Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020 | |||||||||||||||||||
Outcome | Ballot measure rejected. | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Results | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Source: California Secretary of State |
Elections in California |
---|
Proposition 13 (officially named as the "Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020") was a failed California ballot proposition on the March 3, 2020, ballot that would have authorized the issuance of $15 billion in bonds to finance capital improvements for public and charter schools statewide. The proposition would have also raised the borrowing limit for some school districts and eliminated school impact fees for multifamily housing near transit stations.
The "yes" campaign had widespread support amongst political, education and business organizations and spent roughly $10 million to support the measure. The "no" campaign was chiefly led by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, who spent $250,000 to oppose the measure. [1]
Proposition 13 was defeated, becoming the first school bond rejected by California's voters since 1994. [2]
The initiative was placed on the ballot after a bipartisan vote on Assembly Bill 48 by the state legislature. Proposition 13 would have allowed the state to borrow $15 billion by selling general obligation bonds, and would have then allocated $9 billion for K-12 facilities statewide as well as $2 billion for the state's community college system, $2 billion for the University of California and $2 billion for the California State University. Of the $9 billion earmarked for preschool and K-12 schools, $5.2 billion would have gone towards renovating existing facilities, $2.8 billion would have gone towards new school construction, and the remaining $1 billion would have been evenly split between career technical sites and charter schools. Smaller preschool and K-12 schools would have received priority for funding. [3] The Legislative Analyst's Office projected the measure would have cost California taxpayers $740 million a year for 35 years which would be repaid from the state's general fund at an annual interest rate of roughly 3.5 percent.
Academics said the measure would have helped address a backlog of maintenance projects that would cost $117 billion to be fully addressed over the following decade. The measure would have funded asbestos removal, seismic retrofitting and other capital improvements on various California preschool, K-12, and college campuses. [4]
The measure contained provisions that would have eliminated school impact fees on multifamily housing development within half a mile of train and bus stations. Education finance experts said the fees are essential for properly funding the impact of new students. Developers said the fees unnecessarily drive up the cost of new housing. The author of Proposition 13, Patrick O'Donnell, said the effect of impact fee elimination should have been closely watched and corrected if necessary. [5]
The measure would have also loosened limits on local school district borrowing. High school and elementary school districts would have been allowed to borrow 2 percent of the assessed value of nearby properties, up from 1.25 percent. Unified school districts, along with community college districts, would have been able to borrow 4 percent of the assessed value of nearby properties, up from 2.5 percent. The measure would have capped administrative costs at 5 percent, or $750 million total.
School districts that were less able to raise funding for construction projects or with underserved student populations (being determined by the percent of low-income students, foster youth or English language learners in the district) would have been eligible for matching state funds, for upwards of 55 to 65 percent of the total project cost. The initiative required unionized labor for these projects. [6]
Supporters said that these improvements would have made public schools safer and healthier. Opponents said that the actual total cost of the bonds plus interest would have exceeded $27 billion, which was more expensive than using funds directly from the regular state budget which had a $21 billion surplus at the time of the election. [7]
Poll source | Date(s) administered | Sample size [lower-alpha 1] | Margin of error | For Proposition 13 | Against Proposition 13 | Undecided |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Public Policy Institute of California | February 7–17, 2020 | 1,046 (LV) | ± 4.4% | 51% | 42% | 8% |
Public Policy Institute of California | January 3–12, 2020 | 967 (LV) | ± 4.6% | 53% | 36% | 10% |
Public Policy Institute of California | November 3–12, 2019 | 1,008 (LV) | ± 4.3% | 48% | 36% | 16% |
Public Policy Institute of California | September 16–25, 2019 | 1,031 (LV) | ± 4.2% | 54% | 40% | 6% |
Choice | Votes | % |
---|---|---|
No | 4,856,154 | 53.0 |
Yes | 4,304,013 | 47.0 |
Total votes | 9,160,167 | 100.00 |
Proposition 13 results (excluding invalid votes) | |
---|---|
Yes 4,304,013 (47%) | No 4,856,154 (53%) |
▲ 50% |
Proposition 13 was defeated, becoming the first school bond rejected by California's voters since 1994. [2]
Supporters of the measure said voters' confusion over the numbering led to the idea that it was a disguised repeal of the popular Proposition 13 which passed in 1978, leading to its defeat. Opponents said voters were concerned about how the measure would have raised taxes and the cost of living by increasing local school districts' debt limits. [9]
Assemblyman O'Donnell announced his intention to introduce a bill that would retire the number '13' for future ballot initiatives to avoid possible confusion, a position supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the main opponent of the failed 2020 measure and an advocate for the famous 1978 ballot initiative. [10]
Proposition 13 is an amendment of the Constitution of California enacted during 1978, by means of the initiative process. The initiative was approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. It was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State of California.
In California, a ballot proposition is a referendum or an initiative measure that is submitted to the electorate for a direct decision or direct vote. If passed, it can alter one or more of the articles of the Constitution of California, one or more of the 29 California Codes, or another law in the California Statutes by clarifying current or adding statute(s) or removing current statute(s).
