JSU-Spring-2016-Report

NATIONAL POLL REPORT THE POLLING CENTER THE INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT JACKSON STATE UNIVERSITY Spring Edition May 2016 Institute of Government Polling Center

Statement of Confidentiality and Ownership All of the analyses, findings and recommendations contained within this report are the exclusive property of the Institute of Government at Jackson State University. As required by the Code of Ethics of the National Council on Public Polls and the United States Privacy Act of 1974, The Institute of Government Polling Center maintains the anonymity of respondents to surveys the Center conducts. No information will be released that might, in any way, reveal the identity of the respondent. Moreover, no information regarding these findings will be released without the written consent of an authorized representative of Institute of Government. Institute of Government Polling Center Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 SECTION Introduction .............................................................................................................................. Page 4 2 SECTION Methodology ............................................................................................................................. Page 5 3 SECTION Highlights ................................................................................................................................... Page 7 4 SECTION Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................... Page 12 Religious Freedom Laws ..................................... 12 Donald Trump ..................................................... 21 Religious Liberty / Bathroom Laws ................. 26 The Religious Divide ........................................... 31 College Affordability ........................................... 31 Demographics ...................................................... 31 5 SECTION Appendix ................................................................................................................................. Page 33 Survey Instrument Composite Aggregate Data Cross Tabulations of Data Institute of Government Polling Center Page 3

1 INTRODUCTION The Polling Center at the Institute of Government is pleased to present the results of a national poll of Americans. The poll was designed to assess public views regarding the religious freedom laws, Donald Trump, religious liberty / bathroom laws, impressions of divisions the laws create and college affordability. The research study included survey responses from 1000 respondents nationally approximately proportional to state population contribution. The poll was conducted May 11 – 17, 2016 The national poll included the following areas for investigation:  Awareness, interest and support for religious freedom laws;  Perceptions and views regarding religious freedom laws;  A Trump presidency and his impact on these laws;  Awareness, interest and support for religious liberty or bathroom laws;  Perceptions and views regarding religious liberty or bathroom laws;  Perceptions of divisions the laws create;  Views on college affordability in the United States; and  Demographics. Section II of this report discusses the Methodology used in the study, while Section III includes Highlights derived from an analysis of the quantitative research. Section IV is a Summary of Findings from the online survey. Section V is an Appendix to the report containing the composite aggregate data, cross tabululations and the survey instrument employed. Institute of Government Polling Center Page 4

2 METHODOLOGY Using a quantitative research design, the Center completed 1000 online surveys nationally. Survey design input was provided by the membership of the Polling Center’s Oversight Committee – a subcommittee of the Institute of Government at Jackson State University. Survey design is a careful, deliberative process to ensure fair, objective and balanced surveys. Staff members, with years of survey design experience, edit out any bias. Further, all scales used by the Center (either numeric, such as one through ten, or wording such as strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly agree) are balanced evenly. Additionally, placement of questions is carefully accomplished so that order has minimal impact. This survey was conducted May 11-17, 2016. Respondents qualified for the survey if they were a resident of the United States and 18 years of age or older. Responses were approximately proportional to each state’s population. All facets of the study were completed by the Polling Center’s senior staff and researchers. These aspects include: survey design, pre-test, computer programming, fielding, coding, editing, verification, validation and logic checks, computer analysis, analysis, and report writing. Statistically, a sample of 1000 completed surveys has an associated margin for error of +/- 3.0% at a 95% confidence level. Results throughout this report are presented for composite results – all 1000 cases. Many tables and graphs will hold results among respondents from the South (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia). Institute of Government Polling Center Page 5

Readers of this report should note that any survey is analogous to a snapshot in time and results are only reflective of the time period in which the survey was undertaken. Should concerted public relations or information campaigns be undertaken during or shortly after the fielding of the survey, the results contained herein may be expected to change and should be, therefore, carefully interpreted and extrapolated. Furthermore, it is important to note that all surveys contain some component of “sampling error”. Error that is attributable to systematic bias has been significantly reduced by utilizing strict random probability procedures. This sample was strictly random in that selection of each potential respondent was an independent event based on known probabilities. Each qualified online panel member within the United States had an equal chance for participating in the study. Statistical random error, however, can never be eliminated but may be significantly reduced by increasing sample size. Institute of Government Polling Center Page 6

