by Lance T. Izumi, Fellow in California Studies
Pacific Research Institute
August 24, 1999

Announcer lead: Time for Perspectives. Lance Izumi says we should keep the two-thirds vote requirement for local school bonds.

Come next year, it's likely that there will be an initiative on the ballot to reduce the current two-thirds voter approval requirement for local school bonds to a simple majority vote. Those who support the change claim that the passage requirement on bonds must be lowered in order to raise adequate revenues for school construction. The facts, however, tell a different story.

First, the two-thirds requirement has not been an insurmountable obstacle for bond passage. Far from it. Since 1986, a majority of local school bond measures have received the needed two-thirds voter approval. Indeed, in recent elections the passage rate has been quite high. For example, in 1998 more than 60 percent of local school bonds received the requisite two-thirds vote.

While the two-thirds vote requirement hasn't stopped the flow of school construction revenues, it has provided needed protection for property owners. Local school bonds are mostly paid for by property taxes. The two-thirds vote requirement prevents the general electorate from too easily increasing taxation on a minority of the population, in this case property owners. As Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian observes, fundamental fairness dictates that the smaller the base of people being taxed, the broader the voter base must be to pass the tax. If a simple-majority vote rule for local school bonds had been in place from 1986 to 1997, it would have resulted in an increase of $400 million in added property taxes.

It should also be noted that increased reliance on property taxes for school construction doesn't necessarily help poor school districts. Much of the state's enrollment growth has been in poor urban districts. Yet, poor districts have less valuable property to tax than rich districts. Thus, making it easier to pass local school bonds will not guarantee that construction money will go to areas with the greatest need.

Yes, we do need more classrooms for our children. However, eliminating the two-thirds vote requirement is both an unfair and less effective way to build them.

With a perspective, I'm Lance Izumi.