California Proposition 81 was a ballot initiative on the ballot for California voters in the primary election of June 6, 2006. As SB 1161, it passed through the Senate 28-9 and the Assembly 57–15. On the ballot, it did not pass, having received 1,873,147 (47%) votes in favor and 2,110,132 (53%) votes against.
Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment which revolutionized local and regional government finance and taxation in California. Named the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," it was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark property tax reduction initiative constitutional amendment, Proposition 13, approved in June 1978. Proposition 218 was approved and adopted by California voters during the November 5, 1996, statewide general election.
The 2007 Texas constitutional amendment election took place 6 November 2007.
California Proposition 92 was Californian ballot proposition that voters rejected on February 5, 2008. It was a state initiative that would have amended Proposition 98, which set a mandate for the minimum level of funding each year for elementary and secondary schools and for the California Community Colleges.
California's state elections were held on November 5, 2002. Necessary primary elections were held on March 5. Up for election were all the seats of the California State Assembly, 20 seats of the California Senate, seven constitutional officers, all the seats of the California Board of Equalization, as well as votes on retention of two Supreme Court justices and various appeals court judges. Seven ballot measures were also up for approval. Municipal offices were also included in the election.
Proposition 3 is a law that was enacted by California voters by means of the initiative process. It is a bond issue that authorizes $980 million in bonds, to be repaid from state's General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children's hospitals. The annual payment on the debt authorized by the initiative is approximately $64 million a year. Altogether, the measure would cost about $1.9 billion over 30 years out of California's general fund.
California Proposition 10, also known as the California Alternative Fuels Initiative, was an unsuccessful initiated state statute that appeared on the November 2008 ballot in California. Proposition 10 was funded by Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a corporation owned by T. Boone Pickens. Clean Energy Fuels Corp. is the nation's leading operator of natural gas vehicle fueling stations.
Proposition 12 appeared on the November 4, 2008 ballot in California. It is also known as the Veterans' Bond Act of 2008. The measure was legislatively referred to the ballot in Senate Bill 1572. The primary sponsor of SB 1572 was Senator Mark Wyland, R-Carlsbad. The vote to place the measure on the ballot was passed unanimously in both the California state senate (39-0) and assembly (75-0).
Proposition 39 was an initiative state constitutional amendment and statute which appeared on the November 7, 2000, California general election ballot. Proposition 39 passed with 5,431,152 Yes votes, representing 53.4 percent of the total votes cast. Proposition 39 was essentially a milder version of Proposition 26, which would have ended the Proposition 13 supermajority vote requirement altogether, but was defeated with 3,521,327 "Yes" votes, representing 48.7 percent of the total votes cast, in the March 7, 2000, California primary election. The measure was funded by Ann and John Doerr, John T. Walton and Reed Hastings; it was opposed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
In California state elections, 2014 was the first year in which the top statewide offices were elected under the nonpartisan blanket primary, pursuant to Proposition 14, which passed with 53% voter approval in June 2010. Under this system, which first went into effect during the 2012 election year, all candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of party. In the primary, voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. The top two finishers, regardless of party, then advance to face each other in the general election in November.
Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment in the state of California that appeared on the November 5, 1996, statewide election ballot. Proposition 218 revolutionized local and regional government finance in California. Called the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act,” Proposition 218 was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark Proposition 13 property tax revolt initiative constitutional amendment approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. Proposition 218 was drafted by constitutional attorneys Jonathan Coupal and Jack Cohen.
Proposition 51 is a California ballot proposition that passed on the November 8, 2016 ballot, regarding $9 billion in bonds to fund construction and improvement of K-12 and community college facilities. The measure designates $7 billion for K-12 projects falling under four types of projects, and $2 billion for any facility project for community colleges. No other bond measures related to education have been on the California ballot since 2006.
The California state elections in 2020 were held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Unlike previous election cycles, the primary elections were held on Super Tuesday, March 3, 2020.
California state elections in 2018 were held on Tuesday, November 6, 2018, with the primary elections being held on June 5, 2018. Voters elected one member to the United States Senate, 53 members to the United States House of Representatives, all eight state constitutional offices, all four members to the Board of Equalization, 20 members to the California State Senate, and all 80 members to the California State Assembly, among other elected offices.
California Proposition 68 was a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that appeared on ballots in California in the June primary election in 2018. It was a $4.1bn bond measure to fund parks, environmental projects, water infrastructure projects and flood protection measures throughout California.
California Proposition 15 was a failed citizen-initiated proposition on the November 3, 2020, ballot. It would have provided $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by creating a "split roll" system that increased taxes on large commercial properties by assessing them at market value, without changing property taxes for small business owners or residential properties for homeowners or renters. The measure failed by a small margin of about four percentage points.
California Proposition 14 is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that appeared on the ballot in the 2020 California elections, for November 3, 2020. It authorizes state bonds to be issued worth $5.5 billion, which will fund the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which serves as the state's center for stem cell research, and enable it to continue its operations. This measure passed with 51% of the vote.