3 HIGHLIGHTS ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAWS…  There exists strong awareness and interest in “religious freedom laws” – laws designed to allow businesses and individuals the right to refuse service to members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered populations by stating a sincerely-held religious belief. Three-quarters of all Americans surveyed, 76.5%, were aware (very or somewhat) of the laws while 79.1% expressed interest (very or somewhat interested) in the laws.  Support for religious freedom laws is evenly split among those polled – 44.4% strongly or somewhat in support and 45.1% somewhat and strongly opposed. Some, 10.4%, were unsure.  Many respondents appear to see value in both sides of the issue of religious freedom laws based on their agreement or disagreement with related statements. Interestingly, as overall support/opposition to religious freedom laws is evenly split, 65.5% agreed that there does need to be some religious freedom laws to protect those with legitimate beliefs and faiths. Just under one-quarter, 23.0%, disagreed. Institute of Government Polling Center Page 7

Agreement and disagreement was recorded for a number of other statements regarding religious freedom laws…  A private parish pastor should have the right not to marry a lesbian/gay couple – 66.2% agreed, 21.0% disagreed;  We do need some religious freedom laws to protect those with legitimate beliefs and faiths – 65.5% agreed, 23.0% disagreed;  Sometimes states do pass laws that are designed to discriminate -- 63.0% agreed, 24.2% disagreed;  These religious laws are creeping in nature and will only get more restrictive and discriminatory – 62.0% agreed, 26.0% disagreed;  Sponsors of these laws have the real hidden intent of discrimination – 60.2% agreed, 28.0% disagreed;  I see these religious freedom laws as a way to legislate morality – 54.8% agreed, 30.6% disagreed;  I would support some level of religious freedom laws in my own state – 50.4% agreed, 37.6% disagreed;  I would support boycotts of states with religious freedom laws by companies or sports figures – 42.5% agreed, 41.7% disagreed;  A public Justice of the Peace should have the right not to marry a lesbian/gay couple – 38.9% agreed, 48.3% disagreed;  I can see myself boycotting or not vacationing in a state with religious freedom laws in place – 38.2% agreed, 47.7% disagreed;  These laws are accurately and properly titled: “Religious Freedom Laws” – 35.6% agreed, 43.3% disagreed. ON DONALD TRUMP AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAWS…  By nearly a two-to-one margin, poll respondents agreed that a Donald Trump presidency would likely move religious freedom laws to include, beyond the LGBT community, Muslims, immigrants and Mexicans. The margin was 54.4% agreeing (that Donald Trump would support allowing businesses and individuals to refuse service to Muslims, immigrants and Mexicans) with 24.7% disagreeing. Nearly three-quarters, 71.7%, of Democrats surveyed agreed that Donald Trump would support stronger religious freedom laws.  Similarly, 47.0% of Americans surveyed suggested we would see more restrictive religious freedom laws under a President Donald Trump. Fewer, 32.9% disagreed.  Among Democrats polled, 68.8% agreed that we would see more restrictive laws while 32.7% of Republicans agreed. Institute of Government Polling Center Page 8

ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY / BATHROOM LAWS…  Other existing laws are termed religious liberty laws or described as “bathroom laws”. These laws restrict access to public restrooms and locker rooms based on a person’s biological gender. Awareness and interest in these laws appears high – 83.3% (very and somewhat aware) and 75.1% (very and somewhat interested).  Support for laws restricting bathroom access to biological gender only, at 47.8%, is higher than opposition at 38.4%. Some, 14.0% are unsure. ON THE RELIGIOUS DIVIDE…  The issue of religious freedom and liberty laws is difficult for many Americans.  While more than three-quarters, 78.9%, agreed (strongly or somewhat) that the nation was founded on religious freedom and we should strive to protect those rights, only one-quarter, 27.0% could agree (strongly or somewhat) that the nation is moving toward unity on these issues.  However, many see hope and room for compromise on these sometimes controversial laws…  More Americans surveyed, 56.1%, agreed it is possible to compromise on the issue of religious freedoms to make both sides somewhat comfortable than those disagreeing – 29.8%.  Further, 64.7% of all respondents agreed (strongly or somewhat) that it is possible to bridge between civil liberties and constitutional protections. Some, 18.8%, disagreed. Institute of Government Polling Center Page 9

