An Historical Analysis of Tax and Fiscal Propositions in California

WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA 82 114 ...... TES, 1978-2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... THE GREAT TAX REVOLT ...... REVOLT 13 TAX GREAT THE VATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 94 CONCLUSIONS AND VATIONS AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 APPENDIX C: CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT RA APPENDIX B: BOND MEASURES, 1978-2004 ...... 107 1978-2004 MEASURES, BOND B: APPENDIX APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA TAX AND FISCAL BALLOT MEASURES, 1978-2004 AND FISCAL BALLOT MEASURES, ...... APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA TAX 97 OBSER CHANGING HEARTS AND MINDS ...... 92 MINDS AND HEARTS CHANGING REFORMING THE SYSTEM REDISTRIBUTIVE MEASURES ...... 68 MEASURES REDISTRIBUTIVE PROPERTY TAX ADJUSTMENT PROPOSITIONS ...... 63 PROPOSITIONS ADJUSTMENT TAX PROPERTY TAX CUTS ...... CUTS 60 TAX PROPOSITION 13 AND ...... 39 INCREASES TAX INTRODUCTION ...... 12 INTRODUCTION ...... 18 BORROWING AND BONDS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 7 SUMMARY EXECUTIVE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FOREWORD ...... 4 FOREWORD LIST OF CHARTS ...... 2 CHARTS OF LIST TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 1 CONTENTS OF TABLE INDEX ...... 118 INDEX

WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA 93FedPl eut o rp12–Uaddadaddrsoss ...... 42 1993 Field Poll results forProp 172–Unaidedandaided responses ...... 45 1990 Field Poll results forProp 133–Unaidedandaided responses ...... 1992 F 41 1990 Field Poll ResultsforProp 111-Unaidedand Aided Responses...... Gener T 36 1978-2004...... Bond Measures for OtherPurposes, 35 1978-2004...... Bond Measures for Transportation, 33 1978-2004...... Bond Measures for Prisons, 30 1978-2004...... Bond Measures for Environment, 29 1978-2004...... Bond Measures for Libraries, 28 1978-2004...... Bond Measures for Housing, Bond Measur 26 1978-2004...... Bond Measures forChildren’s Facilities, 24 1978-2004...... Bond Measures forSchools, 22 Bond Measures for 1978-2004...... Water, 20 1978-2004...... Bond Measures for Veterans, 18 1978-2004...... California StateBondMeasures, 16 Homeowner perceived savings andhow they voted onProp 13...... op 10MostExpensi NHSOIA NLSSO A N ICLPOOIIN NCLFRI,1978-2004 AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCALPROPOSITIONS INCALIFORNIA, lTxIces rpstos 9820 ...... 40 1978-2004 ...... al Tax Increase Propositions, edPl eut o rp17–Uaddadaddrsoss ...... 44 ield Poll results forProp 167–Unaidedandaidedresponses ...... sfrErhuk erftig 9820 ...... 26 1978-2004...... es forEarthquake Retrofitting, eBn esrs ...... 37 ve BondMeasures ...... ITO CHARTS OF LIST WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA 1978-2004 ...... 83 esponses ...... 58 Aided r LIST OF CHARTS Aided responses ...... Aided responses 61 – 9 op 216 – op al Obligation Bonds, 1978-2004 ...... 90 axes, T esults for Pr esults for Pr oll r oll r axation and Gener T ield P ield Poll results for Prop 154 – Aided responses ...... Aided responses 154 – for Prop results ield Poll 55 ield P operty AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 ax Cut Propositions, 1978-2004 ...... 61 Pr Spending Limits, 1978-2004 ...... 82 Redistributive Measures,Redistributive ...... 1978-2004 70-71 T Adjustment Propositions, Tax 1978-2004 ...... Property 64-65 1996 F 1980 Field Poll results for Prop 11 – Unaided and aided responses ...... 11 – Unaided and aided responses for Prop results Poll 1980 Field 57 1990 F ...... Aided responses 11 – for Prop results Poll 1980 Field 57 1990 Field Poll results for Prop 126 – Aided responses ...... Aided responses 126 – for Prop results Poll 1990 Field 55 1990 Field Poll results for Prop 134 – Unaided responses ...... responses 134 – Unaided for Prop results Poll 1990 Field 54 1990 Field Poll results for Prop 126 – Unaided responses ...... responses 126 – Unaided for Prop results Poll 1990 Field 54 1998 Field Poll results for Prop 10 – Aided responses ...... Aided responses 10 – for Prop results Poll 1998 Field 51 1988 Field Poll results for Prop 99 – Aided responses ...... Aided responses 99 – for Prop results Poll 1988 Field 50 Targeted Tax Measures,Tax 1978-2004 ...... Targeted 48 State Budgets and 1979 F Taxes,Local 1978-2004 ...... 86 ••• 4 ••• FOREWORD

FOREWORD

California’s dysfunctional set of constitutional We begin with several basic assumptions. First, amendments and statutes that structure its public no single interest group or ideological constituen- finance system is currently forcing the state to lum- cy has the capacity to impose a new paradigm on ber from crisis to crisis. Meanwhile the public the rest of the state. California combines broad endures declining schools, cuts in vital public serv- diversity with multiple centers of political capacity. ices and a serious underinvestment in essential A new system designed to benefit the few will not infrastructure. By approving Propositions 57 and secure approval from the many. 58 in March of 2004, a massive $38.2 billion Second, narrowly crafted measures with limited budget shortfall was partially reduced – but only objectives that manage to achieve majority support through long-term borrowing. This same election, still leave the overall malfunctioning system in however, prohibited a reliance on bonded debt to place. Raising taxes on the rich to expand mental manage future deficits. Clearly, viable new solu- health services may help thousands of vulnerable tions are badly needed. people, but it will fail to touch millions of others The 2005 Special Election illustrated this dilemma. with pressing needs that require different services. As record-breaking amounts were spent on bar- Our concluding assumption, therefore, is that to rages of exaggerated or distorted campaign media, change the system we must find common ground. voters hit with this slew of advertising were likely Large scale reform will require major coalitions prevented from forming realistic understandings of able to appeal to substantial majorities within the which taxes are high or low and what public serv- electorate. To find, or more accurately, to create ices are genuinely in need of additional resources. that common ground, we will begin with an exam- For example, millions of dollars were raised on ination of the values held by the people of this A behalf of a ballot measure that would have both S state. From an understanding of values, we can

U created a bizarre new formula to cap spending and move to innovative policy analysis; based on analy- provided the Governor with sweeping powers to S sis we will initiate the simultaneous tasks of crafting

P unilaterally cut programs, thus setting back a myri-

I policy initiatives and building supportive coalitions.

H ad of efforts to protect California’s most vulnerable

S populations. In response, organizations commit- Our concrete goal is to generate an innovative and R pragmatic tax reform agenda that unites a set of

E ted to the protection of low-income and working

N families scrambled to come up with a short-term values and vision, not problems and policies, to T defensive strategy. Long-term planning was forced, garner mainstream support, and to build a R statewide coalition with the collective influence to A once again, to the back burner.

P implement that agenda. Our strategy is three-fold: How then do we in California move forward on to develop an historical analysis of how California G

N this issue? arrived in its current fiscal predicament; to redirect I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA ens ARTNERSHIPS USA ARTNERSHIPS arious constituencies. will we Together ves of current residents and future generations. and future residents of current ves ecka Mehr ocess to achieve their own specific objectives, specific own their ocess to achieve despite ••• Amongst major political actors with an interest in tax in with an interest major political actors Amongst policy,and fiscal in economic philosophy differences to rigidly. and adhered wide are preferences and policy minority in the and the Republican Both the Governor in certain sectors of the busi- and their allies legislature to tax increases. opposed solidly are ness community Democrats, unions, and advocates groups progressive in major reductions abhor communities for low-income services.health and human a budget solu- believe They limited spending and both tax increases tion requires reductions. contin- forces Most of these major political using the initiative by can prevail ue to hope they pr many has generated approach the fact that this divisive in the first place. of the failings of the California system of with the intention is being launched Our project and intense partisan- deadlocks the perennial avoiding ship in Sacramento. hope to bring together a We com- coalition of the most flexible and practical broad ponents of v ide- traditional that cut across reforms seek to produce ological and political boundaries, alter structurally system and improve tax and fiscal policy California’s the li Ellis-Lamkins Phaedra FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT SCOPE Ellis Juliet EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR URBAN HABITAT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WORKING P Der HEAD ORGANIZER CALIFORNIA ACORN Harris-Dawson Marqueece EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY COALITION Thigpenn Anthony 5 - es. v ••• ••• FOREWORD Our next . ategic initiati encouraging eco- encouraging ho will never drive off a drive ho will never ansportation services to a ansportation services eloping str alues Project, a partnership of dev atic decision-making V y ames, unprecedented establish ategic ernment performance, v ork that emphasizes our tax and fiscal pri mostly low-income and working class com- and working low-income mostly hange. sur- of social values Using the results amew ving go along this path b vices and democr o act, e v ans-McDonough, and Lumina Strategies, Environics path to expand this base into a true majority.path to expand this base into a true will We AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 orities and builds consensus with constituencies outside our base. normally we those with whom From inter viable economy.viable this reason, For anticipate our tax we on widely agenda will be based and fiscal reform accepted principles, as supporting tax fairness, such impr nomic growth, rev- government maintaining stable sufficient public services. enues and providing munities, out - for instance, must reach we to those in understand the importance of sector who the private functioning education and tr Strategic initiatives produce multiple impacts, produce initiatives Strategic advance new conceptual fr the opposition.alliances and divide In line with this characterization, a create will initiatives our strategic new fr we will now employ social values research tools for research social values employ will now we social c veys, a tax and fis- from with responses cross-tabulated cal survey, base of a primary will identify the values we electorate, our commitment to pub- that shares a group lic ser Ev out map that lays road a values task will be to develop a mo city street or interstate highway.city street our relation- Through ship with the Str Social values research is hardly a new approach to a new approach is hardly research Social values attempting to modify behavior.understanding or For used social val- 500 companies have decades Fortune of and marketing the creation to guide ues research their brands. used information gen- have Corporations from for everything this type of analysis from erated men to “metrosexual” to beauty products marketing selling SUVs to consumers w corporate social values research to create a values road a values to create research social values corporate non-traditional across to build consensus map; and the that reframes initiative a strategic allies around and meets the fiscal policy tax and debate around constituency. needs of a wide-ranging WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA CALIFORNIA BUDGETPROJECT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Jean Ross WORKING P ASSOCIATE POLICYDIRECTOR Sarah Muller COMMUNITY INSTITUTEFORPOLICYHEURISTICSANDEDUCATIONAL RESEARCH RESEARCH DIRECTOR J CALIFORNIA TAX REFORMASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Lenny Goldberg WORKING PARTNERSHIPS USA ORGANIZING DIRECTOR Mic WORKING PARTNERSHIPS USA RESEARCH Brian Darrow WORKING PARTNERSHIPS USA ASSOCIATE DIRECTORFORCOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT Sean Charpentier COMMUNITY INSTITUTEFORPOLICYHEURISTICSANDEDUCATIONAL RESEARCH LEAD RESEARCHER Angela Bowden The following individuals provided invaluable supportinrevising andeditingthispublication. WORKING PARTNERSHIPS USA ASSOCIATE POLICYDIRECTOR Louise Auerhahn The authorswishtorecognize thefollowing individual forherwrittencontributions. ennifer Ito hael Elliott NHSOIA NLSSO A N ICLPOOIIN NCLFRI,1978-2004 AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCALPROPOSITIONS INCALIFORNIA, AR ASSOCIA TNERSHIPS USA TE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA - s y operty’ eased b his initia correspon- T Prior to the alues, homes incr wth of property values wth of property y o operty was sold.operty was Another operty v oposition 13. 1970’s, a combination of e, the were taxes property y op 13 on the ballot. operty taxes to 1% of a pr ear until a pr In the earl y to put Pr h e v It also capped the gr dri limited pr eases would require two-thirds support of the two-thirds require eases would e e huge budget surplus. 1975 and 1978, Between his narrative begins with the Jarvis Tax Revolt,Tax begins with the Jarvis a his narrative v alue. provision of Prop 13 stipulated that all state tax of Prop provision incr legislature, require would and local tax increases support of the electorate.two-thirds changes These and shifted local tax revenues reduced drastically local authorities while from away fiscal control at 2% eac T of 1978 height in June its reached that movement with the enactment of Pr adoption of this measur of funding for local governments. main source tax rates, to set property the authority With local from of autonomy a degree enjoyed governments the State. PROP 13 AND THE TAX REVOLT PROP 13 AND THE TAX ti v stakeholders and activists across the state make across and activists stakeholders and fiscal system, tax broken sense of California’s efforts in vital reform engaged and become actively genera- and future of current to enhance the lives tions. corrupt tax assessment officers, failed reforms, high demand con- inflation and a soaring housing tributed to escalating pr tax collections and in property increases ding rapid a assessments on single famil 110.9% statewide. Howard of 1977 persistent tax reformers In May efforts in a signa- Gann united their and Paul Jarvis tur ••• s 7 but ho can ••• ••• ection, California’ y those w EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE e ong dir oposition 13 up to the third goal is to understand third A oad consensus on how to solve the to solve oad consensus on how vices. it – the poor, elderly, and com- young d om the passage of Pr fr eport provides an unprecedented historical unprecedented an eport provides their decisions and how voter attitudes can voter their decisions and how is no br en tax and fiscal system ar e e ok his r be shifted. and conclusions It is hoped that the observations assist policymakers, may form this analysis drawn present. are, objectives Its first, to distinguish myth crisis was fiscal California’s as to how reality from in the first place,created and second, the to review series of decisions made at the ballot box that have and decline debt growing contributed to the state’s in public ser problem. T that have account of all the ballot propositions since in California shaped tax and fiscal policy 1978, ther Over the past 25 years,Over finances have California’s bad to worse.gone from Since 1978 – the year – half of the state’s passed 13 was Proposition closed.county hospitals have public school The now once a model for the country system that was as one of the nations worst.ranks Our traffic deteriorate. our roads while heavier grows Often b the communities most impacted least affor munities of color. that agrees Almost everyone California is heading in the wr br how voters make decisions on tax and fiscal policy make voters how initiatives,certain campaign tactics and and how at winning at effective been more coalitions have the ballot box. on authors focus particularly The than more that appeared the handful of measures voters clues on how once on the ballot to provide mak EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA nents. media blitzesthatd before businessinterests spentmillionsofdollarson majority veys conductedby theField Instituteoftenshowed Early pre-election sur- were notunanimously rejected. ice witha40%reduction intheirbudget. local government couldprovide thesamelevel ofserv- 38%ofCaliforniavoters feltthatstateand on Prop 13, ernment “wastes alotofmoney.” Just before thevote widespread beliefthatgov- however, There was, or fire. Lessthan10%supportedcutstopolice public housing. publictransportation or medicalcare, to education, those who supportedProp 13only 35%supportedcuts desir appr ur the ballotsinceProp 13andonly halfofthesemeas- voters supportedsmallgovernment. ballot measur in any truesense free. voters are aware thatabondfinanced program isnot transportation andeducationdidfail–indicatingthat ects withwidespread positive effectsinsuch areas as a number ofbondproposals containingimportantproj- Nevertheless, and projects withoutraising taxes. Reality: Myth: Reality: Myth: Reality: Myth: Reality: Myth: MYTH VERSUSREALITY r simultaneously cripplingtheability toraise future tax evenues atboththestateandlocal level. es w o e NHSOIA NLSSO A N ICLPOOIIN NCLFRI,1978-2004 AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCALPROPOSITIONS INCALIFORNIA, v public services withoutpaying forthem. er T ed numer T The passageofProposition 13in1978means Californians are against taxincreases. , he curr he popularityofbondsisevidencethatv e The CaliforniaField Poll shows thatamong Relatively fewtaxcutmeasures appeared on A Ballot measur ev passed. bond doesexpandgovernment programs en tw es stemmingfr ent fiscalcrisisisthepr ous taxcutsduringthesameperiod. o-thir It shouldbenotedthelegislatur w arfed theeffortsoftaxpr es thatimposedtaxincreases ds supportfortaxincr om theJ arvis TaxRevolt. oduct ofanti-tax XCTV SUMMARY EXECUTIVE ••• eases oters opo e - 8 bond measures. The favorite fiscalinstrumentsamongvoters were FISCAL INSTRUMENTS TRENDS ANDOBSERVATIONS appr Redistributive measureswere fairly popularand reduced theobligationsofpr were property taxadjustmentpropositions that After bonds, w portation bondsoftenfailedev Prisonandtrans- predictor forameasure’s success. prison bonds, housingand environmental, children’s facilities, library, and sc centristcoalitionsandheavy financial backingwere required topassthelargerwater Bipartisan, the time. measures forschool facilitiespassedthree-quarters of appr Bondmeasures forcleanwater andveterans were ing. ices they were willingtosupportthrough debtfinanc- voters haddefinitepreferences inregard tothoseserv- Itisevidentthat ing to$98.6billioninbondsales. amount- orabout 75%, Voters approved 73, legislature. Nine outofevery tenwere placedontheballotby the considered 98bondmeasures onthe statewideballot. versally popular. forming economy andasubjectthatwas lessthanuni- those thathadtw property taxadjustmentpropositions were typically Failed environmental conservation andfire safety. ures offeringtaxbreaks forlow-income households, Lesspopularwere meas- elderly anddisabled persons. the veterans ormilitary personnel, transfers ofproperty, family seismicsafetyimprovements, reconstruction, included taxbreaks orexemptionsforpost-disaster The most popularcategories that achieved passage. adjustment proposition offive ontheJune 1978ballot ed measure inthis category andthesoleproperty tax 70%, appear total of30pr ••• as stable. vdcnitnl ihol n xeto.Bond oved consistently withonly oneexception. oved mostofthetime. w olbn esrs For earthquake retrofitting, hool bondmeasures. do h altsnePo 3 fwih2,or ofwhich 21, ed ontheballotsinceProp 13, r asd Prop 13was theonly voter-initiat- ere passed. operty taxadjustmentpropositions have the mostfa the stateofeconom o ic 98 Californiavoters have Since 1978, strikes againstthem:apoorly per- v ored fiscalinstruments en w operty o Betw hen theeconom een 1978and y w wners. as thebest A y WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA ve. This eased the alco- ere generated by generated ere incr broad well-funded broad Six special interest e v ential and to support 45% of the time. y ould ha hanisms) w oughl proposal to ban all future alcohol to ban all future proposal smaller differ ed r In comparison, propo- voter-initiated v a h o popular mec muc oposal that w appr a y e pr y e gislature require two-thirds approval from approval gislature require two-thirds er $18 million to defeat Proposition 99 in 1988 $18 million to defeat Proposition v y the le larger population of non-users, oposition 136, oad coalitions have a critical effect on the popularity oad coalitions have y ••• oughl hol tax b Pr taxes. lost, measures All three aggres- but the industry’s further attempts to raise any has prevented strategy sive alcohol taxes. In contrast, spent tobacco industry the r 10 in 1998. and $30 million to defeat Proposition opposition,Despite the well-financed both measures for a number of reasons,managed to prevail including a towards antipathy coalitions and voter supportive tobacco companies. proposed increase in the income tax brackets of the brackets the income tax in increase proposed less Fund failed by General benefit the State affluent to than 1%. In contrast, met resound- taxes four proposed ing defeats. – a gas tax to fund passen- proposals Two to fund telephone surcharge an increased and ger rail 30% even – failed to receive medical services emergency of the vote. for drug increase A half-cent sales tax to industry and a tax on the health care enforcement less than both failed with services fund public health 40% approval. trend is partly explained by the fact that over 90% of the fact that over explained by is partly trend tax adjustment measures and property bond measures (both highl the legislature. the view that pattern reinforces The br of ballot measures. tax measures appeared on the ballot since 1978; only on the ballot since 1978; appeared tax measures passed,two the tobacco tax. both increasing During Election,the 1990 General spent the alcohol industry tax initiati $34 million dollars to oppose an alcohol also contributed millions to qualify an industry The alternati sitions w both houses, often supported these measures were success nearly coalition and achieved a broad by 75% of the time. Due to the fact that ballot propositions introduced Due to the fact that ballot propositions b Polls indicate special interest, indicate Polls targeted, or tax substantial support enjoy measures initially the overwhelm before better-financed opponents media. with negative proposal 9 - ••• ••• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Voters demon- Voters supported four Despite the Tax Despite the y onl ere not automatically ere e v eases w tax on higher income residents to tax on higher income residents es imposing tax cuts during a peri A Californians ha including two gift and inheritance meas- gift and inheritance including two oad tax incr br ears, However, centrist coalitions with ade- broad , er operty towards deficit recovery passed without a deficit recovery operty towards ev ed the opportunity to sunset a half-cent sales tax or olt rhetoric, small number of broad-based tax increases tax small number of broad-based w ate in 1998. oposition 36 in 1984, have that would a measure AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 ax cuts rarely appeared on the ballot and were appeared on the ax cuts rarely ejected. support mental health services was also approved. was support mental health services A continue it to fund public safety, to chose the electorate continue the tax. strated an overall reluctance to approve such measures. such to approve reluctance an overall strated Ho of the eight measures three unacceptable; considered passed. slim margin. a very Another failed by When offer od of 25 y ures, and one meas- measure one income tax indexing sales taxes on candy, prohibit to ure and bottled water snack foods. An equal number of major tax cuts were r quate campaign resources proved necessary to bring necessary proved quate campaign resources 9 in to defeat: Proposition tax cut proposals three 1980, in half; to cut state income tax rates an initiative Pr to a subset of home- tax reductions property provided 28 in 2000, Proposition and owners; to a measure the elec- by approved the tobacco tax initiative repeal tor Rev major ballot measur appeared on the ballot since 1978. A T half the time. supported only 2004, specific allocations proposed ballot measures 20 revenue,of public passed. 12 were which of In most cases, primary constituted the of revenue the allocation objectives, some held broader the measure; of objective contributions or term on campaign as restrictions such limits. relatively covered A number of these measures eight likely expenditures; state of overall small shares or less.affected $30 million money that set Proposals received and deficit recovery aside for local government high ratings.exceptionally meas- Most redistributive substantial coalitions and did not pass without ures funding behind them. In a few cases, enough to sus- of opposition was issue plus the absence a convincing tain a measure. example, For 2004 measure recent a the sale of state sur- from that designated all revenue plus pr financial backing. coalition or strong broad ••• 10 ••• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

REFORMING THE SYSTEM paign budget and a larger voter turnout, Proposition 39, a nearly identical measure, achieved success during Two measures focused exclusively on state spend- the November General Election. The key differences ing limits since 1978. Proposition 4, adopted in between Props 26 and 39 were two-fold: a) Prop 39 1979, established a spending cap, known as the Gann lowered the school bond voter threshold to 55% Limit, on all appropriations, indexed for inflation and instead of a simple majority; and b) it created a citizen’s population increases. It required government agencies oversight committee to oversee the bond proceeds. to refund to taxpayers any revenues that exceeded spending limits. A subsequent measure in 1988 would California voters want the ability to vote directly have liberalized the formula under which state and on local tax increases. Four ballot measures since local spending limits could be raised, accounting for 1978 have proposed limiting the ability of local govern- per capita personal income, K-12 student enrollment ments to raise taxes without voter approval. Due to and employment growth. It would have also exempt- overreaching objectives and broad opposition, two ed transportation taxes from the Gann Limit. This measures failed. Proposition 62, approved in 1986, measure narrowly failed despite a broad coalition required local jurisdictions to obtain a two-thirds vote behind it. An expansion of the Gann Limit was subse- by the governing body and a majority vote by the elec- quently adopted under Proposition 111 in 1990. torate in order to raise taxes. As an initiative statute, however, it failed to cover the 82 chartered cities regu- After Prop 13 prohibited the use of general obli- lated by the state constitution. A decade later, gation (GO) bonds, two ballot measures attempt- Proposition 218 successfully closed off this loophole ed to restore the ability of local governments to plus a number of other strategies that had been employ this cost-effective debt instrument; only employed to raise local revenues. While Prop 218 con- the second attempt was successful. GO bonds are tained a mass of potentially unpopular components, the issued by states and local governments to raise money opposition campaign lacked the resources to inform for capital projects that are backed by the full credit of voters of the issues. An analysis of these four measures, the issuing agency. Proposition 4 in 1980 failed after the campaigns surrounding them, and voters’ prefer- opponents argued it would allow GO bonds to be ences suggests that on the basic question – the right to issued for routine operating expenses of government. vote on local taxes – voters did not shift their positions. Six years later, Prop 4 supporters placed Proposition 46 on the ballot, a measure that limited bond proceeds Voters desire procedural obstacles to tax increas- to purchase land and improve buildings. With the es, such as the requirement of a two-thirds vote, added support of the State Chamber of Commerce and but do not trust the state executive branch to make unilateral budget decisions. In 1992, Gov. A no opposition, Prop 46 was passed.

S Pete Wilson (R) and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers

U In 2000, two proposals sought to lower the two- Association spearheaded a measure to address repeat-

S thirds threshold required to pass local school ed delays in budget negotiations between the executive P

I bonds, as established by Prop 13; again, only the and legislative branches over competing fiscal priori-

H second attempt proved successful. Proposition 26 ties. Among its provisions, this measure would allow S in the March Primary Election would have allowed the governor to make unilateral spending cuts after the R

E school districts to issue bonds with a majority elec- adoption of a budget if revenues declined or expendi-

N torate vote. Although supported by a broad coalition, tures exceeded estimates by 3%. After raising signifi- T Prop 26 failed due in large part to a misleading cam- cant funds, a labor-backed coalition defeated this meas- R

A paign mounted by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers ure by advertising the detrimental impacts it would

P Association that claimed Prop 26 would lead to unlim- have on the “checks and balances we rely on to protect ited property tax increases and rent increases. With our freedom,” and on the poor, the elderly and the dis- G

N added bipartisan political support, over twice the cam- abled. In all likelihood, Proposition 76 on the 2005 I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA - vivable agendas ategy that ategy w o str centrist busi y y narr y ble nor a sur el v is the onl elati y ed participation b om histor equir ears is neither sustaina eform r Learning fr ation of public infrastructure and services threat- and services ation of public infrastructure ospects for electoral success. ospects for electoral ate constituencies to meet their underfunded ate constituencies to meet their hat may bring to an end this period in which the lega- in which bring to an end this period hat may majority vote would still prevail. would majority vote ••• y’s failure.y’s the hopeless- dot.com bust has revealed The remains. needs with either redistributive measures or targeted measures needs with either redistributive tax increases. change structural needed to make coalitions broad The and/or r At the state level, endlessly government California’s compo- of sustaining the two the fiscal task confronted sector that had been most depend- nents of the public tax revenues,ent on property most and hence were damaged by, 13. Prop and local – schools two These vital services. for – had responsibility government In this difficult political and fiscal environment, advocates also had to contend with addi- for public sector growth and the intense competition by tional tax cut proposals desper sive efforts to avoid these supermajority requirements these efforts to avoid sive or districts of benefit assessment the design through special districts. In some cases, state ballot the use of to meet local needs,measures parks, as housing or such political space where to seek some the desire reflected a ness organizations that had r option. in terms of support for increased expenditures.in terms of support for increased Thus, be established. rarely these coalitions could only Finally, option, seductive as a chronic of bonds the use with excel- as a strategy available stood and borrowing lent pr W fundamental new thinking on 13 has blocked of Prop cy lega- the enormity of that tax and fiscal issues is simply c to resolve ness of expecting wild economic growth fiscal woes.California’s and bonding has Borrowing increasing- absorbs debt service at which levels reached revenues. amounts of available unreasonable ly The deterior of the state,ens the economic competitiveness the well- the public at a and the security of being of its residents proliferate. and man-made threats natural time when history fail to learn from It is a truism that those who it. doomed to repeat are In California, of a repetition the last 25 y 11 If aise ••• ••• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ement of the leg- ailed after labeling ev equir etain the right to r ote r ds v opponents pr o-thir est effort by the liquor industry to the liquor industry est effort by , atio losing battle to r creativity was diverted to essentially defen- to essentially diverted was creativity , on the defensive and restricted their ability and restricted on the defensive h y Proposition 136 in 1990 would have amend- have would 136 in 1990 Proposition Due to an additional provision that would pro- that would provision Due to an additional Muc “special inter a ve. By overreaching, opened 136 ultimately Prop ate. otect itself from bring taxed.” A separate measure in measure A separate bring taxed.” otect itself from e AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 otes. revenues for specific purposes without supermajority revenues v CONCLUSION: A 25 YEAR PERSPECTIVE period as a whole, 25 year the entire Viewing it appears a political dynam- 13 created that the passage of Prop public sector of a strong placed proponents ic which persistentl At the local level, fought a public sector advocates decades-long to be creative or forward thinking in the tax and fiscal or forward to be creative arena. policy Californians will vote against measures making it against measures making vote Californians will increase taxes or fees if the meas- more difficult to “special interest” driven. as ure is perceived Special Election ballot was defeated on account of sim- defeated on ballot was Special Election ilar criticisms. a progres- was 56 in 2004 Proposition have would issue that delay to the budget response sive and tax to enact a budget the legislature allowed vote. of a two-thirds a 55% margin instead by increases spent on its behalf, $16 million was Nearly but Prop opponents spent $9.5 million warn- 56 still failed after tax increases. allow of its potential to ing voters adopted, state taxes that any ed the state constitution to provide and all vote a two-thirds for specific purposes required of the elec- majority vote a taxes required local general tor taxes, per-unit hibit future the alcohol and tobacco millions of dollars to support the ini- industries poured tiati opponents,itself to attacks from the meas- labeled who ur pr amended the state constitution to have 2000 would fees collected for the monitoring or allevi- any redefine environmental,ation of negative or economic social as taxes.effects of an activity then “taxes” would These be subject to the tw islature or local electorate instead of only requiring a requiring of only instead or local electorate islature a simple majority. decision by legislative In spite of a 9-1 spending r the measure “polluter protection.” the measure WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA tax systemasa “corrosive mess.” referring tothe chose lessliterary terminology, hiscolleagueattheBee, Dan Walters, later, Seven years Paradise Lost. the two decadesfollowing passageofProposition 13(1978-98), titledabookon therenowned columnistfortheSacramento Bee, Peter Schrag, be merged. brevity andaccuracy can InCalifornia’s case, cogently describedinashortphrase ortitle. One mightexpectthatthetaxandfiscalsystemforalargepopulousstatecouldnotbe INTRODUCTION NHSOIA NLSSO A N ICLPOOIIN NCLFRI,1978-2004 AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCALPROPOSITIONS INCALIFORNIA, ment, ing nearlastonalmostev from leadingthenationthirtyyears agotoitsrank- California’s publicschools have sliddramatically number hadbeenr that In1991, acute in-patientcare totheindigent. California had65countyhospitalstoprovide In1978, tionately by thepoor andthepowerless. tional fiscalstructure are experienceddispropor- Unsurprisingl the policedepartment. than halfthefundsneededtopay generated forthecostof less andindustrial, commercial, tial, residen- property taxrevenues from allsources, is lessthanorequaltoone-halfPD”:thetotalof enduring thenearfatalfiscalformula describedCalifornia’s citiesas Susan Hammer, Budget Dir T of localgo rzn,Iao th ymn,Montanaand New Mexicocombined. Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Fund revenues of Washington, the statebudgetortototal2003General budget shortfallof$38.2billion, ouossae.Ana e ui pnig for Annualperpupil spending, populous states. than mostofthenation– even amongthemost Californiaranks lower dent achievement scores, teac her excessi his accusatory languagedoesnotseem accor -student r ve forastatethatin2003boasted ding toar v ector forCityofSanJ ernment, y thenegative impactsofadysfunc- , to n colfclte,tostu- atios andschool facilities, dcdt 1 Meanwhile, educed to31. ecent RANDstud Bob Br 1 er y Regarding theplight substanti o wnstein, INTRODUCTION equal tohalf v ose Ma “Sigma PT ••• e y measure- . 2 former F 12 r y om or ••• the dev W their stateasParadise Regained. Californians determined to definethefuture of this historicalanalysis may beofassistancetothose that theconclusionsandimplications gleanedfr itishoped Why? Finally, received 53%ofthevote. asimilarmeasure Eight monthslater, majority. school districtbondsfrom two-thirds toasimple lo electorate rejected aconstitutionalamendment to the InMarch of2000, reject certainproposals. tors affectedthevoters’ willingnesstoadoptor Anothergoalistotry tounderstandwhat fac- ures. judgments attheballotboxtoappr level ofdebtresulted from seventy-three separate The state’s high duced cumulative consequences. ect attemptstoexplainhow multipledecisionspro- thisproj- Inaddition, process toimpose taxcuts. they have rarely usedtheinitiative high taxes, although Californiav example, actuall include separating myth from reality astowhat thr thetimeofJarvis Tax Revolt, tem from 1978, average in1999-2000. average in1969-70to$600below thenational hasfallen from $400above thenational instance, wer thepercentage ofvotes neededtoadopt ith thispaper ough tothepr y elopment ofthismalfunctioningfiscalsys occurr contrary tocommonassumptions, ed duringthis25-y , sn.The objectives ofthiseffort esent. the authorsr oters ma 3 eview thehistor y complain a ear period. o ve bondmeas- bout y F om or of - WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA low y vidual er tax “equi- a ed indi yed a great deal a great yed Bill 80, y 5 Assembl eep home assessments v and engaged in a great deal of and engaged in a great – alue) – and then offer y scandal in San Francisco in 1965 scandal in San Francisco ea, State Sen. C. Nicholas (D) Petris as to k versight role,versight with no enforcement Ar A et v y the county tax assessor, an elected officer. etical o on the passage of aud. had a the- of Equalization State Board The he assessed value of property was determined was of property he assessed value y evealed what may have been taking place in been taking have may what evealed ty” measure that created the “single roll.” That “single roll.” the that created ty” measure and Assm.and T. John Knox (D), and introduced w fr or tools. state legislators from progressive In 1967 two the Ba ASSESSED VALUE T b Prior to 1967 local assessors enjo of autonom r counties.many Assessor Russell San Francisco many had been elected and re-elected Wolden his father. the post from over taken times having His goal w REFORM GONE AWRY TAX (approximately 9% of market value) especially in especially value) 9% of market (approximately neighborhoods with lots of voters. He assessed 50% (average aggressively very business property of mark businesses the opportunity to reduce their assess- their businesses the opportunity to reduce for cash. ment in exchange ••• 13 operty hat local ••• ••• ojecting needed projected state and projected y enue ev acting an ate – first pr 4 district r ould grow rapidly as vacant or as vacant rapidly ould grow and then calculating w = , PROPOSITION 13 AND THE GREAT TAX REVOLT TAX THE GREAT AND 13 PROPOSITION subtr es, ould produce the desired income, the desired ould produce given al funding ities and districts would typically “back in” typically ities and districts would to their tax r ate w alue. feder tax r pr the size of their total base of assessed v of district property) x (total assessed value (tax rate) a determined by were tax rates Local property of the tax- board simple majority of the governing ing district – and in the case of special districts, of individuals, small group this could be a very to voters. accountable not directly In the 1950s “first ring” suburbs growing and 1960s the rapidly a competi- major urban centers enjoyed around tax rates to keep could afford they advantage; tive of property the total assessed value because low within the city w or industrial to housing converted farm land was use. City of San Leandro, The for example, had a of 1.27% in 1960,tax rate to nearby compared 2.91%. Oakland’s expenditur C TAX RATES TAX PROPOSITION 13 AND THE GREAT TAX REVOLT TAX THE GREAT 13 AND PROPOSITION 13 in 1978, of Proposition Prior to the passage of main source the taxes were property cities, jurisdictions: government funding for local counties,regional districts and school or parks. as firefighting such services specific providing “special districts” As a result, local government, State from of autonomy a degree enjoyed government with local budgets local action.determined by of this system depended on the rela- operations practical The and assessed valua- processes political determined through tax rates tionship between tions, economic dynamics. by generated AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 ••• 14 ••• PROPOSITION 13 AND THE GREAT TAX REVOLT

law simply required that all property be assessed at tures across California grew by 9.4%, but the 25% of market value and that all property within Consumer Price Index gained 8.1%, so real growth each county be reassessed every three years (one- was less than 2%.10 third of the properties each year). The reformists’ plan was to remove the authority of local tax asses- State government, on the other hand, began accruing sors and end “unequal” taxation. The unanticipated a huge surplus. Inflation boosted family incomes up effect was to dramatically increase the assessed value into higher tax brackets, so that the average state of individual homes – and the tax bills of their own- income tax taken on each $1000 of personal income ers – while decreasing the share of property taxes increased 65% between 1973 and 1978. A fiscally paid by businesses. Statewide there was an immedi- conservative Gov. Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown Jr. (D) ate shift of $500 million in tax burden from business- held the line on spending even as total state revenues es to individual homeowners.6 grew by 88.6%. The result was a state budget surplus of over $4 billion a year. Homeowners expected tax reform to reduce their bills. When it had the opposite consequence, they TAX REFORM AFTER AB 80 complained loudly, and their cause grew in both organization and intensity as housing values explod- Early in the decade after AB 80, the governor and the ed over the next ten years. legislature had success at passing incremental tax reforms and holding off the more drastic solutions INFLATION AND THE HOUSING BOOM advocated by tax protestors.

The new state-mandated equal rate mechanically In 1968 under Gov. Ronald Reagan (R), California translated rising housing values into higher tax bills. created a property tax exemption for homeowners High inflation combined with a booming demand (the first $750 of assessed value) and businesses for housing in California to drive up property values. (exempting 15% of inventories). That same year, vot- Suburban neighborhoods saw the most dramatic ers rejected by a 2-1 ratio the first of several initia- increases. For example, property taxes increased tives championed by Los Angeles county assessor 79% between 1970 and 1980 in the East Bay city of Philip Watson that would have limited property taxes Fremont.7 Many cities and districts lowered their tax to 1% of assessed value, and restricted the use of rates, but any benefit to taxpayers was quickly property taxes to “property related” services (not edu- eclipsed by continuously rising property values. cation, health, welfare).

A The boom did not apply to all forms of property – In 1972, again under Reagan, the legislature S apartment assessments increased by only 34.2% and

U increased the homeowners’ exemption to $1,750 commercial and industrial property values rose by and increased the business inventory exemption to S only 26.4% in the same period.8 The result was a fur-

P 50%. This tax reduction was quickly made irrelevant

I ther shifting of the tax burden away from businesses by rising property values. Watson put an initiative on H and towards homeowners. S the ballot to limit property taxes to 1.5% of assessed R value while increasing the corporate tax rate and sin

E Meanwhile, cities, counties and school districts were

N experiencing rising costs due to inflation and grow- taxes to offset the lost revenue. The initiative lost T ing community needs. Between 1950 and 1970 34% to 66%. In 1973 Reagan sponsored an initia- R tive to limit the size of government – Proposition 1.

