Pat,

I was unaware of this referendum and had to look it up a bit.  It is quite odd because there are parts in it that seem to be goodies for both sides and I would be interested to learn which part of the referendum was the catalyst for the large public vote against Prop A.  The weird thing is that upon reading about parts of what was in it, the major parts with the largest impact on policing seem to be huge segments that would fall within the favor of those on the left, and if Soros and people like him were against it, it would be interesting to find out why. 
I have a pretty good idea about Soros but I don't think his money swayed this thing. It helped but
did not sway it this much.

I read up on the referendum on a site called BallotPedia and in reading it, the most troubling part of it to me was the part about hiring in a way that mimics population demographics.  To me, such a mandate would be very, very difficult to meet for a variety of reasons.
They probably did not word this thing right but I know homicides are up in Austin and also response times to crime scenes.

A brief interlude -for years I have been telling people one thing that I fear about staffing in policing is that over-zealous communities that have no knowledge of staffing issues and lack the depth when it comes to criminal justice issues would push for employment mandates of a police department equaling community population demographics of the citizens within that community.

Now, I agree wholeheartedly that police departments need to be diverse as possible in their employees, but at the same time, these employees need to be qualified and anyone with honesty will tell you it is especially difficult when it comes to hiring a more diverse collection of employees in policing, especially during the last few years.  I mean, really, in this current climate, who wants to really enter a profession that has been overwhelmingly demonized?  Also, people of color and women simply do not want to be police officers in the numbers that white males do - especially nowadays. And mandating a demographic population standard would most likely require changes in hiring practices, i.e. differing hiring standards for differing population groups, which would possibly lead to even more issues (lawsuits, hiring of unqualified employees, laxer standards).
Yeah recruitment has and will continue to take a hit as long as its perceived lack of community support is for Police continues. The mayor of Austin continues to ignore recent crime statistics.

Here where I live, over five years ago our city's human resource director told me this city went to the local head of the NAACP and asked for help in the recruitment of people of color and women and was more or less told to go pound sand. Wow, stunning.

I can see why both political and economic conservatives are against it - the demographic initiative in it and the cost.
Cost to hire for diversification?

Typically, public safety unions would love the mandate the number of employees per population, IF it meant increased employees.   They also don't mind increased training so long as it is paid for. 

As for your specific questions:

1. How do the Police really feel about this? Police really hate to be told what to do and I think this irrational fear of CRT and the hiring mandates really irk them if the mandates are unrealistic and unattainable.
Not worried about that. How do they feel about the lack of support from the community?

2. What is the motivation of the voters?  I would have to get a better idea of what parts of the referendum were the most publicized in the local media and what parts stuck and were focused on and which ones were ignored. 
This one puzzles me. They have witnessed firsthand the response times for police reporting to crime scenes go up. Can't say for sure it affected property values in Austin but they are moving to the surrounding suburbs in droves

3. What is George Soros motivation?  This is what is the most baffling- it seems to me that the most dramatic aspects of the referendum are what the left would really like, so I don't know if it was the raising of the ratio of forced hiring of more police per population (for example, did the left see it as more police instead of focusing on other aspects of policing currently in favor by the left).
With this kind of numbers, it means several on the right voted against it also.  I think Soros just likes to stir the pot to see what happens.

4. What is your personal take on this?  I could go on for days about this, but what really bothers me is how all sides are more concerned with protecting their own fiefdoms and monied fiefdoms and resist real change methods.  On top of this, it is frustrating when those outside of policing are given such influence when too many of them lack the needed knowledge of policing, police tactics, and human behavior.  For example, in one of policing's recent killings, a vocal community leader pushed for murder charges and based that on the officer must have intended to shoot the person because she switched off the safety on her Glock firearm (Glock firearms do not have switchable safety - the Glock safety is found on a spring-activated protrusion on the trigger - it must be depressed when pulling the trigger to fire the Glock - my point is, this activist not only demanded an inappropriate criminal charge that does not meet the elements of a murder offense but also made demands based in her ignorance of a firearm).

On the other side, the hiring processes for policing are horribly outdated and in my opinion, policing testing is often inadequate when it comes to hiring the best candidates (I believe modern police hiring developed in ways to sift through the once large number of applicants in the quickest way while meeting the basic criteria).  When it comes to police hiring, needed change is really inert and suggestions by researchers ignored.  For example, researchers have suggested police written testing focus more on determining a person's integrity rather than that of a candidate's general aptitude (my irritation about this is, why test for policing aptitude on an entry-level person because what they are being tested on will be taught later).

Here is the sad thing, though - in our current climate,  policing, to me, is facing so many profound issues, and too many people in the decision-making process are beyond their depth and this includes all sides. Too few want to do the right thing and too many want to hold a wet thumb up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing to guide their decisions. 

I am also so disheartened about the occupation and its future and this goes along the lines of both pro-police and anti-police aspects.  It makes me so sick that police officers do all they can to excuse the horrendous behavior of police officers committing horrible acts (take the death of George Floyd - I know of absolutely NO training or trainer that endorsed such tactics of what were used when be hit the pavement - I started in 1993 and ALL of my hands-on training and trainers emphasized body parts to avoid UNLESS t was a life or death measure and one was the neck - and to hear people, especially police officers, excuse what happened to him makes me ill, angry and disgusted).
Thanks for the insight, Eric.

On the other hand, it equally troubles me when voice is given to people that know nothing of criminal law, sound police tactics, and spread complete disinformation. 
Yep.

BTW, do you know what the most troubling aspects of what was in this referendum were down there in Austin?  Was it a case of both sides not getting enough of what they wanted?
Don't know I'll continue to check

Anyway, hope some of this helps.  If you have a follow up please feel free to ask away.
Thanks I'll post back if anything comes up as news explaining the reasoning