ON COLLEGE AFFORDABILITY…  Two-thirds, 65.7%, of all respondents have had some experience with college – either currently attending, having attended or graduated.  Of this group, a large percentage (48.7%) suggested it was very or somewhat difficult to pay for college.  Further, one-third (32.6%) suggested they experienced a delay or postponement during their college experience due to the cost.  According to college attendees, the leading resources for funding their education were their own personal funds (61.0%), parent financial support (45.0%), grants such as Pell (39.6%) and scholarships (36.1%). Some also accessed college savings/savings accounts (11.0%) and gifts (9.3%).  Unfortunately, for two-thirds, 67.3%, of those not attending college, finances were the primary barrier.  Among those not attending college, the primary reasons centered on lacking the financial resources (46.5%) and not desire/no interest (40.4%). Others mentioned that their preferred avocation did not require college (12.0%), could not secure find financial assistance (12.0%), was accepted but ultimately could not afford to attend (5.3%), couldn’t qualify for admission (3.5%) or family had too much money to qualify for financial assistance (3.5%). Respondents were presented with the following statement: “Statistics show that 79% of students coming from the top quartile of family income receive a BA Degree while just 11% of those students coming from the bottom quartile of family income receive the same BA Degree. These statistics and declines in the number of Pell Grants and other financial assistance awards make it increasingly difficult for college bound students”. Institute of Government Polling Center Page 10

Majorities agreed with a number of statements related to financial assistance for college attendance…  52.7% agreed (somewhat or strongly) that public colleges and universities should be free of charge for everyone;  52.2% agreed (somewhat or strongly) that public colleges and universities should be free of charge for students from lower-income families; and  52.2% agreed (somewhat or strongly) that Historically Black Universities and Colleges (HBUCs), which strive to support minority students, should receive federal funding to grow their efforts. Further, strong agreement was also found in a number of other financial assistance areas…  47.2% agreed (somewhat or strongly) that there are fewer financial assistance opportunities for lower income students;  42.2% agreed (somewhat or strongly) that they would be willing to pay reasonably more in taxes to increase financial assistance programs for lower- income students trying to attend college; and  40.4% agreed (somewhat or strongly) that there are fewer financial assistance opportunities for minority students in the United States. ON CROSS TABULATIONS… Cross tabulations of data provide a view of the issues covered within the survey (core questions) by the various demographics collected such as age, race, ethnicity, education, rural/suburban/urban, gender, political philosophy and income. Readers are encouraged to review the crosstab tables held within the appendix to this report. Institute of Government Polling Center Page 11

4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Readers are reminded that the narrative throughout this report refers to composite aggregate data – the 1000 completed surveys. Tables throughout present national results while many graphs also present results among southern state respondents from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAWS All poll respondents were presented with the following statement prior to being asked how aware they were with Religious Freedom Laws: “Nearly one-half of all 50 states have a version of a “Religious Freedom Law”. Most recently, Georgia, North Carolina and Mississippi laws have been in the news. These laws allow individuals and businesses to refuse service to members of the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgendered population by stating a “sincerely-held religious belief”. Each was asked if they were very aware, somewhat aware, somewhat unaware or not at all aware of the Religious Freedom Laws. The following graph depicts the cumulative totals for very and somewhat aware as well as somewhat unaware and not at all aware. Results from southern states are also depicted. Awareness of Religious Freedom Laws in U.S. 76.5 79.3 21.2 18.1 2.3 2.7 VERY AND SOMEWHAT AWARE SOMEWHAT UNAWARE AND NOT UNSURE AT ALL AWARE USA South Institute of Government Polling Center Page 12