A California’s population doubled, the number of

P school-age children quadrupled, and the number of This measure would have reduced taxes, but slowly, people living in poverty rose to over 1.5 million.9 over a 15-year period, using a formula based on per- G

N Between 1974 and 1978 local government expendi- sonal income. It failed: Yes (46.0%) / No (54.0%). I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA - IBM in estment v (Standard in e e. 13 v vernment leaders, vernment ould get $13.1 mil astructur It was widely discussed widely It was ought together almost ers donated substantial Most go 12 ould be massi viduals, and that the initial Angeles $9.5 million, ernment infr v Costa County w than indi a AIGN e state level would require a two-thirds majority two-thirds a require would state level Lockheed in Los Increases in property taxes beyond the Prop 13 the Prop beyond taxes in property Increases one parcel cannot exceed 1% of the full cash exceed 1% of cannot one parcel value. tax load combined the average (In 1977 value.) 2.6% of market was limits were prohibited.limits were at other tax increase Any a of the legislature, and at a local level, a two-thirds (although the language majority of the electorate ambiguous; see p 86). taxes was these regarding America, Southern California Edison, and State as fiscally irresponsible and bad for the economy. irresponsible as fiscally ••• he impact on go he No-on-13 campaign br ebates to businesses w all of labor, organiza- education and environmental tions, senior citizens groups,Women the League of Voters,Cause, Common as builders and con- as well joined the coalition. struction interests that Prop 13 contained no provision to ensure that to ensure 13 contained no provision that Prop be passed on to the 45% would benefits to landlords in 1977. renters were who of California residents T was predicted based on the constraints on local bond on local on the constraints based predicted was issues. The only organizations noticeably missing from the missing from organizations noticeably only The the California Real Estate list of opponents were THE CAMP T every power player in state affairs, in state player power every including the business establishment. business-oriented California The Association came out against it, Taxpayers it saying w joined them. of Commerce State Chamber The Bank of Association of Manufactur sums to the No campaign. Santa Clara $6.1 million.) Santa Clara lion, • Oil in Contr Obviously, be fiscal impact would the immediate on local taxing districts,mostly not state government, use its sur- assumed the state would but it was plus to offset the losses to local governments. Also, busi- benefit would that the initiative known it was nesses mor r 15 - - as wer e ••• ••• wners lo une 1978 bal Because of the he provisions of he provisions T 11 wn as the Behr bill or ving homeo gi kno ed a constitutional amend oll, PROPOSITION 13 AND THE GREAT TAX REVOLT TAX THE GREAT AND 13 PROPOSITION would have cost $1.4 billion have would h equir operty is held by one owner the one owner operty is held by hic en homeowners an immediate 30% en homeowners eform bill, w v alues than businesses. gi “split” the r om briefing books for the legislatur e: e the bill r v and op 13 qualified to be on the J oll, the governor and legislature were finally able to able finally were and legislature the governor The combined property taxes of all districts on property combined The to the property’s market value in 1975 or at the value market to the property’s time of the last sale, later. comes whichever value can increase at no more than 2% a year, at no more can increase value until it is sold. As long as a pr The “full cash value” of each property is set equal is set property of each “full cash value” The ee on a tax r op 13 was well understood. well op 13 was op 13 ar ould ha AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 ment and thus joined Prop 13 on the June ballot as ballot 13 on the June ment and thus joined Prop 8. Proposition property tax cut,property and for renters tax credits created seniors, split r (Prop 13 cost $6 billion in the first year). (Prop bill This w assessment v well as news coverage that the probable impact of that the probable coverage as news well Pr It is clear fr PROVISIONS OF PROPOSITION 13 lot, agr Senate Bill 1, After Pr In May of 1977 tax reformers Howard Jarvis and Jarvis Howard tax reformers of 1977 In May signature united their organizations in a Gann Paul ballot. 13 on the to put Prop drive summer, That the twice pro- of the legislature committee conference to tax relief offered have duced a budget that would homeowners, and businesses, renters to fail to only the floor of the on required vote get the two-thirds state senate. Between 1972 and 1978, 1972 and Between boom as the housing a huge created and inflation peak intensity reached budget surplus, could and governor the legislature package. tax reform on a property not agree homes single family assessments on Meanwhile 1975 and 110.9% statewide between by increased 1978. Pr • • • ••• 16 ••• PROPOSITION 13 AND THE GREAT TAX REVOLT

Association (CREA) and landlords’ associations. plus of $5 billion. The No campaign collapsed. A CREA was best known at the time for its openly week before the election the governor was telling racist and successful campaign to repeal fair housing reporters that he would “do everything to make Prop legislation in 1964 (Proposition 14).14 The Yes-on-13 13 work.” Prop 13 received a majority vote, while campaign was funded almost entirely by small dona- Prop 8 lost: Prop 13 – Yes (64.8%) / No (35.2%); tions from individuals, although its leader Howard Prop 8 – Yes (47.0%) / No (53.0%). Jarvis was the director of the Los Angeles Apartment Owners Association.15 WHAT WERE THE VOTERS THINKING?

The breadth of the No campaign worked against it in Prop 13 enjoyed widespread support. The California two ways. First, it provided Jarvis with an easy foil. Field Poll showed that 69% of homeowners favored When the No campaign advertised that Prop 13 gave Prop 13 – but so did 47% of renters. Roughly 65% most of the benefit to business, Jarvis would point of higher income Californians supported it – but so out that business was financing the No campaign. did 53% of the lowest income Californians. While The huge and increasing budget surplus further only 66% of the voting age population was registered added to voter disgust with Sacramento. With the and only 69% of registered voters went to the polls, entire political establishment against Prop 13, a “yes” 62% of those not registered and 57% of the registered vote became a chance to “jab politicians in the ass.” 16 voters who stayed at home said they would have Second, the No campaign struggled to agree on strat- voted “yes.” The only demographic that didn’t follow egy and message. Unwilling to acknowledge the the pattern was African Americans, of whom only issue of high taxes, the campaign focused on the high 18% supported Prop 13.17 cost of the initiative and the potential for service cuts. They promoted Prop 8 as a more reasonable alterna- The racial division over Prop 13 was mirrored by the tive with benefits for renters and seniors. geographic division. In the Bay Area for example, The campaigns were almost even in the polls in the mostly African American and Mexican American April, but in mid-May the Los Angeles county asses- communities in the Flatlands of Oakland voted 52% sor agreed to let residents who were due for three- against Prop 13, while the white enclaves of San 18 year property reassessments get an early peek at the Leandro and Piedmont voted 72% and 73% “yes.” results. Television across the state broadcasted weep- In American Babylon, Robert Self writes, ing housewives and fragile retirees coming out of the “Proposition 13 was made possible by more than an assessor’s office with the news that their property tax ideological turn in the state’s electorate. It was made A bill had jumped 100% or more. On May 25, 1978, possible because postwar metropolitan development S

U the state finance director announced a budget sur- had subsidized segregation.” S P I H

S HOMEOWNER PERCEIVED SAVINGS

R AND HOW THEY VOTED ON PROP 13 E

N Anticipated Savings $0 $1-$199 $200-$399 $400-$999 $1000+ T R Homeowners w/ A 8 % 23 % 31 % 21 % 16 %

P this idea

G Yes votes 49 % 50 % 77 % 81 % 83 % N I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA 22 23 21 ••• ••• Probably the main issue for voters was self-interest. was the main issue for voters Probably would they believed 91% of homeowners Roughly 13. Prop tax cut from get an immediate higher The was,the anticipated benefit the support. the greater 13, Prop Before felt their prop- 60% of Californians later, high; a year too erty taxes were 72% felt they right amount. the paying were same level of service with a 40% reduction in their 40% reduction with a of service same level budget. in 1979 perhaps confirmed belief was This of many to prevent the State used its surplus when local services. cuts in the projected of 27% Only felt affected by 13 after Prop those polled a year services. reduced 1717 ••• ••• ••• vide the o Just before Just 20 ernment could pr v PROPOSITION 13 AND THE GREAT TAX REVOLT TAX THE GREAT AND 13 PROPOSITION 9 1 is wrong to assume that support of Prop 13 of Prop assume that support to is wrong AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX TAX OF OF ANALYSIS ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 1978-2004 There was,There however, belief that govern- widespread Americans (78% of a lot of money” “wastes ment in 1978,agreed 47% in 1968). up from It government.to support of small equates Field The Prop supported among those who that showed Poll to education, 35% supported cuts 13 only medical care, or public housing. public transportation Less cuts to police or fire.than 10% supported In fact, the that had a majority public spending programs only welfare of cuts were in favor 13 supporters of Prop (80%).(80%) and administration high numbers The particular targets issues were two suggest that these of frustration. the vote on Prop 13, on Prop the vote felt 38% of California voters that state and local go WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA was borrowing. Oneofthemostprevalent mechanisms employed toproduce thosefunds required funding. they would have tomake specificfiscaldecisionstogenerate the tional government services, localgovernmentsan couldnolongerrely on Atthesametime, andcounties. cities, schools, statesurpluseswere neededtoavert massive lossesto Following thepassageofProp 13, BONDS ANDBORROWING NHSOIA NLSSO A N ICLPOOIIN NCLFRI,1978-2004 AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCALPROPOSITIONS INCALIFORNIA, atmtc oreo eeu ocvricesdcss IfCaliforniavoters wanted addi- “automatic” source ofrevenue tocover increased costs. failur lease-revenue bonds. gation bondsandtheremaining $7billion from billion ofthisdebtoriginatedfr Gener California hadroughly $40billionofyetunpaid asof2004 to theLegislative Analyst’s Office, According salient issueduringbondcampaigns. existing orpotentialpublicservices israrely a theactualeffectofbondapprovals on voters, potential stateexpenditures ofimportanceto service torepay bondshasapriorityover while debt other Moreover, ate costtothemselves. substantial fundswithoutimposingany immedi- have provided voters with theoptionofraising bondmeasures facilities totheenvironment, For purposesranging from schools andprison o ized o of v have beenby farthepreferred fiscalinstrument W in debthasbeenapproved (see Appendix B). posed expenditur ballot representing about $113.6billioninpro- including $15billionofdeficit-r S v ith anearl er a Californiavoters have considered ince 1978, view ofthefactorsinfluencingsuccessor oters. e total of98bondmeasures onthestatewide al Fundbonddebt. v of bondmeasur er $31billioninad T y his sectionprovides anhistorical 75% passager es. 24 Of thistotal, es over thepast25years. n20,voters author- In 2004, BONDS AND BORROWINGBONDS AND ditional bondsales, Appr t,bondmeasures ate, om general obli- eduction bonds oximatel $98.6 billion ••• y 18 $33 ••• Appr authorized underPr total $7.4billion. of alloutstandingbonddebt fortheStatewill theannual cost ed thatby fiscalyear 2009-10, oximately 90%ofthebondmeasures since MEASURES, 1978-2004 CALIFORNIA STATE BOND ore CA State Archives Source: Resear Modernization, EconomicRecovery, Stem-Cell *First-time homebuyers, SeniorCenters, Voting T Miscellaneous* Water V Transportation Sc Facilities Prison /Crime Libraries Housing Environment Retr Earthquak Children Purpose otal eter hools ofitting ch Bonds ans e 25 oposition 57. Passed 73 13 10 17 4 2 9 2 4 8 3 1 It isestimat Total 98 14 10 21 15 15 4 5 2 6 4 2 -

WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA

PASSED TOTAL l l

esponding to a i r

as the purpose of t

a W

oters r

e t

e V

66.9% of v

8-2 n y

197 r

oposition 142 was among only two out two among only oposition 142 was o

es on the ballot failed w p

Pr s broad coalition.broad It appears the primary

oximatel n

l ES, a y

all, o T

er h

appr

oposition. c v S ASUR

ell o ••• s n

Field Poll said they were inclined to vote for inclined to vote were said they Poll Field approved. All veterans, meas- bond and school water one with only the legislature from originated ures exception, 50 in 2002. Proposition VETERANS pass, bond measure veterans did every Not only all but margin of an overwhelming by approval one secured at least 18 points. Proposition sole exception was The (46.4%). (53.6%) / No Yes 206 in 1996: On average, vot- of 64.6% of the approval bonds received veterans ers. in specific issues ranged amounts raised The $50 million and $500 million,between totaling $5.06 since 1978. for veterans billion secured Most of these and home aid. farm bonds provided approved were of these propositions Although many performed bond measures during elections in which w 1990 ballot on the November of 14 bond measures (59.0%) / No (41.0%).Yes accepted: that voters Prop con- less than other 142 did not ask for significantly bond measures,temporary a it supported by nor was particularl other so many 142 passed when Prop why reason bond measur the pr reveals bond measures veterans polling around Early consistent support among voters. projections Polling election results. mirrored also closely August of In 1982, ME

19 r D

P s

BON

••• ••• e i r

E a

i L

TAT

BONDS AND AND BONDS BORROWING n i

CALIFORNIA S i

e E

u q

VORED BONDS

eterans have always passed, always have eterans dur- even

A t every time they appeared on the ballot. appeared time they every r

F a

y E n

Y e

h C

0 5

20 10 25 15

s e r u s a e M d n o B f o # IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 As noted above, since 1978, recommend- propositions ing bonds for v bond measure other almost every ing elections when rejected.was projects to finance water Bond measures passed nearl STRONGL Similarly, were bond measures school 80% of over Bond measures to advance certain state purposes are certain state purposes to advance Bond measures favored.consistently 1978 and 2004, Between for example, bond meas- veterans every approved voters the ballot. on ure state of the economy, The measured rate, the state unemployment by in this report also of bond in shaping the success a critical role played measures.1990, 1982 and Between the econo- when falling, were rates and unemployment strong was my the ballot was that reached bond measure every nearly approved. began to suffer, the economy When bond as well. suffered measures bond amounts, Proposed for or against raised coalitions formed and money bond also impacted how ballot proposition each performed on Election Day. measures 1978 originated from the legislature. from 1978 originated than three- More passage. achieved statutes of these legislative quarters the originated from ten bond measures remaining The approved. half were only as initiatives; electorate This coali- significant impact broad the comparison reflects measures. on the popularity of ballot tions have in the both houses from vote Requiring a two-thirds legislature, originating in Sacramento these measures base of support. a broader enjoyed inherently WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA rpsto ,the VeteransProposition 3, Bond Act of1982. 76. 64.0%of respondents saidthey would vote forProposition Similarly in April of1988, (32.9%). measure was eventually passed: Yes (67.1%)/No opposed themeasure. posal. a$500millionbondpro- Proposition 32in 2000, Committee on chair ofthe Senate MauriceJohannsen (R), K. Sen. Assembly Committeeon Veterans Affairs; andState chair ofthe John Dutra (D), Gray Davis (D); Assm. acoalitionthatincludedGov. For example, port. 1990 allthemeasur Since and two Libertariancongressional candidates. was opposedby aLibertarianpresidential candidate It Steve Clute(D). Richard Alatorre (D)and Assm. was supportedby Assm. forexample, in 1984, Proposition 29 tors orLibertarianParty members. typically consistedofafewRepublican statelegisla- Opposition port from Democratic statelegislators. Most veterans bondmeasures received formalsup- (32.4%). BOND MEASURESFORVETERANS,1978-2004 NHSOIA NLSSO A N ICLPOOIIN NCLFRI,1978-2004 AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCALPROPOSITIONS INCALIFORNIA, 2000 2000 1996 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 1978 Y 27 ear This measure alsopassed: Yes (67.6%)/No T wo chairs ofthe Voter Information Alliance Election Gener General General General General General Primar Primary Primary Primar T ype of Veterans Affairs allsupported al y y es ha Leg./ T of E (LS) (LS) (LS) (LS) (LS) (LS) (LS) (LS) (LS) (LS) Init. ype v e enjo 32 16 206 142 76 42 29 3 2 1 Number Pr yed bipartisansup- op. BONDS AND BORROWINGBONDS AND Pass/ P P Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass P Pass Fail ass ass ass ••• 26 This 67.2 % 62.3 % 53.6 % 59.0 % 67.6 % 75.6 % 66.3 % 67.1 % 65.5 % 62.3 % 20 Y es ae osrainporm,fodcnrl water floodcontrol, water conservation programs, Water bondmeasures tendedtogenerate fundsfor age appr fr Bondissuesranged in bondsthatwere proposed. voters authorized $10.26billionoutofthe$10.33 As aresult, every water bondmeasure. voters approved nearly Between 1978and2004, WATER ballot (see Appendix B). among themostexpensive bondmeasures onthe veterans bondmeasures were consistently 1986, Between 1978and over how Californiansvoted. bond measure alsodidnotseemtohave much sway The sizeofeach proposed cant fundsbehindthem. bothpassedin2000withoutany signifi- instance, for Props 16and32, tle influenceontheirsuccess. formed onbehalfofthesemeasures hadrelatively lit- themoney raised andcoalitions veterans bonds, Given thecontinuousstrength ofvoter supportfor measur lion. ••• om aslo V Veterans HomesBond Act of2000 V Veterans Bond Act of1990 Veterans Bond Act of1988 Veterans Bond Act of1986 Veterans Bond Act of1984 Veterans Bond Act of1982 V V eter eter eter eter ihteecpino rpsto 4,these With theexceptionofProposition 148, es passedb o ans Bond Act of2000 ans Bond ans Bond ans Bond v w al rate was 64.2%. as $30milliontohigh$3.44bil Act of1996 Act of1980 Act of1978 Title y substantial margins. Total approved T otal pr oposed Amount $5.06B $5.06B $500M $400M $400M $510M $850M $650M $450M $750M $500M T $50M he a v er - - WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA ax the T oponents oters, Pr V v. Davis Gray Agencies, the the California aising committees e. omen ater ble, W ce and the California W Opposition consisted of 30 No fundr olice and Sheriffs. arty members and the National Endorsements included Go formed to oppose the measur e dition to the League of er ••• ••• California Business Roundta the California State Association and Manufacturers Council of Laborers. Together, supporters spent $10.1 million, the Nature $2 million from including over Action Fund. Conservancy Libertarian P Limitation Committee. w In 2002, 40 and 50 passed with tight Propositions margins,the support indicating that without of broad coalitions and substantial financial backing, may they been successful.not have During the 2002 Primary Election, 40, Proposition a $2.6 billion bond measure, and mobilized the support of the same environmental 13 in 2000. Prop that backed groups public interest It American the endorsements from also received (AARP), Persons Association of Retired the Los Angeles Chamber of Commer Organization of P Association of California Coalitions did not play a critical role in the outcome in the a critical role did not play Coalitions propositions, bond water of most meas- particularly margins. with wide that passed ures argu- state legislators signed the ballot Democratic A few stood of the Libertarian Party ments; a few members in opposition. supporters included Other frequent groups,environmental Voters Women the League of agencies. and water exceptionally requested that bond measures water For borrowing,high amounts of a more coalitions played role.central of 2000, In March bonds, $1.97 billion in water requested 13 a massive Proposition measures.amount in comparison to previous This of endorsements a raft passed after receiving proposal business community, the support from and monetary (64.8%) / No Yes groups: and environmental labor (35.2%). (D), and the the State Chamber of Commerce Association.California Taxpayers Several environmental agencies,Audubon Society, including the the League,Planning and Conservation and National Federation,Wildlife in also supported the measure ad 21 21 es on ••• ••• ••• ••• op 148 Waters (D) Waters es (71.7%) / Y BONDS AND AND BONDS BORROWING al: v o Norman om water bond meas- bond om water This measure ultimately measure This 28 ent fr ate of appr ears or other bond measur differ y ildlife (Assm. W bond issues on the ballot achieved Peace (D)),Peace statewide water three and e o tw 29 Stev y arks and ation and sanitation organizations. Several P v , not significantl Assm. e ater es passed in other y er AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 passage. coalition in support and no a bipartisan With organized opposition, difficulties can hard- 148’s Prop be attributed to inadequate political backing.ly In fact,Assm. endorsed by was the measure Bill Filante (R), Committee on Assembly members of the two W The Water Resources Bond Act of 1990, Bond Resources Water The or 148,Proposition bond measure water the only was (56.2%). (43.8%) / No Yes that failed: ailing econ- The Prop in producing appears to be the main culprit omy demise.148’s by in 1990 rose rates Unemployment 1.9%, the previ- from 0.2% increase the mere dwarfing Appendix C). (see ous year As a result, 148 and Prop of 1990 all in November 11 other bond measures failed; onl pollution control and water reclamation projects. reclamation and water control pollution facilities, recharge Groundwater coastal wildlife and these measures. from fiscal support also received areas for water funding earmarked 12 in 2000 Proposition the majority of its funds however programs; recycling open space, toward directed were parks neighborhood areas.and recreational con- is therefore measure This measures. bond later under environmental sidered and Similar to veterans bond measures,Similar to veterans bond meas- water prior to Election surveys in Field performed well ures Day. In late October of 1984, 65.6% of poll respon- 25, of Proposition in favor vote would dents said they Bond Law. Water the Clean the same ballot. No (28.3%). received high approval: Yes (72.9%) / No (27.1%). Yes high approval: received Likewise, in late October of 1988, 67.7% of voters 81, for Proposition vote would said they later which passed with a similar r conser Libertarian Party members led the opposition,Libertarian Party as did Conservation Resource Virgenes Topanga-Las the District, bond water had opposed previous which margins. that passed with sizeable measures pro- The posed bond amount and language within Pr w ur ••• 22 ••• BONDS AND BORROWING

raised over $21.1 million on its behalf.31 The Nature tion. Arguments against the measure revolved around Conservancy Action Fund provided over $4.7 million the $14 billion state deficit and the fact that Prop 40 of this total. did not fund any safe drinking water programs. Prop 40 still passed, but with a relatively low margin for Sen. Ray Haynes (R), chair of the California State water issues: Yes (56.9%) / No (43.1%). Senate Constitutional Amendments Committee; Assm. Dick Dickerson (R), vice-chair of the California State Proposition 50 is the only water bond measure that Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife; the was generated by a voter signature drive. It was by far Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; and the the most expensive water bond measure and the fifth National Tax Limitation Committee led the opposi- most expensive bond measure considered in this

BOND MEASURES FOR WATER, 1978-2004

Year Type of Leg./Type Prop. Pass/ Yes Title Amount Election ofInit. E Number Fail

1978 Primary (LS) 2 Pass 53.5 % Clean Water and Water Conservation $375M Bond Law of 1978 1980 General (LS) 9 Pass 64.4 % California Safe Drinking Water Bond $30M Law of 1976 1984 General (LS) 25 Pass 72.9 % Clean Water Bond Law $325M 1984 General (LS) 28 Pass 73.5 % California Safe Drinking Water Bond $75M Law of 1984 1986 Primary (LS) 44 Pass 74.1 % Water Conservation and Water Quality $150M Bond Law of 1986 1986 General (LS) 55 Pass 78.7 % California Safe Drinking Water Bond $100M Law of 1986 1988 General (LS) 81 Pass 71.7 % California Safe Drinking Water Bond $75M Act of 1988 1988 General (LS) 82 Pass 62.4 % Water Conservation Bond Law of 1988 $60M 1988 General (LS) 83 Pass 64.4 % Clean Water and Water Reclamation $65M A Bond Act of 1988 S

U 1990 General (LS) 148 Fail 43.8 % Water Resources Bond Act of 1990 $65M

S 1996 General (LS) 204 Pass 62.9 % Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act $995M P

I 2000 Primary (LS) 13 Pass 64.8 % Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, $1,970M H Watershed Protection and Flood S Protection Bond Act R

E 2002 Primary (LS) 40 Pass 56.9 % Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe $2,600M N Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal T Protection Act of 2002 R

A 2002 General (IS) 50 Pass 55.3 % Water Quality, Supply/Safe Drinking $3,440M P Total approved $10.26B G Total proposed $10.33B N I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA George . v or example, Go F en school bond en school of these issues. not uncommon. y e er oduced by pro-education coalitions deter- pro-education oduced by that winning margin appears more impres- that winning margin appears more , er ev when it is recognized that Prop 146 and Prop 142 146 and Prop that Prop it is recognized when w e poor economy. 1978 Primary At the time of the oposition 143 failed on the difficult November oposition 143 failed on the difficult ••• ll the school bond propositions that were not that were bond propositions ll the school v arty members. pproved appeared on the ballot during elections in ballot during elections on the appeared pproved A a passed.bond measures other few if any which Timing economy,and the state of the therefore, had a signifi- the success of these efforts. cant impact on 1 in 1978,Proposition for instance, due to failed likely a Election, stood at 7.3%. state unemployment On some occasions, a enable coalitions could strong poor despite a survive to bond proposition school economy. often had substan- bond proposals School tial political support. included state endorsers Their superintendents,Teachers State Parent the California Association Association (PTA),Teachers the California in the state legislature.and Democrats Also, bipartisan endorsements w (the Veterans Bond Act of 1990) were the only two the only Act of 1990) were Bond Veterans (the that achieved out of 14 on that ballot bond measures passage. substantial political sup- 146 enjoyed Prop California the port including endorsements from Association, Teachers State Superintendent Bill Honig, si Pr sup- not for lack of high-level 1990 ballot but certainly port. Gov. endorsed by It was Deukmejian (R), former Gov. Edmund G.Assm.(D) and Brown “Pat” Nolan (R). Pat to counter No major opponents emerged this measure. Yet,with this bipartisan backing, even (48.8%) / No Yes failed: still narrowly the proposition (51.2%). 146,Proposition Act of Bond Facilities the School 1990, (51.8%) / No (48.1%). Yes passed: barely Ho Deukmejian (R) supported all sev 56 in 1986 and Proposition between measures 143 in 1990.Proposition Opponents frequently and Libertarian included Republican state legislators P conser- fiscal Case studies indicate a contest between and the the state of the economy induced by vatism message pr mined the fate of man 23 ••• ••• does is y eall Major mone- BONDS AND AND BONDS BORROWING 32 op 50 r er 80% of the funds oved a total sum of oved Ov hat Pr “W oters appr hool bonds. approval average The v harged, 17 of the 21 bond measures for schools 17 of the 21 bond measures opositions 47 and 55 were dedicated to K- opositions 47 and 55 were Pr . included funding A handful of propositions y y oposition 55 in 2004. AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 axpayers Coalition and other taxpayers’ organiza- Coalition and other taxpayers’ axpayers eport (see p 46).eport (see 50 in support of Prop coalition The onmental groups that paid to put it on the ballot.” onmental groups aised b 12 schools, for higher reserved with the remainder education. on the same ballot, When bonds for high- approval lower received er education facilities always than K-12 bond measures. ratings r and education facilities have been adopted.and education facilities have sug- With $350 million between gested bond amounts varying and $13 billion, SCHOOLS Since 1978, Most school bonds financed the construction and bonds financed the construction Most school of K-12 public schools.improvement Six bond meas- for higher education capital specifically requested ures facilities, of California campuses, including University the California State Universities, the California Community Colleges and the California Maritime Academ $47.65 billion in sc 54.7%. was bond measures of school rate r that groups the same roughly composed of was 40,endorsed Prop Audubon the National including Society, Federation,Wildlife the National the League Voters, Women of of Angeles Chamber the Los Commerce, for Coastal Protection. and the League In total, supporters spent $6.2 million. In opposition to Prop 50 stood the California Prop In opposition to T tions. against the fiscal impact of argued groups These measures. bond such ballot arguments, In their the opposition also c tary contributors included the Nature Conservancy included the Nature contributors tary Action Fund, League, and Conservation the Planning businesses. and private for both K-12 and higher education facilities, includ- 1A in 1998,ing Proposition 47 in 2002 Proposition and Pr dole out bond funds to the pet projects of those envi- dole out bond funds to the pet projects r Again, (55.3%) / No Yes bond prevailed: the water (44.7%). ••• 24 ••• BONDS AND BORROWING

both U.S. Senators, Assm. Steve Clute (D) and State In 1992 a similar situation occurred. State unemploy- Sen. Bill Leonard (R), chair of the Senate Republican ment was steadily rising and by June had reached Caucus. 9.3%. By November, it had climbed to 9.7%. Despite the high unemployment rate and souring economy,

BOND MEASURES FOR SCHOOLS, 1978-2004

Year Type of Leg./ Prop. Pass/ YesTitle Amount Election Init. Number Fail

1978 Primary (LS) 1 Fail 35.0 % State School Building Aid Bond Law of 1978 $350M 1982 General (LS) 1 Pass 50.5 % State School Building Lease-Purchase $500M Bond Law of 1982 1984 General (LS) 26 Pass 60.7 % State School Building Lease-Purchase $450M Bond Law of 1984 1986 General (LS) 53 Pass 60.7 % Greene-Hughes School Bldg Lease- $800M Purchase Bond Law of 1986 1986 General (LS) 56 Pass 59.4 % Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 1986 $400M 1988 Primary (LS) 75 Pass 65.0 % School Facilities Bond Act of 1988 $800M 1988 General (LS) 78 Pass 57.7 % Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 1988 $600M 1988 General (LS) 79 Pass 61.2 % 1988 School Facilities Bond Act $800M 1990 Primary (LS) 121 Pass 55.0 % Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of $450M June 1990 1990 Primary (LS) 123 Pass 57.5 % 1990 School Facilities Bond Act $800M 1990 General (LS) 143 Fail 48.8 % Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of $450M November 1990 1990 General (LS) 146 Pass 51.8 % School Facilities Bond Act of 1990 $800M 1992 Primary (LS) 152 Pass 52.9 % School Facilities Bond Act of 1992 $1,900M 1992 Primary (LS) 153 Pass 50.8 % Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of $900M June 1992 1992 General (LS) 155 Pass 51.8 % 1992 School Facilities Bond Act $900M A 1994 Primary (LS) 1B Fail 49.6 % Safe Schools Act of 1994 $1,000M S

U 1994 Primary (LS) 1C Fail 47.4 % Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of $900M June 1994 S

P 1996 Primary (LS) 203 Pass 61.5 % Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 1996 $3,000M I

H 1998 General (LS) 1A Pass 62.5 % Class Size Reduction Kindergarten-University $9,200M

S Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 1998 R

E 2002 General (LS) 47 Pass 59.1 % Kindergarten-Univ Public Education $13,050M

N Facilities Bond Act of 2002 T

R 2004 Primary (LS) 55 Pass 50.8 % Kindergarten-Univ Public Education $12,300M

A Facilities Bond Act of 2004 P Total approved $47.65B

G Total proposed $50.35B N

I (LS) - Legislative Statute K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA e es. the op 47 ce, est in the futur v The largest sponsor, The the California State 36 None of the opponents $12.9 million on Pr to counter these measur y y Association, oximatel hers Association. appr hools and the need to in eac T ew attention to the state financial crisis and ew attention to the state financial ated sc v oponents, ••• ••• ue to the recovering economy: Yes (61.5%) / No Yes economy: recovering ue to the eported spending mone eno r Yes 47 – passed: Prop ultimately Both measures (50.8%) / Yes 55 – (59.1%) / No (40.9%); and Prop No (49.2%). and $26.7 million on Prop 55. and $26.7 million on Prop facilities. part passed in measure $3 billion bond This d (38.5%). a consid- 1A in 1998 requested Proposition bond meas- previous than any higher amount erably purpose: $9.2 billion. for any ure a Supported by economy, a thriving by coalition and buoyed broad Yes a wide margin: passed by eventually this measure (62.5%) / No (37.5%). signifi- demonstrated bonds generally school While among voters,cant popular appeal the larger bond financial without impressive did not pass measures backing. 55 Proposition 47 in 2002 and Proposition most expen- the second and third in 2004 represented in 1998 was 1A since 1978 (Prop bond measures sive the fourth). size of these bonds unprecedented The high campaign spending by correspondingly spurred pr of our economy and workforce.of our economy opposing argu- The ments dr irresponsi- as fiscally further borrowing characterized ble. coali- the support of diverse 47 and 55 enjoyed Props of Commer tions including the State Chamber California and the California Voters PTA, Women the League of Association. Taxpayers 47 includ- Opponents of Prop ed State Sen. W. M. Coalition,Taxpayers J.Taxpayers Jarvis the Howard Knight (R), Limitation the California Tax Association and the National Committee. State Sen. opposed by 55 was Prop Rico Limitation Committee,Oller (R),Tax and the National the 60-Plus the California Teachers Association, Teachers contributed about the California campaign.$5 million to each of Arguments in favor and on the need for new centered both propositions r 25 25 - 33 es Y hen that ••• ••• ••• ••• e hoice in ering w v BONDS AND AND BONDS BORROWING These numbers These eco ough c 4 3 ed on the ballot, as r w hool bond measur y less than a single point: aise K-12 and higher educa y hair of the Senate Education c However, rate the unemployment the first sc ately through Props 1B and 1C, Props through ately 35 the econom Hart (D), op 1B failed b Pr Assembly Education Committee.Assembly Opponents K. y the oposition 203, opositions 1B and 1C appear AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 equesting $1 billion for public schools and $900 mil- equesting $1 billion for public schools Only 47.0% of respondents said they would vote for vote would they said 47.0% of respondents Only undecided. 153 with 13.4% Prop Props 152 and 153 benefited from strong coalitions strong from 152 and 153 benefited Props opposition.and weak of 1992, In late May 52.5% of for vote would said they Poll a Field answering voters still undecided. were they 13.6% said 152 while Prop voters approved Propositions 152 and 153 during the 152 and 153 during Propositions approved voters during the 155 and Proposition Election Primary Election, General smaller margins. relatively by albeit tion funds separ respectively, decided to combine fund- the legislature facilities. for all public education ing requests In 1996, to the ballot with returned education advocates Pr After failing in 1994 to r (49.6%) / No (50.4%). 1C met a similar fate: Prop (47.4%) / No (52.6%). Yes education funding for both K-12 and higher requested suggest the outcome could have gone in either direc- gone in could have suggest the outcome tion. However, support from broad 152 enjoyed Prop the California State PTA, the State Chamber of Commerce,Association, Taxpayers the California the Association, Teachers California of the Congress Assm.California Seniors and Eastin (D), Delaine chair of included ExCEL (Excellence thr Pr r lion for higher education facilities, respectively. Poll, 1994 Field to the May According 66.7% of about 56.2% sup- 1B and about supported Prop respondents 1C.ported Prop remained a high 7.9% in November of that year. a high 7.9% in November remained once too had gone to the well the schools Possibly often. By 1994, Education League) an organization in support of Education League) an organization vouchers.school Similarly, centrist 153 received Prop the State Chamber of Commerce,support from the AFL-CIO and State Sen. Federation California Labor Gar Committee. ••• 26 ••• BONDS AND BORROWING

FAVORED BONDS FOR INFREQUENT statewide ballot since 1978. PURPOSES Proposition 151 in 1990 would have raised $30 mil- Bond measures financing several other public purpos- lion to fund capital outlay loans for private for-profit es were favored by the California electorate but did not and non-profit childcare facilities across the state. It appear on the ballot more than a handful of times failed for the same reason that nearly all the other between 1978 and 2004. Their success is worth not- bond measures failed during that election, the souring ing, but their limited appearances on the ballot do not economy. But while the average approval rating of allow for more systematic conclusions. All the success- November 1990 bond measures was 41.4%, Prop 151 ful bond measures in these categories secured approval received an approval rating of 47.5%, suggesting it when the state economy was doing well and when vir- might have been adopted in a more favorable econo- tually every other bond measure was also approved, my: Yes (47.5%) / No (52.5%). Support for Prop 151 suggesting that timing, in addition to their objectives, was bipartisan, including State Sen. Diane E. Watson was a significant factor in their passage. (D), chair of the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services; Sen. Robert Presley (D), chair of the CHILDREN’S FACILITIES Senate Select Committee on Children and Youth; and Sen. Rebecca Q. Morgan (R), chair of Senate Select Only two bond measures to raise funds for chil- Committee on Infant and Child Care and dren’s facilities have appeared on the California

BOND MEASURES FOR CHILDREN'S FACILITIES, 1978-2004

Year Type of Leg./ Prop. Pass/ Yes Title Amount Election Init. Number Fail

1990 General (LS) 151 Fail 47.5 % Child Care Facilities Financing Act of 1990 $30M 2004 General (IS) 61 Pass 58.3 % Children's Hospital Projects. Grant Program $750M

Total approved $750M Total proposed $780M (IS) - Initiative Statute (LS) - Legislative Statute

BOND MEASURES FOR EARTHQUAKE RETROFITTING, 1978-2004 A

S Year Type of Leg./ Prop. Pass/ YesTitle Amount U Election Init. Number Fail S

P 1988 Primary (LS) 77 Pass 56.1 % California Earthquake Safety and Housing $150M

I Rehabilitation Bond Act of 1988 H

S 1990 Primary (LS) 122 Pass 55.3 % Earthquake Safety and Public Buildings $300M

R Rehabilitation Bond Act of 1990 E 1994 Primary (LS) 1A Fail 45.7 % Earthquake Relief and Seismic Retrofit $2,000M N

T Bond Act of 1994 R 1996 Primary (LS) 192 Pass 59.9 % Seismic Retrofit Bond Act of 1996 $2,000M A P Total approved $2.45B G Total proposed $4.45B N

I (LS) - Legislative Statute K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA ying ell in , Assm. e, loans Despite the 39 astructur espondents sa Valley opposed the Valley it performed w oponents of Prop 192 oponents of Prop Pr oaquin public infr Angeles, erside and San Diego v om Ri and the seismic retrofitting of public and the seismic retrofitting oss the state. emained high at 8.7%. measure’s This ansportation, wners, but r e. for tr 1994 poll with 59.1% of r y y ow target population may also have contributed to also have target population may ow vid Roberti (D) of Los Ma ••• ••• hompson (R) fr they would vote for the proposition. vote would they a to homeo facilities and roadways. State Sen. by Introduced Da included former Gov. Deukmejian (R), the State Chamber of Commerce, the California Highway Patrol,Association and the Taxpayers the California Services.State Office of Emergency argued the They lives, help save bond would jobs and prevent create damage. earthquake costs from future Assm. Bruce T Valley, (R) of Sacramento Bernie Richter Assm. and George House (R) of San J measure, Limitation Tax to the National in addition about $6 billion in damage. $6 billion about requested measure This seis- and the reconstruction in bonds for $300 million and buildings government of unsafe mic retrofitting the support of State Sen. (D),enjoyed Torres Art chair Safety Management and Public Toxics of the Senate Assm.Committee; Dominic L. Cortese (D), of chair S. Lloyd Committee; Government Local Assembly the Cluff, Safety Commission; and the of the Seismic chair Safety Commission.California Seismic any Without significant opposition, also passed proposition this Yes on the ballot: other bond measure along with every (55.3%) / No (44.7%). of 1994,In June $2 billion 1A requested Proposition the 6.7 magnitude Northridge for damage caused by Angeles on of Los area that hit the greater earthquake 17.January Angeles with Los provided have It would mone narr its failur and 1996, 1994 Between had improved the economy at 7.6%. remained but unemployment Proposition 1A, as Prop the same amount 192 in 1996 requested and of highways retrofitting for the seismic earmarked toll-bridges acr strong poll results,strong however, 1A failed along with Prop ballot: on the 1994 Primary other bond measure every (45.7%) / No (54.3%).Yes on the was Unemployment decline, 2727 - bond •• ••• ••• ••• y hit Los er Willie L. Willie e Soon after y Prop 77 later Prop BONDS AND AND BONDS BORROWING 38 almost ev Assembl h hic ated $2.45 billion in bond eds of apartment buildings ed on the ballot in June of ed on the ballot in June 1,400 families. er of the y es gener 5.9 magnitude earthquak Speak a ehabilitation program and an additional and an program ehabilitation opposition campaign committees were opposition campaign committees y Supporters spent approximately $5.2 mil- $5.2 approximately Supporters spent collapsing hundr No Jr.Assm. (D); Dominic L. Cortese (D), mem- these measur e-safety r 37 wn, hard Floyd (D), Floyd hard opposi- weak faced the proposal o oposition 122 appear AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 1990, 1990s of the early prior to the economic crash hit the after a magnitude 7.1 earthquake and shortly Area, Bay San Francisco killing 63 people and causing Pr measure passed,measure Yes a booming economy: helped by (56.1%) / No (43.9%). formed or filed any expense reports. formed or filed any passed during an election in w $70 million to a housing rehabilitation program to program $70 million to a housing rehabilitation housing units. low-income and repair purchase Supported b wards, on the statewide bal- 77 appeared Proposition lot. allotted $80 million to an earth- measure This quak Three out of four ballot measures requesting bonds for requesting ballot measures out of four Three passed. retrofitting earthquake retro- All earthquake statutes. legislative were fitting bond measures In total, Angeles, EARTHQUAKE RETROFITTING EARTHQUAKE In late 1987, sales. 54.3%. was rate approval average The and displacing nearl In November 2004,In November $750 mil- 61 raised Proposition (58.3%) / No Yes hospital projects: lion for children’s (41.7%). of this initiative official supporters The self-identified parents.three statute included The B. Gary by written was opposition argument Wesley, an attorney. 61 originated behind Prop funding The Hospital Children’s Packard the Lucile Salter from across hospitals from children’s ($630,000) and other the state. Development. mother, consisted of a Opponents member. Party a Libertarian and a provider childcare lion. tion, members. of Libertarian Party comprised mostly Poll, 1988 Field During a May said 60.7% of voters for this measure. vote would they Br Assm. ber of the Seismic Safety Commission; and Ric ••• 28 ••• BONDS AND BORROWING

