THE QUESTIONShould the California Constitution be amended to allow local school bonds to be approved by a simple majority of voters instead of the current two-thirds? THE SITUATIONIn California, school districts and local governments traditionally obtained funds for buildings by incurring long-term debt in the form of local general obligation bonds, repayable from property taxes within the district. In 1978, voters approved Proposition 13, an initiative constitutional amendment that effectively banned local general obligation bonds. In 1986, voters amended the Constitution to restore the property tax funding mechanism for local general obligation bonds, but required that they receive a two-thirds majority approval. Between 1988 and 1998, about half of all local school bonds passed by a two-thirds majority. During that same period, about half of the school bond measures received a simple majority vote, but less than the required two-thirds, and thus were not approved. THE PROPOSALProposition 26 provides that: (1) K-14 jurisdictions could incur bond debt for the construction or rehabilitation of K-14 school facilities if approved by a simple majority of the local voters, and (2) property taxes could exceed the current 1 percent limit in order to repay the bonds. Proposition 26 would: · prohibit bond use for teacher/administrator salaries or other school operating expenses · require local bond measures to include a specific list of school facilities to be funded · require annual independent financial and performance audits of local bonds · require that facilities be available to public charter schools. FISCAL EFFECTImpact on K-14 school districts If more local school bonds are passed as a result of Proposition 26, local debt service costs would increase. The magnitude of these costs on a statewide basis is unknown, but could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars within a decade, depending on voter action in individual districts. Impact on state costs If more local bond measures are approved within K-14 school districts, the state could save in construction obligations for local school facilities. However, if several hundred of the school districts that do not currently participate in the state school facilities program for matching funds are encouraged to do so, this could offset some savings in state debt service costs. Generally, however, the Legislative Analyst has determined that the state's debt service costs would decline over time, as local districts assume greater funding responsibility for school facilities. SUPPORTERS SAY· The supermajority (two-thirds vote) for bond measures translates to "one-third plus one" rules, no matter how great the public need. · Proposition 26 makes it easier to invest in our kids' education, providing facilities for class size reduction and repairing old, dilapidated buildings. OPPONENTS SAY· The current two-thirds requirement protects homeowners from property tax increases voted in by renters who don't pay taxes. · Taxpayers are already investing in schools at a record rate; since 1996, voters approved over $11.8 billion in local school bonds with a two-thirds vote. For more information: Supporters: (916) 554-0324, www.letsfixourschools.com (Analysis prepared by the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund  
On Propositions:
About our Analysis -
List of Props -
Election '00 -
Smart Voter
LWVC Home -
Voting Q&As -
State Props -
About Us
Last updated: January 18, 2000 Send comments and suggestions concerning the content of this page to lwvcprocon@hotmail.com. Send comments concerning the format or usability of this page to cmwatts@ibm.net Copyright 2000 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund. This page may be linked to or printed in its entirety. |
