ↑ YouTube, "Jim Costa – Showing Up," September 15, 2018
- ↑ Elizabeth Heng, "Meet Elizabeth," accessed September 16, 2018
- ↑ National Review, "A Fresh-Faced Political Outsider Tries to Turn Her Blue California District Red," July 11, 2018
- ↑ YouTube, "Elizabeth Heng," May 30, 2018
- ↑ Elizabeth Heng, "Issues," accessed September 30, 2018
- ↑ YouTube, "Heng – Walk," October 18, 2018
- ↑ YouTube, "Heng – How Long is Too Long?" October 9, 2018
- ↑ OpenSecrets.org, "Outside Spending," accessed September 22, 2015
- ↑ OpenSecrets.org, "Total Outside Spending by Election Cycle, All Groups," accessed September 22, 2015
- ↑ National Review.com, "Why the Media Hate Super PACs," November 6, 2015
- ↑ Inside Elections also uses Tilt ratings to indicate an even smaller advantage and greater competitiveness.
- ↑ Amee LaTour, "Email correspondence with Nathan Gonzalez," April 19, 2018
- ↑ Amee LaTour, "Email correspondence with Kyle Kondik," April 19, 2018
- ↑ Amee LaTour, "Email correspondence with Charlie Cook," April 22, 2018
- ↑ Cook Political Report, "Introducing the 2017 Cook Political Report Partisan Voter Index," April 7, 2017
- ↑ FiveThirtyEight, "Election Update: The Most (And Least) Elastic States And Districts," September 6, 2018
- ↑ 25.0 25.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Jim Costa for Congress', "Results," accessed September 16, 2018
- ↑ Elizabeth Heng for Congress, "Issues," accessed August 15, 2018
- ↑ 28.0 28.1 National Review, "Heng Gets Facebook Blocked," August 4, 2018
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Facebook fumbles ad ban in CA House race, prompting conservative outrage," August 7, 2018
- ↑ This figure includes Pennsylvania districts that were redrawn by the state Supreme Court in early 2018 and districts that flipped in special elections.
- ↑ The new 1st district was created in early 2018 due to court-ordered redistricting and most closely resembles the old 8th District held by Fitzpatrick. Click here to read more.
- ↑ The new 5th district was created in early 2018 due to court-ordered redistricting and most closely resembles the old 7th District held by Meehan. Click here to read more.
- ↑ The new 6th district was created in early 2018 due to court-ordered redistricting and most closely resembles the old 6th District held by Costello. Click here to read more.
- ↑ The new 7th district was created in early 2018 due to court-ordered redistricting and most closely resembles the old 15th District held by Dent. Click here to read more.
- ↑ Daily Kos, "Daily Kos Elections' statewide election results by congressional and legislative districts," July 9, 2013
- ↑ Daily Kos, "Daily Kos Elections' 2016 presidential results for congressional and legislative districts," February 6, 2017
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Certified List of Candidates for Voter-Nominated Offices June 7, 2016, Presidential Primary Election," accessed April 4, 2016
- ↑ The New York Times, "California Primary Results," June 7, 2016
- ↑ California Demographics, "California Cities by Population," accessed April 2, 2018
- ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Quickfacts California," accessed April 2, 2018
= candidate completed the