Committee, the People’s Advocate, the Planning and In 1982, California was just coming out of an eco- Conservation League and the Sierra Club. Opponents nomic recession. Proposition 5, the First-Time Home argued that Prop 192 disproportionately benefited the Buyers Bond Act, called for $200 million in bonds to San Francisco Bay Area and its politicians by earmark- reduce mortgage loan interest rates for first-time home ing $650 million for the seismic retrofitting of toll- buyers. In response to an August Field Poll, 56.0% of bridges in the Bay Area. voters said they were inclined to vote “yes” on Prop 5, 29.7% said “no” and 14.3% were undecided.42 Polling figures from a few weeks before the election indicated that roughly 53.5% of voters who were The bipartisan coalition behind Prop 5 included Gov. aware of Prop 192 would vote for the proposition.40 A Deukmejian (R), Assm. Bruce Young (D) and the higher 63.0% responded they would vote for Prop 192 Mayor of Los Angeles. In opposition to Prop 5 stood after listening to the following description: “It is a Taxpayers Against Bureaucracy. Voters ultimately bond issue of 2 billion dollars to finance a seismic approved the measure: Yes (53.8%) / No (46.2%). retrofit program for state bridges and highway over- Four other bond measures appeared on the same bal- passes and interchanges and requires funds to be spent lot and were also approved, suggesting that timing was only on seismic retrofit projects.” 41 This proposition a major factor behind Prop 5’s passage. eventually passed in March of 1996: Yes (59.9%) / No Proposition 84 in 1988 and Proposition 107 in 1990, (40.1%). both successful housing measures, appeared in years HOUSING in which the economy was doing well. Each allocated funds for emergency shelters, transitional housing, Between 1978 and 2004, four out of six housing new rental housing for special needs tenants, rehabili- bond measures garnered majority voter support. All tation of older rental homes, and financial assistance the measures were first approved and then placed on for first-time homebuyers. Supporters of these meas- the ballot by the legislature. The successful measures ures included Senate President pro Tempore David generated $2.75 billion in housing bonds, the bulk of Roberti (D), the Vietnam Veterans of California, the which resulted from Proposition 46, a $2.1 billion Congress of California Seniors, Inc., the California bond measure on the 2000 General ballot. The aver- Council of Churches, the Salvation Army, and the age approval rating of housing bonds was roughly California Homeless Coalition. Prop 84 faced no sig- 51.5%. nificant opposition. Assm. Phillip D. Wyman (R) and

BOND MEASURES FOR HOUSING, 1978-2004 A

S Year Type of Leg./ Prop. Pass/ YesTitle Amount U Election Init. Number Fail S

P 1982 General (LS) 5 Pass 53.8 % First-Time Home Buyers Bond Act of 1982 $200M I 1988 General (LS) 84 Pass 58.2 % Housing and Homeless Bond Act of 1988 $300M H

S 1990 Primary (LS) 107 Pass 52.5 % Housing and Homeless Bond Act of 1990 $150M R

E 1990 General (LS) 145 Fail 44.4 % California Housing Bond Act of 1990 $125M

N 1993 Special (LS) 173 Fail 42.1 % California Housing and Jobs Investment $185M T Bond Act. R

A 2002 General (LS) 46 Pass 57.6 % Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund $2,100M P Total approved $2.75B

G Total proposed $3.06B N

I (LS) - Legislative Statute K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA $75M $350M $425M $425M oved Ray Haynes (R), Haynes Ray oposed otal pr otal appr the Statewide California farm workers, seniors and T T State Sen. omen, the California Nurses Victims of Domestic Violence, of Domestic Victims ce, W 43 ed Anthony Pescetti (R), Pescetti Anthony of vice-chair Aid Title Assm. homeless families, Association to ound $4.0 million. ••• ••• Act of 1988 Improvement and Public Library Improvement Bond Construction and Renovation Association,Association and Teachers the California of California Seniors.the Congress Together, the sup- and spent 46 raised porters of the campaign for Prop ar ed the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, Chamber of Area Angeles ed the Los L.Willie Speaker Assembly Brown, Jr. (D), Assm. Paul V. (I), Horcher AFL- Federation the California Labor CIO, and the Corporation Development the Economic Association. Bankers California Mortgage Opponents assortment of the Libertarian Party included a mixed County,Angeles of Los consultant and an a financial attorney. 2002 due to a in November 46 passed Proposition rate, unemployment low moderately base an extensive campaign funds.of support and significant At the time, at 6.8%. was unemployment hous- for affordable authorized $2.1 billion in bonds measure This income to moderate- to benefit low- ing programs earners, the disabled. other along with every approved It was (57.6%) / No Yes on the ballot that year: bond measure (42.4%). for included Habitat of this measure Proponents of California, Voters Humanity, Women the League of the AARP,the Firefighters, the California Professional the Association,California State Sheriffs the State Chamber of Commer Coalition for Batter chair of the State Senate Constitutional Amendments of the State Senate Constitutional chair Committee, 2929 e Lik Yes Amount •• ••• ••• ••• Fail Pass/ BONDS AND AND BONDS BORROWING ation and the Prop. Number authorized the sale of yet e Init. Leg./ elopment Corpor oters in the 1993 Special Election. this measur Type of Type Election which lingered at 9.3%. lingered which includ- Proponents the v ate, e 1988 General (LS) 85 Pass 52.7 % Bond Construction and Renovation Library 2000 Primary (LS) 14 Pass 59.0 % California Reading and Literacy op 145, Year AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 BOND MEASURES FOR LIBRARIES, 1978-2004 es (42.1%) / No (57.9%). the was A possible reason (LS) - Legislative Statute (LS) - Legislative unsold bonds from Prop 5 for a new first-time home- 5 for a new first-time Prop unsold bonds from program.buyers 145, Prop Unlike did this measure bond sales. additional any not request It still failed: Y election turnout and still high unemploy- 36.4% low ment r Proposition 173 was the only bond measure put bond measure the only 173 was Proposition befor California Building Industry Association. California Building Industry only The Assm. was opponent of the measure Dan Hauser (D), and Committee on Housing Assembly of the chair Community Development, 145 argued Prop who earners without doing subsidize higher income would earners.enough for low-wage In the end, 145 Prop / No (55.6%). (44.4%) Yes failed: Pr When the economy took a turn for the worse, took a turn for the economy When housing suffered.bond measures the 1990 General During Election, million in $125 145 requested Proposition safety pro- and earthquake bonds to fund housing grams, shelters and farmworker emergency including residents. low-income housing for extremely 145 Prop unsold sale of $190 million of yet also authorized the first-time 5 to fund a new Prop 1982’s bonds from focused on subsidizing mort- program homebuyers payments.gage insurance sup- received measure The base including Gov. a broad port from Deukmejian (D), Roberti (R), David Tempore pro Senate President Association of Realtors,the California the California Economic Dev State Sen. 107. Prop (R) opposed Bill Leonard ••• 30 ••• BONDS AND BORROWING

the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee, the financing for the construction and renovation of local National Tax Limitation Committee, and the Howard public libraries, projects historically funded by local Jarvis Taxpayers Association led the opposition. No government agencies. In each case, the local agencies official campaign committees were formed to oppose that received grants from these bonds were required to the measure. pay 35% of project costs.

LIBRARIES Proposition 85 in 1988 enjoyed bipartisan support from the Senate Majority Leader Barry Keene (D) and Two library measures have appeared on the ballot Senate Minority Leader Ken Maddy (R). The since 1978. Both passed, generating a total of $425 California State PTA, the mayor of Los Angeles, and million in bonds. The average approval rate was the California Taxpayers Association also endorsed approximately 55.9%. These propositions provided the measure. Opposition to the measure was led by

BOND MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENT, 1978-2004

Year Type of Leg./ Prop. Pass/ YesTitle Amount Election Init. Number Fail

1980 Primary (LS) 1 Fail 47.0 % Parklands and renewable resources invest- $495M ment programs 1980 General (LS) 1 Pass 51.7 % Parklands Acquisition and Development $285M Program 1980 General (LS) 2 Fail 48.8 % Lake Tahoe Acquisitions Bond Act of 1980 $85M 1982 General (LS) 4 Pass 52.1 % Lake Tahoe Acquisitions Bond Act $85M 1984 Primary (LS) 18 Pass 63.2 % California Park and Recreational Facilities $370M Act of 1984 1984 Primary (LS) 19 Pass 64.0 % Fish and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Act $85M of 1984 1984 General (LS) 27 Pass 72.0 % Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act of $100M 1984 1986 Primary (LS) 43 Pass 67.3 % Community Parklands Act of 1986 $100M 1988 Primary (IS) 70 Pass 65.2 % Wildlife, Coastal and Park Land $776M

A Conservation Bond Act

S 1990 General (IS) 128 Fail 35.7 % Environment. Public Health. Bonds. $300M U 1990 General (IS) 130 Fail 47.9 % Forest Acquisition. Timber Harvesting $742M

S Practices Bond Act. P

I 1990 General (IS) 138 Fail 28.8 % Forestry Programs. Timber Harvesting $300M

H Practices. S 1990 General (LS) 149 Fail 47.1 % California Park, Recreation and Wildlife $437M R

E Enhancement Act of 1990

N 1994 Primary (IS) 180 Fail 43.3 % Park Lands, Historic Sites, Wildlife and $2,000M

T Forest Conservation Bond Act R 2000 Primary (LS) 12 Pass 63.2 % Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean $2,100M A

P Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 Total approved $47.65B G Total proposed $50.35B N I (LS) - Legislative Statute K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA e es (47.0%) / Y y: erwhelming sup- erwhelming v ans bond measur eter v a ertheless, alue of their holdings. Nev the unemployment rate increased by a full by increased rate the unemployment – y ht (R) and the League to Save Lake Tahoe. Lake ht (R) and the League to Save ease the v ec six years, on the bal- appeared initiatives voter five oposition 1 during the 1980 Primar ••• ••• ENVIRONMENT measures bond environmental eight of the 15 Only passage. since 1978 achieved voters put before Four lost on the same unsuccessful measures of the seven 1990 ballot.November total $8.26 billion in Of the bonds proposed, adopted. billion was less than $4 53.2%. roughly was rate approval average The $85 between widely varied bond amounts Proposed billion. million and $2.1 Until 1988, were measures bond all environmental the legislature.put on the ballot by in the span Then of bonds. environmental lot requesting Of the seven that failed,measures initiatives. four were money requested bond measures Most environmental public of to fund the acquisition and development parks, facilities. and recreational historical properties Acts in 1964, Bond earlier Park approved Voters 1970, 1974 and 1976. due to a worsening Possibly econom percent between January and June of 1980 – voters and June January between percent and rejected fiscal conservatism demonstrated Pr No (53.0%). on the same ballot passed with o on the same ballot passed with port. later, months Five 1 on the a new Proposition than its pre- money less ballot requested 1980 General (51.7%) / No (48.3%). Yes approved: cursor and was ballot requested 2 on the 1980 General Proposition lands in the Lake undeveloped $85 million to acquire for public purposes, region Tahoe Yes but failed: (48.8%) / No (51.2%). supported was measure This State Sen.by (D), Garamendi John Assm. R. Charles Imbr State Sen. H.Wildlife and Resources Committee on Natural L. (R) of the Senate Richardson opposed the measure, arguing the $85 million unfair- helping by owners property Tahoe to Lake catered ly to incr 3131 - hile ••• ••• ••• ernment As previ- v he League significant T 45 y BONDS AND AND BONDS BORROWING olice and Sheriffs ound $140,000 w Included in this catego Deirdre W.Deirdre Alpert (D), aise or spend an By the end of October, the fraction voters during elections that saw suc- elections that saw during voters hair of the Senate Local Go hen the economy was booming but was hen the economy c 44 y eceived support from State Sen. support from eceived Richard equesting authority to issue bonds; the equesting authority to issue bonds; (R), Supporters spent ar ell w y . op 14 r ejected b 46 r Pr e Raine oposition r er AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 hair of the Senate Education Committee. LESS FAVORED BONDS BONDS LESS FAVORED per- that generally bond measures covers section This formed w Polling around Prop 85 suggested the election would suggested the 85 Prop around Polling be a close call. would said they 57.6% of voters While of 1988, in September for the measure vote num- that in mid-October with 32.9% of voters ber fell to 42.1% still undecided. Libertarian Party members. Party Libertarian of voters who supported Prop 85 bounced back up to 85 bounced back supported Prop who of voters 49.6%, undecided. 14.6% remained while In 2000, successful one of five 14 was Proposition (59.0%) / Yes ballot: on the Primary bond measures No (41.0%). a single only rejected voters year That pr ously noted,ously for the State year a prosperous 1988 was for bond measures. year a positive and likewise Since on the ballot dur- bond measures all eight of the other adopted,ing that election were it is not surprising that (52.7%) / No Yes success: 85 also achieved Prop (47.3%). sought funds for criminal justice facili- losing measure ties. K. ry are bond measures that raised money for the envi- money that raised bond measures are ry ronment, prisons and transportation. cess for other types of bonds. w Committee; and State Sen. c of Women Voters, Women Association the California Library of P and the California Organization of of California Seniors also endorsed the and Congress proposition. included State Sen. Opponents (R),Haynes Limitation Committee Tax the National Ray Angeles of Los and the Black Chamber of Commerce County opponents did not r funds. ••• 32 ••• BONDS AND BORROWING

In 1982, the Lake Tahoe Acquisitions Bond Act than regulatory proposals – it is possible these initia- returned to the ballot as Proposition 4. This measure tives might have been approved in a more favorable requested the same bond amount for the same purpos- economic climate. es, but also created a 15-member oversight commission. Prop 4 garnered a broader range of support. In Proposition 180, a $2 billion voter initiative to pre- addition to State Sen. Garamendi (D), the League of serve park lands and wildlife areas on the 1994 ballot, Women Voters, California Taxpayers Association and enjoyed support from the California State Park California Council for Environmental and Economic Rangers Association, the League of Women Voters, the Balance also supported the measure. No organized California Organization of Police and Sheriffs, the opposition was formed. Still, the measure barely California Association of Local Conservation Corps passed: Yes (52.1%) / No (47.9%). and the Save the Redwoods League. Opponents of this measure consisted of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers A skyrocketing economy between 1982 and 1988 Association, the Center for the California Taxpayer resulted in a streak of successful environmental bond and Paul Gann’s Citizens Committee. In May of measures. Polling around Proposition 70, a voter ini- 1994, approximately 51.3% of voters responding to a tiative and the last measure in this streak, still showed Field Poll said they would vote for Prop 180. Slightly overwhelming support among voters. When asked for over 41% said they would vote against the measure their opinion on Prop 70 in May of 1988, 73.3% of and 7.5% were undecided. 48 Prop 180 eventually lost: voters responded they would vote for the measure.47 Yes (43.3%) / No (56.7%). As noted above, no bond Only 6.6% remained undecided. The proposition was measures were approved in 1994, in part due to the ultimately approved: Yes (65.2%) / No (34.8%). still high rate of unemployment.

The dramatic decline in the economy during the early The Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, 1990s may have contributed to the failure of four sub- and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000, also known sequent environmental bond measures. Labeled “Big as Proposition 12, appeared on the ballot when unem- Green,” Proposition 128 included a relatively small ployment in California was at a low 5.1%. This leg- amount of bonding to protect old growth forests with- islative statute requested $2.1 billion to acquire and in an overall measure proposing massive increases in develop open space, neighborhood parks and cultural environmental regulation. Opponents blasted it as a areas through grants to local government bodies threat to job growth. Proposition 130, a companion across the state. As noted previously, Prop 12 also set measure, focused exclusively on forest protection. aside funding for water recycling programs. Timber interests introduced Proposition 138 as a Advertised as a quasi “cure-all” for widely held envi- A ronmental concerns, this measure enjoyed mainstream S counter-initiative. Following an expensive and bitter

U campaign, all three propositions met defeat: Prop 128 support from environmental groups, business groups, taxpayers associations and public interest groups. Its S – Yes (35.7%) / No (64.3%); Prop 130 – Yes (47.9%) /

P No (52.1%); and Prop 138 – Yes (28.8%) / No sponsors included the National Audubon Society, I State Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa (D), the H (71.2%).

S State Chamber of Commerce, the League of Women R Proposition 149, on the same star-crossed ballot, also Voters of California, the AARP and the California E failed: Yes (47.1%) / No (52.9%). Following in the Taxpayers Association. Together these organizations N 49 T footsteps of previous park bonds, Prop 149 requested spent $8.6 million to support Prop 12. About $2.2 R funds to acquire and restore state and local parks and million was donated by the Nature Conservancy A

P recreation areas. Given the slim margins of defeat Action Fund. A counter coalition formed around State experienced by Prop 130 and Prop 149 – the two Sen. Ray Haynes (R), Assm. Brett Granlund (R) and G measures more directly identifiable as funding rather the National Tax Limitation Committee, but they spent N I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA $500M $280M $250M $495M $817M $450M $740M $225M $200M $700M $220M $6.62B $4.09B oved Act acilities atories oposed bor Bond e Act of 1990 Act of 1988 otal pr otal appr T T Title olanco Crime La Adult Offender Local F Bond Act of 1990 Bond ectional Facility Capital Expen- ectional Facility e ail Capital Expenditur ••• ••• he Hertzberg-P outhful and measure not placed on the ballot by the legislature was the legislature by on the ballot not placed measure in 1990. 129 Proposition bonds total the approved In $4 billion.amounted to roughly approval average The 50.0%. was rate for pris- measure Not a single bond of 1990. since November ons has been approved for other purposes,Similar to bonds bonds that prison and 1990 all 1982 between on the ballot appeared approval.secured unstable, became the economy When however, some of the received prison bond measures measures. among all bond ratings approval lowest of 1981 of 1984 diture and Youth Facility Bond Act of 1988 Act Bond Facility Youth and diture Expenditure Bond Act of 1986 Bond Expenditure Prisons. and Juvenile Expenditure Expenditur Bond Act of 1996 Bond Act of 1999 Construction Bond 3333 Yes Amount ••• ••• ••• 54.3 % J County 56.0 % New Prison Construction Bond 61.1 % Prison Construction Bond New 54.8 %Corr County 40.6 % Y 46.3 % T ass ass ass ass ail ail Fail Pass/ BONDS AND AND BONDS BORROWING # Amendment and Statute Prop. Init. Leg./ (LS) 2 P (LS) 120 P (LS)(LS) 80 86 P P (LS) 205(LS) 15 F F Constitutional y y e al al al al v Type of Type Election 1982 Primary1982 Gener (LS)1984 1 Primary (LS) Pass 16 56.1 %Act of1981 New Prison Construction Bond Pass $495M 58.8 %Act Bond Capital Expenditure County Jail 1990 Primar 1984 Primary1986 Primary (LS)1986 (LS) 17 General1988 52 Gener (LS)1988 Pass Gener 54 Pass 57.8 %Act of 1984 New Prison Construction Bond 67.2 % Capital Facility County Correctional 1990 Pass $300M General 65.3 %1990 (ICAS)Act of 1986 New Prison Construction Bond 129 General1990 $500M General (LS) Fail1990 (LS) General 144 27.6 % Drug Enforcement, 147 Prevention, Treatment, (LS) Fail 150 Fail 40.4 % 37.3 %Act of 1990-B New Prison Construction Bond Fail Capital Facility County Correctional $450M 26.4 % Capital County Courthouse Facility 1996 Gener 2000 Primar Year AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 BOND MEASURES FOR PRISONS, 1978-2004 BOND MEASURES FOR PRISONS, (LS) - Legislative Statute (LS) - Legislative (ICAS) - Initiati Out of 15 bond measures for prisons and crime facil- Out of 15 bond measures ities, approval. received nine environ- Similar to their mental counterparts, unsuccessful prison four of the elec- 1990 the November failed during bond measures tion. compar- in low ranked bond amounts Proposed of other bond measures,ison to the scale ranging $817 million. $200 million and between only The PRISONS no significant funds.no significant No (36.8%). (63.2%) / Yes ultimately proposition The passed: ••• 34 ••• BONDS AND BORROWING

Clearly, in a weak economy, prison bonds do not rank was also supported by Judge Malcolm Lucas, Chief high on the list of funding priorities for California voters. Justice of the California Supreme Court; Judge Conrad Rushing, chair of the Judicial Council Advisory As noted earlier, the average bond measure in Committee on Court Facilities; and Assm. Sal November of 1990 received an approval rating of Cannella (D). Both measures encountered opposition about 41.4%. In contrast, the prison bond measures from the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors, the on that ballot received an average 32.9% approval. As Libertarian Party of California and Paul N. Gautreau, might be expected, the bond measures with more cen- an attorney. Both measures were unsuccessful: Prop trist coalitions and less organized opposition gained 147 – Yes (37.3%) / No (62.7%); and Prop 150 – Yes the most voter support. (26.4%) / No (73.6%).

Proposition 129 was the only prison bond measure Of the five bond measures that appeared on the ballot that originated from the electorate and proposed a in 1996, the only measure that voters rejected was constitutional amendment. It requested $740 million associated with prisons. Even with a bipartisan coali- in bonds for drug abuse, confinement, and treatment tion behind it, Proposition 205 failed: Yes (40.6%) / facilities. Had it passed, Prop 129 would have amend- No (59.4%). This measure recommended $700 mil- ed the constitution to protect the privacy rights of lion in bonds to fund the construction and renovation criminal defendants as they related to reproductive of juvenile and adult correctional facilities. Its propo- choice. Among the supporters were Attorney General nents included Assm. Jim Brulte (R), State Sen. Bill John Van De Kamp; Assm. Johan Klehs (D), chair of Lockyer (D), Assm. Paula Boland (R) and Justice for the Committee on Revenue and Taxation; and the Murder Victims. A feeble collection of Libertarian California Abortion Rights Action League. Party members, an attorney and an insurance investi- Opponents included the California Taxpayers gator formed the opposition. Association. Prop 129 ultimately failed: Yes (27.6%) / No (72.4%). Like Prop 205 in 1996, Proposition 15 was the only bond measure rejected by voters in 2000: Yes (46.3%) With a bipartisan coalition behind it, Proposition 144 / No (53.7%). If approved, Prop 15 would have pro- performed better than did Prop 129, but still failed to vided $220 million for the construction and renovation achieve a majority vote: Yes (40.4%) / No (59.6%). It of local forensic crime facilities. This proposition gar- proposed selling $450 million in bonds to relieve nered support from a broader coalition than did Prop overcrowding in state prisons and Youth Authority 205, but was still unable to pass. Endorsers included facilities through new construction. Gov. Deukmejian Gov. Gray Davis (D); Attorney General Bill Lockyer; A (R), State Sen. Robert Presley (D) and Assm. Willard

S Assm. Tom Torlakson (D), member of the California H. Murray, Jr. (D) supported Prop 144. Opponents U included State Sen. Alfred E. Alquist (D), chair of the State Assembly Information Technology Budget

S Senate Budget Committee; and Assm. John Subcommittee; Assm. Robert Hertzberg (D), former P chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee; and I Vasconcellos (D), chair of the Assembly Ways and

H Means Committee. State Sen. Richard Polanco (D), chair of the Joint S Committee on Prison Construction and Operations. R

E Proposition 147 proposed selling $225 million in The California Police Chiefs Association, the California

N bonds to raise money for county correctional facilities Association of Crime Lab Directors, the California T and county juvenile facilities. Proposition 150, also State Sheriffs Association, the California Union of R Safety Employees, the California Peace Officers A on the 1990 General ballot, would have raised $200

P million for county courthouse facilities. Prop 147 Association, the California Organization of Police and enjoyed bipartisan support from State Sen. Robert Sheriffs and the California Professional Firefighters also G

N Presley (D) and State Sen. Ed Davis (R). Prop 150 supported Prop 15. Altogether, proponents only spent I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA - $2.99B Voters of Voters $1,000M $1,000M oved omen W for passenger and com y otal appr Total proposedTotal $5.99B T Title specificall , y the League of ce, Assm. Jim Costa (D), Gov. Deukmejian ••• ail capital outla transit systems using gas taxes and other direct rev- other direct gas taxes and systems using transit money, of borrowing instead enue sources costs which long run. in the much twice as taxpayers climate, economic a favorable Benefiting from during the approved 116 were 108 and Propositions bond measures all proposed in which 1990 Primary (56.3%) / No (43.7%); and Yes 108 – succeeded: Prop / No (46.7%). (53.3%) Yes 116 – Prop Proposition capital out- billion in bonds for rail 108 authorized $1 lay, rail, for intercity specifically commuter rail, and programs. transit urban rail Patrolmen,Association of Highway the State Chamber California The of Commer (R), and State Association Taxpayers the California measure. (R) supported the Hayes Thomas Treasurer Assm. opposed by It was L. Richard (R), Mountjoy Assm.Assm. (R) and Dennis Brown Eric Seastrand (R). $1.99 billion in bonds for 116 proposed Proposition r muter rail systems.muter rail transporta- voter-initiated only The since 1978,tion bond measure the support it enjoyed coalition.of a broad Attorney Endorsers included De Kamp (D),Van U.S. John General Sen.Wilson Pete (R), Officers Control Air Pollution the California Association, California, Dianne Club California and the Sierra 1990.1992. 1994. $1,000M 35 Yes Amount ••• ••• No real 50 ATION, 1978-2004 ATION, T Fail Pass/ ong opposition BONDS AND AND BONDS BORROWING Str Prop. Number Init. Leg./ Statute e v U.S. (D) and Fazio Vic Congressmember v. Edmund G. (D). Brown “Pat” They Type of Type Election yer (D), Assembly Speaker pro Tempore Mike (D),yer Tempore pro Speaker Assembly es (49.99%) / No (50.01%). Y five bond measures on the June 1988 ballot, 1988 on the June bond measures five 1988 Primary1990 Primary (LS) (LS) 74 108 Fail Pass % 49.99 Bond ActTransportation Deddeh 56.3 %Act of Air Bond Rail and Clean Passenger $1,000M 1990 Primary1992 General (IS)1994 (LS) General 116 156 (LS) Pass 181 Fail % 53.3 Transportation. Rail Act. Bond 48.1 % FailAct of Air Bond Rail and Clean Passenger 34.9 %Act of Air Bond Rail and Clean Passenger $1,990M Year AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 BOND MEASURES FOR TRANSPOR (IS) - Initiative Statute (IS) - Initiative (LS) - Legislati Of unsuccessful measure. the only 74 was Proposition However, of a per- less than a one-hundredth it lost by cent: Transportation bond measures requested relatively requested measures bond Transportation capital,large amounts of $1 billion, all over which propositions of the five two only helps to explain why the past 25 years. over approved were in this category successful measures,One of the two 116 Proposition in 1990,measure bond transportation the only was born of the electorate. sup- of voter level average The 48.5%. port was TRANSPORTATION around $100,000 to advance the measure. to advance $100,000 around opposition formed to oppose the measure. formed to oppose opposition Roos (D), former Go and for its highways argued California should pay and a high bond amount were the two likely factors likely the two and a high bond amount were its defeat.that produced Deukmejian (R), (D) and the State Sen.Wadie Deddeh Gov. Endorsed by Commission,Transportation California this measure for state $1 billion for capital improvements requested highways, systems. and transit local roads Opponents included State Sen. (D), Garamendi John State Sen. Bill Lock ••• 36 ••• BONDS AND BORROWING

Feinstein (D), then mayor of San Francisco. Dr. ing on the eventual costs to pay back the bond, Martin Wachs, a UCLA Professor of Transportation California’s bad credit rating, and a “wasteful” govern- Planning, and Ryan Snyder, an urban planner, official- ment. Partly due to the severe recession, this measure ly led the opposition. also failed: Yes (34.9%) / No (65.1%). No other transportation bond measures have appeared on the In 1992, Proposition 156 failed in the midst of an eco- statewide ballot since 1994. nomic recession: Yes (48.1%) / No (51.9%). It requested $1 billion to continue the projects first introduced MISCELLANEOUS BONDS in Prop 116. Prop 156 was supported by the California Air Resources Board, a former director of This section is devoted to the remaining bond meas- the California Department of Transportation, the State ures that did not fit in any specified category. Timing Chamber of Commerce, the California Association of and the state of the economy also played a central role Persons With Handicaps, Sierra Club California and in the passage of most of the following bond meas- the California Transit Association. Opponents includ- ures, with the exception of Propositions 57 and 71 in ed the same individuals that opposed Prop 116. They 2004. Both measures did benefit from an improving maintained Prop 156 would add to the budget deficit economy and a modestly low state unemployment “at a time when we can least afford it.” rate; however, both measures were also very controversial and therefore relied heavily on the support of The Passenger Rail and Clean Air Bond Act of 1994, strong coalitions and generous financial backing to or Proposition 181, appeared on the ballot when the achieve passage. economy was recovering, but unemployment still hov- ered above 7.0%. State Sen. Quentin L. Kopp (I), chair Between January and December of 1984, the state of the Senate Transportation Committee; State Sen. unemployment rate had dropped a full point, from 8.3 Marian Bergeson (R); Dean R. Dunphy, the Secretary to 7.3%. During this economic recovery, the Senior for the Business,Transportation, and Housing Agency; Center Bond Act of 1984, or Proposition 30, and James M. Strock, the Secretary for the California appeared on the ballot requesting $50 million in Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), bonds to fund the construction and renovation of local endorsed the measure. State Sen. Phillip D. Wyman senior centers across the state. With bipartisan sup- (R), and Tom McClintock, a taxpayer advocate and port from Senate Majority Leader John Garamendi (D) future state senator, argued against the measure, focus- and Senate Republican Caucus Chair John Seymour

A BOND MEASURES FOR OTHER PURPOSES, 1978-2004 S Year Type of Leg./ Prop. Pass/ YesTitle Amount U Election Init. # Fail S

P 1984 General (LS) 30 Pass 66.7 % Senior Center Bond Act of 1984 $50M I

H 2002 Primary (LS) 41 Pass 51.6 % Voting Modernization Bond Act of 2002. $200M

S (Shelley-Hertzberg Act) R

E 2004 Primary (LS) 57 Pass 63.3 % The Economic Recovery Bond Act $15,000M

N 2004 General (ICAS) 71 Pass 59.1 % Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds $3,000M T R

A Total approved $2.75B P Total proposed $3.06B G

N (ICAS) - Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute

I (LS) - Legislative Statute K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA 51 $3.44B $3.00B Amount hools ater MiscSchools $15.00B $13.05B Schools $12.30B W Sc WaterEnviron $2.60B $2.10B Schools $9.20B Purpose counter this, opponents mus- o T oup, Jack State Superintendent 52 to that point. few months after taking office,few months after Gov. Arnold y y/Safe Drinking ••• still pulled out a victory: Yes (51.6%) / No (48.4%). (51.6%) Yes out a victory: still pulled Schwarzenegger (R) began campaigning on behalf of (R) began Schwarzenegger 2004 ballot. on the March propositions two One of these propositions, 57, Proposition the Economic Act, Bond Recovery authorized $15 billion in bonds state deficit. massive to help alleviate the Proponents State Chamber of Commerce, 57 included the of Prop Association, Valley Taxpayers the Silicon the California Manufacturing Gr O’Connell (D), (D). Westly Steve State Controller and legislators, Republican state Two McClintock Sen.Tom (R) and Sen. (R), Bill Morrow comprised the official opposition. 57, spent to pass Prop $8.4 million was An impressive his- in California’s bond measure the most expensive tor Opponents did not form an official committee. did not form Opponents A Title acilities Bond Act of 1996 acilities Bond acilities Bond Act of 1998 acilities Bond 37 Suppl , ••• ••• Dennis Act of 2002 Act of 2004 ater Quality Assm. he Economic Recovery Bond Act Bond he Economic Recovery BONDS AND AND BONDS BORROWING Bond Bond Public Education F Parks,Act of 2002 and Coastal Protection Air,Act of 2000 Bond and Coastal Protection es Y the League of Women Voters, Women the League of Init. Leg./ Statute e Prop. v Number Official opponents included e. est Research Group and the Congress of and the Congress Group est Research ear 2004 57 (LS) 63.3 % T 2002 472004 (LS) 551998 59.1 % Public Education Facilities Kindergarten-Univ (LS) 1A 50.8 % Public Education Facilities Kindergarten-Univ 1996 (LS)2004 62.5 % 203 Class Size Reduction Kindergarten-University 2002 71 (LS) 40 61.5 %2000 (ICAS) Education F Public 59.1 % Stem Cell Research. Funding. (LS) 12 Bonds2002 56.9 %Water,Air, Clean Clean Neighborhood Safe (LS) 46 63.2 % Safe Neighborhood Parks,Water, Clean Clean (LS) Misc 57.6 % FundTrust Shelter Housing and Emergency $3.00B Housing $2.10B 2002 50 (IS) 55.3 % W oponents only spent about $200,000, spent about oponents only 41 but Prop Y TOP 10 MOST EXPENSIVE BOND MEASURES TOP 10 MOST EXPENSIVE BOND AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 (LS) - Legislative Statute (LS) - Legislative (ICAS) - Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute Amendment Constitutional (ICAS) - Initiative (IS) - Initiati Mountjoy (R),Mountjoy Limitation Committee Tax the National Association. Taxpayers Jarvis and the Howard Pr California Seniors. San and Times Angeles Los The of this also came out in support Chronicle Francisco measur Proposition 41, the Voting Modernization Bond Act of 41, Bond Modernization Proposition Voting the 2002, ballot following on the first statewide appeared snafu in Florida. card 2000 punch the November It million in state bonds to pur- issuing $200 proposed outdated replace equipment and modern voting chase systems. card punch 41 consisted of Prop Supporters (D), Shelley Leader Kevin Majority Assembly of (D), Bill Jones of State Secretary Speaker Assembly (D), Robert Hertzberg (R), other bond meas- with five 30 passed along Prop / No (33.3%). (66.7%) Yes ballot: on the same ures California Common Cause, the California Public Inter ••• 38 ••• BONDS AND BORROWING

tered a dismal $400,000.53 With tremendous money CONCLUSION behind it, bipartisan support and a popular Hollywood-personality-turned-governor on TV ads Overall voters consistently favored bonds for veterans, campaigning on its behalf, Prop 57 eventually passed: water programs and schools. Even among these Yes (63.3%) / No (36.7%). favored public purposes for bonds, however, larger measures did not pass with ease. Prop 55, for exam- Proposition 71 in 2004 successfully secured $3 billion ple, barely received a majority vote after a $10 million for human embryonic stem-cell research, an unprece- campaign on its behalf. As indicated by the below dented amount for any state-sponsored scientific chart, the most costly bond measure in state history research program in the country: Yes (59.1%) / No was Prop 57 in 2004, which procured $15.0 billion (40.9%). This measure received support from an all- for deficit recovery. Four of the top ten most expensive star line up, including Gov. Schwarzenegger (R), bond measures requested funding for schools. Water Michael J. Fox, the late Christopher Reeve, roughly 35 bonds also requested high bond amounts. Nobel laureates, Bill Gates and numerous other business tycoons. Other supporters of Prop 71 included a Bipartisan, centrist coalitions and heavy financial host of disease and patient advocacy groups, including backing were required to pass water and school bond the American Diabetes Association, the National measures that requested relatively higher amounts of Coalition for Cancer Research and the Parkinson’s borrowing. As for earthquake reconstruction, chil- Action Network. Every Democratic state elected offi- dren’s facilities, housing, libraries, the environment, cial, both U.S. Senators and a host of U.S. prisons and transportation bond measures, the Congressmembers supported the measure as well. strength of the state’s economy was the best predictor for whether they would pass. Environmental, prison Official opponents included women’s advocacy organ- and transportation bonds tended to fail even during izations against cloning, such as Our Bodies Ourselves times when the economy was stable. and the Pacific Institute for Women’s Health. State Sen. Tom McClintock (R) and bioethics experts also In general, the economy played a crucial role in deter- opposed Prop 71. mining how measures fared during each election. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unem- Set against the backdrop of a highly polarized elec- ployment rate in California was roughly cut in half torate, this measure interacted with a national debate from 11.0% in 1982 to 5.1% at the start of 1990. on stem-cell research that pit scientists and patients During this period of strong growth, 44 out of the 45 against President George W. Bush (R), conservatives A proposed bond measures achieved passage.

S and the Roman Catholic Church. In total, the coali-

U tion behind Prop 71 spent $34.9 million, an unprece- A more comprehensive study would examine the cam-

S dented sum for any bond measure campaign in paign contributions for all of the bond measures to P 56 57

I California. The opposition raised a mere $620,000. analyze fully the role of campaign expenditures on the H election outcomes. This report only looks at the funds S

R raised to support or oppose the most recent bond E measures, those since 1999. N T R A P G N I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W ••• 39 ••• TAX INCREASES

TAX INCREASES

For the purposes of this discussion, proposals to increase taxes are divided into two categories: general tax increases and targeted tax increases. General tax increases raise revenue from a relatively large constituency, such as everyone who pays sales taxes or gasoline taxes. Targeted tax increases impact a narrower constituency, such as tobacco smokers or oil companies. Although a targeted tax could raise revenue for the State General Fund, in practice, these measures tend to earmark proceeds for specific government programs. Conceptually, the fundamental difference is the fact that targeted tax measures allow voters to approve revenue increases that will largely be paid for by someone else.

