Berkeley IGS Poll's Unbalanced Question Jeopardizes Its Reputation
Presenting Respondents With Voter ID as "Trump's Plan" Biases Results
This week, the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS) released the results of its latest survey of California voters, inquiring whether voters would support election reforms, such as requiring voters to show identification at the polling station. Polling is inherently subjective—its findings are subject to what you ask, how you word it, and whom you ask. Monday's publication reveals a blatant methodological flaw in IGS's procedure, which raises questions about the integrity of its entire polling exercise.
Traditionally, requiring voter ID has been shown to have a positive impact across diverse groups. In a 2022 IGS poll, 60% of California voters perceived illegal voting as a threat, and 39% viewed it as a significant threat. A 2023 report from Reform California reported broad backing from Democrats, Independents, Republicans, African Americans, and Latinos for voter ID legislation. Nationally, according to a 2021 Gallup poll, 80% of Americans favored mandating voter ID, a trend that has been ongoing for decades. The appeal is clear: ensuring election integrity resonates with the values of fair-minded voters.
However, in our IGS poll this week, the voter ID issue was framed as "President Trump's suggestion" to require ID when voting, endorsed by only 45% of respondents—a significant drop from the usual historical levels. Previously, during the week, IGS released a survey showing Trump's low popularity in California, with historically low second-term job approval scores of 35%, compared with 57% for Kamala Harris, as reported in October 2024 by IGS. By attributing voter ID to Trump, a polarizing politician in one of the only states where he is very unpopular, IGS guaranteed to tilt the results. The 45% in favor are pro-anti-Trump, not necessarily expressing opinions on voter ID. This isn't a poll—it's manipulation.
The frightening reality is that IGS pollsters, led by veteran director Mark DiCamillo, are aware that this phrasing distorts the response. Polling experts understand that question-wording can significantly alter outcomes. Ask, "Would you prefer Disneyland tickets to be 25% cheaper?" Most would say yes—savings appeal. Now, rephrase it: "If Disneyland cuts ticket prices by 25%, many rides that you enjoy won't operate because there's less money for upkeep.” Do you still want tickets to be 25% less expensive if you know this?"
The response shifts as respondents consider trade-offs. IGS's eagerness to frame voter ID as "Trump's proposal" in a state where Trump is a political lightning rod is a deliberate attempt to provoke a specific reaction, not to test actual public opinion. Such manipulation erodes the credibility of all Berkeley IGS polling. If IGS can lean on questions about election reforms, why should it not do the same for other issues, such as criminal justice or the 2026 governor's race? Polls should inform, not mislead. Californians are smarter than that from an institution that claims to be a nonpartisan beacon of research. Until and unless IGS values integrity over agenda-driven spin, its polls are nothing more than political theater—and leave voters skeptical not only about the results but the intentions behind them