In an effort to gauge interest in the issue of Religious Freedom Laws, all respondents were asked if they were very interested, somewhat interested, somewhat uninterested or not at all interested in the laws. Results are displayed in the following graph. Interest in Religious Freedom Laws 79.1 81.1 15.7 10.8 8.1 5.2 VERY AND SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT UNINTERESTED AND UNSURE INTERESTED NOT AT ALL INTERESTED USA South Support for and opposition to such Religious Freedom Laws is split very closely with 44.4% in support and 45.1% opposed. The following graph shows the cumulative totals for strongly and somewhat support and somewhat and strongly oppose. Support for Religious Freedom Laws is significantly stronger in the southern states. Support or Oppose Religious Freedom Laws? 57.2 44.4 45.1 30.2 10.5 12.6 STRONGLY & SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT & STRONGLY UNSURE SUPPORT OPPOSE USA South Institute of Government Polling Center Page 13

The following are a number of statements related to Religious Freedom Laws. Survey respondents were asked to indicate if they strongly agreed, somewhat agreed, somewhat disagreed or strongly disagreed with each. The table presents the cumulative totals for those strongly and somewhat agreeing as well as those somewhat or strongly opposed to each statement. Southern residents are significantly more supportive of Religious Freedom Laws. Statements USA: USA: South: South: Strongly / Somewhat Strongly / Somewhat Somewhat /Strongly Somewhat / Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Disagree A private parish pastor should have a 66.2 21.0 76.6 14.0 right not to marry a lesbian / gay couple We do need some religious freedom 65.5 23.0 73.0 16.7 laws to protect those with legitimate beliefs and faiths Sometimes states do pass laws that are 63.0 24.2 54.1 32.9 designed to discriminate These religious freedom laws are 62.0 26.0 58.1 26.6 creeping in nature and will only get more restrictive and discriminatory Sponsors of these laws have the real 60.2 28.0 54.1 32.0 hidden intent of discrimination I see these religious freedom laws as a 54.8 30.6 55.4 28.0 way to “legislate morality” I would support some level of 50.4 37.6 62.9 24.8 religious freedom laws in my own state I would support boycotts of states 42.5 41.7 36.0 46.9 with religious freedom laws by companies or sports figures A public Justice of the Peace should 38.9 48.3 53.2 36.0 have the right not to marry a lesbian / gay couple I can see myself boycotting or not 38.2 47.7 30.6 54.5 vacationing in a state with religious freedom laws in place These laws are accurately and properly 35.6 43.3 47.7 33.4 titled: “Religious Freedom Laws” Institute of Government Polling Center Page 14

DONALD TRUMP AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAWS Survey respondents were presented with the following statements and question: “Some are concerned about a Donald Trump presidency while others are not. The following are a couple of statements related to religious freedom laws if Donald Trump becomes President. For each, please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree.” The following are the cumulative totals for those strongly and somewhat agreeing with each statement as well as those strongly or somewhat disagreeing. Statements USA: USA: South: South: Strongly / Somewhat Strongly / Somewhat Somewhat /Strongly Somewhat / Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Disagree If Donald Trump becomes President, 47.0 32.9 39.6 40.1 we will see more restrictive religious freedom laws In a Trump presidency, we will likely 54.4 24.7 54.1 25.2 see a move from a focus on the LGBT community members to include Muslims, immigrants and Mexicans Results differ significantly by party affiliation. Results are displayed in the following table for Democrats, Republicans and Independents. National results for those strongly and somewhat agreeing are presented here. Statement Composite Republican Democrat Independent If Donald Trump becomes president, we will see more restrictive RFLs (Agree) 47.0 32.7 68.8 41.6 In a Trump presidency, focus will shift from LGBT to Muslims, Immigrants, and Mexicans (Agree) 54.4 47.1 71.7 48.8 Institute of Government Polling Center Page 15