GENERAL TAXES amendment, required a significant positive shift from voters’ initial opinions made possible by ot surprisingly, during the period under a solid bipartisan coalition, substantial funding Ninvestigation, general tax increases, which from big businesses and no organized opposi- require immediate economic sacrifices from a tion. Proposition 185 in 1994, a voter initia- broad constituency, failed to garner the same tive, failed because it lacked a compelling level of voter support as did bond measures. focus, a broad coalition and ample funding. However, between 1978 and 2004, voters did approve three out of eight general tax increase Initially approved by two-thirds of the legisla- measures, including both measures placed on ture, Proposition 111 proposed doubling the the ballot by the legislature. One of the failed gas tax over four years (a nine cent per gallon initiatives secured more than 49% of the vote. increase) to fund highway construction, road Although these proposals raised revenue from improvements and mass transit infrastructure. sources that could include large numbers of It also proposed amending the state constitu- persons, they generally prescribed narrow spe- tion to raise the spending cap while protecting W cific uses for the tax proceeds. Propositions education spending as guaranteed under O Proposition 98 in 1988. This spending limit R

167 and 217 were the only two measures that K expansion was key to gaining the support of did not earmark funds for any specific purpose. I N The ballot measures in this category are briefly labor and other groups. As a result of its broad scope, this measure enjoyed bipartisan support G described in the chart below. Subsequent dis-

from Gov. Deukmejian (R), the State Chamber P cussion will consider the reasons why the tax of Commerce, State Sen. John Garamendi (D), A

proposals met their electoral fate. R

the California Taxpayers Association, the T GAS TAXES California Association of Highway Patrolmen N and AARP. With the decision by the 200,000- E R

Two ballot measures asked voters to increase member Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association S

the state gas tax. The adoption of Proposition to remain neutral, the campaign for Prop 111 H I

111 in 1990, a legislative constitutional faced no organized opposition. P S U AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 S A WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA i aiiis ohl a o hs,itwould enacta To helppay forthese, sit facilities. localstreets andmasstran- building statehighways, Itwould provide money for ernment spending. updating thespendinglimitonstateandlocalgov- statewide traffic congestionrelief program and thisballotproposition calls forenactinga “Well, voters’ viewsonProp 111: the Field Poll usedthefollowing questiontogauge In themonthsleadingup1990Primary Election, million. thepro-111 campaignspentatotalof$7.3 Chevron, California BuildingIndustry and Association C Drawing onlargedonationsfrom theCalifornia (LCA) -Legislati (IS) -Initiative Statute (ICAS) -Initiati GENERAL T retoa ec fiesAscain the orrectional Peace Officers Association, Year 04Gnrl(CS 7Fi 84%Emergency MedicalServices. % 28.4 Fail 67 (ICAS) General 2004 94Gnrl(S 8 al1. a a a Passenger rail, Gas Top Income General Fund, Tax Brackets. 49.2 % Fail Multi Gas Tax 19.5% Gener Fail 217 2004 (IS) LocalandPublicSafety 185 57.7% General State Taxes. Pass 1996 (IS) 41.2 % General Fail 1994 172 (LCA) 167 Special 1993 (IS) General 1992 90Gnrl(S 3 al3. DrugEnforcement and 37.9% Fail Traffic CongestionRelief- % 52.4 133 Pass (IS) General 111 (LCA) 1990 Primary 1990 NHSOIA NLSSO A N ICLPOOIIN NCLFRI,1978-2004 AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCALPROPOSITIONS INCALIFORNIA, 5 6 The oppositiononly spentabout $9,000. Election Type of AX INCREASEPROPOSITIONS,1978-2004 v al v e e Constitutional Constitutional Amendment I)6 P 63 (IS) Leg./ Init. Number Prop. Amendment andStatute Pass/ Fail ass TAX INCREASES 37%MentalHealthSvcs. % 53.7 ••• e Purpose Yes 5 7 40 Funding Incomes a sion, Local Agencies. Revenues to Reinstatement. Impr Protection and Pr Gas 96 EnsuingCaltrans investigations revealed that 1906. Francisco withoutelectricityforthefirsttimesince ItalsoleftSan Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge. collapsingtheSan the densely populatedBay Area, amagnitude7.1earthquake struck In October1989, undecided. 45.7%would vote againstitand8.7%were ure, gested only 45.5%ofvoters would vote forthemeas- responses totheabove questionsug- In July 1989, you vote yes ornoonthisballotproposition?” would Iftheelectionwere beingheldtoday, years. one centpergallonincreases ineach ofthenextfour l 55% increase intruckusagefeesanda5centpergal- on increase inthestatefueltax1990followed by ••• ev T ention Funding o ax v ement Act of1993 . T elephone Surcharge. bo Taxes. Title v . 5 e 8 Tax onPersonal $1 million Expan- tlt Emergency Utility noeMentalhealth Income noeGeneral Fund, Income Public Sales ae Drugenforce- Sales Gas Highways, Type medical svcs. ser vention local agencies safety mass transit local agencies ment &pr mass tr vices ansit e - WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA - 62 61 May 29-June 3 Aided er how the new rev- the er how v ailroad companies that ailroad ansit bodies who vocifer- ansit bodies who ol o With few allies outside of With om r fr of the initiative process.of the initiative Prop 62 ail and mass transit bus services. ail and mass transit y y oposition 185 made its first mis a w May 29-June 3 Unaided y acteristics that enabled Prop 111 to Prop acteristics that enabled primaril har es (19.5%) / No (80.5%). passenger r Y e enough local contr v when it alienated the statewide transportation when o ail: w e ev ••• ble to shift voters away from their initial stance their from away ble to shift voters tak commissions and local tr because it did not opposed the ballot measure ously allo be used. enue would margins: Alameda (58.9%),Alameda margins: Costa (55.4%), Contra Angeles (58.5%),Los San (65.1%) and Francisco San Mateo (57.9%). 111, success of Prop The taxes few general one of the the past 25 years, over approved speaks to the great coalitions, of broad advantage those particularly business groups. to linked for this gas campaign The successful without been not have would tax increase it and the substantial funding the bipartisan support received. the lack of Also critical to its success was Jarvis the Howard like groups opposition from Association. Taxpayers and $7.3 million raised With no organized opposition, campaign was the pro-111 a against gas tax increases. later, years Four appeared another gas tax measure on the ballot b 4% to the gas tax by increased have 185 would impr of 1994 as it lacked in November It failed miserably all of the c pr Led by the Planning and Conservation League, the Planning and Conservation Led by the coalition behind Pr environmental and public interest groups, and public interest environmental the pro- approximately to raise able only 185 coalition was $800,000, May 1-8 Aided 41 - The fairly ••• ••• a TAX INCREASES TAX y emaining of it. ote against oponents to y May 1-8 Unaided op 111 by wide op 111 by “Aided responses” significant number a the tax pr By February of 1990, By February ed Pr y une of 1990 b v hart, o 59 and persuade the r oters decided to v e spent b Feb 2-10 Aided 46.1 %45.6 %8.2 % 52.5 % 23.6 % 50.1 % 23.9 % 34.9 % 48.6 % 15.0 % 31.3 % 46.8 % 20.1 % 37.9 % 15.3 % y 60 passed in J om the pollsters. y after listening to a summar undecided v e ed by the Field Poll between February and February between Poll the Field ed by y ed some familiarity with the ballot meas ed some familiarity with the ballot es No Undecided Y information fr op 111 finall 1990 FIELD POLL RESULTS FOR PROP 111 - UNAIDED AND AIDED RESPONSES 1990 FIELD POLL RESULTS ame the ballot measur AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 y Pr uncommitted voters appears to be a critical contrib- appears to be a critical uncommitted voters success. overall utor to the campaign’s the measur large sums of mone fr tight margin: Yes (52.43%) / No (47.57%).Yes tight margin: half Over of the state counties, 38 out of 58, the meas- rejected ure. pop- the highly were the victory delivered What ulated counties that appr Based on the data in this c ure; they,ure; therefore, explanato- no additional received r to the para- listened who voters tallied from were quoted above. graph of formerl As a result of the lopsided spending on the side of of the lopsided As a result the tax proponents, support for the measure voter in the months leading up to Election Day. again rose the data on Prop incorporates chart following The 111 gather of 1990.late May indicate vot- “Unaided responses” ers declar 1,000 highway bridges needed to be reinforced to be reinforced needed to bridges 1,000 highway quakes. future withstand that month, Later the Field to determine statement again the above used Poll 111. attitudes on Prop sup- voter revealed survey The 55.3%. port had risen to however, the tax to increase the willingness of voters once again.on gasoline faded would question said they 46.1% of Only to the above respondents 111. for Prop vote ••• 42 ••• TAX INCREASES

stood to gain huge profits if Prop 185 passed.63 With a 10% rate on taxable incomes between $115,000 backing from oil companies, the California Business and $230,000 and an 11% rate on taxable incomes Alliance, the California Manufacturers Association over $230,000. According to the Legislative and the California Taxpayers Association, the opposi- Analyst’s Office, about $700 million would have tion campaign raised approximately $770,000 and been raised each year as a result. Half the proceeds focused aggressively on the so-called “sweetheart would be allocated to the State General Fund, pro- deals.” 64 Major contributors to the opposition viding substantial funding for schools. The remain- included Texaco, Inc., Atlantic Richfield Co., Union ing half would be distributed among counties (54%), Oil Company of California, Chevron Corporation cities (22%) and special districts (24%). and Shell Oil Company. In 1996, the state economy was rapidly improving. Without a broad coalition or nearly enough money Unemployment dropped by 0.8% during that year. to change attitudes towards an initially unpopular Five out of the six bond measures that appeared on idea, proponents of Prop 185 were easily defeated in the ballot in 1996 passed. But, despite the strong every California county. economy and the $2.8 million spent on the Yes campaign, Prop 217 still failed, losing by less than a two- INCOME TAXES point margin: Yes (49.2%) / No (50.8%).65

Since 1978, two statutory initiatives have focused As is the case with many initiative campaigns, a sub- solely on raising the income taxes of high-wage earn- stantial amount of the Yes-on-217 money was spent ers: Propositions 217 and 63. Prop 217, had it been on qualifying the measure for the ballot, not on the successful, would have allocated new revenue to campaign.66 Meanwhile, Prop 217 opponents spent schools and local government. Prop 217’s defeat is approximately $4.5 million solely on the campaign explained by the roughly 3-2 spending ratio and the to defeat the measure.67 Contributors to the opposi- lack of centrist organizations behind the measure. tion included wealthy individuals, oil and tobacco Prop 63 successfully obtained additional funds for companies, the California Taxpayers Association, the county mental health programs. The Yes campaign National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) relied on a centrist coalition, generous financial sup- and the State Chamber of Commerce Small Business port and no strong opposition in order to pull out a Committee. The opposition focused their arguments victory. Another general tax measure, Proposition on how Prop 217 would hurt small businesses, 167 in 1992, called for an income tax increase, but though its largest funders were primarily large com- requested other tax adjustments as well. This meas- panies including Philip Morris, Chevron, Atlantic

A ure is considered under multitax propositions (see p Richfield and Hewlett Packard. S 43). U Supporters of Prop 217 included the League of

S As part of his strategy to manage the state’s recession Women Voters of California, the California P

I ravaged budget in the early 1990’s, Gov. Wilson (R) Federation of Teachers, the California Professional

H instituted a temporary increase in the income tax Firefighters, the Peace Officers Research Association S rates of the highest-income taxpayers. When his tem- R of California and the California State PTA. The

E porary tax increase expired in 1995, local govern- largest contributor to the Yes campaign was the

N ment bodies formed a coalition to try to resurrect it. California Teachers Association, which alone provid- T

R Prop 172 in 1993 alleviated the financial plight of ed over $2.1 million, including non-monetary dona-

A cities and counties; however, these jurisdictions still tions. P suffered from the revenue restrictions of Prop 13. In November of 2004, Proposition 63 established a G

N Proposition 217, if it passed, would have reinstated 1% tax on individuals with an annual income above I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA - - er v act epeal of enters; a as placed ate; a r ams without leg op 165 w edit to all r ogr Pr en and a further 15% Prop 63 was therefore suc- therefore 63 was Prop hildr 72 Arguing that the State gave away Arguing that the State gave ease on Californians earning o yriad of tax reforms, a 1% including al aim of the Prop 167 campaign was al aim of the Prop vernor with new augmented powers, with vernor In addition, raised groups these same 71 eduction in the state sales tax r suggest that simple tax measures pose less of a suggest that simple tax measures y oposed a m ants to mothers with c ••• ••• reduction after six months.reduction pro- have It also would vided the go cut spending including the authority to unilaterally on specific public assistance pr and spent over $20.1 million to support Prop 64, to support Prop $20.1 million over and spent to file law- of individuals the ability limited which suits against businesses. cessful because of good timing,cessful because of an appealing idea, no financial backing.opposition and strong this That of a the income taxes rela- increased only measure also have may of individuals small number tively in its success. a critical role played MULTI-TAX PROPOSITIONS MULTI-TAX Since 1978, than more proposed have few measures one type of tax increase. 167 in 1992 is Proposition one example. a significant margin it failed by That ma to the electorate.threat types of taxes a more The consisted of,measure to enemies it seemed the more outspent. were its proponents and the more create that initiative voter a statutory 167 was Proposition pr before the voters by Gov. by the voters before (R) and Howard Wilson Jarvis. If it passed, imposed have would the measure public assistance immediate 10% cuts to monthly gr income tax incr the snack tax; an income tax cr companies; and a state fee on oil tax on insurance of the oil extr companies based on 0.2% to 3.0% ed in California. and corporations billions of dollars to multi-national year, every individuals wealthy aimed to proponents clos- by services funding and public school improve while and taxing the rich loopholes ing corporate taxpayers. to middle-income tax relief providing Another centr 165 Proposition from money off corporate to draw on the same ballot (see p 90). coverage. $500,000; a 1% corporate profits tax increase; a tax increase; profits $500,000; a 1% corporate 0.5% r 4343 - ••• ••• ••• TAX INCREASES TAX ees with health er $16.2 million y v ees International Union y The organizations that ordi- organizations The 70 Association, the California Police vide their emplo o vice Emplo amily Physicians.amily As a collective, these ations together spent o ve required all medium and large-sized required ve of F Association comprised the major contribu the California Healthcare Association, the California Healthcare the ould have contributed heavily to oppose this contributed heavily ould have y Association in California and the California Association in California and the w Labor unions including the California Teachers unions including the California Labor 68 y 69 oups spent over $4.7 million to support the meas- oups spent over ould ha AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 gr ure. Chiefs Association,Teachers the California Association, the California State PTA, the Mental Health Academ Among the groups that supported Prop 63 were the 63 were that supported Prop Among the groups California Nurses According to the Field Poll, to the Field According were a majority of voters 63 in beginning of Prop in favor inclined to vote August of that year. Poll, August 2004 Field In the “yes” vote would said they 59% of aided respondents on the initiative. vote would 29% stated they Only 63.against Prop In late September, 57% responded By late “no.” vote would they and 31% said favorably October, at strong remained the initiative support for 56%. $1 million, for roughly tax rate the increasing (53.7%) / No Yes to 30,000 taxpayers: 25,000 (46.3%). In its first full year, will likely this measure the $750 million to be deposited in about generate Fund,Mental Health Services new and subsidizing health programs. ongoing county mental naril Official opponents of this measure consisted of Official opponents of this measure Assm. Leslie (R), Tim Assm. Limitation Committee and an econom- (R), Haynes Ray Tax National the UCLA. from ics professor 63 Opponents of Prop $28,000. spent only tors for the campaign. California Council of Community Mental Health California Council of Community Peace Agencies and the California Correctional Officers (SEIU), Association,Association State Employees California (CSEA) and Ser measure were likely preoccupied with other measures preoccupied likely were measure on the ballot. example, For large corpor and business groups to oppose Prop 72,to oppose Prop that referendum a controversial w businesses to pr ••• 44 ••• TAX INCREASES

islative oversight under emergency conditions. “Well, Proposition 167 increases taxes on top per- According to Lenny Goldberg, executive director of sonal income taxpayers, corporations, banks, insur- the California Tax Reform Association and leader in ance companies, and oil producers. It would also the campaign for Prop 167, “Our people really felt repeal the 1991 sales tax increases, provide for the need to fight back against 165 and put out a pos- renters’ tax credits and change business-owned prop- itive message.”73 erty reappraisal rules. Fiscal impact: net state gains of 560 million to 910 million dollars annually from Although supported by the California Tax Reform 1993-1995 and an additional 1 billion dollars annu- Association, the Congress of California Seniors, the ally thereafter. Net increase in revenues to local gov- California Professional Firefighters, the State ernments of 550 million to 1.2 billion dollars begin- Building & Construction Trades Council of ning in 1993?” 77 California and the California Federation of Teachers, Prop 167 was severely under funded. Together, these In early October, about 45.5% of unaided poll groups only spent $630,000.74 Meanwhile the oppo- respondents said they were inclined to vote for the sition spent nearly $9 million to kill the measure.lxxv measure based only on what they had seen or 78 The formal coalition against Prop 167 consisted of heard. Approximately the same portion of voters the Alliance of California Taxpayers and Involved said they would vote for measure after hearing the above explanation.79 Voters (ACTIV), the Federation of Minority Business Associations and the former chair of the California During the last week of the campaign, the segment of Commission on Aging. A review of the campaign fil- unaided voters who responded in favor of Prop 167 ing statements reveals that oil companies, alcohol fell to 26.8%.80 Of the voters who received the expla- companies and insurance companies constituted the nation of the measure, 37.6% said they would vote largest contributors. Other corporations including for the measure.81 the Walt Disney Company, Bank of America and the Irvine Company also helped to finance the anti-Prop Given the extraordinary difference between the 167 campaign. amounts of money spent on both sides, it is impressive that Prop 167 still received the support it did: Polling revealed considerable fluctuation among vot- Yes (41.2%) / No (58.8%). While taxpayer associa- ers with regards to Prop 167. In September of 1992, tions may tout the defeat of Prop 167 as a voter man- only 26.0% of likely voters said they planned to vote date against the proposed tax increases, one could for the measure based on what they had seen, read or also argue the proposition’s fate demonstrated a core A 76

S heard of the proposition. After listening to the group of voters willing to support more progressive

U below statement, that figure jumped a staggering 20 tax policies despite an overwhelming media blitz dis-

S points to 46.0%: couraging them from doing so. P I 75

H 1992 FIELD POLL RESULTS FOR PROP 167 - UNAIDED AND AIDED RESPONSES S

R Sept 8-15 Sept 8-15 Oct 3-10 Oct 3-10 Oct 25-30 Oct 25-30 E Unaided Aided Unaided Aided Unaided Aided N

T Yes 26.0 % 46.0 % 45.5 % 42.8 % 26.8 % 37.6 % R A

P No 39.7 % 38.1 % 25.8 % 27.4 % 52.4 % 44.3 %

G Not Sure 34.2 % 15.8 % 28.8 % 29.8 % 20.8 % 18.8 % N I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA Oct 4-10 Fiscal 85 4 8 Oct 4-10 Aided However, of the elec- this subset 3 8 62.8 %25.5 % 50.2 %11.7 % 37.8 % 46.7 % 12.0 % 39.8 % 13.5 % Oct 4-10 Unaided 82 ou know) Proposition 133 is the anti-drug Proposition ou know) cement and prevention with a one half of one- cement and prevention “no” and 12.0% had no opinion. ell (as y es survey of voters who received information on the received who of voters survey ••• ••• Y No No Opinion 1990 FIELD POLL RESULTS FOR PROP 133 - 1990 FIELD POLL RESULTS UNAIDED AND AIDED RESPONSES ote torate that had actually heard of the proposition con- of the proposition heard that had actually torate 18.0% of the voters. stituted only programs, taxes initiative. fund anti-drug It would enfor cent sales tax increase. the also prohibit It would offenders.” of serious release early In response, would said they 50.2% of voters only on the measure,“yes” vote would 37.8% said they v Survey respondents were then asked if they would if they then asked were respondents Survey expla- after hearing the following 133 for Prop vote nation: “W A dis- more even showed fiscal impact of the measure appointing results. the above After pollsters read In October of 1990, 62.8% of the vot- impressive an were 133 said they of Prop had heard ers who for the measure.inclined to vote 25.5% said Only and 11.7% against the proposition vote would they had no opinion. Given the unfavorable economic climate in 1990, economic climate unfavorable the Given a steep uphill battle. 133 faced Prop the course Over of that year, shot up 1.7 rate the state unemployment points,Appendix C). 5.1% to 6.8% (see from During Poll, 1990 Field August an said they of voters 60.9% of state sales taxes.opposed the increasing Only 1.1% had while an increase favored 38.0% said they no opinion. 4545 - o- as ec- ••• ••• ••• TAX INCREASES TAX ease in the edits for cer cement (40%), op 133 also pr cement and corr Pr cement and preven- enfor cent incr w cent sales tax that w eduction cr enfor w ear period. 1991 Between half-per -y y ar anti-drug la eturn to 4.75%. more money and a centrist coalition and money more y ould r enue be used for la ballot measures proposed higher state sales proposed ballot measures ev o oposed a tempor AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 roposition 186 in 1994. 186 roposition a to establish In order w ention (8%). period, After this four-year the state T SALES TAXES Another example of a multi-tax proposal was multi-tax proposal example of a Another P delivery health care single-payer universal statewide system, an assortment raised have would 186 Prop pack, per cigarette increase of taxes – a $1 tax a pay- on all employers, tax of up to 8.9% roll a 2.5% 2.5% and an additional individuals income tax on all $250,000.tax on incomes above essen- Because the model health care a single-payer tial feasibility of this measure,over the debate controlled cam- the the system how focused on almost entirely paign was function,would not the taxes used to finance it. report. not discussed in this is therefore 186 Prop tions. 133 in 1990, Proposition statute, an initiative pr taxes between 1978 and 2004.taxes between that Both required new r state sales tax to fund drug enfor tion programs. It failed due to the souring economy, coalition.lack of funding and lack of a centrist With substantiall behind it, 172 in 1993 permanently Proposition extended an existing half-per and 1995, $7.5 roughly secure would the measure revenues,billion in additional to be deposited in the anti-drug Fund and allocated towards Safe Streets education (42%), Proposition 133 in 1990 would have increased the increased have 133 in 1990 would Proposition 4.75% to – from a half-percent by state sales tax rate 5.25% – during a four originally set to expire at the beginning of 1994. set to expire originally The public safe- towards allocated was revenue additional ty programs. passed because of its measure This financial backing, base of support and the fact broad in taxes. a new increase that it did not represent sales tax w prisons and jails (10%) and drug treatment and pre- prisons and jails (10%) and drug treatment v posed eliminating sentence r tain violent offenders. ••• 46 ••• TAX INCREASES

explanation and stated that Prop 133 “would collect for from Sacramento. Legislation required local gov- a total of 7.5 billion dollars in sales tax revenue dur- ernments to yield a greater share of local property ing the period of the rate increase,” only 46.7% of taxes to fill in the gap. It is estimated that local gov- voters polled said they would vote in favor of the ernments lost about $3.6 billion, or about 25% of proposition, 39.8% said they would vote “no” and their property tax revenues, as a result. Proposition 13.5 had no opinion. 172 was placed on the 1993 Special Election ballot by the legislature in order to help offset this loss in Supporters of Prop 133 included Lt. Gov. Leo local government revenue. McCarthy (D), State Superintendent Bill Honig (D), the California Police Chiefs Association, the Following its approval, Prop 172 permanently California Sheriffs Association, the California Peace extended a half-cent sales tax increase originally set Officers Association, the California Correctional to expire on January 1, 1994. The measure required Peace Officers Association, the Peace Officers the additional revenue be used exclusively towards Research Association of California, the Los Angeles local public safety for police, sheriffs, firefighters, dis- Police Department and a Los Angeles County (USC) trict attorneys and corrections. A constitutional medical center. State Sen. Bill Leonard (R) and the amendment, Prop 172 also added language to the Paul Gann’s Citizens Committee opposed the meas- state constitution identifying public safety as the first ure. In total, the campaign for Prop 133 spent under responsibility of local governments. $200,000.86 The opponents did not form an official Early polling on Prop 172 revealed discouraging fundraising committee. results. In August of 1993, only 38.8% of voters who With an overwhelming majority of voters already had heard of the measure said they would vote “yes” opposed to an increase in the state sales tax, an esca- on it. An even lower percentage of voters responded lating unemployment rate and lack of significant favorably after receiving this explanation of the funding on its behalf, it seems clear why Prop 133 proposition: did not pass: Yes (37.9%) / No (62.1%). If the Yes “Proposition 172 is entitled, ‘Local Public Safety campaign had raised more funds, evidence still sug- Protection and Improvement Act of 1993.’ It would gests that getting a sales tax increase approved by the provide a dedicated revenue source for public safety electorate would have been extremely difficult. While purposes with moneys distributed to cities and coun- 62.8% of voters who had heard of the proposition ties. However, a county could receive revenues only said they would vote in favor of it, only 50.2% of the if approved by the board of supervisors or by a uninformed responded positively after pollsters pro- A majority of voters within the county.”

S vided an explanation of the measure. These numbers U indicate that drug enforcement was not a compelling After hearing this statement, less than 34% of voters

S issue at the time and greater awareness alone would said they would vote for Prop 172.87 P

I not ensure majority support. Also, bond measures

H typically pass with much higher frequency than gen- On a more promising note, when voters heard a S eral taxes, yet during the same election, 12 of the 14 longer explanation that included the fact that Prop R

E proposed bond measures were rejected. This fact 172 “would make permanent a temporary half-cent

N suggests the economic climate contributed to the fis- sales tax increase enacted in 1991,” the percent of T favorable voters jumped nearly nine points to

R cal conservatism of the voters. 88

A 42.8%. When the same poll was conducted in

P To help state government services survive the reces- October of 1993, a similar pattern emerged. After sion of the early 1990s, Gov. Pete Wilson (R) low- hearing the simpler explanation of Prop 172, only G

N ered the portion of school funding traditionally paid 45.0% of voters responded favorably to the meas- I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA oting base and Oct 8-15 Aided, permanent ed patients and the oters because it did existing hospitals with . Oct 8-15 Aided appealed to v y 92 ying el ble to turnout their v emergency hospital rooms and trau- hospital rooms emergency a oss the state, pa y and more medical care without being medical care and more e y e er Physicians joined forces in 2004 to sup- joined forces Physicians rooms and physicians have been forced to been forced have and physicians rooms y AXES y entl compensated. As a result, the California vely frame the campaign in a positive light. the campaign in a positive frame vely Oct 8-15 Unaided curr hange the amount of state sales taxes people hange the amount of state sales e ocates w vide mor y v ith the rising number of uninsur op 172 also lik o er ••• ••• emergenc full pr roughly $96,000. roughly Emergency Nurses Association, Nurses Emergency California Medical Association,Association, Care California Primary Firefighters,California Professional California Commission and Medical Services Emergency American College of California Chapter of the Emergenc ma centers acr not c w UTILITY T W closing of man Despite the economy,Despite initial reception its lukewarm counties, in 19 rural and its failure 172 flouted Prop (57.7%) / No (42.3%). Yes the polls and passed: the measure: counties favored Most of the largest Angeles,62% in Los in Orange, 52.3% 58% in San counties. Bernardino,Ventura and Riverside and supporters the $2.1 million spent by Without to its opponents, available the inadequate resources Election on faced long odds 172 might have Prop Day, turnout characteris- due to the low in particular tic of special elections. endorse- strong Aided by ments, opposition, and no real financial backing ad effecti Pr 4747 - w la olice 90 ••• ••• ••• Aug 12-18 Aided, permanent America TAX INCREASES TAX 91 ire Chiefs ire ofessional companies Major cam y bor unions. committee, s tobacco companies, Aug 12-18 Aided ilson’ op 172. TS FOR PROP 172 - UNAIDED AND AIDED RESPONSES W on, and energ inancial Corporation, oil the California F estern F ated a minimal budget, spending Aug 12-18 Unaided 38.8 %42.9 % 33.9 %18.4 % 40.6 % 42.8 % 25.6 % 44.1 % 34.5 % 13.0 % 39.5 % 45.0 % 26.0 % 35.0 % 52.7 % 19.9 % 33.3 % 14.0 % W the California Organization of P the California Organization of eat Association, In comparison, of voters 52.7% about ys cement associations and la 89 efighters also endorsed Pr Yes Yes No Not Sure 1993 FIELD POLL RESUL AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 inancial institutions including the Bank of inancial institutions including the ir om McClintock from the Center for the California the Center for the om McClintock from companies including Chevr including Philip Morris, Opponents included Assm.Opponents included L. Richard (R), Mountjoy T Assm. and Taxpayer (R). Gil Ferguson Together, opponents gener The coalition in support of this proposition included proposition coalition in support of this The organizations enforcement of the same law many 133 in 1990.that endorsed Prop In addition, Gov. (R),Wilson Pete State Sen. E. Alfred Alquist (D), the Club,California Commerce District the California Attorne 1993 Field Poll results for Prop 172 – Unaided The 172 – Unaided for Prop results Poll 1993 Field been have 172 may for Prop ratings approval low economy. of the slumping reflective California With recession, severe a from recovering unem- the state’s had just begun to decline, in 1993 rate ployment but (see the year 9% throughout above it remained Appendix C). ure. responded favorably to the longer explanation. to the longer favorably responded and the Gr including PG&E and Southern California Edison including PG&E and Southern Co., significant funds as well. all contributed total, In $2.1 million. spent over proponents Association, enfor F paign contributors included and Sheriffs and the California Pr and Sheriffs and the California F ••• 48 ••• TAX INCREASES

port Proposition 67. This initiative would have approximately $6.9 million.93 increased the emergency telephone surcharge by 3% 94 for all calls made within California to fund emer- Opponents spent around $7.5 million. SBC and gency care physicians, facilities and services. Verizon provided the bulk of this sum. The California State Sheriffs Association, the California According to the LAO, Prop 67 would have resulted Chapter of the National Emergency Number in about $500 million in increased revenues annual- Association (CALNENA), the Congress of California ly. The bulk of the funds would be used to reimburse Seniors and the California Taxpayers Association physicians and hospitals for uncompensated emer- also opposed the measure. Major newspapers, gency medical care (90.5%). The remaining funds including the Sacramento Bee, Los Angeles Times would be allocated towards community clinics (5%), and San Francisco Chronicle also came out against the measure. Arguments against Prop 67 centered to train firefighters and paramedics for emergencies on the lack of a connection between phone usage (3.75%) and improve the 911 emergency telephone and emergency medical care use. Other criticisms of number system (0.75%). As a constitutional amend- Prop 67 focused on the fact that less than 1% of the ment, Prop 67 excluded itself from state spending funds would be used for 911 service improvements, limits and Proposition 98 funding requirements. that Prop 67 would hurt small businesses and that it Major contributors included the American College of lacked enough oversight. Emergency Physicians ($1.3 million), the California Outspent by their opponents and lacking a centrist Medical Association ($600,000), the California base, Prop 67 supporters eventually lost with only Emergency Physicians Medical Group ($400,000) 28.4% of the vote. and the California Primary Care Association ($250,000). Together, the Yes campaign spent

TARGETED TAX MEASURES, 1978-2004

Year Type of Leg./ Prop. Pass/ YesTitle Industry Campaign Election Init. Number Fail Spending:

Yes No

1980 Primary (IS) 11 Fail 44.3 % Taxation. Surtax. Oil $0.5M $6M

A 1988 General (ICAS) 99 Pass 58.2 % Cigarette and Tobacco Tax. Tobacco $2M $18M

S Benefit Fund. U 1990 General (LCA) 126 Fail 40.9 % Alcoholic Beverages. Taxes. Alcohol $2M none S

P 1990 General (ICAS) 134 Fail 31.0 % Alcohol Surtax. Alcohol $1M $34M I

H 1996 General (IS) 216 Fail 38.7 % Health Care. Consumer Health N/A N/A

S Protection. Taxes on care

R Corporate Restructuring. E

N 1998 General (ICAS) 10 Pass 50.5 % State and County Early Tobacco $9M $30M T Childhood Development R Programs. Additional A

P Tobacco Surtax. (ICAS) - Institutional Constitutional Amendment and Statute G (IS) - Initiative Statute N

I (LCA) - Legislative Constitutional Amendment K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA - oughly $14 oughly oters during bled the elec ena en the most well- , the American Lung eases, seen amongst v y When asked if they supported if they asked When withstand ev el 97 y ar 96 r Six years later,Six years in 1986, these num- , 95 bornl obacco alone contributed r T ate to stub ynolds ••• ••• aised over $18.3 million.aised over Philip Morris and R.J. elections on other tax incr million of this total. tor funded opposition campaigns. of 1988,In November voters 99 asked Proposition 1.25 the tax on tobacco distributors by to increase cents per cigarette, per pack of cigarettes. or 25 cents be used to would the tax increase from raised Money of,fund the treatment on, and research tobacco-related diseases, health education programs, preven- fire programs. conservation tion and environmental to 99 also amended the state constitution Prop not be subject to would revenues the added ensure state or local spending limits. included in support of this tax measure coalition The Steinfeld, Jesse the former Surgeon General M.D., the De Kamp,Van John General Attorney State the American Cancer Society Association, health educators and environ- school mentalists. $1.7 spent approximately they Together million. counter the initiative, To tobacco companies r Re the feasibility of its proposed single-payer health sys- single-payer of its proposed the feasibility an exam- as here 186 is not considered Prop tem that targeted tax measure. ple of a 1980 polling,In preliminary the by surveyed voters support for a avid expressed Institute California Field and tobacco products on both alcohol tax increase 54.6% favor- of this concept and with 79.2% in favor ing it strongly. bers grew to 80.5% in favor of increasing the state of increasing favor to 80.5% in bers grew in favor a staggering 62.2% strongly tobacco tax and a measure. of such Polling statistics on Prop 99 showed public support 99 showed Prop statistics on Polling tax increases on tobacco products,tax increases not were voters with a specific need for the funds other presented than to benefit the state budget, that the suggesting in voters’ took precedence of this new revenue source to be used. the funds were how minds over Arguably support for imposing the intensity of this underlying taxes on tobacco 4949 •• ••• ••• ••• TAX INCREASES TAX Y oters were present- oters were California v ears, vices Act of 1994,vices a vari- proposed ed at their final positions on special v eason behind the success of these ved, the state tax on both to increase o the tobacco industry poured millions of poured the tobacco industry campaign. appr h oters arri y v er Health Ser er the last 25 y w y AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 a AXES ON THE TOBACCO INDUSTR As mentioned above, 186, Proposition the Single P ed with two initiatives recommending tax increases recommending initiatives ed with two 10. 99 and – Propositions on tobacco products In both cases, dollars into the campaigns to defeat the measures. And in both instances, lost. tobacco industry the The fundamental r of high percentage the exceptionally was measures tobacco tax increases favored strongly who voters introduced. even were the initiatives before succeeded also of the second measure Proponents a bipartisan coali- to generate because of their ability sum of money. a substantial tion and raise ety of tax increases, per including a $1 tax increase pack.cigarette on campaign focused so heavily That Ov T Between 1978 and 2004,Between consid- California voters that targeted the tobacco, tax measures six ered alcohol, industries. oil and health care polling on Early that increasing revealed all of these measures nearly with voters; well resonated taxes on special interests nevertheless, ulti- were of the proposals two only matel Beginning with the overwhelming passage of Prop passage with the overwhelming Beginning 13 in 1978, a number of ballot approved voters of ability the hindered that significantly measures maintain ade- and revenue to raise local governments (see pp 60, of services quate levels 85). In spite of philosophy,this triumph of anti-tax respond- voters still often expressed Poll Field ing to the California to support for ballot measures preliminary strong at the statewide interests taxes on special increase level. TARGETED TAXES TAXES TARGETED tobacco products. section analyzes following The ho interest tax measures and offers hypotheses to and offers hypotheses tax measures interest opinions shifted, voter explain why did, if they during eac ••• 50 ••• TAX INCREASES

for increasing the state tobacco tax in 1988, but not One strategy included occupying the two largest sig- nearly at the same level as displayed two years earli- nature-gathering firms with other projects to weaken er. When asked by the Field Poll how they would the ability of Prop 99 supporters to qualify the initia- vote on Prop 99, “which would impose an addition- tive.102 When this strategy failed, opponents worked al cigarette and tobacco tax for medical care, health to limit the financial resources of the pro-99 cam- education and other purposes,” roughly 58.2% of paign. First, the Tobacco Institute used lobbyists to voters in September stated they would vote for the persuade the California Medical Association to back measure.98 Approval ratings fell further during the off from their original pledge of $1 million to sup- months leading up to Election Day but always port Prop 99.103 According to a September 1987 remained above 50%.99 memo from the lobbying firm to senior officers in the Tobacco Institute, “the decision was made that no These shifts in voter approval correspond with the punitive action would be taken in regard to anti-med- amount of money spent by opponents in each filing icine initiatives or legislation as long as the CMA period. Between July 1 and September 30 of 1988, maintained this non-participatory attitude toward the opponents spent roughly $8.2 million, which helps tobacco tax initiative.” 104 The Tobacco Institute then account for the significant drop in approval of tobac- effectively applied pressure on labor representatives co taxes from 80.5% in 1986 to 58.2% in September. and wealthy individuals, including Jane Fonda and Continuing with the assault, opponents spent $4.7 Tom Hayden, to discourage their support of the ini- million between October 1 and October 22, explain- tiative as well.105 ing the further drop in voter approval by mid- October. Proponents of Prop 99 spent the majority Rather than pitting themselves against health advo- of their funds before the end of the October filing cates, the tobacco industry focused the debate on period as well.100 As a result of this imbalance in alleged defects within the initiative.106 They claimed expenditures, the number of voters who said they that Prop 99 was excessive, discriminatory and an would vote “no” on Prop 99 dropped in the October attempt to legislate private, personal behavior. Prop poll as the number of undecided voters rose by near- 99 opponents also claimed the initiative would lead ly 12%. In the 17 days leading up to the election on to more bureaucracy and provide more tax money to November 8, the tobacco industry spent $1.9 mil- a wasteful government in a time of large budget sur- lion, significantly less than they spent in the previous pluses. filing period. Correspondingly, a week before the election, voter approval of Prop 99 increased by Despite the wide spending gap and relentless cam- 5%.101 paigning, voters displayed an uncommon resilience towards the tobacco industry’s anti-Prop 99 cam- Opponents of the tax measure employed very aggres- paign. Using TV ads, the proponents of Prop 99 suc- sive strategies to undermine the success of Prop 99. cessfully put a human face on the issue. One provocative ad featured a man dying from lung can- 107 1988 FIELD POLL RESULTS FOR PROP 99 - cer begging the viewer to vote for the tax increase. AIDED RESPONSES Prop 99 passed with a wide margin: Yes (58.2%) / No (41.8%). Moreover, this ballot measure remained Sept 6-13 Oct 10-16 Oct 31-Nov 2 popular among voters long after it was passed. A Yes 58.2 % 50.3 % 55.3 % Field Poll executed in 1996 surveyed voters to determine whether they approved of the way Prop 99 No 34.2 % 30.2 % 39.6 % funds were being used. A soaring 80.2% of the Undecided 7.6 % 19.5 % 5.2 % respondents said they approved, 15.9% said they dis- approved and 3.9 did not offer an opinion.108

AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 •••••• 51 ••• TAX INCREASES

Of the 58 counties in the state, Prop 99 passed in 36 ly 11-1 spending ratio of the Prop 99 campaign, pro- of them. Nearly all of the 15 most populated coun- ponents of Prop 10 only faced a 3-1 spending dispar- ties – including Alameda (61.8%), Contra Costa ity. In the hopes of preventing a repeat of the 1988 (60.7%), Los Angeles (60.0%), Orange (58.4%), debacle, tobacco companies raised and spent over Sacramento (54.5%), San Diego (58.4%), San $30 million to defeat Prop 10.113 To counter this Francisco (65.7%), San Mateo (61.3%), Santa Clara opposition, the coalition behind the tax measure (63.7%) and Ventura (59.2%) – voted overwhelming- strategically mobilized funding from a broad range of ly in favor of the measure. A few large counties voted nontraditional sources including: media and movie in favor of the measure by smaller margins, namely companies, such as Fox Media, Walt Disney and Fresno (53.6%), Riverside (51.8%) and San Warner Bros; Hollywood personalities, such as Rob Bernardino (52.7%). The only large counties that Reiner and Steven Spielberg; and wealthy individu- 114 voted against Prop 99 were Kern (48.4%) and San als, including $1.8 million from Stephen Bing. In Joaquin (48.8%), the two most rural counties among total, the campaign for Prop 10 raised approximate- the top 15 most populated in California, according ly $9 million – a large enough sum to keep the oppo- to 1990 Census data.109 sition campaign from completely controlling the media and messaging around the issue.115 A decade later, California voters narrowly agreed to Proposition 10, which raised taxes on tobacco dis- Similar to its 1988 predecessor, Prop 10 encountered tributors and smokers (by 50 cents per pack) to fund favorable ratings in early polls. In February of 1998, 67.6% of respondents said they would approve a pro- early childhood development and smoking preven- posal to increase the tobacco tax by fifty cents for tion programs. Similar to Prop 99, this initiative “health care and other services for preschool chil- changed the constitution to shelter the new revenue dren,” 29.9% said they would vote against the meas- from state and local spending limits. It also provid- ure and 2.5% expressed no opinion.116 ed that Prop 10 appropriations would not be subject to the education funding levels established in 1988 These figures fell dramatically in the following by Proposition 98 (see p 74). months due to the $30 million campaign launched by the tobacco industry against the ballot measure. Again the coalition of backers included the American By August, only 57.7% said they would vote for Prop Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and 10.117 That number fell again in late September when school associations. New backers included the for- only 46.6% of voters said they would approve the mer Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop, measure.118 Similar to what happened in 1988 with Hollywood actor and producer Rob Reiner and well- W Prop 99, the number of undecided voters significant-

110 O known conservative Charlton Heston. Child advo- ly increased during this period. cates and other Hollywood personalities also took R K

center stage in supporting this measure, citing new After nearly $40 million worth of total campaigning I scientific research emphasizing the importance of N G early brain development in children and the harmful 1998 FIELD POLL RESULTS FOR PROP 10 - 111 effects of tobacco. The opposition was led by the AIDED RESPONSES P usual suspects, including Philip Morris, Inc, which A Aug 18-24 Sept 27-Oct 5 Oct 22-Nov 1 R contributed nearly $21 million to the campaign to T

112 N defeat Prop 10. Yes 57.7 % 46.6 % 49.0 % E

No 32.7 % 33.6 % 41.1 % R

One of the major differences between the campaigns S

for Props 99 and 10 was the much smaller spending H Undecided 9.6 % 19.8 % 9.9 % I

ratio in the latter campaign. In contrast to the near- P S U AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 S A ••• 52 ••• TAX INCREASES

from both sides, 72.4% of the electorate said they but failed to raise notably more than was necessary were aware of the initiative by late October. to qualify the initiative, around $100,000.121 Prop According to the October poll, only 49.0% said they 28 was also endorsed by the California Republican would endorse Prop 10 if the vote were held that Party and the California Association of Retail day, 41.1% of voters said they would vote against the Tobacconists. In contrast to the Prop 10 campaign, measure and roughly 9.9% of those surveyed had not the most prominent tobacco companies in the coun- yet decided.119 try chose to refrain from contributing to this effort. Meanwhile, the original proponents of Prop 10 Prop 10 did not officially pass until eight days after raised a hefty $5.2 million to comfortably defeat this the election when most of the absentee ballots had measure.122 been counted.120 The margin of victory was one of the smallest in California’s history with a difference Polling results reveal voter approval rates around of 80,000 votes in a race where over 8 million votes Prop 28 never rose above 40%.3 Approval of the were cast: Yes (50.5%) / No (49.5%). measure peaked in October 1999 when 38.8% of the voters replied they would support the repeal.123 By Described as unfair and regressive by its opponents, February of 2000, this statistic had dropped nine the ballot measure failed in 43 of 58 counties, most points to 29.4%.124 That month, Philip Morris USA of them rural. Los Angeles County (55.3%), the bought more than $30,000 worth of ads in the Los largest in the state, approved the measure with an Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle and over ten-point margin and accounted for nearly a Sacramento Bee characterizing the 1998 tobacco tax quarter of the total votes cast. Alameda (55.7%), initiative as “grossly unfair.” 125 Approval of Prop 28, Contra Costa (51.7%), San Francisco (63.4%), San the proposal to repeal the 1998 initiative, rose triv- Mateo (53.7%), Santa Clara (55.2%) and Ventura ially to 31.3% in March, but the measure eventually (50.8%) counties approved the measure as well. 126 Together, these seven counties accounted for nearly lost by a landslide: Yes (27.8%) / No (72.2%). 45% of the total votes cast in the race. San Diego It is evident that a core constituency of voters per- (49.7%), Sacramento (49.5%) and Orange (49.8%) ceives tobacco interests as incompatible with the counties rejected the measure, but by slim margins.2 interests of the general public. According to a 1996 When comparing the Prop 99 and Prop 10 margins poll, 57.5% of voters are less likely to vote for a can- of victory, observers might infer that voter turnout didate running for public office if the candidate has 127 played an explicative role. Prop 99 appeared on the accepted money from the tobacco industry.

A ballot during a presidential election in 1988. Voter Another viable explanation for why California voters S turnout among the most populated counties during possess such a strong preference for tobacco taxes is U this election ranged between 65-80%, significantly that relatively few people use tobacco products. Put

S more than the 50-65% of registered voters who par- simply, tobacco taxes allow a sizeable majority of P

I ticipated in the Prop 10 election ten years later. voters to raise revenue without taxing themselves. In

H However, the counties that experienced the largest 1997, 78.9% of California voters described them- S selves as non-smokers.128 By comparison, only

R drops in voter turnout between these two elections

E exhibited no greater inclination to vote either for or 28.1% of the voters surveyed in a 1985 poll identi-

N against Prop 10. fied themselves as abstainers of alcohol.129 T R Regardless of why the anti-tobacco sentiment exists,

A Proposition 28 in March of 2000 would have

P repealed Prop 10 and banned any future tobacco tax the lessons from the Prop 99 and Prop 10 campaigns increases imposed by state initiatives (see p 62). are clear. Though proponents of the tobacco tax G

N “Cigarettes Cheaper!” led the campaign for the repeal increases may have been wise to pit health services I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA - - ev Wine hat the the Association Revenue from Revenue twice w y, alcohol com- 131 y struck back with a holesalers nearl own-Forman Corp.,own-Forman the , the Anheuser-Busch W y defeat in the 1988 elec America Inc., Heublein Inc. and Hiram holesalers, the Glenmore y s ., W om the Beer Institute, the the Br ine op 134, W the Miller Brewing Company,the Miller Brewing the ands Co opriations limits. ation, he industry first raised a whopping $34 a whopping first raised he industry the Guinness T the National Beer om appr the alcohol industr di Corpor er & Sons. Jim Beam Br ith the help of the tobacco industr alk ould override Prop 134 if both measures were both measures 134 if Prop ould override ••• ••• he No-on-134 and Yes-on-126 campaigns received Yes-on-126 he No-on-134 and engeance. million to defeat Pr tobacco industry hurled at Prop 99. hurled at Prop tobacco industry then spent They $2.3 million to sponsor Proposition an additional 126, alcohol taxes to increase ballot measure a rival 4 to 20 cents per gallon of lesser margins: from by beer, 1 to 20 cents per gallon of specified wines, 2 to and $2.00 to 20 cents per gallon of fortified wines $3.00 per gallon of distilled spirits. enues fr this alcohol-backed proposition would be allocated would proposition this alcohol-backed Fund. the General towards that it Its text ensured w votes. more 126 received and Prop approved Prop 126 also amended the constitution to exclude its r v Distilleries, Institute, Inc., W W $5 million to support an additional panies raised T major contributions fr Adolph Coors Compan Companies Inc., Bacar California Beer & tion, Prop 134 and would therefore require additional require therefore would 134 and Prop money. included the California 134 Sponsors of Prop Physicians, American College Emergency Chapter of for Mental Health,the California Coalition the Abuse Councils, of Child California Consortium the Society, and Recreation California Park the Patrolmen,Association of Highway California the Association, California Nurses the Counties’ Fund,Preservation Medical PAC, the Emergency the Employees Council of Service California State (SEIU),Action Committee, the Health the California shelters. Hospitals Committee and women’s After witnessing tobacco’ 5353 to 130 e well v ••• ••• ••• y bl TAX INCREASES TAX es failed by an initiati easona these expenditures Both measur om 4 cents to 57 cents per es on the statewide ballot, California voters considered California voters buse programs (24%); alcohol and buse programs According to the LAO,According these aug- the opposition, ould total $180 million in 1990-91 y coalition of physicians, enforcement law enforcement costs (21%); mental health costs (21%); enforcement indexed annually for inflation and popula- indexed annually a eases. vices (15%). oposition 134 on the ballot, w criminal justice and other programs at 1989- criminal justice and other programs ember of 1990, er $300 million in 1991-92.“hid- as Labeled els, v v alcohol tax measur ble margins despite performing r anteeing funding for an array of health,anteeing funding for an array mental ease the alcohol tax fr o opositions 126 and 134. ograms (15%); and child abuse and domestic vio- abuse (15%); and child ograms AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 tw TAXES ON THE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY TAXES In No Choosing the target – the tobacco industry – consti- – the tobacco industry Choosing the target choice. strategic tuted the key other targets trig- Few vot- among reaction adverse a sustainable ger such ers, other attempts to tax spe- by as is demonstrated cific industries. and children’s well-being against a single industry, against well-being and children’s voters why reason primary suggests the polling data the who is not tax increases the tobacco approved hurt – the tobac- it would but who benefit tax would co industry.support a would if they asked When funding for schools increase to tobacco tax measure cancer, or favorably. also responded voters gallon of beer, most 1 cent to $1.29 per gallon for $2.00 to $8.40 per gallon of dis- wines and from tilled spirits. 134 would Prop Funds collected from (25%); medical care emergency be allocated towards alcohol and drug a drug la In 1990, Pr sizea polls.in early outspending their grossly In part by opposition, the where succeeded the alcohol industry the inclination failed in squelching tobacco industry on their products. tax increases to approve of voters to organizations joined forces and substance abuse place Pr incr Prop 134 also would have altered the constitution by altered have 134 also would Prop guar health, mented costs w and o pr lence ser 90 lev tion incr den costs” b by generated the revenue could not be funded by ••• 54 ••• TAX INCREASES

Proposition 136, which if it passed, would have When voters in August were asked if they had “seen raised the vote requirements for all “special taxes” or heard anything about Proposition 134, having to from a majority to two-thirds of the popular vote, in do with raising taxes on alcoholic beverages,” only addition to requiring a two-thirds vote in the legisla- 31.8% of the voters said they had heard of the meas- ture.132 Prop 136 would have also banned all future ure. And of that voter segment, only 48.3% said they special “per-unit” taxes, i.e. taxes on packs of ciga- were inclined to vote “yes” on Prop 134.138 By early rettes and gallons of alcohol designated for specific October, approximately 77.2% of voters said they purposes, thereby canceling the effects of Prop 134. had heard of Prop 134. Around 56.0% of these vot- 139 In contrast, due to their general allocation require- ers said they were inclined to vote for the measure. ment, the alcohol taxes proposed under Prop 126 Approval for Prop 134 had increased by 7.7%. would have prevailed if Prop 136 passed. In total, Though voters in August marginally favored Prop the alcohol industry spent an estimated $41 million 126 over Prop 134, support for both propositions on the 1990 General Election. had reached the same level in October. Given the similarity between how the questions were asked, it Statistics from initial polling around generic alcohol is quite possible that voters were simply confused tax measures revealed a highly sympathetic elec- between the two measures. More likely, Prop 134’s torate. Nearly 86.0% of the voters polled in 1983 popularity suffered from the $14 million spent by the said they favored increasing alcohol taxes with alcohol industry on anti-tax ads before the end of 62.5% strongly in favor of the idea.133 In 1986, an June.140 The industry continued to spend another estimated 79.6% of voters favored raising alcohol $20 million on anti-Prop 134 ads between July and taxes, with 55.3% strongly in favor.134 In August of Election Day.141 As time progressed, voter resilience 1990, 78.7% of voters still favored the idea of raising to the alcohol-funded media campaign appeared to 135 alcohol taxes. increase and support for both tax measures bounced upwards. During the August 1990 poll, surveyors asked voters: “Have you seen or heard anything about Proposition After summaries of Props 134 and 126 were provid- 126, having to do with raising taxes on alcoholic ed, voters who had not yet heard of the measures beverages?” Of the 44.9% of voters who said they tended to favor the former over the latter measure. had, 54.3% said they were inclined to vote “yes” on As Election Day drew near and awareness increased, the proposition. Two months later, in October, vot- however, voter approval of Prop 134 fell as approval ers were asked the identical question.136 Of the

A of Prop 126 rose. The following charts display how

S 65.6% who said they had heard of Prop 126 this voters who were formerly unaware of Prop 126 and U time, 57.9% said they were inclined to vote “yes”, rep- Prop 134 responded to the following statements dur- 137 S resenting a scant 3.6% increase in approval. ing the August and October 1990 Field polls. P I

H 1990 FIELD POLL RESULTS FOR PROP 126 - 1990 FIELD POLL RESULTS FOR PROP 134 - S 142 143

R UNAIDED RESPONSES UNAIDED RESPONSES E August 17-27 October 4-10 August 17-27 October 4-10 N T

R Yes 54.3 % 57.9 % Yes 48.3 % 56.0 % A

P No 30.5 % 32.1 % No 34.2 % 37.5 %

G No opinion 15.2 % 10.0 % No opinion 17.4 % 6.5 % N I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W •••••• 55 ••• TAX INCREASES

“Well, Proposition 126 is the alcohol tax legislative Ads against Prop 134 focused on three main asser- amendment. It increases taxes on alcoholic bever- tions: Prop 134 contained hidden costs, the tax was ages. The proceeds would go into the state’s general misdirected, and Prop 134 would harm the state’s fund and be excluded from the state’s appropriations economy.144 Other attacks targeted the initiative limit. If you were voting today, would you be process overall, arguing that tax initiatives should inclined to vote yes or no on Proposition 126?” not take the place of the legislative process.145 The opposition also labeled the Prop 134 coalition as “Well, Proposition 134 is the alcohol surtax initia- proponents of “pet projects” and “special interests.” 146 tive. It would impose a 5-cent per unit alcohol sur- To counter this argument, Prop 134 advocates con- tax. The money raised would be used for funding vinced reporters to cover the personal stories of indi- alcohol, drug abuse, emergency medical care and viduals who were deeply affected by alcohol and who other programs. If you were voting today, would you supported the tax measure. One such individual was be inclined to vote yes or no on Proposition 134?” Jim Thorne, a father whose son killed three people in a drunk driving accident.147 Again, based on the above charts, Prop 134 performed significantly better than Prop 126 did in the But the campaign for Prop 134 failed to raise enough polls among voters who were previously unaware of money to effectively publicize their arguments. the measures. Prop 134, however, lost ground Proponents originally expected to raise $3.2 million between August and October of 1990. Most notable to help fund a media campaign focused on the cost is the difference between the early October poll of alcohol use to society, the corrupt nature of the results and how each measure performed on Election alcohol industry and the benefits of the initiative.148 Day. On November 6, only 31.0% voted in favor of In the end, they barely raised enough to cover the Prop 134 and 40.9% in favor of Prop 126. What this $700,000 signature drive.149 Major contributors reveals is the impressive ability of $34 million to shift included the California Association of Highway less-informed voter opinions on a controversial issue. Patrolmen, emergency physicians and hospitals.150 When voters were provided with an objective description of the ballot measure, Prop 134 polled Despite their creative but low budget media effort, the very well. However, most of the information voters catchy “Nickel-a-Drink” title and the early inclination of received about Prop 134 was undoubtedly tainted by voters to approve an alcohol tax, Prop 134 proponents the alcohol industry. Opponents blanketed the TV, simply could not compete with the issue-framing power radio and print media with anti-Prop 134 ads, which of the opposition. Prop 134 lost in every county with- framed the debate and forced proponents to play out exception: Yes (31.0%) / No (69.0%). Prop 126 W defense. No reports of campaign expenditures also lost in every county, but by less than half the Prop O against Prop 126 were filed, meaning the alcohol 134 margin: Yes (40.9%) / No (59.1%). Prop 136, the R

industry had near full control over the framing of measure that would have banned all future “per-unit” K that initiative as well. taxes, failed as well: Yes (47.9%) / No (52.1%). I N G 1990 FIELD POLL RESULTS FOR PROP 126 - 1990 FIELD POLL RESULTS FOR PROP 134 -

AIDED RESPONSES AIDED RESPONSES P A

August 17-27 October 4-10 August 17-27 October 4-10 R T N Yes 44.4 % 55.4 % Yes 68.4 % 63.3 % E

No 46.4 % 35.3 % No 25.0 % 31.7 % R S H No opinion 9.2 % 9.2 % No opinion 6.6 % 5.0 % I P S U AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 S A ••• 56 ••• TAX INCREASES

The great discrepancy between how voters respond- TAXES ON THE OIL INDUSTRY ed to the pollsters and how they voted on Election Day is partially explained by the enormous amount Only one special interest tax measure related to the of money spent by the alcohol industry during the oil industry appeared on the ballot between 1978 last month of the election cycle. During the October and 2004. Proposition 11 in 1980 called for an 1 to October 20 filing period, Prop 134 opponents increased tax on the business income of oil compa- outspent the Yes-on-134 campaign by a 75-1 ratio, nies. Though initial polling suggested it might win, spending over $5 million while proponents only this tax measure was defeated by a wide margin spent $66,000. The opposition spent another $1.4 because of a lopsided spending differential and a million in the next filing period compared to the weak coalition. meager $71,000 spent by Prop 134 supporters.151 Ballot propositions to raise state gasoline taxes also Props 126 and 134 also failed due to poor timing. appeared on the statewide ballot during this period. With 28 ballot measures on the same ballot, voters Prop 111 in 1990 and Prop 185 in 1994 both pro- likely chose the handful of measures they understood posed tax increases on gasoline. Additionally, Prop and favored, then voted the rest of the measures 167 in 1992 would have installed a higher tax rate down. The tanking economy and intense competi- on oil companies among numerous other tax tion among less controversial ballot initiatives also changes. Due to the broad impact of these measures, made it more difficult for the Prop 134 campaign to they are neither considered targeted taxes nor dis- compete for celebrity support and individual donor cussed in this section. funds. Prop 128, for example, a comprehensive environmental measure, gained significant support from Capable of raising $420 million a year, Prop 11 politically active celebrities while Prop 134 did would have levied a 10% surtax on the business not.152 Out of the 28 ballot measures on the income of oil companies with profits above $5 mil- November 1990 ballot, only six passed. lion in order to fund mass transit and the development of alternative fuels. Led by Bill Press, former By failing to build a broad coalition and raise signifi- advisor to Gov. Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown, Jr. (D), the cant capital, the proponents of Prop 134 were unsur- coalition behind this measure included environmen- prisingly defeated. In early Field polls, alcohol taxes talists, labor organizations and the League of Women did not enjoy the same level of support as tobacco Voters.153 Opposition was led by the oil industry, taxes. As previously stated, in 1986, while 62.5% of including Standard Oil, Shell, Union, Mobil, Getty, voters strongly favored a tobacco tax increase, only Gulf, Atlantic Richfield, Exxon and Tenneco.154 A

S 55.3% strongly favored an alcohol tax increase. Yet According to campaign filing reports, the campaign 155 U this 7.2% difference cannot account for the eventual to defeat Prop 11 spent roughly $5.6 million. In

S collapse of support for Prop 134. In the end, money contrast, Prop 11 advocates spent only $460,000,

P likely made the biggest difference. The campaign for nearly half just to qualify the initiative.156 The coali- I

H Prop 99, the 1988 tobacco tax initiative, spent $1.7 tion supporting the initiative was therefore outspent

S million. In comparison, the campaign for Prop 134 by a 12-1 ratio. Additionally, in the few months R

E spent roughly $600,000 – hardly enough to sustain prior to the election, oil companies spent an undis-

N an intensely well-funded, negative media campaign. closed sum of money to purchase newspaper ads

T It may be that a minimum level of funding and media stating that oil profits were necessary for exploration R is required to sustain any special interest tax measure. and not excessive.clvii Since the ads did not explic- A

P Especially in the absence of strong voter attitudes, itly refer to Prop 11, the companies who funded large sums of money can have a profound capacity these ads were not required by the FPPC to report G 157

N towards shifting voter opinion. how much they paid for them. I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W •••••• 57 ••• TAX INCREASES

In a February 1980 Field Poll, nearly two out of ices and to develop alternative transportation fuels. every three California voters, 65.5%, said they How do you feel about Prop 11? If you were voting favored Prop 11 and 44.6% said they were strongly today, would you vote yes or no on Prop 11?” 162 in favor of it after they heard the following statement: Drawing on these poll results, it can be assumed that “Well, an amendment will appear on the June 1980 the voters who received an objective description of ballot. Proposition 11, which would impose a 10% Prop 11 were marginally more likely to vote for it. surtax on the business income of firms whose princi- Roughly two thirds of the voters who said they pal activity is obtaining, processing, distributing or favored Prop 11 in the May 1980 poll stated that one marketing oil, gas, coal or uranium products. of the reasons they supported the proposition was Proceeds from this surtax are to be used to fund that oil companies were making too much money.163 increases in bus and rail services and to develop alter- With images of pigs guzzling at a trough, television ads native transportation fuels. How do you feel about for Prop 11 made the following pitch: “Let’s stick it to this proposal? If you were voting today and this Big Oil. They’ve been sticking it to us for years.” 164 amendment were on the ballot, would you vote in Compelling as their message may have been, Prop 11 favor of or against this amendment. Are you strong- supporters could not compete with the media-buying ly or moderately in favor of or against it?” 159 power of a $5.6 million campaign budget in 1980 dollars. Approximately 22.0% of the voters surveyed Voter approval then declined in the months leading in May were still undecided after receiving a summa- up to Election Day. In April, 58.0% of voters ry of the proposition, indicating the slim 50.5% lead responding to the same question as above said they could be overturned easily. favored the measure, with only 33.6% strongly in favor of the measure.160 Using an oil company-financed study, the opposition campaign argued that Prop 11 was a “$100 million One month later, only 43.7% of voters who had sting,” which would cost the state $8.9 million a year heard of Prop 11 responded they would vote “yes” on and Californians nearly $100 million.165 This argu- the proposition.161 After listening to the following ment was based on estimated costs to the state in statement, 50.5% of voters who had not heard of order to manage and collect the tax ($1.5 million), to Prop 11 or who were still undecided said they would distinguish which companies were eligible for possi- vote to approve the measure: ble tax credits ($2.2 million), to make decisions for new oil companies ($1 million), to create a new “Well, Proposition 11 on the June 1980 ballot, would agency that would enforce the measure ($1 million) W impose a 10% surtax on California oil companies and to defend the measure against lawsuits ($3.3 O business income. Proceeds from this surtax would million). The study then multiplied $8.9 million by R range from 150 to 420 million dollars a year and ten to “figure private industry costs of complying K I

would be used to fund increases in bus and rail serv- with the measure,” resulting in the $100 million fig- N G 1980 FIELD POLL RESULTS FOR PROP 11 - 1980 FIELD POLL RESULTS FOR PROP 11 - AIDED RESPONSES UNAIDED AND AIDED RESPONSES P A

Feb 9-14 Apr 2-8 May 9-15 May 9-15 R T

Unaided Aided N Favor 65.5 % 58.0 % Yes 43.7 % 50.5 % E Disapprove 26.3 % 32.2 % R No 52.1 % 27.4 % S H Undecided 8.2 % 9.8 % Undecided 4.2 % 22.0 % I P S U AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 S A ••• 58 ••• TAX INCREASES

ure.166 Prop 11 supporters heavily disputed this version of any nonprofit or public health care institu- claim, but the measure lost by more than an 11-point tion to a for-profit business. margin: Yes (44.3%) / No (55.7%). If it passed, Prop 216 would have also required phys- Although Prop 11 lost statewide, six counties ical examinations of applicants before health insur- approved the measure, including Alameda (57.7%), ance companies refused coverage and imposed Humboldt (51.5%), San Francisco (57.3%), Santa staffing standards set by the Department of Health Clara (50.6%), Santa Cruz (52.7%) and Yolo (50.2%) Services on health care facilities. Funds raised would counties. These counties approved the measure by finance public health services for seniors and the gen- an average of 53.3% and represented approximately eral population. 15.6% of the roughly 6.4 million people who voted on the measure. Los Angeles County voted 43.53% Prop 216 was supported by consumer advocate in favor of the measure and represented over 28.0% Ralph Nader, the California Nurses Association, the of the votes cast on the initiative. Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights and the California Committee of Small Business Owners. Sorely outspent by their opponents, the supporters of Opponents included the Sisters of Mercy, Cedars Prop 11 suffered the same fate as their Prop 134 Sinai Health Associates and an economist. counterparts. Again, the tax proponents could not overcome the large spending gap created by the Early voter surveys indicated consistently weak sup- opposition. Given that its early approval ratings port for the measure. According to Field Poll results, were even higher than the early ratings for the tobac- the percent of likely voters who favored the measure co tax initiative in 1998, Prop 11 seemed to have the never reached above 30%. The idea of taxing the potential to pass if it had more money and broader health care industry to generate funds for better pub- support from centrist organizations. lic health services apparently did not resonate well TAXES ON THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY with voters. The measure ultimately lost: Yes (38.7%) / No (61.3%). Proposition 216 in 1996 proposed three new taxes on private health care businesses with at least 150 employees, and a new tax on individuals holding at least $2 million worth of stock or securities in private health care businesses or suppliers. The proposed

A levies included a tax for each licensed patient bed

S eliminated in any hospital or nursing facility, a tax on U any California assets involved in mergers or acquisi-

S tions of health care businesses and a tax on the con- P I

H 1996 FIELD POLL RESULTS FOR PROP 216 - S 167

R AIDED RESPONSES E Aug 29-Sept 7 Oct 1-Oct 9 Oct 25-Oct 28 N T

R Yes 21.0 % 20.0 % 27.6 % A

P No 44.4 % 46.2 % 46.9 %

G Undecided 34.5 % 33.8 % 25.4 % N I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA Based on historical data,Based on historical however, pro- 68 1 ••• posals to raise taxes on a narrow set of industries or taxes on a narrow posals to raise and are opposition often face well-funded products – succeed except under ideal conditions to unlikely i.e. a large idea is one on which the central when the coali- and when agrees strongly majority of voters tion in support of the tax is broad, centrist and well- funded. benefit from the increased services and their behavior and services increased the benefit from of increased cause for the need the is not somehow services. on tobacco, taxes Special interest and oil alcohol industries, appeal to taxes,” “sin as to referred often most voters. Poll, Field to a 1997 According voters hindering con- these taxes as a method of perceive sumption. 59 ••• ••• TAX INCREASES TAX relatively small number of broad-based general tax general of broad-based small number relatively AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 A 1978 to 2004. from on the ballot appeared increases in approv- reluctance an overall demonstrated Voters measures.ing such However, not were tax increases of the three unacceptable; considered automatically passed.eight measures slim a very Another failed by margin. 111 and 172 demon- passage of Props The of broad, ability the strates coalitions well-financed tax increases general to approve to persuade voters other- would voters after initial polls indicate even against the measure. voted wise have 67’s Prop directed of the danger that tax increases defeat warns can run into,at large subsets of the population par- that population will not particularly when ticularly CONCLUSION WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA cain,adi aftecss theproposed reductions were rejected. andinhalfthecases, occasions, majorproposals toreduce taxeshave only beenplacedbefore thevoters oneight Prop 13, inthe25yearsDespite California’s since reputation astheleaderofGreat Tax Revolt, TAX CUTS NHSOIA NLSSO A N ICLPOOIIN NCLFRI,1978-2004 AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCALPROPOSITIONS INCALIFORNIA, ed dir speeches were supplementedwithsophisticat- Jarvis’s own stump Prop 9fortheballot. lion was spenttogathersignatures toqualify Over $2mil- than when itintroduced Prop 13. more professional andmore commercialized J by thistimethe As Peter Schrag has noted, andschool districts. ties, r approximately $3billionof ing law (AB8), to be$4.9billionin1981-82. estimated lossesinstater The Legislative Analyst by statuteayear earlier. rus ao nos seniororganizationsand labor unions, groups, An oppositioncoalition includededucation for go fact thatsuc exemption forbusinessinventories despitethe lished inthestateconstitutionaproperty tax Italso estab- 50% from thosein effectin1978. slashingrates to targeted thestateincometax, – ther ment thattaxreductions spurtheeconomy, savings taxpayers would enjoy plustheargu- Their argumentsemphasizedtheconcrete tors. economics fame, ArthurLaffer oftrickle-down Jarvis were Dr. O arvis politicaloperation hadbecomeboth eductions w rpsto nJn f18.This measure Proposition 9inJune of1980. eb rpsl a anhdb avs himself proposals was launched by Jarvis, ne ofthefirstpost-Prop 13taxreduction ect mailandmediacampaigns. v y ernment. gener h ould bepassedontocities, ating future replacement revenue an exemptionhadbeencr and ahandfulofstatelegisla ev enue fr Based onexist- ••• om Pr TAX CUTS 169 J oining 60 coun- eated op 9 ••• - tions imposedimmediatel they warned thatmulti-billiontaxreduc- tion, Inaddi- fit themostaffluent5%oftaxpayers. 9’s taxsavings would disproportionately bene- they were able tocontendthatProp gressive, California’s incometaxsystemisrelatively pro- Since the Western CenteronLaw andPoverty. numerous locallegalservices agenciesledby dents r Only 43.1%ofrespon- had shiftedmarkedly. momentum however, By thefirstweek of April, vote “no.” unacceptable cutsinservices asareason to v desire toreceive taxsavings astheirmotive for w revealed 17%ofrespondents maintainedtaxes regarding thereasons forvoter preferences Openendedquestions 33.6% stoodopposed. tially; 53.7%definedthemselves asinfavor; Jarvis’s leadhadexpandedsubstan- February, 39.8% opposedand13.6%undecided. AsurveyNovember completedinearly of1979reported 46.5%infavor, electorate. paign seasonwithsignificantsupportinthe F ser w ment revenue lossesassociatedwithProp 13 nales mentionedby voters alsooccurred. achange intheratio- Interestingly, opposed. oting ield pollsindicatedPr ould causesev er vices. e too highand11%identifiedthepersonal ys” ncnrs,20%reported afearof “yes.” Incontrast, eported themselv er e cutbacks incriticalpublic es infa op 9beganthecam y after thego vor with 47.4% v ern By - - WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA State costs $330M $100M (1st full year) oducts ould be very or some- ould be very ood Pr 170 Tax Credit Tax Title axation of Certain F T ••• ••• believe the savings would materialize or doubted the materialize would the savings believe in pub- to reductions in relationship of savings value lic services. On Election Day,(39.2%) / No (60.8%). Yes 9 failed: Prop questions included detailed survey February Field’s the conclusion noted above.that substantiate When 9 would Prop losses caused by the revenue if asked services,cuts in government generate 69% indicated that responded 22% who versus occur cuts would could be maintained. levels service About 47% of cuts w thought the extent serious.what Large majorities opposed cuts in specif- 82% against cuts in education,ic services: 82% against cuts in mental health programs, and 80% income or low to the elderly against cuts in services families with dependent children. 23% only While 6161 Yes TAX CUTS TAX •• ••• ••• ••• 64.4 % Gift and Inheritance66.6 % Ends 42.6 % Income Renters' $359M ass ass ail Fail Pass/ Amendment and Statute Prop. Number 39.8 %13.6 % 33.6 % 12.8 % 47.4 % 9.5 % 44.9 % 22.5 % Nov 12-1946.5 % Feb 9-14 53.7 % April 2-8 May 9-15 43.1 % 32.5 % Init. Leg./ (LCA) 175 F (ICAS) 163 P (IS) 6 P y y al Type of Type Election CUT PROPOSITIONS, 1978-2004 Yes Undecided No AX 1979-80 FIELD POLL RESULTS FOR PROP 9 - AIDED RESPONSES FOR PROP 1979-80 FIELD POLL RESULTS 1982 Primary1984 (IS) General1992 (ICA) Gener 71994 36 Primar 2000 Primary Pass Fail (IS) 63.5 % 45.2 % IndexingTax Income 28 Taxation Fail 27.8 % Repeal of Prop. Surtax Tobacco 10 $670M $445M $850M 1980 Primary1982 (ICA) Primary1982 (IS) 9 Primar 5 Fail 39.2 % Pass Income Taxation 61.8 % Gift and Inheritance $4.9B $359M Year AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 T (IS) - Initiative Statute (IS) - Initiative Amendment Constitutional (LCA) - Legislative (ICAS) - Institutional Constitutional While 15% still stated taxes were too high, too taxes were 15% still stated While the num- to 5%, dropped tax savings mentioned ber who with cuts. of service fear to express 22% continuing The confirmed the poll in mid-May Institute’s Field of these new dynamics.strength 32.5% of vot- Only 9 with 44.9% for Prop ers indicated support opposed. an explana- revealed motives voters’ The tion for this decline. be the High taxes continued to for 14% of the respondents,rationale but personal 2%. only cited by was tax savings number fear- The to 24%. cuts had increased ing service had Jarvis on the assumption that the vot- based his campaign benefit to on direct be based ers’ decisions would books.their pocket lit- by His ballot argument began for voters cash savings calculating the monthly erally income levels. different at five data suggests Polling the magnitude of his error. either failed to Voters ••• 62 ••• TAX CUTS

supported increased sales taxes to restore the govern- Eight years later, the legislature altered the tradition- ment’s losses should Prop 9 pass, 67% supported al policy of exempting foods from sales taxes to increasing corporate income taxes and 69% preferred allow taxation of candy, bottled water, and other taxing business property at a higher rate than indus- snacks. This decision proved immensely unpopular. trial property. A coalition of legislators and grocery industry organizations placed Proposition 163 on the ballot, a con- With the exception of measures that adjusted the stitutional amendment to reverse the snack tax and application of Prop 13 (see p 63), only seven other prohibit its re-enactment. In the face of public anger tax reduction propositions were placed before on the issue, no one even filed a ballot argument California voters during this 25-year period. In against Prop 163. It passed with two-thirds of the 1982, voters backed a bipartisan legislative coalition vote: Yes (66.6%) / No (33.4%). This decision cost in abolishing the state’s gift and inheritance taxes via the state roughly $330 million in the first full fiscal Proposition 6, thereby reducing state revenues by an year, 1993-94. estimated $365 million and shrinking administrative costs by $6 million in 1983-84: Yes (64.4%) / No Proposition 175 in June 1994 would have amended (35.6%). Proposition 5, a nearly identical proposal the state constitution to include a renters’ income tax on the same ballot also succeeded: Yes (61.8%) / No credit, which had been eliminated during the previ- (38.2%). Due to the substantial overlap between ous year to help solve budget woes. With no organ- these measures, Prop 5 was invalidated and only ized opposition and relatively low cost estimates Prop 6, the top vote getter, was enacted.clxxi (approximately $100 million in 1995-96, according Opponents of both measures included the League of to the LAO), the measure was still rejected. Weak Women Voters and the California State PTA. Also in turnout from low-income communities and by peo- that year, the Jarvis Team brought forward ple of color during the Primary Election likely con- Proposition 7, a proposal to fully index state income tributed to its defeat: Yes (42.5%) / No (57.5%). tax brackets (existing law indexed brackets only after inflation had increased above 3%). The Legislative Finally, following the passage of the Prop 10 tobac- Analyst estimated costs to the state to be $445 mil- co tax in 1998, tobacco interests attempted to repeal lion in 1983-84. Prop 7 prevailed against token the new levy with Proposition 28 in 2000 (see p 52). opposition: Yes (63.5%) / No (36.5%). A coalition of health advocates crushed the effort. Prop 28 would have cost the state approximately In 1984, Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann sponsored an $670 million per year. It received support from less initiative providing additional property tax cuts for a A than one-third of the electorate: Yes (27.8%) / No

S subset of homeowners and requiring that all local (72.2%). U taxes be approved by a two-thirds majority of the

S electorate before enactment. Proposition 36 is CONCLUSION P

I described later in this report (see p 86). The

H Legislative Analyst estimated costs from Prop 36 Tax cuts rarely appeared on the ballot and were S would total $850 million over the two year period adopted only half the time. Despite the Tax Revolt R

E between 1984-85 and 1985-86. It failed due to rhetoric, Californians have only supported four bal-

N broad opposition that focused on how Prop 36 lot measures imposing tax cuts during a period of 25 T years. However, broad centrist coalitions with ade- R would benefit some taxpayers over others while

A reducing funds available for schools: Yes (45.2%) / quate campaign resources proved necessary to bring P No (54.8%). three measures to defeat. G N I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA to ver- e une 1990, In J as less than uni ere typically those that had those typically ere ell, base year transferring by alue of their old residence, effectively AND DISABLED PERSONS and a subject that w y Y opositions w oposition 110 authorized the legislatur w-income disabled persons: Yes (82.2%) / No Yes persons: w-income disabled ote. 1982 and 1984 and between In the years eassessments as w STRONGLY FAVORED PROPERTY TAX FAVORED STRONGLY ADJUSTMENT MEASURES ELDERL the 1984 allowed 33 in November Proposition for tax payments to postpone property legislature lo (17.8%). 1986 60 in November Proposition buy a new resi- 55 who persons over allowed to it the dence within the county to transfer assessed v avoiding reassessment: Yes (77.0%) / No (23.%). (77.0%) / No Yes reassessment: avoiding later, years Two 90 extended this Proposition counties, between right to those moving if the Yes counties adopted an authorizing ordinance: (69.1%) / No (30.9%). Pr to avoid homeowners disabled severely allow r ure passed,ure 71.6% of the winning an average v 1992 and 1994,between peri- both recessionary ods, averaged respectively similar propositions 55.3% and 51.1% support.only property Failed tax pr performing them: a poorly against strikes two econom popular. sally ••• ate 63 separ operties, ••• ••• e v bled access. of pr es; fi y and elderly and disabled and elderly oposed minor changes to oposed minor changes tax and fiscal landscape. ements for disa s v o PROPERTY TAX ADJUSTMENT TAX PROPERTY PROPOSITIONS operty tax measur economy. In general, tax property of which 21 passed.of which the leg- by placed on the ballot were All the measures eceived less support during hard eco- less support during hard eceived w opositions pr ates to a small categor The fifth was Prop 13, Prop fifth was The have as we which the wake of the inflation and housing boom the wake er r n of the 1970s, an 1978 ballot saw the June w eshaped the state’ eductions r explosion of pr propositions sought to lower taxes in various sought to lower propositions ways. of these, Four exemptions or all granting lo I failed. a wide margin and dramatically seen passed by r offering tax breaks measures Less popular were households,for low-income con- environmental safety. and fire servation that failed lost votes of the propositions Many due to a slo r nomic times. 1986 and 1990, Between the when was and unemployment growing was economy low,relatively tax meas- property proposed every Over the two decades following Prop 13, Prop decades following the two Over a total of 25 pr property taxes,property most winning the electorate’s down. voted were five only approval; most The or breaks popular categories included tax recon- exemptions for post-disaster reassessment struction, seismic safety improvements, family of property,transfers person- or military veterans nel and their families, persons or impr PROPERTY TAX ADJUSTMENT PROPOSITIONS ADJUSTMENT TAX PROPERTY tax sys- the property modifying slightly been measures tax cuts have common than More tem, a select taxes for only lower that would minor changes proposed most of which of properties.group Since 1978, appeared have tax adjustment measures property 30 on the ballot, 13. with the exception of Prop islature AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 ••• 64 ••• PROPERTY TAX ADJUSTMENT PROPOSITIONS

values of their old home to their new home: Yes they change hands. In 1986, Proposition 58 exempt- (80.2%) / No (19.8%). Props 33 and 110 were the ed purchase or transfer of property between spouses most successful property tax propositions in two and of most property between parents and children decades. from this requirement. It passed easily: Yes (75.7%) / No (24.3%). A decade later, Proposition 193 Proposition 177 is distinct from the other four; extended the parent-child exemption to grandparents rather than applying to elderly or disabled property and grandchildren in cases where the grandchild’s owners, it exempts all property improvements done parents were deceased: Yes (67.3%) / No (32.7%). to provide disability access. It was also proposed in 1994, during a recession. Nevertheless, it won hand- POST-DISASTER RECONSTRUCTION ily: Yes (60.7%) / No (39.3%). Proposition 8 in the 1978 General Election was a FAMILY PROPERTY TRANSFERS constitutional amendment exempting property reconstructed after a natural disaster (as declared by Prop 13 provides that properties be reassessed when the governor) from being assessed as “newly con-

PROPERTY TAX ADJUSTMENT PROPOSITIONS, 1978-2004 Year Type of Leg./ Prop Pass/ Yes Title Category Election Init. No. Fail

1978 Primary (LCA) 3 Fail 45.2 % Taxation Exemption - Alternative Energy Environment Systems 1978 Primary (LCA) 8 Fail 47.0 % Owner Occupied Dwellings - Tax Rate Misc 1978 Primary (LCA) 10 Fail 42.8 % Taxation - Rehabilitated Property Misc 1978 Primary (LCA) 11 Fail 43.7 % Taxation - County Owned Real Property Misc 1978 Primary (ICA) 13 Pass 64.8 % Property Tax Limitation Misc 1978 General (LCA) 8 Pass 78.5 % Post Disaster Taxation Post-disaster 1979 General (LCA) 3 Pass 75.9 % Property taxation--Veteran's Exemption Vets/Milit 1980 General (LCA) 5 Fail 42.3 % Taxation. Real Property Valuation. Disasters, Post-disaster Seismic Safety, Change in Ownership

A 1980 General (LCA) 7 Pass 65.5 % Taxation. Real Property Valuation. Solar Fire safety S Energy Systems U 1982 Primary (LCA) 3 Pass 56.5 % Taxation. Real Property Valuation. Change Seismic S

P in Ownership. safety I 1982 General (LCA) 7 Fail 41.3 % Taxation. Real Property Valuation. New Fire safety H

S Construction.