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY OR BATHROOM LAWS Religious liberty laws were introduced or re-introduced to respondents with the following: “Some religious liberty laws are known as “bathroom bills”. These are designed to keep transgendered people out of the bathroom that corresponds to their belief / preference. For example, the South Carolina Governor recently vetoed a bill that would have restricted access to public school restrooms and locker rooms based on a person’s biological sex. Prior to receiving this survey invitation, how aware would you say you were of these so-called bathroom laws?” Similar to religious freedom laws, awareness of religious liberty laws was strong at 83.3%, very or somewhat aware. Results are shown in the following graph. Aware of Religious Liberty or Bathroom Laws? 87.8 83.3 12.7 7.7 4 4.5 VERY AND SOMEWHAT AWARE SOMEWHAT UNAWARE AND NOT UNSURE AT ALL AWARE USA South Institute of Government Polling Center Page 16

Interest in the laws is also high at 75.1%, very or somewhat interested. Cumulative totals for very and somewhat interested as well as somewhat uninterested or not at all interested are displayed in the following graph. Interest in Religious Liberty or Bathroom Laws? 82 75.1 19.8 12.2 5.1 5.9 VERY & SOMEWHAT INTERESTED SOMEWHAT UNINTERESTED OR UNSURE NOT AT ALL INTERESTED USA South Especially among southern state survey respondents, there exists stronger support for bathroom laws than opposition. In the south, bathroom laws (restricting all access to biological sex only) are supported by a two-to-one margin. Cumulative totals for strongly and somewhat support as well as somewhat and strongly opposed are presented here. Support or Opposition to Bathroom Laws 61.7 47.6 38.4 29.3 14 9 STRONGLY & SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT & STRONGLY OPPOSE UNUSRE SUPPORT USA South Institute of Government Polling Center Page 17

THE RELIGIOUS DIVIDE Respondents were presented with the following statement: “Some people worry that laws such as the religious freedom / liberty laws are dividing our nation. Others are more optimistic about compromise on many of these difficult issues.” The poll included four statements about compromise and unity on the issue of religious freedom and liberty laws to measure perceptions that the two issues sides can come together. The following table presents the statements and the cumulative totals for those strongly and somewhat agreeing and strongly and somewhat disagreeing with each. Statements USA: USA: South: South: Strongly / Somewhat Strongly / Somewhat Somewhat /Strongly Somewhat / Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Disagree It’s possible to compromise on the 56.1 29.8 55.4 33.3 issue of religious freedoms to make both sides somewhat comfortable We were founded as a nation on 78.9 13.5 85.1 9.0 religious freedom and should strive to protect those rights We are moving more toward unity as 27.0 61.2 27.9 61.7 Americans today than in our past I believe it is possible to bridge 64.7 18.8 62.2 22.1 between civil liberties and constitutional protections Institute of Government Polling Center Page 18

COLLEGE AFFORDABILITY Two-thirds, 65.7%, of all respondents have had some experience with college over the years. Results are shown in the following graph. Experience with College? 53.2 32.9 24.2 21.8 19.4 19.7 15.8 10.8 YES, ATTENDED, YES, UNDERGRADUATE YES, GRADUATE DEGREE NO ATTENDING, DID NOT DEGREE GRADUATE USA South Those respondents attending or having graduated from college, 65.7%, were asked how difficult it was to secure funding to pay for college. The following graph displays the cumulative totals for those indicating very or somewhat difficult and somewhat or very easy. Difficulty or Ease of Paying for College 50 48.7 47.2 44.1 VERY & SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT VERY AND SOMEWHAT EASY USA South Institute of Government Polling Center Page 19

One-third of all college-experienced respondents, 32.6%, reported they did, in fact, delay or postpone college due to the cost. Results are displayed here. Delay College Due to Cost? 32.6 30.4 YES USA South All college-experienced respondents, 65.7%, were asked how they paid for college. Results are shown in the following table. Multiple responses were accepted. Results are presented in declining order by national results Means of Paying for College USA South Your own personal funds 61.0 54.9 Parent financial support 45.0 39.2 Grants such as Pell 39.6 48.0 Scholarships 36.1 29.4 Others 19.6 19.6 College savings /savings accounts 11.0 9.8 Gifts 9.3 9.8 Institute of Government Polling Center Page 20