R 1984 Primary (LCA) 23 Pass 53.3 % Property Taxation. Seismic Safety Eld/Disabled E Construction Exclusion. N

T 1984 General (LCA) 31 Pass 50.8 % Property Taxation. Fire Protection System Misc R Exclusion of 1984 A

P 1984 General (LCA) 33 Pass 82.2 % Property Tax Postponement. Disabled Person Eld/Disabled

G 1984 General (LCA) 34 Fail 47.4 % Property Taxation. Historic Structure Exemption Misc N I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W ••• 65 ••• PROPERTY TAX ADJUSTMENT PROPOSITIONS

structed.” With support from Paul Gann, no opposi- lesser support for Prop 171. tion argument, and minor projected fiscal impacts, it passed overwhelmingly: Yes (78.5%) / No (21.5%). Despite a growing economy, bipartisan support and Proposition 50 in 1986, also a constitutional amend- lack of organized opposition, Proposition 5 in the ment, applied to the same disaster-damaged proper- 1980 General Election, another disaster-related ty and allowed owners to transfer the base-year value measure, failed: Yes (42.3%) / No (57.7%). Prop 5 of the old property to comparable replacement prop- combined several exemptions from reassessment: it erty in the same county. It passed by a similarly wide sought to exclude property reconstructed after a nat- margin: Yes (70.5%) / No (29.5%). In the 1993 ural disaster as declared by the legislature (expand- Special Election, Proposition 171 proposed amending the Prop 8 exemption for disasters declared by ing the constitution to allow counties to approve sim- the governor), property rebuilt to meet seismic safety ilar transfers of base year value to properties in other standards and property constructed as a replacement counties; this time, the measure squeaked by with for buildings taken by eminent domain. just over a majority vote: Yes (51.7%) / No (48.3%). Its failure seems due to the lack of a significant cam- The recession of the early 1990s may explain the

PROPERTY TAX ADJUSTMENT PROPOSITIONS, 1978-2004 (CONTINUED) Year Type of Leg./ Prop Pass/ Yes Title Category Election Init. No. Fail 1986 Primary (LCA) 50 Pass 70.5 % Property Taxation. Disasters. Post-disaster 1986 General (LCA) 58 Pass 75.7 % Taxation. Family Transfers. Family 1986 General (LCA) 60 Pass 77.0 % Taxation. Replacement Residences Eld/Disabled 1988 General (LCA) 87 Pass 67.9 % Property Tax Revenues. Redevelopment Agencies. Misc 1988 General (LCA) 90 Pass 69.1 % Assessed Valuation. Replacement Dwellings. Eld/Disabled 1988 General (LCA) 93 Pass 70.8 % Veteran's Property Tax Exemption. Vets/Milit 1990 Primary (LCA) 110 Pass 80.2 % Property Tax Exemption For Severely Eld/Disabled Disabled Persons. 1990 General (LCA) 127 Pass 61.7 % Earthquake Safety. Property Tax Exclusion. Seismic safety W 1992 Primary (LCA) 154 Fail 39.8 % Property Tax Postponement. Low-income O

1992 General (LCA) 160 Pass 51.6 % Property Tax Exemption. Vets/Milit R K

1993 Special (LCA) 171 Pass 51.7 % Property Taxation. Transfer of Base Year Value. Post-disaster I N

1994 Primary (LCA) 177 Pass 67.4 % Property Tax Exemption. Disabled Persons' Eld/Disabled G Access. P

1994 Primary (LCA) 178 Fail 45.0 % Property Tax Exclusion. Water Conservation Environment A

Equipment. R T

1996 Primary (LCA) 193 Pass 67.3 % Property Appraisal. Exception. Grandparent- Family N

Grandchild Transfer. E 1998 General (LCA) 1 Pass 71.1 % Property Taxes: Contaminated Property. Environment R S H

(ICA) - Initiative Constitutional Amendment I P

(LCA) - Legislative Constitutional Amendment S U AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 S A ••• 66 ••• PROPERTY TAX ADJUSTMENT PROPOSITIONS

paign in its favor, combined with the perception that LESS FAVORED PROPERTY TAX ADJUSTMENT it sought to alter Prop 13 only two years after the MEASURES landmark measure had passed. Taken separately, each of its issues found substantial success in other LOW-INCOME HOMEBUYERS ballot measures. Two years later, voters passed Proposition 154 on the 1992 Primary ballot would Proposition 3, a similar measure regarding eminent have authorized the legislature to let low-income domain: Yes (56.5%) / No (43.5%). Two seismic safe- homebuyers postpone payment of property tax ty measures subsequently passed as well, as increases due to reassessment of a newly acquired described below. home. Though similar in intent to the popular Prop SEISMIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS 33, which postponed taxes for persons with disabili- ties, Prop 154 failed to pass: Yes (39.8%) / No Proposition 23 on the 1984 primary ballot, pro- (60.2%). The economic downturn contributed to this posed excluding required improvements of unrein- poor showing, but since other property tax measures forced masonry walls (a hazard in earthquakes) from managed to pass during the same period, its failure reassessment for 15 years. Proposition 127 created could also reflect a perception of low-income home- a broader exclusion for earthquake safety improve- owners as less deserving than disabled homeowners ments as defined by the legislature. Both measures of a tax postponement. won at the ballot box: Prop 23 – Yes (53.3%) / No ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS (46.7%); and Prop 127 – Yes (61.7%) / No (38.3%). Again the difference seems to be due to voters’ reac- Of the four environment-related measures on the bal- tion to economic conditions. lot since 1978, two passed, both during economic upswings. Proposition 7, excluding addition of solar VETERANS AND MILITARY FAMILIES energy systems from the definition of “newly con- Prior to 1978, veterans already enjoyed a reduced structed,” passed in 1980: Yes (65.5%) / No (34.5%). property tax; three propositions preserved and Proposition 1 in 1998 allowed repair or replacement expanded this exemption. Proposition 3, passed in of contaminated property while maintaining the base November 1979, modified the methodology by year value: Yes (71.1%) / No (28.9%). However, which property values were assessed (without chang- Proposition 3 in 1978, exempting properties used as ing the amount of tax) and provided that the veter- alternative energy systems from taxation, and Proposition 178 in 1994, excluding the installation

A ans’ exemption be maintained: Yes (75.9%) / No

S of agricultural water conservation equipment from (24.1%). In 1988, voters approved Proposition 93

U taxation, both failed: Prop 3 – Yes (45.2%) / No expanded the veterans’ exemption by eliminating a

S (54.8%); and Prop 178 – Yes (45.0%) / No (55.0%). requirement for previous California residency: Yes P

I (70.8%) / No (29.2%). Proposition 160, on the bal- FIRE PROTECTION H lot in November 1992, allowed the legislature to S

R exempt from property tax altogether the homes of Proposition 7 in 1982 sought to exclude the addition E military personnel killed on duty or their surviving of fire sprinklers and alarms from the definition of N spouses. It passed despite the recession: Yes (51.6%)

T “newly constructed.” Despite a lack of organized

R / No (48.4%). opposition, it failed: Yes (41.3%) / No (58.7%). Two A P G N I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA age er v es passed with a 73.9% a al. v o al rating. trans- for family tax relief Property v o ••• hese measur Finally, provided 1998 87 in November Proposition tax property raised local governments that when bonds, to repay rates agencies in the redevelopment of a proportion no longer receive would affected area the all go towards it would instead the increase; bond. a promise no organized opposition and With tax rates, property of lower passed overwhelming- it (67.9%) / No (32.1%). Yes ly: CONCLUSION highly was tax measures success of property The from benefit populations would dependent on what the tax break, i.e. citizens, elderly veterans, victims,and earthquake disaster etc. an influential role.played also economy The most popular meas- The populations. and disabled benefited elderly ures T fers came in at a close second, receiving on average 71.5% appr appr 67 ••• ••• while Prop 13 Prop while failed, PROPERTY TAX ADJUSTMENT TAX PROPERTY PROPOSITIONS AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 hanges to the tax system, ion for a longer list of fire safety additions, safety longer list of fire ion for a with won As discussed above,the on a slew of propositions taxes;1978 ballot dealt with property June 3,Propositions 8, 10,c and 11,minor all offering MISCELLANEOUS PROPERTY TAX ADJUSTMENT PROPERTY TAX MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES 34,Proposition “new con- seeking to exempt from to certified historic struction” certain improvements homes,No (47.4%) / Yes 1984: lost in November (52.6%). passed. years later,years 31, Proposition exemp- offering the same t / No (49.2%). (50.8%) Yes a ten-point gain: nearly – to timing partly appears to be due difference The 1984, by on the upswing was the economy and it assem- to the election – and partly a presidential was 31, of support for Prop base blage of a broader associations. firefighters’ including several WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA r cal role thatbroad-based coalitionsandgenerous financialbackinghave played inrecent This sectionunderscores thecriti- theseproposals inevitably limitotherspending. ever, how- Intheabsence ofnewrevenue, educationand theenvironment. paign financing, redistribution canprovide more secure fundingforavariety ofpurposesincludingcam- posals exceptbondsalesandproperty taxadjustments. cating avoter preference forredistributive ballotmeasures over othertypesoffiscalpro- indi- Twelve measures passed, in Californiaduringtheperiodbetween 1978and2004. Twenty ballotmeasures proposed changes intheallocationofexistingpublicrevenues REDISTRIBUTIVE MEASURES edistributive measure campaigns. NHSOIA NLSSO A N ICLPOOIIN NCLFRI,1978-2004 AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCALPROPOSITIONS INCALIFORNIA, S et r Gener redistributive –apportionedupto3%ofthe The provision inProp 58thatcouldbedefinedas tained ahostofotherfar-reaching components. cei worth mentioningthatProp 58was notwidely per- ed aftersupportersspent$8million. only succeed- forexample, Proposition 58in2004, out substantialcoalitionsandfundingbehindthem. didnotpasswith- however, Most ofthesemeasures, funds fordeficitrecovery passed withover 70%. Bothmeasures allocating passed withover 80%. ballot box. ment anddeficitr Proposals thatset money asideforlocalgovern- of fourr voters approved three out Between 1978and2004, n oe.Whether themeasure was placedon and money. Redistributive measures alsorelied oncoalitions fr om eithersideduringthecampaign. v often r uccessful redistributive measure campaigns ed asaredistributive measure becauseitcon- eser lFn,aot$. ilo,towards abudg- about $2.9billion, al Fund, v e elied onacompellingissueorpurpose. edistributi – did notr Both localgovernment measures eco v v er e eceive significantattention y measur also performedw REDISTRIBUTIVE MEASURES es foreducation. 173 ••• It isalso ell atthe 68 ••• fie,was soundly rejected aftercriticsassailedits offices, would have established termlimitsforallstatewide major v tributi itistheredis- Onoccasion, held broader objectives. like Prop 58notedabove, of themeasure; some, cation ofrevenue constitutedtheprimary objective purpose inthetextbelo All oftheredistributive measures are categorizedby generated initiatives passed. Only 45%ofthevoter- islative measures passed. Over three-quarters oftheleg- previous initiative. placed ontheballotb Onemeasure was posed constitutionalchanges. Three initiatives pro- arrive from thelegislature. local government anddeficitrecovery tendedto Pr lcinDy Mostredistributive measures appear Election Day. seemed toimpactho the ballotby theelectorate orby thelegislature also amendments placedontheballotb through theinitiative process orconstitutional oposals toincrease fundingfortransportation, ve element ofabroader proposal thatattracts ed ontheballoteitherasstatutespr oter attention. 172 Without increasing taxes, y w w Pr the legislature toamenda . op 131in1990, the measur nms ae,theallo- In mostcases, y the legislatur e far oposed ed on w hich e. WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA y he T matching Though it Though e v 177 he opposition bout the meas- the presence of the presence T a ecei on the same bal- y d e, ould r Common Cause was a Common Cause was oters were asked the same asked oters were v 175 y es campaign. Y el ax Limitation Committee. had seen or hear ests on government. T y competing measur hen lik a w , y epugnant” views w hat the “r In Ma for campaign purposes. y Co. Inc., International, Avery the McKesson 176 April of 1988, responded voters 64.8% of likely oposition 73, e. ••• ••• lanning and Conservation League,and Conservation lanning Stanford Defense & Educational Fund,& Educational Defense Club, the Sierra the P University, and the Council of Churches the California Women. of Jewish National Council – groups Labor the and Teachers of Federation including the California in addition the measure Union – also backed Laborers De Van John General Attorney - State to elected officials Kamp (D), the former Gov. Edmund G. (R) Brown “Pat” of Schools.and the State Superintendent com- Private too, 68 panies endorsed Prop including Morgan Stanley & and the DiGiorgio Corporation. Corporation influ- on curtailing the 68 centered Arguments for Prop ence of special inter of included a former director Opponents of the measure Commission, Practices Political the California Fair the Rights of Minorities the Political Committee to Protect and the National against the use of tax dollars for argued vehemently campaign financing, candi- that even voters warning dates with funds. 68 spent an Prop Both supporters and opponents of estimated $1 million each. major contributor to the the California Medical PAC, funded by primarily was companies,insurance unions and sitting state legislators. not outspent, were Although its proponents Prop 68 still faced an uphill battle caused b Pr question, favorably. 53.3% responded only eventually passed,eventually invalid later declared 68 was Prop inconsis- because its public financing stipulations were lot. identical to contribution limits 73 proposed Prop 68.the limits put forth in Prop 73, Prop however, applied these limits to all public offices, state not only candidates.legislative It also banned the use of public mone In 68, for Prop vote would if they asked when favorably based on w ur 6969 - - eform ••• ••• ••• r as also ect cost ee main e ailable for ailable v ould gener oups endorsed op 68 w oximately 78.5% oximately oluntarily accept- oluntarily REDISTRIBUTIVE MEASURES REDISTRIBUTIVE ve candidates.ve It Pr enues a ev appr ho v 174 el. om both sides of the polit viduals and gr of 1988, y Although imposing no dir ed establishing campaign contribu- ed establishing or op 68 can be attributed to thr v ebruar eduction in state r wide-ranging coalition of public interest wide-ranging this public financing system w a ears. system constituted tax check-off The less significant element of the entir y oters fa y ers, oll in F v y el v y el oad spectrum of indi ield P elati br op 68, public interest, including numerous environ- oups and elected officials fr r F ell-funded opposition. AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX TAX OF OF ANALYSIS ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 1978-2004 he success of Pr Pr mental, organizations. and labor religious Voters, Supporters Women consisted of the League of Common Cause, of California Seniors, the Congress Consumers Union, the American Legal the Mexican A package. to taxpa CAMPAIGN FINANCE CAMPAIGN voters. initiated by were measures All campaign finance of 1988,In June established 68 successfully Proposition (52.8%) / No Yes contributions: limits on campaign (47.2%). However, system it also included a voluntary revenues. state tax of redistributing offering a tax By mechanism,check-off the be given would taxpayers their income from year option of allocating $3 each partial public campaign financing sys- a taxes towards tem. match- supply would income tax check-offs These ing public funds to candidates w ed spending limits. annual allocation of $12 million towards a public cam- towards of $12 million annual allocation system.paign financing Thus, tax policies redistributive with other combined when effects varying have may complex proposition. more components of a The core intention of Prop 68 was to enact campaign 68 was intention of Prop core The contribution limits for state legislati endorsed b gr ical aisle. Lastly, did not face an extremely the measure w during money raising incumbents from also prohibited off-election y a ate an annual r tion limits on a statewide lev T other purposes,million in 1988-89. beginning with $9 factors. First, pub- when campaign reform it proposed soaring.lic support for this concept was to According a of lik ••• 70 ••• REDISTRIBUTIVE MEASURES

tent with the provisions in Prop 73, which received sition. If it had passed, Prop 131 would have installed more votes: Yes (58.1%) / No (41.9%).178 Prop 73 later term limits on all statewide elected officials while suffered its own reversal when federal courts deemed enforcing tighter restrictions on gifts, lobbying and the 179 many of its provisions unconstitutional. use of public money. Other Prop 131 provisions were Despite performing well in the early polls, Proposition redistributive - allocating $5 million each year from the 131 flopped during the 1990 General Election: Yes General Fund (starting in 1991-92) and instituting a $5 (37.8 %) / No (62.2%). The main reason Prop 131 income tax check-off option to create public campaign failed was that it faced an extremely well-funded oppo- financing for all statewide public offices. In 1990-91,

REDISTRIBUTIVE MEASURES, 1978-2004 Year Type of Leg./ Prop Pass/ Yes Title Estimated 1st full Purpose Election Init. No. Fail year allocation 1986 Primary (LCA) 47 Pass 81.8 % Allocation of Vehicle License Fee No additional Local Taxes to Counties and Cities allocation Govt 1988 Primary (IS) 68 Pass 52.8 % Legislative Campaigns. $9M Campaign Spending and Contribution Finance Limits. Partial Public Funding.

1988 Primary (ICA) 72 Fail 38.5 % Emergency Reserve. Dedication of $430M Transport Certain Taxes To Transportation. ation Appropriation Limit Change.

1988 General (ICAS) 98 Pass 50.7 % School Funding. $21.2B* Education 1990 Primary (IS) 117 Pass 52.4 % Wildlife Protection. $30M Environ 1990 General (LCA) 125 Fail 45.6 % Motor Vehicle Tax. Rail Transit No additional Transport Funding. allocation until ation locally enacted

1990 General (ICAS) 131 Fail 37.8 % Limits on Terms of Office. $21M Campaign Ethics. Campaign Financing. Finance 1990 General (IS) 135 Fail 30.4 % Pesticide Regulation. $6M Food Safety A

S 1998 General (LCA) 2 Pass 75.4 % Transportation: Funding. No additional Transport U allocation ation

S 1998 General (IS) 8 Fail 36.8 % Public Schools. Permanent Class $60M Education P

I Size Reduction. Parent-Teacher

H Councils. Teacher Credentialing. S Pupil Suspension for Drug R Possession. Chief Inspector's Office. E

N 2000 Primary (LIA) 20 Pass 53.0 % California State Lottery. >$100M Education

T Allocation for Instructional R Materials. A

P 2000 Primary (IS) 25 Fail 34.7 % Election Campaigns. Contributions <$55M Campaign and Spending Limits. Public Finance G Financing. Disclosures. N I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA Deficit Recovery Drugs, crime Transport- ation ation Infrastruc- ture Deficit Recovery Local Govt ears) y e ver $100M ver (net savings in (net savings futur $1.4 billion in 2008-09 $455M$910M Education $850M in 2006-07 Transport- $850M in 2006-07 Unknown, billions yearsin future $120M (o in net savings) Voters were then read the following then read were Voters 81 1 ants. Two months later,Two in October, this number 180 State Gr ••• ••• statement: “Well, is the term limits, 131 Proposition ethics initia- for the measure fell dramatically after voters received an received after voters fell dramatically for the measure of its fiscal impact.explanation of 1990, August In favored they said voters 66.0% of likely approximately the measure, had seen or they what on based only heard. rose to 72.9%. rose 7171 ams. Amendment. ogr reatment. Improvement Act.Improvement Allocation Fuel Vehicle of Existing Motor Revenues Tax Sales and Use Purposes for Transportation Only. Constitution- Legislative al Pr Tax Sales and Use Vehicle Fund; Investment Infrastructure Resolution Chapter 185, Statutes 11,of 2002 (ACA Richman) Budget Act Revenues Government T ••• ••• ••• REDISTRIBUTIVE MEASURES REDISTRIBUTIVE Amendment Amendment and Statute Init. Leg./ Constitutional Initiative Amendment Initiative Constitutional e e e v v v Election No. Fail year allocation AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 Prop 131 polled well during early surveys, early during 131 polled well Prop but support the measure would have cost approximately $12 mil- approximately cost have would the measure an additional and income tax check-off the lion from costs.$1.5 million in administrative LAO Following estimates, to $3 mil- increase would the latter expense lion in 1991-92. of income tax Assuming a similar level in 1991-92,check-offs a required have 131 would Prop million. total sum of $21 REDISTRIBUTIVE MEASURES, 1978-2004 (CONTINUED) REDISTRIBUTIVE Year Type of Prop Pass/ of Prop Type Year Yes Title Estimated 1st full Purpose 2004 General (LCA) 60A Pass 73.3 % Surplus Property. $30M 2002 Primary (LCA) 42 Pass 69.1 % Congestion Transportation 2002 General (IS)2002 General 49 (IS)2003 Pass Special 51 56.6 % (LCA)After School and Before Fail 53 41.4 %2004 Fail Distribution of Existing Motor Primary 36.3 (LCA) %2004Century Twenty-First California 58 General (LCA) Pass 1A 71.1 % California Balanced The Pass 83.6 % of Local Protection 2000 General (IS) 36 Pass % 60.9 Drugs. and Probation (IS) - Initiative Statute (IS) - Initiative (LCA) - Legislati (LIA) - Legislati *In 1988, $21.2 B is actual allocation. unknown; estimated allocation was Amendment Constitutional (ICA) - Initiative (ICAS) - Initiati ••• 72 ••• REDISTRIBUTIVE MEASURES

tive. It would limit the terms of elected officials, enact taxpayer each year from the State General Fund ethics standards, provide for partial public campaign (approximately $17 million annually). Prop 25 would financing and impose some spending limits. If you have also expanded campaign contribution disclosure were voting today, would you be inclined to vote yes or requirements, banned corporate contributions, limited no on Proposition 131?” when candidates could raise funds and required the official ballot pamphlet to include a listing of top contrib- After listening to this description, a substantial 66.7% of utors for each ballot measure. The total state implemen- 182 voters responded favorably. During the same poll, tation and campaign financing costs would have totaled when pollsters included an additional statement on the over $55 million each year. fiscal impact of the measure – “Fiscal impact: Unknown, possibly 12 million dollars in 1991 Fiscal Year” – the The failure of Prop 25 can be attributed in part to the number of sympathetic voters plummeted 16 points to broad and well-funded opposition it encountered, 50.8%.183 including public interest, taxpayer and business groups. However, initial public support for Prop 25, according A brief assessment of how much was spent to defeat to the Field Institute, was weak. During a survey con- Prop 131 quickly reveals why the measure failed. Prop ducted in early February of 2000, voters were asked to 131 proponents – including Ralph Nader, State respond to this statement: Attorney General John Van De Kamp (D), the Mayor of San José, Common Cause, Public Citizen and Friends “Proposition 25 authorizes public financing for candi- of Earth – were outspent by a nearly 6-1 ratio. dates and ballot measure campaigns. It also limits cam- Proponents spent roughly $1.1 million to support the paign contributions and spending. Fiscal impact: State measure.184 Van De Kamp alone contributed $300,000 costs of more than 55 million dollars annually offset to to the campaign. Meanwhile the opposition – led by an unknown extent; potential local government costs of the California Business League, California Council of several million dollars annually. If the election were Police and Sheriffs, Congress of California Seniors and being held today, would you vote yes or no on California Association of Highway Patrolmen – spent Proposition 25?” over $6.7 million.185 Major opposition donors included medical insurance firms, real estate developers, labor In response, only 38.7% of likely voters said they would unions, and sitting legislators. State Senate President vote for the measure.186 Nearly the same number of vot- Pro Tem David Roberti (D) alone donated over ers said they would vote against the measure. In early $400,000 to the opposition. March, the number of voters who responded favorably remained even, while the share of unsympathetic voters 187 A Although the likely goal of many Prop 131 opponents rose to 46.0%. S was to stave off term limits, the opposition campaign U strategically focused their message on the cost of the Official backers of Prop 25 consisted of Common

S measure, capitalizing on voter misgivings regarding its Cause, U.S. Sen. John McCain (R), Voters Rights 2000, P

I fiscal impact. Prop 131, opponents argued, would shift former acting Secretary of State Tony Miller (D), the for-

H $12 million each year to fund “extremist” candidates. mer Secretary of State March Fong Eu (D), the former S President of Stanford University and the former chair of R

E Lacking a compelling issue and a strong coalition to the FPPC Thomas K. Houston. In total, supporters

N support it, Proposition 25 was rejected during the 2000 spent roughly $1.5 million.188 One advocate, Max T Primary: Yes (34.7%) / No (65.3%). If it had passed,

R Palevsky, contributed $1 million of this sum.

A this statutory initiative would have established contribu-

P tion limits for state and local candidates while creating Prop 25 opponents included the California Taxpayers a partial public campaign financing system for state Association, the California Teachers Association, the G

N candidates and ballot proposals by allocating $1 per State Chamber of Commerce, the League of Women I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA op ow than Pr e vings. Bill Morr ould allocate Sen. , op 36 w Pr operty ears, bsence of serious opposition, eatment Trust Fund in 2000-01. Trust eatment r olitics & Media at California State 191 T op 60A did not go far enough to force of P er $100 million in annual sa eral redistributive elements. redistributive eral Initially, it v y Abuse Official opponents of Prop 58 consisted of 58 of Prop Official opponents idea and the a 192 Yes (60.9%) / No (39.1%).Yes idea of Its core e v 190 omise of o as drawn from Schwarzenegger’s political action com- political Schwarzenegger’s from as drawn ••• this campaign budget,this campaign part, the largest $5.4 million, w mittee. During four subsequent y the Association of Concerned Taxpayers, San Diego Tax Taxpayers, Diego San of Concerned Association the Taxpayers County Barbara and the Santa Fighters Association. 57 and 58 spent of Props Opponents $400,000. around 36 was sufficiently funded and its opponents, sufficiently 36 was though credible, had limited financial backing. measure The included sev to the assigned a one-time $60 million transfer Substance DRUGS & CRIME PREVENTION General 36 passed during the 2000 Proposition Election: as opposed to incarcera- programs treatment requiring as did its with voters tion for drug offenders resonated pr Overwhelmingly approved by voters in the 2004 voters by approved Overwhelmingly Election, General all rev- 60A earmarked Proposition sales for the repayment property state surplus enue from 57,of Prop ear- approved billion bond measure the $15 lier in the 2004 Primary. the ballot state- to According ment, considerably varies sales revenue surplus property year, the past each over $30 million a year but averaged decade. California tax- save eventually 60A would Prop the accelerating tens of millions of dollars by payers a few months. 57 by of Prop repayment a by Buoyed persuasi (73.3%) / No (26.7%). Yes passed: this measure Chair,Supporters included a former FPPC the Institute for the Stud the General from $120 million annually an additional Fund. 36 loosened the sentences of non- Because Prop violent drug offenders, in annual net sav- it also resulted the state to sell its surplus pr $50,000. University and the Congress of California Seniors. of California and the Congress University Arguing that Pr Assm.(R) and (D) opposed the measure. Reyes Sarah spent mor Neither side of the campaign 73 ••• ••• ohibition . (D) and ed this measure. esson Jr REDISTRIBUTIVE MEASURES REDISTRIBUTIVE W back . ong financial backing y vil Herb J wards a budget reserve,wards half of y The centrist,The bipartisan coalition ce hea redistributive provision allocated provision redistributive and the str $1.8 billion in 2007-08 and $2.9 Y e A campaign contribution limits were enue to Assembl ev They argued Prop 25 was poorly written and poorly 25 was Prop argued They al Fund r ement of a balanced budget and a pr ement of a balanced budget and er of the 189 ongress of California Seniors. of California ongress unions, Labor the ansfer in 2006-07, AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 equir Assm. (D), Oropeza Jenny Budget Assembly of the chair Committee, 58. endorsed Prop also of proponents The 58 spent a total $8.4 million.of 57 and Prop Prop Of Speak Gov. (R) and the State Arnold Schwarzenegger Chamber of Commer billion in 2008-09. Gener 57, be used to finance Proposition would which the alongside approved $15 billion deficit bond measure 58 during the same election.Prop 58 passed, If Prop an $850 million budget reserve predicted the LAO tr against future use of long term bonds to finance state against future deficits (see also p 183). fis- to proclaim under specific circumstances It also authorized the Governor cal emergencies. DEFICIT RECOVER During the 2004 Primary, enacted California voters 58,Proposition Yes Act: the California Balanced Budget (71.7%) / No (28.3%). behind the measur this why the main reasons are that coalition provided passed.measure included the provisions 58’s Prop r Democratic Central Committee, Central Democratic Assembly the firms, Leadership and private Democratic including PG&E, contributed most of the funds. groups These argu- the same and employed $2.9 million spent about 131 in 1990 to oppose Prop Prop ments used against 25. Voters, Responsible Voters for Lower Taxes and the and Voters,Taxes for Lower Voters Responsible C that it required public financing of candidates and public financing that it required support. do not voters issues that most it a Calling opponents than the disease,” worse that’s “cure a need for change,acknowledged 25 Prop rejected but solution.as an appropriate unsuc- several Following cessful attempts, finally imposed on all statewide candidates in imposed on all statewide candidates finally 34, Proposition of 2000 through November did which provisions. public financing not include any ••• 74 ••• REDISTRIBUTIVE MEASURES

ings by reducing prison costs within the first several EDUCATION years. Enacted in November of 1988, Proposition 98 succeed- According to a Field Poll conducted in June of 2000, ed as a result of a strong coalition, an appealing pur- 63.3% of likely voters who were read the following pose, generous contributors and a poorly-funded oppo- paragraph said they would vote for Prop 36: sition campaign: Yes (50.7%) / No (49.3%). Prop 98 represented the largest redistributive proposal in “As you know, this initiative requires drug treatment California history, establishing a minimum funding programs and probation for certain non-violent drug level for public schools and community colleges, adjust- possession offenses and similar parole violations not ed for inflation and enrollment. Using an intricate sys- including sale, production or manufacture. It permits tem of “tests,” or formulas, Prop 98 guarantees at least the courts to impose additional conditions of probation 39% of the General Fund will be annually spent on pub- but not incarceration. Fiscal impact: Likely to result in lic education (the same share of education funding in annual savings ranging between 100 million and 150 1986-87), except when the allocation is suspended, as million dollars for lower prison operations costs, with a allowed by a two-thirds vote in the legislature. one-time avoidance of between 475 million and 575 Depending on changes in enrollment, per capita per- million dollars for prison construction. If the election sonal income and projections of state tax revenues, dif- were being held today, would you vote yes or no on this ferent formulas can be used to raise the minimum fund- 193 initiative?” ing level each year. According to the LAO, the average share of General Fund revenues required by Prop 98 is During polls conducted in August and October, the per- currently 45%.197 Other provisions within Prop 98 cent of voters who favored Prop 36 after hearing the focused on school accountability and the creation of a above description dropped to 54.8% and 52.1%, respec- state reserve fund. tively, but never fell below a majority.194 In 1988-89, as a result of Prop 98’s approval, the state Arguing on behalf of this measure were the California spent $19.4 billion on K-12 education and community Society of Addiction Medicine, State Senate Majority colleges, or about $215 million more than was original- Leader Richard Polanco (D), the California Nurses ly allocated from the General Fund. Prop 98’s mini- Association, the California Association of Alcoholism mum funding level rose to $21.1 billion in 1989-90.198 and Drug Abuse Counselors and U.S. Congressmember Maxine Waters (D). Proponents spent around $4.0 mil- Polling on Prop 98 demonstrated substantial prelimi- lion on Prop 36, including $3 million from wealthy nary voter support for the measure. About 57.8% of 194 A donors George Soros and John Sperling. Prop 36 likely voters said they would vote for Prop 98 after hear- S opponents spent less than $500,000.195 They included

U ing the following statement in early September: the Betty Ford Center, Chief Probation Officers of S California, California Sexual Assault Investigators “Proposition 98 would provide minimum school fund- P

I Association and California District Attorneys ing levels and transfer certain excess revenue to schools H Association. Major contributors included the California and colleges that would otherwise be returnable to tax- S

R Correctional Peace Officers Association and the Drug payers. If you were voting today, would you vote yes or E Free America Foundation. Arguments against the meas- no on Proposition 98?” 199 N ure highlighted the dangers of reducing penalties for T

R violent drug abusers and date rape drug offenders. By mid-October, the number of voters who favored

A Prop 98 slid nearly eight points to 49.9%, but it P bounced back up to 54.1% in late October.200 G N I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA - e. evenue 206 al Fund r ograms. Neither er $6.5 million to v 205 hers Association, the eac an initiative that allocat- an initiative T Arguing that Prop 8 was Arguing that Prop supported this measur eachers and the California eachers ol spent o T 207 Principal funders of the oppo al Election, prior to running for denas (D), Assm. Nell Soto (D) 208 ocates, v e. Car y ation of oposition 49, on Opponents argued Prop 20 took away Opponents argued Prop hool districts could use for school safety, hool districts could use for school T eder ol of schools by reducing the amount of reducing by ol of schools eduction and counselor pr The fiscal impact,The the LAO, as estimated by Association and Parents, and Teachers aordinary support from a broad range of con- range a broad support from aordinary 209 e. Assm. Yes or No campaign spent over $50,000 on this or No campaign spent over Yes ards before and after school educational programs. and after school before ards ernor, spearheaded the Arnold Schwarzenegger v ith extr w ••• stituencies, a colossal amount of spending capital and California F Association. Employees School allocated half of 20 in 2000 successfully Proposition funds for K-14 public schools in lottery increase any (53.0%) / No Yes materials: new instructional towards (47.0%). dollars for mate- be tens of millions of additional would rials. to W campaign for Pr ed up to $455 million of annual Gener poorly written and that it would actually hurt schools actually written and that it would poorly districts, costs to local school imposing added by the Association,California Teachers the California Tax Reform Educators for Local Contr oppose the measur sition included the California and education ad ally. held today, being were If the election you would 8?” on Proposition or no yes vote During the 2002 Gener go By early October and November,By early had this figure 40.0%, to 47.9% and decreased respectively. Gov. 8 supporters included Prop (R),Wilson Pete the of Education,California State Board Teacher the 1996 Association and a Year,Taxpayers of the the California senator. state Democratic retired Together, supporters than $50,000. less raised Opponents included Assm.Opponents included George R. House Jr. (R), Assm. (R), Baldwin Steve Teachers the California Association, of California School Association the Boards California School and the Administrators Association. local contr funds local sc class-size r the measur 75 ••• ••• his fig- T ams that 203 ogr hool districts REDISTRIBUTIVE MEASURES REDISTRIBUTIVE ams, offset in part by ogr Costs to local sc oposed allocating $60 million Gov. Deukmejian (R), George iscal impact: Creates up to 60 iscal impact: Creates F 201 ely voters who were read the fol- read were who voters ely 204 ent-teacher councils.ent-teacher testing for It requires eduction funding for school districts that eduction funding for school 202 for new and existing state pr were inclined to vote for Prop 8. for Prop inclined to vote were edentialing. pupil suspension It also requires ember. v ajectory.August, In 54.0% of approximately y y voters responded favorably to the following state- to the following favorably responded voters ou know, permanent establishes 8 Proposition No y her cr blish par y el oposition 8 in 1998 pr wing statement also followed a declining,wing statement also followed but less dra- AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 existing funds and fees. the high tens of millions of dollars annu- in potentially lo matic tr lik “As y class size r esta million dollars in new state pr Reactions among lik ment: for drug possession. Pr annuall Not surprisingly, many by sponsored 98 was Prop organizations, advocacy and education teacher includ- Association, Teachers ing the California California the State PTA, the and Superintendent of Schools the State Administrators. School Association of California With the California million in contributions from $5 over alone,Association a Teachers 98 supporters raised Prop total of $5.8 million. the California Commission on Education Quality and the California Commission Association opposed the meas- Taxpayers the California ure. the sector and the private from Contributions Association Officers Peace California Correctional notwithstanding, over 98 opponents failed to raise Prop $300,000. ure fell to 58.2% in October, fell ure 29.6% in then plunged to earl teac In August of 1998,In had seen they on what based only of the measure,or heard voters likely 66.9% of about said the would decrease class sizes, decrease would involvement, parent increase and cover standards credential higher teaching establish drug possession.the cost of expelling students for A a redistribution represent portion of this funding would schools. to available currently of resources meas- This opposition that included due to a well-funded failed ure (36.8%) / Yes major education constituencies: several No (63.2%). ••• 76 ••• REDISTRIBUTIVE MEASURES

no significant opposition, the campaign for Prop 49 grant funds available for before and after school pro- succeeded: Yes (56.6%) / No (43.4%). grams, provides tutoring, homework assistance, and education enrichment and requires that beginning in Official supporters of Prop 49 consisted of 2004 new grants will not be taken from education Schwarzenegger, the California Teachers Association, funds guaranteed by Proposition 98. Fiscal impact: the California State Sheriffs Association, the Howard Additional annual state costs of up to 455 million dol- Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California State PTA lars beginning in 2004. If the election were being held and the California State AARP. Collectively these today and you were voting on Proposition 49, would groups argued that after school programs reduce gang you vote Yes or No?” 214 activity, reduce drug abuse and improve school performance among youth. The only opponent listed on the Around 53.5% of likely voters in late August said they official ballot was the League of Women Voters of would vote “yes” on the measure. Compare these results California. Other opponents not listed on the ballot with the aforementioned polling figures for Prop 98 in included the California Federation of Teachers, the 1988 and Prop 8 in 1998. Prop 98 received 57.8% American Association of University Women and the support from voters during an early September of 1988 National Organization of Women.210 Prop 49 would poll. The campaign for Prop 98 then outspent its oppo- diminish the government’s ability to respond to chang- sition by a nearly 20-1 ratio and still barely succeeded ing needs while reducing the funds available for other in passing the initiative. A decade later, Prop 8 received programs, opponents argued. 66.9% approval from an August of 1998 poll, and then failed miserably following a heavy-weight opposition By exercising his celebrity status and his personal check- campaign. book, Schwarzenegger helped the coalition for Prop 49 spend a whopping $11.3 million.211 The opposition Between late August and October of 2002, the number raised less than $50,000 in total.212 Major contributors of voters who said they had seen, heard or read any- to the Prop 49 effort included Schwarzenegger ($1.5 thing about Prop 49 mushroomed from 19.5% to million), Jerry Perenchio ($1 million), Todd Wagner ($1 66.3%.215 After several million dollars of one-sided million), Paul Folino ($760,000), California Teachers campaigning, however, the number of favorable voters Association ($530,000), Stephen Bing ($429,000) and rose only by a few points from 53.5% to 56.1%. John Walton ($400,000). With the added incentive of Meanwhile, the number of unsympathetic voters dwin- building support for a viable Republican gubernatorial dled very slightly from 31.3% in August, to 27.6% in candidate friendly to business, numerous private com- October. Indeed, Prop 49 encountered significant skep- panies donated to the campaign as well, including the ticism, most likely due to the high cost of the meas-

A Yucaipa Companies, Emulex Corporation, Indian ure.216 Though it eventually passed, the proposition S Motorcycle, Weider Publications and Twentieth Century remains unfunded due to ongoing budget deficits. U Fox Film Corp.213 S ENVIRONMENT P

I Polling data suggests that Prop 49 may not have passed

H without the massive support attached to the measure. Approved in June of 1990, Proposition 117 earmarked S $30 million from unallocated Prop 99 tobacco funds

R Early responses to Prop 49, as determined by the Field

E Institute, were unimpressive in comparison with the and the General Fund every year for wildlife protection

N responses received by previous education redistributive and environmental preservation: Yes (52.4%) / No T (47.6%). However, the Prop 117 provision that

R measures. In August of 2002, the Institute asked likely

A voters the following question: received the most attention was its ban on hunting P mountain lions for sport. This measure passed due to “Proposition 49 is the Before and After School the strong coalition behind it and the absence of a well- G

N Programs, State Grants Initiative. It increases state funded opposition. I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA - the When opped 220 The Howard The op 135 dr wn to cause can evenue each year to year each evenue op 128, the California ote for Pr These groups drew harsh drew groups These Pr , Act of 1990, failed eventually 222 al Fund r This measure would have dedi- have would measure This acquisition and renovation. As including Philip Morris USA, centages - up to 3%. e 221 otection broad coalition and ample funding: Yes coalition and ample funding: broad a funders, oters inclined to v astructur s As noted earlier es (35.7%) / No (64.3%). onmental Pr 223 Y enue increased, secure these specific purposes would . vis Taxpayers Association, Taxpayers vis the State Chamber of vir op 135’ ••• ation behind Prop 135,ation behind Prop opponents argued, to was ev ar finance infr r larger and larger per J Commerce and the Republican Party spent approxi- Party and the Republican Commerce cer 20 points to 40.6%. (36.3%) / No (63.7%). cated 1% of the Gener criticism from the Sierra Club, and the the Sierra criticism from Watch Pesticide Voters, California League of Conservation only who spent $400,000 on their campaign, but successfully on the bal- placed 135 as a measure Prop characterized industry. the pesticide and agricultural lot by moti- The v 128,undermine Prop have that would a bond measure phased out the use of all pesticides kno Prop 135’s fiscal impact was added to the above added fiscal impact was 135’s Prop description,less enthusi- with much responded voters asm. impact: “Fiscal – added After this statement was Fund costs of 49 million dollars One-time state General – the thereafter” with annual costs of 6 million dollars number of v “Well,the pesticides initiative. 135 is Proposition It for pro- programs monitoring pesticide residue expands foods. processed duce and pesticide-relat- It restructures and it modifies state regulations ed fees and penalties on pesticides.and training today, voting were If you or no on Proposition yes be inclined to vote you would 135?” this statement,Following said of respondents 60.6% for the measure. inclined to vote were they Pr INFRASTRUCTURE a com- lacked 53 in 2003 failed because it Proposition pelling issue, En too: California Grocers Association, California Grocers Growers Western Association, and the Federation Bureau Farm California League, Fruit Tree & California Grape $5.5 spent over million on the campaign. 77 alley V ••• ••• as not ams and an oaquin ogr Prop 135 failed: Prop along with State REDISTRIBUTIVE MEASURES REDISTRIBUTIVE 53.0% of likely vot- 53.0% of likely e es coalition w Y oll, ield P wing explanation: on the preservation of a few wildlife on the preservation om other valuable programs and programs om other valuable base of contributors, y fr y vil y In October, the same 35.7% gave only During the October poll, later were voters ealth August 1990 F 219 218 wl Association and the Society for Range wl 217 ble. opriations Committee; the San J opriations Committee; the San on what they had already seen or heard about the about seen or heard had already they on what vided with the follo y aterfo aila o AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 v species. focused too hea Wildlife Society and a wildlife ecologist. Society and Wildlife Opponents 117 arguing that Prop $190,000 spent roughly stripped mone Management opposed the measur Sen. (R), Robert Beverly of the Senate vice-chair Appr The California Wildlife Federation,Wildlife California The the California W a Proposition 135 in 1990 would have authorized a one- have 135 in 1990 would Proposition Fund to the General of $49 million from time payment subsidize pesticide and food safety pr FOOD SAFETY Prop 117 was championed by the Mountain Lion by championed 117 was Prop protection of other wildlife and a number Foundation groups,and environmental Club, including the Sierra Society,Wildlife,Wilderness Defenders of Planning and League,Conservation Defense Resources Natural Council, Society and and Recreation California Park Audubon Society chapters.National elected Numerous De Kamp (D), Van John General Attorney officials – State Sen. (R), Ed Davis Assm. Katz (D), Richard Assm. (D), Friedman Terry State Sen. and (D) Presley Robert Assm. 117. Prop backed (D) – also Connelly Lloyd justified using tobacco funds for wildlife Proponents focusing on the by preservation and environmental wildfires. cigarette-induced damage often caused by Campaign spending data for the annual $6 million allocation for the same purposes. Despite a w pr response. During an Yes (30.4%) / No (69.6%).Yes a It failed because it lacked trusted environ- coalition and it angered broad-based mental groups. ers said they were inclined to vote for Prop 135, for Prop inclined to vote were ers said they based onl measure. ••• 78 ••• REDISTRIBUTIVE MEASURES

mately $30,000 to support the proposal.224 The State desire to preserve local government funding, immense Superintendent of Schools, the Congress of California bipartisan support, a multi-million dollar campaign war Seniors and California Tax Reform Association chest and no opposition. The Field Institute did not opposed Prop 53 on grounds that it would reduce fund- even monitor voter opinion on Prop 1A, predicting the ing for other public services and lacked accountability. measure would pass by a wide margin.226 The total fis- Opponents spent around $340,000 on their cam- cal effect was unknown but estimated by the LAO to be paign.225 In the end, the fiscal priority that proponents in the billions of dollars annually. advanced lacked sufficient voter appeal to succeed in the absence of a well-funded campaign. If Prop 53 had In favor of 1A stood Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), passed, the LAO estimated it would have resulted in an State Controller Steve Westly (D) and almost every $850 million allocation in 2006-07 and subsequently major law enforcement, public safety, labor organiza- higher amounts in future years. tion, local government agency and local Chamber of Commerce in California. With nearly $3.5 million in LOCAL GOVERNMENT contributions from the League of California Cities and another $1.2 million from the California State Both redistributive measures to benefit local govern- Association of Counties, the coalition behind Prop 1A ment were placed on the ballot by the state legislature. in total spent approximately $8.7 million.227Arguing Between 1981 and 1983, the State had withheld $727 that Prop 1A lacked accountability, the State Board of million of vehicle license fee revenue from local govern- Equalization was the only organization on the ballot ments. Proposition 47 in the 1986 Primary Election that formally opposed the measure. No official funds amended the constitution to prevent the legislature were raised to oppose Prop 1A.228 from allocating any future vehicle license fee revenue towards any purposes other than a distribution to cities TRANSPORTATION and counties. Proposition 72 in June of 1988 was the only redistrib- Centered on an issue that resonates well with the pub- utive measure for transportation purposes placed on the lic, without any direct costs and without any formal ballot by voters. It would have earmarked all tax rev- opposition, Prop 47 passed with overwhelming enue from gasoline sales to be used for the construction approval: Yes (81.8%) / No (18.2%). Prop 47 had no and enhancement of highways, mass transit and roads. direct costs because it only prevented future attempts by It also would have placed 3% of the annual General the state to siphon away certain local government Fund budget in an emergency reserve (about $200 mil- funds. According to the LAO, the state could still lion in 1988-89, $430 in 1989-90, $725 in 1990-91

A choose to lower other forms of local government aid to and subsequently higher amounts). After millions of S offset Prop 47 requirements. The proposal enjoyed the dollars were poured into the Yes campaign, Prop 72 still U support of State Sen. Ruben Ayala (D), the California failed: Yes (38.5%) / No (61.5%). Pit against the inter- S Taxpayers Association and the California State Sheriffs ests of powerful school advocates and public safety offi- P

I Association. No campaign spending data was available cers, the initiative failed to withstand a broad, if finan- H for this measure. cially weak, opposition. S R

E Approved in November of 2004, Proposition 1A signif- In the months leading up to the election, a majority of

N icantly reduced the amount of control the State has over voters with a basic understanding of Prop 72 support- T local government revenue sources: Yes (83.6%) / No

R ed the proposal. In April of 1988, about 54.9% of like-

A (16.4%). Prop 1A removed the State’s ability to alter ly voters said they were inclined to vote for Prop 72 P local state tax rates, reallocate local sales tax revenues or after receiving the following explanation: shift property taxes from local government to schools or G

N community colleges. It passed due to the widespread “Well, Proposition 72 would establish an emergency I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA as ers enue e, ev $1.4 billion in r hich the legislature could legislature the hich y Prop 42 required that all 42 required Prop ed no direct costs.ed no direct It only oximatel oponents spent approximately in 1988. Pr e to suspend or amend the designation Prop 2 faced no formal opposition. 2 Prop e op 2 also incurr hiev Prop 2 also established a one-year deadline a one-year also established 2 Prop 234 une 30, 2008. into 42 placed this law Prop Pr esult in appr oposition 2 in 1998 succeeded because of an impres- oposition 2 in 1998 succeeded because ansportation Committee endorsed the measur ansportation Committee endorsed ••• r state sales tax revenue from gasoline sales must be used from state sales tax revenue with a stipulation allowing purposes for transportation the legislatur vote. with a two-thirds year each In 2002, law current for transporta- designated all fuel tax revenues already tion until J the constitution and extended it permanently. a As result, took place after fiscal changes no immediate 42 passed.Prop Beginning in 2008-09, however, Prop 42 will r Proposition 42 was a constitutional amendment that 42 was Proposition 72 Prop of 2002 what set out to accomplish in March failed to ac being guaranteed for transportation spending that for transportation being guaranteed otherwise been allocated elsewhere. could have Given its slim margin of defeat,slim its Given have 125 may Prop economy. state of the to the dire failed due Between of 1990, November and January state unemployment 5.1 to 6.6%. from rose However, that noting it is worth 72 in 1988,Prop redistributing also proposed which purposes, for transportation revenue Fund General gar- a period during voters less support from even nered unem-and well still performing was the economy when at 5.4%. low relatively was ployment likely more A low is the relatively failure 125’s explanation for Prop systems as opposed rail place on funding priority voters projects. to other transportation Pr (75.4%) / No Yes coalition and a lack of opposition: sive (24.6%). limited the situations under w Fund funds to alleviate General transportation borrow shortfalls. for repayment, be extended under could only which fiscal for a maximum of three specific circumstances years. Assm. (D), Murray Kevin Assembly of the chair T did the State Chamber of Commerce, the California Association, Taxpayers Federation Labor the California Manufactur AFL-CIO and the California Association. $200,000. 79 - arty. ••• ••• 231 argued op 125 y eal estate he biggest r he eak opposi T T om Pr ho would profit ho would dismal 38.1% of 233 REDISTRIBUTIVE MEASURES REDISTRIBUTIVE e. A 230 ers and a w esulted fr r es coalition. e elopers w Y v 229 ate dev led the ce rallied behind Proposition 125, behind Proposition ce rallied v ould ha y pri y ay Patrolmen led the opposition, Patrolmen ay spending Assm. largest tax- Allen (R) and the two Doris using the specified revenue for rail transit. for rail using the specified revenue as County and the State Libertarian P funded b er y $120,000 to defeat the measur e 232 v ement – officiall v y constitutional amendment authorizing the use of yer advocacy groups in the state – People’s Advocate in the state – People’s groups advocacy yer AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 lso restrict state gasoline taxes for use solely for trans- use solely gasoline taxes for state lso restrict In total, mil- $2.7 72 supporters spent about Prop lion. In May, only 51.5% of voters said they favored Prop 72 In May, Prop favored said they 51.5% of voters only statement. after hearing the above state budget reserve of three percent each year. each percent of three reserve state budget It would a state spend- them from purposes and exclude portation ing limits. 72, on Proposition today voting were If you or no?” yes vote you would voters surveyed in May said they would vote “yes” based “yes” vote would said they in May surveyed voters seen or heard. had previously they on what only and the Howard Jarvis California Tax Reduction Tax California Jarvis and the Howard Mo firms, contributors included construction pa Prop 72 would hurt schools, would 72 Prop and sen- enforcement law iors. was measure also criticized the fact that the They largel motor vehicle fuel tax revenue for rail transit. for rail fuel tax revenue motor vehicle No immediate fiscal impact w a During the 1990 General Election,During the 1990 General Assm. Jim Costa (D), League, the Planning and Conservation State Commission and Transportation the California Chamber of Commer from the new highways. the from onl companies including the Irvine Company and a media- Company companies including the Irvine Stripe Media.buying firm called Green State The Superintendent of Schools, the California State PTA, the Association, Boards California School the California Association the California Association and Chiefs Fire of Highw Opponents included a county supervisor from Opponents included a county supervisor Cala if it passed, area county and geographic because each approval to gain majority voter first be required would befor tion, (45.6%) / No (54.4%). Yes 125 still failed: Prop contribution data for this meas- and campaign Polling not available. were ure Despite a solid coalition of back ••• 80 ••• REDISTRIBUTIVE MEASURES

Polling results in 2002 strongly resembled the Prop 72 In contrast to Prop 72, Prop 42 was supported by the numbers, but Prop 42 was ultimately approved: Yes California Highway Patrol, the California Fire Chiefs (69.1%) / No (30.9%). Unlike its predecessor, Prop 42 Association, the California Organization of Police and measure enjoyed the support of a broad coalition that Sheriffs and the State Board of Education. Other sup- included public safety and education advocates. porters included the California State Automobile Proponents also spent 70% more than what Prop 72 Association (AAA), the California State Office of supporters spent in 1988, accounting for inflation.235 Emergency Services and the California Taxpayers Association. In total, Prop 42 proponents spent over Prop 42 was received favorably by scarcely 50% of $7.0 million, more than double what the opposition informed voters throughout the campaign. After hear- was able to raise, roughly $3.3 million.237 Major finan- ing the following description, 51.9% of Field Poll cial backers of Prop 42 included construction firms and respondents in December of 2001 said they were labor unions. Those who opposed the measure includ- inclined to vote “yes” on the measure, 29.4% said “no” ed the California Teachers Association, the Congress of and 18.7% were undecided: California Seniors and Health Access. The California “As you know, Proposition 42 is the Transportation Teachers Association and Service Employees Congestion Improvement Act. It requires that existing International Union provided most of the financial sup- revenues resulting from state sales and use taxes on port for the opposition. motor vehicle fuel be used for transportation purposes In 2002, the Planning and Conservation League put as provided by law until the year 2008, at which time Proposition 51 on the ballot. This initiative statute they would be divided among public transit, city and would have directed sales taxes on motor vehicles to a county street and road repair, and state highway variety of transportation, environmental and public improvements. Fiscal impact: Starting in 2008 about safety programs. According to the Legislative Analyst, 1.4 billion dollars in state gasoline tax revenues, increasing annually thereafter, would be used for state if Prop 51 passed, $420 million in 2002-03 and $910 and local transportation purposes. If the election were million in 2003-04 would be redirected for school bus being held today, would you vote yes or no on safety, clean air programs and transit improvements. Proposition 42?” Supporters ranged from the California Organization of As time passed, the number of voters who supported Police and Sheriffs, the School Transportation Prop 42 stayed constant as the number of voters against Coalition, the Partners for Highway Safety, the the measure declined. In January 2002, 51.9% said California Safe Kids Network and the American Lung Association. The Planning and Conservation League A they would vote “yes,” 26.3% said “no” and 21.8% were S undecided. By late February, 56.4% responded “yes,” contributed the highest amount, over $900,000. Other U 24.1% said “no” and 19.5% were undecided. large contributors to the Yes campaign included the

S Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians ($500,000), P

I Of the voters who were aware of the measure in January Pardee Construction ($500,000), the California

H 2002, 54.8% said they would be inclined to vote for Conservation Campaign ($440,000), the Riverside S Prop 42 based only on what they had seen or heard. Land Conservancy ($340,000), the University of R

E That number rose to 55.2% in late February. These Southern California ($300,000) and the Hillwood

N numbers represent a significant shift from the Prop 72 Development Group, L.P. ($300,000). The total raised T polling results in 1988, when only 38.1% of voters sur- 238

R in support of Prop 51 equaled $5.6 million.

A veyed a month before the election said they would vote

P for the measure, based on what they had seen or The League of Women Voters, the California Tax heard.236 A wider base of support and a larger spend- Reform Association, the National Tax Limitation G

N ing gap in favor of Prop 42 explains this shift. Committee and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA al. v o To count- To as spent on the ysis, it is evident that suc- $200,000 w e anal e measures rely heavily on broad- heavily rely measures v e bo v op 60A passed with 73.3% appr ecovery bond – resonated strongly with strongly bond – resonated ecovery Pr After a mer ces are not unlimited and redistribution ces are op 2 passed with 75.4% approval. Prop Pr edistributi esour e, wing on the a a broad coalition and substantial sums of money are money coalition and substantial sums of broad measure. an overall demonstrate polling results Early ••• measur voters. spent on either side of less than $50,000 With the campaign, Dr cessful r coalitions. instance, For 1988, 68 in Prop pro- which legisla- limits for all state contribution posed campaign campaigns,tive after oppo- 52.8% approval passed with amount spent by modest the relatively nents matched supporters. in large part due to its cen- 68 passed Prop eager for cam- that was an electorate trist coalition and paign finance reform. more in 2004 offer two 60A 2 in 1998 and Prop Prop finan- passed without much that examples of measures cial backing. barriers to protect 2 established Prop the siphoned off by being funds from transportation State for other purposes. 2 coalition behind Prop The state legislator,included a Democratic the State Chamber of Commerce, the California Labor Manufacturers AFL-CIO and the California Federation Association. coalition, a broad not supported by 60A was but the from – designating all revenue idea behind the measure 57, Prop towards the sale of surplus property the $15 billion deficit r based coalitions and generous contributors.based coalitions and generous However, in a few cases, enough to sustain compelling issue was a a er the vulnerability associated with this understanding, er the vulnerability a to sup- a majority of voters to convince often required on Election Day. measures port redistributive inclination among voters to favor redistributive meas- redistributive to favor inclination among voters ures. Despite this, understand that inherently voters public r does not come without an opportunity cost. 81 ••• ••• the coalitions REDISTRIBUTIVE MEASURES REDISTRIBUTIVE edistributive meas- edistributive Proponents grossly out- grossly Proponents 239 een 1978 and 2004, lacked a broad-based coalition and a broad-based lacked each time a substantial amount of time each y , y as spent on either side of a r w y ansportation purposes. angered well-respected opposition groups. well-respected angered Prop espondingl y or because it was solely funded by the pesticide and funded by solely or because it was entually failed with only 38.5% approval. with only failed entually 135 Prop v hile the campaign for Prop 72 relied on a narrower 72 relied hile the campaign for Prop AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 Some redistributive measures passed without significant measures Some redistributive support.monetary favor- responded presumably Voters centered because the proposals to these measures ably broad supported by on compelling issues and were in 1990 also failed despite a large spending gap in its fa industry,agriculture trusted environmen- and it angered Club. the Sierra like tal groups base led by conservative taxpayer groups. taxpayer conservative base led by 72 Prop ev 72 in 1988 would have designated all gas tax revenue have 72 in 1988 would for tr spent the opposition $2.7 million to $120,000. The opposition, however, and powerful included numerous education and public safety advocates, well-known w the The two ballot measures that disobeyed this pattern that disobeyed ballot measures two The failed because the ure campaign,ure exceptions, two with only the side with won. the deeper pockets and money behind them played a defining role in their a defining role behind them played and money ultimate success or defeat. rule,a general As the broader the coalitions, received. funding they the more Corr mone For most redistributive measures that appeared on the that appeared measures most redistributive For statewide ballot betw CONCLUSION Prop 51 eventually failed because the opposition ran an opposition ran failed because the 51 eventually Prop effective, if small, was the measure campaign arguing corrupt, to campaign contribu- specific projects selling (41.4%) / No (58.6%).Yes tors: also just had Voters in 2002, 42 Prop approved a $1.2 billion redistribution sales tax revenue motor vehicle that redirected measure for transportation. Association opposed the measure.Association contributions With Employees of Service State Council the California from of California Federation and the (SEIU) ($50,000) ($15,000),Teachers spent a the opposition coalition $80,000. total of about WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA eral categories These reform proposals canbeconsidered undersev- that would shapefuture taxpolicies. seeking nottoimmediately raise orlower taxesbuttomodifytheframework andprocesses other “reformers” withdifferingvalues andprioritiesalsoentered thisbattleground, 1978, Intheyears following imposed by thelegislature andalllocaltaxeswould beadopted. levied andbeganadecades-longprocess ofalteringthesystemunderwhich allstatetaxes Italsofundamentally changed thesystemunderwhich property taxeswould be taxes. didmore thanlower thelandmarkinitialbattleof property Tax Revolt, Proposition 13, REFORMING THESYSTEM NHSOIA NLSSO A N ICLPOOIIN NCLFRI,1978-2004 AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCALPROPOSITIONS INCALIFORNIA, (ICA) -Initiati oso rp1,Gannwas able torecruit support loss onProp 13, With thepoliticalestablishment reeling from its to r revenues exceededtheGannLimitwas required Any government agency whose the costofliving. ed only forincreases inpopulationgrowth and all appr placedaceilingon Appropriations Limit orSAL, No spending capmeasure foraSpecialElectionin qualifieda Jarvis aftertheirlandslidevictory, ernment budgets(seep20). failed in1968–ano sight, P SPENDING LIMITS,1978-2004 Year 99Seil(C)4Ps 43%Limitationsofgovernment appropriations 74.3 % Pass 4 (ICA) Primar 1988 Special 1979 v efund themone sions oftheoriginal Watson Initiative that rop 13neglected toincludeoneoftheprovi- me f17.Pooiin4 the State Proposition 4, ember of1979. P opriations atthe1978lev aul Gann, Election Type of v e y Constitutional y w verall limitonthesizeofgov- to taxpa ho hadpublicly splitwith IA 1F 71 (ICA) Leg./ Init. REFORMING THE SYSTEM REFORMING THE T Number yers. o Prop. Amendment r emed l tobeadjust- el, ••• y Pass/ that o Fail ail 82 v er ••• - 88%Appr 48.8 % e Title Yes (R). (D) and Br “Jerry” EdmundG. including Gov. Republicans, for Prop 4from bothDemocrats and constrained government spending. notconstitutionallimits, Insufficient taxrevenues, go The GannLimithadlittleornoeffectonstate (74.3%) /No(25.7%). ported Prop 4by amajorityinevery county: Yes r Only 34%of Voters seemednottocare much. outspentopponentsby a126-1ratio. of 13”, Superintendent BillHonigand Attorney General abroad coalitionledby State however, egister w r R,Asml pae e .McCarthy Assembly Speaker Leo T. (R), own Jr. v ernment intheimmediatepost-Pr Supporters ofthemeasur dvtr ett h ol,andthey sup- ed voters went tothepolls, Assembl opriations Limit Adjustment y Minority LeaderCar 240 e, called 241 op 13er By 1988, “the spirit ol Hallett a. WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA budget debacles (see also e essing other issues operty Acquisition by dr Pr ad . and e oid futur v operty Account, blishment of a reserve fund,blishment of a reserve the Budget Real Pr prohibition against long-term borrowing to cover against long-term borrowing prohibition bilization the esta a 73). were: Amongst its provisions the requirement that the state must enact a balanced the requirement the authority for the Governor to declare a fiscal emer- to declare the authority for the Governor ••• axation. increases in transportation-related taxes would be taxes would in transportation-related increases the limit altogether. from exempted of a trans- As part funding proposal,portation of the this liberalization the support of Gov.spending cap enjoyed Deukmejian Association,(R), Taxpayers and the State the California Chamber of Commerce. 2004, Election of March In the Primary the issue of a the ballot. reached more spending cap once Newly elected Gov. a package of (R) proposed Schwarzenegger fiscal crisis – a severe to the state’s to respond measures $20 billion. over budget shortfall of 57 Proposition the reduction spread authorized $15 billion in bonds to years. several of the shortfall over 58, Proposition were 57 bonds effect if the Prop take only would which approved, of components designed included a number to help the state a p • budget • gency, deal with the mandating that the legislature budget shortfall befor • Sta • budget deficits. of bipartisan negotiations, product The 57 enjoyed Prop the support of most of the leaders of the Republican Taxing Entity Taxing 83 - Yes Title ••• ••• 24.9 % T y, they In 1990, ectl ansportation ail Fail Pass/ REFORMING THE THE REFORMING SYSTEM aluation of non hools, it became the hanged dir No. Prop. hange in per capita income Init. Leg./ (LCA) 4 F Within the myriad details of the myriad Within ease in fuel taxes for tr hange in assessed v el for education (see p 14). ernment and for sc al es. v v Type of Type Election centage c Yes (48.8%) / No (51.2%). Yes divided between schools and taxpayers with schools and taxpayers schools between divided 1980 Gener 1986 Primary2000 Primary (LCA)2000 46 Primary (ICAS) 26 (ICAS) Pass 39 Fail 59.9 % taxation Property Pass 48.7 % Facilities. School Vote. Local Majority Bonds, Taxes. 53.4 % Facilities. School Year PROPERTY TAXATION AND GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, 1978-2004 AND GENERAL OBLIGATION TAXATION PROPERTY AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 hange in per capita personal income; for local govern- hange in per capita personal income; (ICAS) - Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute Amendment Constitutional (ICAS) - Initiative Amendment Constitutional (LCA) - Legislative residential new construction.residential new population fac- The in attendance at K-12 be based on changes tor would and community colleges. financed by Appropriations could be modified as part of an effort to accomplish could be modified as part of an effort other objecti (see p 39).projects altered; factor was cost-of-living The for the state go Lewis Uhler, Movement, heir of the Jarvis an ideological led the opposition. election, In a close was 71 Prop defeated: If spending limits could not be c priority for distributions up to 4% of the min- receiving imum funding lev John Van De Kamp, De Van John citizen and including senior and groups, enforcement law loosen the Gann sought to restrictions. modified the have 71 would Proposition the higher of the of the limit to reflect annual adjustment personal income.CPI or per capita Second, it allowed or in the num- in K-12 in the number of children growth to be in a local jurisdiction ber of persons employed growth.substituted for population Finally, it defined taxes as user fees,transportation exempting them from the limit. 98,Proposition adopted in 1988, the provision was of the state spending limit would in excess that revenues be Proposition 111 combined modifications of the spend- Proposition ing cap with an incr c ments it became either the c or the per ••• 84 ••• REFORMING THE SYSTEM

and Democratic Parties. It also had the support of tra- Taxation; and Assm. Richard Robinson (D). They stren- ditional critics of government spending, such as the uously contested the inclusion of “tangible personal California Taxpayers Association and the State Chamber property” in the measure. Essentially, they argued that of Commerce. Opponents consisted mainly of a collec- the language in Prop 4 would allow GO bonds to be tion of local taxpayer associations who charged that the issued to pay for routine operating supplies of govern- measure’s failure to prohibit short-term borrowing and ment from pencils to toilet paper. Prop 4 was over- inter-fund borrowing to cover deficits essentially whelmingly defeated: Yes (24.9%) / No (75.1%). allowed spending to continue without restraint. Viewing the two propositions as a consensus effort to In 1986, Proposition 46 was placed on the ballot, spon- resolve a fiscal calamity, California voters adopted Prop sored by Assm. Dominic Cortese (D), chair of the Local 57 by 66.3% and Prop 58 by 71.7%. Government Committee; Richard Simpson, Executive Vice-President of California Taxpayers Association; and PROPERTY TAXES AND BONDS Kirk West, President of the State Chamber of Commerce (and former Executive Vice-President of the California One of the most thoughtless components of Prop 13 Taxpayers Association). Prop 46 restored to local gov- was its prohibition against the use of General ernment the right to issue GO bonds with two-thirds Obligation bonds (GO bonds). A GO bond issued by voter approval. Bond proceeds could be spent only to a local government agency is debt secured by the abili- purchase land or to buy, construct, or improve build- ty of that agency to levy or raise property taxes to pay ings. No one filed a ballot argument in opposition to off the bondholders. GO bonds are the least expensive Prop 46. It passed by a landslide: Yes (59.9%) / No mechanism available for local governments to raise (40.1%). funds for capital projects. Since the need for capital projects (jails, fire stations and schools) did not cease As a result of the passage of Prop 46, school districts with the passage of Prop 13, this prohibition forced regained the ability to issue general obligation bonds local governments to devise and employ other more with a two-thirds vote of the electorate. However, the expensive financing strategies, such as revenue bonds practical political challenges associated with actually and certificates of participation. Also, these alternative securing a two-thirds majority created a situation in approaches may not have required the consent of the which financially hard pressed school districts might be electorate, thus reducing the level of democratic control able to persistently achieve the support of a majority of over financing capital projects. the electorate, but still not be able to raise a single dime To remedy this situation, a coalition including State Sen. as long as they failed to reach 66.6%. A report by the Legislative Analyst indicated that between 1986 and A William Craven (D), Assembly Minority Leader Carol S Hallett (R) and Kirk West, Executive Vice-President of 1999, $11 billion in bond proposals for K-12 schools U the California Taxpayers Association, placed had received more than a 50% vote but less than two-

S Proposition 4 on the ballot in 1980. The proposition thirds. $390 million in community college bonds had

P 242 I would allow local agencies to issue GO Bonds for real endured a similar fate.

H property, essentially land and improvements (buildings S In response, Proposition 26 was placed on the ballot in

R and structures). GO bonds could also be issued for tan- the Primary Election of March 2000. Prop 26 would E gible personal property necessary to the use of that real

N property. have allowed school bonds to be adopted by a majority T vote. It also required that the bond measure identify the R specific list of projects to be funded by the proceeds and

A Opposition to Prop 4 was led by conservative State Sen.