Reasons for not attending college, among those with no college experience, are presented in the following table. Results are presented in declining order by national results. Multiple responses were accepted. Among those without college experience, the reasons…. USA South Lacked or currently lack the financial resources 46.5 48.3 No desire, no interest, not for me 40.4 35.8 My preferred avocation did not require college 12.0 11.7 Could not secure / find financial assistance 12.0 14.2 Other 10.2 10.8 Was accepted at a college, but ultimately could not afford to go 5.3 6.7 Couldn’t qualify for admission 3.5 4.2 I/family had too much money to qualify for financial 3.5 2.5 assistance Institute of Government Polling Center Page 21

Respondents were presented with the following statement and question: “Statistics show that 79% of students coming from the top quartile of family income receive a BA Degree while just 11% of those students coming from the bottom quartile of family income receive the same BA Degree. These statistics and declines in the number of Pell Grants and other financial assistance awards make it increasingly difficult for college bound students. The following are a number of statements related to financial assistance for college attendance. Please read the statements and indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each.” The cumulative totals for those strongly and somewhat agreeing as well as those strongly and somewhat disagreeing are presented in the following table. Statements USA: USA: South: South: Strongly / Somewhat Strongly / Somewhat Somewhat /Strongly Somewhat / Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Historically Black Universities and 52.2 32.9 50.0 35.2 Colleges (HBUCs), which strive to support minority students, should receive federal funding to grow their efforts I would be willing to pay reasonably 42.2 48.2 40.5 50.9 more in taxes to increase financial assistance programs for lower-income students trying to attend college Public colleges and universities should 52.7 39.3 50.5 43.7 be free of charge for everyone Public colleges and universities should 52.2 39.2 55.4 37.8 be free of charge for students from lower-income families Based on all I know or have heard, it 47.2 32.4 50.9 33.3 appears there are fewer financial assistance opportunities for lower income students in the U.S. Based on all I know or have heard, it 40.4 39.8 38.7 47.7 appears there are fewer financial assistance opportunities for minority students in the U.S. Institute of Government Polling Center Page 22

Results to these questions differ significantly by race and ethnicity. Agreement (strongly and somewhat) for each of the preceding statements is displayed in the following cross tabulation table. Statement Composite Hispanic White African- USA American HBUCs should receive federal funding to grow efforts (Agree) 52.2 60.1 43.0 87.3 Willing to pay more taxes to increase financial aid to low-income students trying to attend college (Agree) 42.2 47.2 36.2 62.7 Public colleges and universities should be free for everyone (Agree) 52.7 56.4 46.7 76.2 Public colleges and universities should be free for low-income students (Agree) 52.2 54.6 45.6 76.2 Fewer financial assistance opportunities for low-income students in U.S. (Agree) 47.2 42.9 43.1 67.5 Fewer financial assistance opportunities for minority students in U.S. (Agree) 40.4 49.1 32.4 65.9 Institute of Government Polling Center Page 23

DEMOGRAPHICS Rural, Suburban or Urban? October ‘15 January ‘16 May ‘16 Rural 28.4 26.2 25.2 Suburban 43.0 47.1 49.0 Urban 24.9 25.3 23.5 Age October ‘15 January ‘16 May ‘16 18 to 44 55.1 51.9 44.7 45 to 64 29.8 37.3 38.2 65+ 15.0 10.8 17.1 Income October ‘15 January ‘16 May ‘16 Under $10,000 8.4 6.4 3.8 $10,000 to less than $40,000 42.0 30.4 29.4 $40,000 to less than $75,000 29.3 30.2 29.2 $75,000 to less than $100,000 7.8 14.1 14.8 $100,000 to less than $150,000 4.8 10.1 14.2 $150,000 to less than $200,000 1.3 2.6 4.4 $200,000 or more 0.3 2.4 3.2 Unsure 6.1 3.7 1.0 Party Affiliation October ‘15 January ‘16 May ‘16 Republican 29.2 28.4 25.7 Democrat 31.9 32.0 30.4 Independent 32.6 33.5 38.7 Some other party 1.6 1.2 0.5 Unsure 4.8 4.8 4.7 Education October ‘15 January ‘16 May ‘16 High School or less 11.9 10.9 16.2 High School / GED 15.5 16.8 18.7 Associates Degree 10.2 8.3 7.7 Some college / technical school 28.7 25.5 22.7 College / technical school graduate 24.6 27.6 21.5 Postgraduate or professional degree 8.1 10.8 12.9 Prefer not to disclose 0.0 0.1 0.4 Hispanic, Latin American, October ‘15 January ‘16 May ‘16 Institute of Government Polling Center Page 24

Puerto Rican, Cuban or Mexican Yes 17.3 16.3 16.4 No 82.7 83.6 83.1 Ethnicity (Among Non-Hispanics) October ‘15 January ‘16 May ‘16 White 63.2 66.3 64.9 Black, African-American 15.1 13.0 15.1 Asian, Pacific Islander 3.3 3.0 6.0 Aleutian, Eskimo or American Indian 1.2 0.2 0.4 Other 0.7 0.6 0.6 Native Hawaiian 0.2 0.3 0.2 Two or more races --- --- --- Refused --- --- --- Don’t know/unsure --- --- --- Religion January ‘16 May ‘16 Catholic 20.9 21.6 Protestant 21.2 20.1 Christian (non-denominational) 25.3 26.7 Greek Orthodox 0.6 0.3 Jewish 3.0 2.3 Buddhist 0.9 1.1 Muslim 0.8 0.7 Latter Day Saint – Mormon 1.1 1.1 Other 5.0 3.9 No preference 19.6 20.8 Don’t know / not sure 1.5 Gender October ‘15 January ‘16 May ‘16 Male 49.9 48.4 48.9 Female 50.1 51.6 51.1 Institute of Government Polling Center Page 25

5 APPENDIX INTERPRETATION OF AGGREGATE RESULTS The computer processed data for this survey are presented in the following frequency distributions. It is important to note that the wordings of the variable labels and value labels in the computer-processed data are largely abbreviated descriptions of the Questionnaire items and available response categories. The frequency distributions include the category or response for the question items. Responses deemed not appropriate for classification have been grouped together under the “Other” code. The “NA” category label refers to “No Answer” or “Not Applicable.” This code is also used to classify ambiguous responses. In addition, the “DK/RF” category includes those respondents who did not know their answer to a question or declined to answer it. In many of the tables, a group of responses may be tagged as “Missing” – occasionally, certain individual’s responses may not be required to specific questions and thus are excluded. Although when this category of response is used, the computations of percentages are presented in two (2) ways in the frequency distributions: 1) with their inclusion (as a proportion of the total sample), and 2) their exclusion (as a proportion of a sample sub- group). Each frequency distribution includes the absolute observed occurrence of each response (i.e. the total number of cases in each category). Immediately adjacent to the right of the column of absolute frequencies is the column of relative frequencies. These are the percentages of cases falling in each category response, including those cases designated as missing data. To the right of the relative frequency column is the adjusted frequency distribution column that contains the relative frequencies based on the legitimate (i.e. non-missing) cases. That is, the total base for the adjusted frequency distribution excludes the missing data. For many Questionnaire items, the relative frequencies and the adjusted frequencies will be nearly the same. However, some items that elicit a sizable number of missing data will produce quite substantial percentage differences between the two columns of frequencies. The careful analyst will cautiously consider both distributions. The last column of data within the frequency distribution is the cumulative frequency distribution (Cum Freq.). This column is simply an adjusted frequency distribution of the sum of all previous categories of response and the current category of response. Its primary usefulness is to gauge some ordered or ranked meaning. Institute of Government Polling Center Page 26