P H.L. Richardson (R), member of the Senate Committee that the school board conduct annual, independent on Revenue and Taxation, plus State Sen. John financial audits to ensure the funds were used only for G

N Holmdahl (D), chair of the Committee on Revenue and the designated purposes. I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA - e v vis ar the J y ation the Sa that all local taxes, majority of the leg e vis organization for a ar y equir om the effort b 246 epealed b 245 esulted fr op 39. tactics and misleading statements. The enamed its campaign oper e ate rent increases.ate rent also pointed out They op 13 r 39 condemned the J oup r op vis Gr wing Pr as stoutly resisted by coalitions of city officials, by resisted as stoutly unions, ould gener ••• ar Our Homes Committee. In another close election, the reversed the proponents outcome.previous (53.4%) / No Yes 39 passed: Prop (46.6%). centrist coalition. State PTA, of the California Leaders signed the Chamber of Commerce AARP and the the ballot argument. included Gov. Other endorsers Gray (D),Davis Gov. former (R),Wilson Pete of the League Voters, Women of Commerce, the Hispanic Chamber Firefighters, California Professional and the Consumer of California.Federation sum, In of Prop proponents 39 spent $38.6 million, was double what than more 26. spent on Prop J organization and its allies to r taxes,other than property should be imposed only elections.through period, a 25-year Over this objective w sought – all of whom for public services and advocates other, through to be raised revenues local to allow easi- er mechanisms. of forms and formats, In a variety this four times: to California voters presented question was 36,Propositions 62, 136 and 218. shameful scar The intensity of the debate increased.The proponents The of Pr LOCAL TAXES struggles fol- One of the longest and most convoluted lo Again, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association led the Again,Taxpayers Jarvis the Howard opposition. 39 Prop emphasized that group Jarvis The amount of proper- included no limit on the cumulative that could be authorized with successive ty tax increases 55% votes. bills tax claimed higher property They w committees and caps watchdog the legislation requiring on taxation could be r plus the Governor.islature $5.9 mil- raised Opponents lion to defeat Pr 85 op Pr ••• ••• 244 REFORMING THE THE REFORMING SYSTEM verning board would board verning go 243 s ere formed against Prop 26. against Prop formed ere hool district’ ould be capped at no more than $60 for ould be capped at no more eadth of the coalition supporting it, ed that: versight committee would be appointed to would committee versight o s equir ds of a sc er voting margin returned to the ballot box in margin returned er voting in 2000, a large margin produced the goal of a lower o-thir citizen’ unified school district,unified school district, a school $30 for and w AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 w ote margin w The tax rate levied in a single election using the 55% tax rate The v A have to vote to place a bond on the local ballot; to vote have a $25 for a community college district per $100,000 of assessed valuation; As inform the public regarding the expenditure of the bond the expenditure inform the public regarding proceeds. November of 2000 with Proposition 39. with Proposition of 2000 November initiative The than a major- rather a 55% vote modified to require was ity vote. In addition, passed to go state legislation was into effect if, if, and only adopted. 39 was Prop leg- This islation r T Having come so close in March,Having of a the proponents lo 26 was defeated by a small margin: Yes (48.7%) / No Yes a small margin: defeated by 26 was (51.3%). Despite the br Opposition to Prop 26 was led by the Howard Jarvis the Howard led by was 26 Opposition to Prop Association. Taxpayers that argument was core Their mean the would requirement the loss of the two-thirds bond measures, more adoption of many leading to taxes. in property increases unlimited and excessive for the bond the accountability also challenged They proceeds, be sanctions would pointing out that no spent unwisely.applied if funds were No official campaign committees w Leaders of the California State PTA, the California State Leaders of State Chamber the of Commerce,Association Teachers the California and 26. for Prop ballot argument signed the Other organi- coalition that endorsed the centrist zations in the broad AARP, included the measure Women the League of Voters,Association, California Manufacturers the the and the California Roundtable California Business and Sheriffs.Organization of Police campaign Yes The million. spent a total of $17.1 ••• 86 ••• REFORMING THE SYSTEM

In addition to its intrinsic complexity, the question of be approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate. voting requirements for local taxes was complicated by Moreover, it also restricted benefit assessment districts two facts. First, the Jarvis organization persistently com- and imposed significant limits on the ability of govern- bined this issue with other matters in a single proposi- ments to impose fees. tion. In those cases, a “no” vote might not reflect the voters’ preferences on the voting rights issue but rather However, Prop 36 also included provisions that con- the fact that they disliked the other components of the fused its message. Of primary importance, it required proposition more than they liked the right to vote on governments to recalculate the property taxes of those local taxes. Secondly, pre-existing language in the state who had owned property between 1975-76 and 1978- constitution and the courts’ interpretations of that lan- 79 removing the 2% annual inflation adjustment. guage negated or limited the impact of successful propo- Governments would then be required to refund the sitions, leading proponents to launch subsequent excess amounts that had already been collected plus attempts to achieve the blocked outcome. interest. This mandate would force local governments and school districts to return approximately $1.7 billion Fearing that governments would raise other taxes to to taxpayers. In addition, some property owners would replace the property tax revenues lost through Prop 13, experience tax increases, because about $200 million of Jarvis and Gann had included in their landmark meas- the repudiated tax payments were for bonded debt, and ure a provision that other special taxes would require a state law authorizes tax rates levied for the retirement of two-thirds vote of the electorate. However, the term voter-approved bonded debt to be raised when collec- “special tax” was never defined. In its historic City and tions are inadequate to meet debt payments. A second County of San Francisco v. Farrell decision, the State significant and possibly inadvertent ancillary effect of Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that the term “special tax” Prop 36 concerned the State Water Project (SWP), a referred to a tax the proceeds of which could be used vital irrigation system for the agriculture industry and only for a special government purpose, such as a larger many urban areas in Southern California. The proposi- police force. Jurisdictions that possessed the legal abili- tion overturned property tax increases levied by water ty to raise taxes for general government purposes prior districts to pay for the maintenance and operation, as to Prop 13 (essentially cities) retained the right to do so opposed to the construction, of the SWP. without an election. Prop 36 confronted opposition from a broad coalition Responding to the Farrell decision, in 1984, Jarvis and including the AARP, the State Chamber of Commerce, Gann sponsored Proposition 36, a proposed constitu- the California Taxpayers Association and the California tional amendment to allegedly “save Proposition 13.” State PTA. In their ballot argument, these groups never A This measure required that all local taxes would have to mentioned the provisions that required a two-thirds vote S U LOCAL TAXES, 1978-2004 S P

I Year Type of Leg./ Prop. Pass/ Yes Title

H Election Init. Number Fail S

R 1984 General (ICA) 36 Fail 45.2 % Taxation E 1986 General (IS) 62 Pass 58.0 % Taxation. Local Governments And Districts. N

T 1990 General (ICA) 136 Fail 47.9 % State, local taxation. R

A 1996 General (ICA) 218 Pass 56.6 % Voter Approval for Local Government Taxes. P Limitations on Fees, Assessments, and Charges. G (ICA) - Initiative Constitutional Amendment N

I (IS) - Initiative Statute K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA - erning al-pur v go he insisted, “A YES vote s to be placed on e y. op 62, v hich had drawn the had drawn hich Pr w our local governments.” ould ha y y objective of Prop 62, of Prop objective and the ved that 108 cities had raised that 108 ved ds of a jurisdiction’ w ell decision, o al taxes w actices permanentl arr o-thir oposed b pr een special purpose and gener apply to counties,apply special districts, and otes of the people. vis obser tw h y ar y J op 62 begins with the sentence, eases pr oposition 62 gives back your right to vote on any right to vote back your oposition 62 gives esenting his case to the electorate, focused Jarvis ed including all of the large urban areas in the ed including all of the large urban areas er ectly on his main political objective. on his ectly ballot argu- The v oposals for gener ould end suc ••• pose taxes, taxes without v distinction betw w Because of the narr as a statute, scope of its applicability narrower even state. In pr dir ment for Pr on Pr tax incr Since the 1982 F body and approved by a majority of voters. by and approved body Both pro- to have taxes and special taxes would posed general indicate the method of collection. Special taxes would use of the new revenues to indicate the proposed have of such since the absence requirement (a redundant tax). a general the measure render information would in offering the latest effort was failed in this Jarvis Where a constitutional amend- than a state statute rather voters ment. their cities to govern of charter Since the rights in the state constitution, ingrained affairs are own Prop 62 could onl cities. Law General not be A total of 82 cities would co the ballot b Court interpretations of Prop 13 had already estab- already 13 had of Prop Court interpretations be would vote a two-thirds principle that lished the purposes. for specific government taxes raise needed to districts,Counties and special as arms of the state, had purposes in the taxes for general to raise limited ability first place. taxes for to raise the right Cities did retain but body of the governing a vote by purposes general to likely least the kind of tax increase precisely that was popularity. of its low be adopted because back, was later Jarvis years again attempting to use Two the electorate by a vote to require process the initiative for all local taxes. his had learned from time he This 36. with Prop mistakes 62, Proposition statute a state initiative,by and specific objectives. had narrow Pr 87 - ••• ••• eigh its halleng ould be. ers might w y e some of their vis and Gann REFORMING THE THE REFORMING SYSTEM ar from school and school from y ather than c a In fact, w oting rights. worth. s ers’ v ement. y measure that intended to take measure y equir An oposition’ are of the impact of Prop 13 on of the impact of Prop are oided this issue r v 36 did reveal, on Prop as did the vote w a ed sufficient opposition to outw op y hools. hat the impact of the measur that the endorsements of J sc op 36 a s in themselves, a majority enough to convince oters of a pr easingl eds of millions of dollars a engender ote on Pr y, voters to many been apparent not have it may not, e the narrow question of whether local taxes should local question of whether the narrow e v in 1980, er AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 hird, to be presumed may voters 1984 California’s by he v inall oters had the time, the read inclination or capacity to hundr hand these funds to just a subset of taxpa ha expanded defense of taxpa California’ be incr T of the v that their right to vote on taxes needed defending. that their right to vote F w Secondly, expanding voters’ to a measure in contrast benefit all taxpay- at least procedurally rights that would ers, 36 could be, Prop and was, as a measure portrayed some taxpayers,that assisted only at the possibly expense of other taxpayers. Finally, the sheer complex- attack as few to it vulnerable rendered ity of the measure v description and decide for himself full text or the LAO or herself w ing the supermajority r 36 did not go far enough implied Prop arguments even in this direction. example, For the opponents charged authorize new local “lets the legislature 36 that Prop taxes without a local vote.” Because of the complex mixture of issues presented in of issues presented mixture Because of the complex 36,Prop deci- the voters’ it is open to question whether their perspective reflected or accurately sion primarily on at the ballot majority a two-thirds be imposed by only box. the election result exist to indicate reasons Strong a directive. such cannot be considered First, the opponents of Pr at the local level.at the local Instead, as a 36 depicted Prop they tax shift, tax reform, not a benefit that would a measure and harm others.few taxpayers fact that the state’s The $500 million was lose over would schools hard-pressed emphasized. In general, as challenged drafted, 36 was poorly Prop full of loopholes, complicat- and overly ed. (45.2%) / No (54.8%). Yes defeated: It was 9 T ••• 88 ••• REFORMING THE SYSTEM

opposition to this measure failed to mobilize the centrist tion district and raise taxes for its general government coalition that had opposed Prop 36 in 1984. The con- activities with only a majority vote. test over Prop 62 pitted the Jarvis Movement against local governments and their allies. The California Police Although Jarvis died in 1986, the movement he created Chiefs Association and the California Fire Chiefs lived on and brought Proposition 136, a constitutional Association, police and fire services being the primary amendment, to the ballot in 1990. Prop 136 effective- recipient of tax revenues at the municipal level, signed ly closed the loopholes that permitted local taxes to be ballot arguments against Prop 62. Common Cause, the increased without any vote at all or by a majority vote if California Tax Reform Association, and the League of for a special purpose. It provided that any state taxes Women Voters added their signatures as well. for specific purposes required a two-thirds vote (essentially mandating that these taxes be accomplished The opponents of Prop 62 were quick to point out the through a constitutional amendment). It required all limited applicability of Prop 62. In fact, they listed the local governments including charter cities to pass gener- major cities that would be exempt from the proposition al taxes with a majority vote of the electorate. It tight- in their ballot argument. They also made a number of ened the definitions of special taxes to prevent the mis- standard arguments in favor of representative govern- use of newly created special districts. ment – there was no evidence cities were wildly raising taxes. Voters already had the right at the local level to However, once again, the Jarvis movement overreached. overturn taxes by the initiative process or reject elected This time the measure included a provision that a spe- officials who raise taxes unwisely. The measure would cial tax on personal property must be based on the make it difficult to secure funds at times of acute need. value of that property and the tax would be limited to 1%. In effect, this provision would prohibit per unit On this proposition, the one that focused on the basic taxes on cigarettes and alcohol and hold value-based philosophical issue of taxation and voting in the most taxes on these items at diminimus levels. unadulterated manner, Jarvis prevailed. Proposition 62 was adopted: Yes (58%) / No (42%). Although centrist business organizations did not sponsor the opposition to Prop 136, the coalition that Despite its victory by a substantial margin, Prop 62 did formed included State Sen. Ed Davis (R), a former Los not resolve the issue of voter approval for taxes for three Angeles Police Chief. Other opponents comprised of reasons. First, the proposition was declared unconstitu- the California Professional Firefighters, the State tional in the State Court of Appeals for violating lan- Superintendent of Schools, the California State PTA, guage that prohibited the use of the initiative process to and the League of Women Voters. The anti–Prop 136 A

S deny government funds needed to meet its basic budg- campaign defined the measure as a “special interest

U et requirements. The State Supreme Court decertified effort by the liquor industry to protect itself from bring

S the case and refused to hear appeals of the Appellate taxed.” The massive contributions to the pro-Prop 136

P Court decision. Second, since it was only a statute, the campaign from alcohol related business interests added I

H effects of the measure would never have reached charter credibility to this accusation (see p 54). In addition,

S cities, even if it had been upheld by the courts. Third, opponents hammered at the limitation on voter initia- R cities and counties had been circumventing the Farrell tives that required they meet a two-thirds standard, sug- E

N decision by creating Special Districts and raising taxes gesting that poor drafting might apply the limitation to

T for their general government purposes by a majority a proposition attempting to close corporate tax loop- R vote. A Special District by definition only performs a holes or to fund anti-drug programs. As regards the A

P single government function, such as operating a transit basic issue of requiring voter approval for tax increases, system. A local government that wished to raise taxes the opposition coalition confined itself to criticizing the G

N for transportation could create a new special transporta- logic that required a two-thirds vote for taxes that spec- I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA - partic dition, In ad voting power than power voting e atic nature of the weight- atic nature hools (schools could not be hools (schools esident of the California wner in a benefit assessment elec- hanism. a by A shopping center owned es of the Jarvis and Gann Committees, es of the Jarvis v om benefit assessments); and possibly pro- om benefit assessments); and possibly Association, signed the ballot argument for ernment officials led the opposition, v ers y ell as the vice-pr esentati emphasized the undemocr oting mec American homeo y eigner could get 100 times mor ••• axpa ularly representatives from police and fire depart- police and fire from representatives ularly ments.Teachers the California assisted by were They Voters. Women Association and the League of However, centrist support from lacked noticeably they elements of the business community or Republican leaders. discussion of the right to vote avoided opposition The on taxes. immedi- on some of 218’s concentrated They police,ate impacts – reducing fire, serv- and emergency ices; imposing costs on sc exempted fr hibiting lifeline utility support to seniors. the ed v Prop 218. Prop stated was for the measure rationale The on taxes, to vote to be the right of taxpayers both as fees and legitimate taxes and taxes masquerading assessments. effectively, presented was message That exotic assess- more including examples of some of the (for an equestrian cen- years ments adopted in recent ter and a college football field). Local go Assessments could only be applied to “special” benefits “special” be applied to could only Assessments receive, owners that property that is, not avail- benefits public. to the general able property No individual of pro- could be higher than the cost assessment owner’s benefit to that property.viding the special Assessments a mail-in election in by to be approved have would the amount of the by be weighted would votes which pay. would owner property assessment each 218 component of Prop the most controversial Perhaps should be that local governments the requirement was fees or assessments existing or repeal to reduce required requirements.that did not meet the measure’s LAO The would this provision losses from estimated revenue exceed $100 million statewide. Repr as w T tion. an for 89 o- ••• ••• wners eviews operty-o REFORMING THE THE REFORMING SYSTEM ect cost of pr wing number of elated fees could o local governments y efuse collection). ejected, also would they operty-r er or r eloped b sew aise taxes without elections. In New pr , If not so r over the years,over a number of addition- ved in an election (with the excep- in an election ved . ater o One of these was the expanded use of One of these was enues for specific purposes without a enues for specific purposes without vice. ev equirement for voter approval of general approval for voter equirement dition, ote. the measure severely restricted government restricted severely the measure ailable to the public such as fire or library as fire to the public such ailable ate r and limiting others to the dir v ds v In ad a to be appr prohibiting property-related fees for services gen- fees for services property-related prohibiting op 62. As expected, it also mandated that char- ategies had been dev y ejected if a majority of impacted pr e vice, dition, v o-thir otest in writing all AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 Benefit assessments would also be severely restricted. also be severely Benefit assessments would tion of fees for w ha viding that ser pr Because it sought to close off this gr Because it sought to close off this tw all or large portions benefit assessment districts to cover of a city for both basic services, books, as library such or for new programs, as an open space district. such Another technique,A and B approach, the dubbed com- government general bined on a single ballot a tax for a list of that specified vote purposes with an advisory for expenditures. priority projects strategies to raise revenues, to raise strategies unavoid- 218 was Prop long and complicated.ably affirming the It began by taxes, or lower right of Californians to repeal fees and process, the initiative assessments through the capability that had been questioned during court r ser er fees, of Pr ter cities could not r ad be r to gener al str Six years later,Six years in 1996, to returned forces the Jarvis 218, bringing Proposition their basic issue by a constitutional amendment, to the ballot. By then the State and declared direction Court had reversed Supreme 62 to be constitutional.Prop action closed the That a only for specific purposes by door to tax increases in special districts,majority vote cities but it left charter without a r taxes. Over-reaching proved fatal for the Jarvis movement. fatal for the Jarvis proved Over-reaching in a close elec- to defeat down 136 went Proposition (52.1%). (47.9%) / No Yes tion: ified the services to be provided and only a majority and only to be provided services ified the discretion. “politicians” at the for taxes to be spent vote ••• 90 ••• REFORMING THE SYSTEM

Based on past elections, particularly the Prop 136 cam- ther the governor nor the legislature would be paid if a paign, it would have seemed plausible to expect these budget was not adopted by June 15. Secondly, it kinds of arguments to shift support away from the Jarvis allowed the governor to implement the prior year’s camp. However, neither labor nor powerful Democrats budget until a new one was adopted, with exceptions made fundraising for the anti-218 campaign a priority. allowing higher payments for schools, bonds, and cer- Therefore, the opposition had little capability to reach tain other categories. Third, Prop 165 included imme- the voters beyond their arguments in the ballot pam- diate cuts of 10% in State Aid to Families with phlet, and those arguments had to contend with a Dependent Children grants plus other reductions in proposition that had received an official title from the public assistance benefits. Fourth, it allowed the gover- Attorney General reading, “Voter Approval For Local nor to make spending cuts after the adoption of a budg- Government Taxes.” Prop 218 passed by a substantial et if revenues declined or expenditures exceeded esti- margin: Yes (56.6%) / No (43.4%). mates by a total amount of 3%. As a result, the gover- nor would be allowed to impose spending cuts unilater- STATE BUDGETS AND TAXES ally that previously required legislative authorization, Although Prop 13 did not procedurally affect the such as state public assistance programs and state future adoption of taxes or future adjustment of fiscal employee salaries (except for those covered by a collec- policy through the initiative process, it did require tive bargaining agreement). A similar provision was that the state budget and any increase in state taxes included in Proposition 76, the widely unsuccessful imposed by the legislature must be approved by a measure at the core of Gov. Schwarzenegger’s reform two-thirds margin in that body. Failure to reach con- agenda during the 2005 Special Election: Yes (37.7%) / sensus in the legislature regarding a budget or dis- No (62.3%). putes between the governor and the legislature over In total, the Yes-on-165 campaign collected over $4.4 fiscal priorities, therefore, often resulted in budgets million from Gov. Wilson’s personal campaign commit- being delayed long past the start of a new fiscal year. tee, businesses and wealthy individuals. The presence of Occasionally, a constituency would become disgusted with this framework for budget gridlock and decide to Proposition 167, a counter measure on the same ballot, offer the voters a suggested reform package. likely had a detrimental impact on Prop 165 fundraising (see p 43). Aimed at weakening the support of Prop In 1992, a coalition led by Gov. Pete Wilson (R) and the 165, this initiative would have raised taxes on cigarettes, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association placed corporate profits, high-income earners, insurance and Proposition 165 on the ballot. The measure included oil companies. In the end, the No-on-167 campaign

A several elements designed to respond to the problem of obtained $9 million from many of the same organiza- S unresolved budget disputes. First, it stipulated that nei- tions that endorsed 165. U S

P STATE BUDGETS AND TAXES, 1978-2004 I

H Year Type of Leg./ Prop. Pass/ Yes Title

S Election Init. # Fail R

E 1992 General (ICAS) 165 Fail 46.6 % Budget Process. Welfare. Procedural and Substantive

N Changes T

R 2000 General (ICA) 37 Fail 48.0 % Fees. Vote Requirements. Taxes. A

P 2004 Primary (ICAS) 56 Fail 34.3 % State budget, related taxes, and reserve. Voting requirements. Penalties. G N

I (ICAS) - Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA - 250 the A, ds fiscal sta ar large business w A 251 ded step to an ad account to be used in emergencies e v As vis Taxpayers Association.vis Taxpayers they Together eser ar J ed the legislature to stay in session until the to stay ed the legislature d evenues. on legislators to adopt a balanced budget and ar From their perspective,From 56 in Prop everything e w equir 252 essur ••• heir campaign spent a total of $15.8 million empha- heir campaign spent a total of $15.8 In addition to unions,In addition a support from 56 enjoyed Prop State PT coalition including the California Voters. Women AARP and the League of California T that increased sizing the components of the measure pr of legislators percentage the lower discussed minimally tax increases. needed to approve or in years in which the cost of current spending levels the cost of current in which or in years exceeded r bility, be that 25% of excess revenues recommended it deposited in a r Sierra Club and The Partnership Project Inc contributed Project Partnership The Club and Sierra campaign.to the No supplied funds. unions also Labor $310,000. of about organizations spent a total These was sugarcoating to cover the bitter pill of smoothing to cover sugarcoating was to higher taxes. pathway the legislative under- As voter to allow focused on its ability standing of the initiative tax increases, support withered. defeated: 56 was Prop (34.3%) / No (65.7%). Yes In spite of the 9-1 spending ratio,In spite of the 9-1 four 37 failed by Prop / No (52.0%). (48.0%) Yes points: demon- victory This it making against measures people will vote that strated prop- if the issue is framed fees difficult to increase more erly. protection.” “polluter 37 Prop Opponents labeled propos- reform a contrasting presented Organized labor of 2004. Primary al in the March 56 would Proposition to enact a budget and adopt the legislature allowed have a 55% mar- associated with the budget by tax increases standard. two-thirds gin instead of the current Like 165,Prop legisla- and the that the governor it required for the time period the budget is late. pay lose ture It also r budget is passed. coalition formed to oppose Prop 56,coalition formed to oppose Prop including the State Chamber of Commerce, Business the California Small Roundtable,Association and Taxpayers the California the Ho spent approximately $9.5 million to oppose the meas- spent approximately ure. 91 248 ce. ••• ••• REFORMING THE THE REFORMING SYSTEM Association and es campaign included Y (for state taxes) and the equiring a simple majority e r ax Reform T y the Peace Officers Research Officers the Peace op 37 was coordinated by the League by coordinated op 37 was Action, In total, supporters spent $2.8 million. Instead of onl the California 249 ater W ement of the legislatur AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 he largest contributors to the equir he California Council of Churches, Council of he California National the Association, Voters. the California League of Conservation Action for Better Cities, the California League of Conservation Voters,Association, Public Securities the California the of Women Voters, of Pediatrics, Academy American the Women of Clean Opposition to Pr T This initiative was sponsored by oil, by sponsored was initiative This tobacco, and alco- Taxpayers to the California hol companies in addition of Commer Association and the State Chamber local electorate (for local taxes). local electorate Growers Western Other supporters included the Association, and Manufacturers the California Latin Business Association and the Technology Association. Philip Morris, Institute,Wine the Distilled Spirits the Council of the Unites States Inc., R.J. Reynolds, Chevron, Inc., Companies Anheuser-Busch Exxon Mobile and the California Beer & Beverage Distributors. Proposition 37 in 2000 was a conservative attempt to a conservative 37 in 2000 was Proposition fees any redefining the state constitution by change the monitoring or alleviation of nega- imposed to cover environmental,tive effects of an activ- social or economy ity as taxes. to pass, body or local governing of the legislature these vote the two-thirds then be subject to “taxes” would r Council of Senior Citizens,Council of Women of and the League Voters.employ- public contributions from sizable With ee unions, $3.9 around opposition raised the the give would argued the measure They million.ccxlvii power, and unrestrained unprecedented governor over- and bal- “checks system of turning the constitutional Opponents our freedom.” on to protect rely ances we consequences hidden 165 contained also argued Prop populations, the most vulnerable that attacked including poor children,and the disabled. the elderly (46.6%) / No (53.4%). Prop Yes defeated: eventually 165 was The ballot argument opposing Prop 165 was signed by signed 165 was opposing Prop ballot argument The t WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA torate modifieditsviewpointtoasignificantdegree. lo Inthesectionthatfol- which andtheprocesses through which theirperspectives change. They may alsoindicatethedirections in their basicattitudestowards taxandfiscalissues. Californiavoters’ responses toballotmeasures reveal more than During a25-year period, CHANGING HEARTSANDMINDS NHSOIA NLSSO A N ICLPOOIIN NCLFRI,1978-2004 AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCALPROPOSITIONS INCALIFORNIA, s aspecialfocuswillbeplacedonseveral categoriesofissueinwhich itappearstheelec- ws, I GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS authorizing theissuanceofsuc 2) The inclusion oftangiblepersonalproperty proposed justtwo years afterthe 1) Prop 4, Hypotheses include: What canexplainthischange invoter attitude? adopted withnearly 60%ofthevote (seep84). obligation bonds. the rightoflocalgovernments toissuegeneral n rp4 aballotmeasure aimedatrestoring Prop 4, the measure from credible opponents. that issuedidgenerate publicoppositionto But bond tobuypencilsor toilet paper. of theelectorate would ever supportaGO was preposterous toexpectthattwo-thirds The proponents ofProp 4arguedthatit may have beenastrategic flaw inProp 4. increasing above Prop 13’s protections. included thepossibilityofpr unwilling toacceptany measure that Voters were for theJarvis-Gann initiative. emotional upsurgethathadfueledsupport was tooclosetothe adoption ofProp 13, 1980, California v Six y CHANGING HEARTS AND MINDS oters decisi ears later h vely defeated operty taxes ••• , bonds w Prop 46, 92 as ••• r In theMarch Primary of2000voters narrowly APPROVAL OFSCHOOLBONDS W months later(seep84). the vote intheGeneral Electionjusteight r to 50%. needed toadoptschool bondsfrom two-thirds ) y18,voters may have recognized the 3) By1986, 1) The contentsofthemeasure changed signif- voter preferences? Hypothesesinclude: 4) Prop 46was sponsored by theCalifornia ejected Pr educe themarginto55%-secur hat explainsthisr mor tive financing optionsavailable were both needed tobefundedandthatthealterna empirical reality that capitalprojects still had notprevented theProp 4debacle. the Taxpayers Association sixyears earlier thesupport of However, tax organizations. Chamber ofCommer Taxpayers Association andtheState tion. ities isaquestionworth furtherinvestiga- How they learnedthesereal- cratic control. e expensive andlesssubjecttodemo- p2,aplantoreduce themargin op 26, rp3,asimilarproposal –to Prop 39, elati e bothusually anti- ce, v el y r apid change in ed o v er 53%of - WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA ve. esources to inform the voters of to inform the voters esources the Attorney General suggested the ques- General Attorney the y ed the r op 218 contained a mass of complexities oters attention to these unsettling components. oters attention to these unsettling vided b hile Pr o voters did not shift their positions.voters initia- two The ••• esponded in the affirmati these issues. of the initiative brief description The pr tion was the right to vote on taxes, the right to vote tion was and the voters r that stipulated local taxes could only be enacted could only local taxes that stipulated for special purposes and that taxes elections through margins (see p 85). supermajority require would defeat- 136 in 1990 were 36 in 1984 and Prop Prop ed. 218 in 1996 passed. 1986 and Prop 62 in Prop of these measures,An analysis sur- the campaigns them,rounding suggests preferences voters’ and the on taxes question – the right to vote that on the basic – defeated, that were tives 36 and 136, Props allowed with other the basic question to become muddled for a select few or issues – tax breaks controversial for special interests.new protections Moreover, to call strong sufficiently opposition campaigns were the v 62, Prop four, of the the most direct passed easily. W 36 and 136,similar to Props the opposition campaign lack 93 ho ••• ••• oters plus some CHANGING HEARTS AND MINDS AND HEARTS CHANGING on four occasions e, v bo of the new v e the support of 64% of those w e v ecei margin and a tax cap and watchdog system watchdog a tax cap and margin and op 39 r om a large shar voted in November but not in March. in November voted A more support 39 received is that Prop reality likely fr 26. “no” on Prop had voted people who icantly. a with had been replaced A 50% margin 55% had been added. port of Gov. (D) and former Gov. Davis Wilson (R). and a November Primary a March between ly Election.Presidential In March, peo- 7,226,014 26. on Prop ple had voted In November, 39. on Prop 10,187,463 voted Theoretically, the 1,909,825 more received could have 39 Prop had received than its predecessor votes “yes” their position. changing actually without anyone However, that required have this outcome would Pr AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 As has been noted a APPROVAL OF LOCAL TAXES APPROVAL California’s voters were presented with initiatives presented were voters California’s 2) Prop 39 enjoyed the additional bipartisan sup- bipartisan the additional 39 enjoyed 2) Prop profound- had changed size of the electorate The 3) WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA of interest groups attemptingtofunctionwithinthesestructures. these ballotmeasures have created andtheway thatsuch aframework hasshapedactions er perspective shouldfocusonthepoliticalandlegalframework oftaxandfiscalpolicy that asecondbroad- However, California’s electorate onspecifictypesoftaxandfiscalissues. Oneoftheseisareview ofwhat thishistory tellsusinregard tothebehavior of tives. An evaluation ofthehistoricalinformationincludedinthispapershouldreflect two perspec- OBSERVATIONS ANDCONCLUSIONS NHSOIA NLSSO A N ICLPOOIIN NCLFRI,1978-2004 AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCALPROPOSITIONS INCALIFORNIA, reduction proposals todefeat. pr coalitions withadequatecampaignr tax cutsw Anequalnumberofmajor period of25years. ballot measures imposing taxcutsduringa decades. incr have Californians rejected substantialtax TAX INCREASES D TAX CUTS HISTORICAL PATTERNS all ti opportunity tosunseta half-cent salestaxor When offered the ices was alsoapproved. income residents tosupportmentalhealth serv- Ataxonhigher campaigns againstthem. tobacco taxeswere adopteddespitemassive On two occasions, ered beyond thepale. that taxincreases were automatically consid- voter behavior doesnotindicate investigation, sion. vely smallisthat few taxincreases have actu- o y v eases ninetimesintwo andone-half been placedbefor ed necessar Californians have only supportedfour espite the Tax Revolt rhetoric, oehls,duringtheperiodunder Nonetheless, er One r e r jce.Hwvr broad centrist However, ejected. y eason thatthisnumberisr to bringthree of the fourtax OBSERVATIONSCONCLUSIONS AND e the elector ate foradeci ••• esour 94 ela ces ••• - - ers istopay for government through borrow- T BONDS ANDBORROWING In contr b in theincometaxbrackets oftheaffluentfailed – Two proposals proposed taxesfailed decisively. several appeared atleast opentotaxincreases, financed opponents. their proponents were overwhelmed by better- enjoyed substantialpreliminary support before on alcoholandoilcompaniesalsoinitially Polls indicatedtaxes chose tocontinue thetax. theelectorate continue ittofundpublicsafety, genc increased telephone surcharge tofundemer- r the healthcar tax increase fordrugenforcement andatax on appear unfairandself-serving. services and/ortoincrease taxesinways that fate ofeffortstoraise taxes forlow priority These electoral disastersindicatethe approval. services bothfailedwith fewer than40% ecei y he overwhelming preference ofCalifornia vot- a less than1%. y eee 0 ftevt.Ahalf-centsales ve even 30%ofthe vote. gas taxtofundpassengerrail andan medical ser ast tothesesituationsinw e industry tofundpublichealth vices –proved unable to Also , a pr oposed incr hic h v oters ease WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA - - will es with v op 68 in 1988 esentati for example, epr es (Pr v ecting an annual por edir elected r objecti e y v dition to r op 60A in 2004, efore, are voters suggests California’s substantial margins. 98, Prop the most es (Pr ther y eluctant to lea those representatives to increase taxes. to increase those representatives be misleading because a number of these meas be misleading because a number w y broad coalition.broad As a result, proposi- legislative ••• he data, ures covered relatively small shares of overall state of overall small shares relatively covered ures expenditur PROPOSITIONS INTRODUCED BY THE LEGISLATURE introduced Due to the fact that ballot propositions from approval two-thirds require the legislature by both houses, often supported by are these measures a 75% of the time. success nearly tions achieved In comparison, propositions were voter-initiated 45% of the time. approximately approved trend This THE POWER OF FRAMING MEASURES OF FRAMING THE POWER 2000 and 37 in 136 in 1990 of Props rejection The against a concept will vote suggest the electorate increas- – preventing agree basically they with which action – if the propos- legislative by es in taxes or fees interests.” “special by as driven perceived als are notwithstanding, ratios Enormous spending oppo- establishing after prevailed nents of both measures on as drafted the measures of perceptions voter corporations. profit-hungry by behalf of and funded RESOURCES REDISTRIBUTION OF TAX that mandated the Although 60% of ballot measures did pass,allocation of existing revenues that figure ma affect about $30 million) or mixed redistribution affect about with other public polic established contribution limits for state legislative established candidates in ad cam- a public matching tion of income taxes towards paign fund). to sought actually four measures Only a specific large amounts of public funds for reserve purpose. for trans- gas taxes covered of these Three two the other portation; one of these failed while passed b measures, of the redistributive massive passed barely at all, success with less than a 1% margin. achieving T not as r to are as they for allocating revenues responsibility allo 95 - ••• ••• vernment oposals contain vices without paying OBSERVATIONS AND AND CONCLUSIONS OBSERVATIONS oters want fiscal decision- oters want ovided the executive branch executive the ovided pr ojects without raising taxes. ojects without raising public ser bond does expand go y eases, of as the requirement such e a ere defeated on account of similar ere traditional checks and balances as checks traditional e number of bond pr a equiring reductions in current service in current equiring reductions wer and would lead to severe cuts in lead to severe and would wer equir In fact, po vices – suggests v oters desir h ams and/or pr o-thirds vote.o-thirds 165 in 1992 and both Prop That ertheless, op 76 in 2005 w ogr tw he common explanation of the popularity of bonds he common explanation of the popularity AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 pr Nev for them. positive with widespread ing important projects and education as transportation areas effects in such aware are voters did fail – indicating that discerning true sense not in any is that a bond financed program free. to view accurate be more it would Perhaps for to pay support for bonds as a desire voter time, over expanded public services hop- essentially from in revenues will be sufficient growth ing there be paid the bonds to economic expansion to allow off without r levels. The success of Props 62 and 218 coupled with the of Props success The that California voters 56 demonstrate defeat of Prop on tax increases. directly to vote the ability want If the adoption of taxes cannot prevent the electorate body, a legislative by procedural at least want they obstacles to tax incr a Pr THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON TAXES criticisms – that the well. too muc public ser making to r T is that v It is also evident that voters had definite preferences in definite preferences had voters It is also evident that willing to support were they services to those regard debt financing.through All 11 bonds for veterans’ approved,benefits were 13 of 14 bonds as were supplies. maintenance of water involving School majori- achieving with 16 of 21 well bonds also fared ty approval. In contrast, less than half the bonds pro- passed (7 out of 15). posed to benefit the environment ing. under review, the 25-period During 98 bonds the voters. before placed were of these Seventy-three passed (74.5%). the voters by debt approved Total equaled $98.6 billion. ••• 96 ••• OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

is partly explained by the fact that over 90% of bond perate constituencies to meet their underfunded measures and property tax adjustment measures needs with either redistributive measures or targeted (both highly popular mechanisms) were generated by tax increases. the legislature. The pattern reinforces the view that broad coalitions have a critical effect on the popular- Coalitions broad enough to make structural change ity of ballot measures. and/or reform required participation by centrist business organizations, and these groups tended to have A 25 YEAR PERSPECTIVE – THE CREATION OF relatively narrow agendas as regards to support for A TAX AND FISCAL FRAMEWORK increased expenditures. Thus, these coalitions could Viewing the entire 25 year period as a whole, it only rarely be established. Finally, as a chronic appears that the passage of Prop 13 created a politi- seductive option, the use of bonds and borrowing cal dynamic which placed proponents of a strong stood available as a strategy with excellent prospects public sector on the persistent defensive and restrict- for electoral success. ed their ability to be creative or forward thinking in the tax and fiscal policy arena. What may bring to an end this period in which the legacy of Prop 13 has blocked fundamental new At the local level, public sector advocates confronted a decades-long, losing effort to retain the right to thinking on tax and fiscal issues is simply the enor- raise revenues for specific purposes without superma- mity of that legacy’s failure. The dot.com bust has jority votes. Much creativity became diverted to revealed the hopelessness of expecting wild econom- essentially defense efforts to avoid these supermajor- ic growth to resolve California’s fiscal woes. ity requirements through the design of benefit assess- Borrowing and bonding has reached levels at which ment districts or special districts. In some cases, the debt service absorbs increasingly unreasonable use of state ballot measures to meet local needs, such amounts of available revenues. The deterioration of as housing or parks, reflected the desire to seek some public infrastructure and services threatens the eco- political space where a majority vote would still pre- nomic competitiveness of the state, the well-being of vail. its residents and the very security of the public at a At the state level, California’s government endlessly time when natural and man-made threats proliferate. confronted the fiscal task of sustaining the two components of the public sector that had been most It is a truism that those who fail to learn from histo- dependent on, and hence, most damaged by, Prop ry are doomed to repeat it. In California, a repetition A

S 13. These two – schools and local government – had of the last 25 years is neither sustainable nor a sur-

U responsibility for vital services. In this difficult polit- vivable option. Learning from history is the only

S ical and fiscal environment, advocates for public sec- strategy that remains. P

I tor growth also had to contend with both additional

H tax cut proposals and the intense competition by des- S R E N T R A P G N I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA A A ax cut, ax cut PTA PTA T PT Tax increase, Tax targeted PT Bond T Spending limit A ansit Water Bond Mass tr Schools Bond PT Environ- ment ellings - Property Tax Adjustment Tax Property axation T - A of 1978 w ICA - Initiative Constitutional Amendment Constitutional ICA - Initiative Amendment and Statute Constitutional ICAS - Initiative PT ••• of 1978 w operty taxation--Veteran's operty taxation--Veteran's 97 ost Disaster ax Rate axation Income Tax cut,Tax PTA Property Energy Systems Energy T La Bond La (tax on oil companies) Exemption appropriations programs investment ••• ••• 47.0% Dw Owner Occupied 78.5% P 39.2% T 75.9% Pr ass ass ail ail 8 LCA P 8 LCA F 9 ICA F y y APPENDIX A: APPENDIX MEASURES, BALLOT FISCAL AND TAX CALIFORNIA 1978-2004 al ve Statute ve Election No. Init. Fail APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA TAX AND FISCAL BALLOT MEASURES, 1978-2004 AND FISCAL BALLOT MEASURES, CALIFORNIA TAX APPENDIX A: Abbreviations: Amendment Initiative LIA - Legislative Statute LS - Legislative Amendment Constitutional LCA - Legislative IS - Initiati AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 Year Leg./ Pass/ of Prop Type Yes Title Purpose Category 1978 Gener 1978 General 1 LS Pass 62.3% of 1978Act Bond Veterans Veterans Bond 1978 Primary 13 ICA Pass 64.8% Limitation Tax Property 1978 Primary 11 LCA Fail 43.7% - County Owned Real Taxation 1978 Primary 10 LCA Fail 42.8% Property - Rehabilitated Taxation PTA 1978 Primary1978 Primar 3 LCA Fail 45.2%Alternative Exemption - Taxation 1978 Primary 1 LS Fail 35.0%Aid Bond Building State School 1978 Primary 2 LS Pass 53.5% Conservation Water and Water Clean 1980 Primary 11 IS Fail 44.3% Taxation. Surtax. 1979 Special 3 LCA P 1980 Primar 1980 Primary 2 LS Pass 65.5% of 1980Act Bond Veterans Veterans Bond 1979 Special 4 ICA Pass 74.3% Limitation of government 1980 Primary 1 LS Fail 47.0% resources and renewable Parklands WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA erTp f Po Lg/ Ps/Ys il PurposeCategory Title Yes Type ofProp Leg./Pass/ Year 92Piay3LAPs 65 aain RealProperty Valuation. Taxation. 56.5% NewPrisonConstructionBond Pass 56.1% LCA Pass CaliforniaSafeDrinking Water Bond 64.4% LS 3 Primar Pass 1982 RealProperty Valuation. Taxation. 65.5% Primary LS 1 RealProperty Disas- Taxation. Valuation. 1982 Pass 42.3% LCA Primary 9 Fail 1982 Property RealProperty. Taxation. LCA 24.9% 7 General LakeBond TahoeAcquisitions 1980 48.8% Fail 5 General LCA Fail Parklandsand Acquisition 1980 51.7% General LS 4 Pass 1980 LS General 2 1980 General 1 1980 General 1980 92Piay7I as6.%Icm a neigTax cut Tax cut Income Tax Indexing 63.5% Pass GiftandInheritance 64.4% IS Pass IS Gener 7 1982 Primary 6 1982 Primary 1982 92Gnrl3L as6.%Vtrn odAto 92Vtrn Bond Veterans Lake TahoeAcquisitions 52.1% Pass Veterans Bond Act of1982 67.1% LS Pass CountyJail CapitalExpenditure Bond 54.3% LS Gener 4 Pass 1982 LS General 3 1982 General 2 1982 General 1982 94Piay1 SPs 32 CaliforniaPark andRecreational 63.2% Pass NewPrisonConstruction 57.8% LS Pass CountyJail CapitalExpenditure 58.8% 18 LS RealProperty Valuation. Taxation. Pass 41.3% Primary 17 LS 1984 Fail LCA Primary 16 1984 7 Primary 1984 General 1982 Election No.Init.Fail NHSOIA NLSSO A N ICLPOOIIN NCLFRI,1978-2004 AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCALPROPOSITIONS INCALIFORNIA, al al y PEDXA AIONATXADFSA ALTMAUE,1978-2004 CALIFORNIA TAX AND FISCAL BALLOT MEASURES, APPENDIX A: 5ISP 1LSP 5LSP ass ass ass 18 itadIhrtneT GiftandInheritance 61.8% 05 StateSc 50.5% 38 F 53.8% ••• Change inOwnership. Act of1981 Law of1976 Solar Energy Systems ChangeinOwnership SeismicSafety, ters, Acquisition by Taxing Entity Act of1980 Development Program Bond Act Act of1981 Bond Law of1982 F Bond Act of1984 Bond Act of1984 New Construction. Bond Act of1982 acilities Act of1984 irst-T 98 ime HomeBuyers hool BuildingLease-Pur ••• c hase rsn Bond Bond Prisons Water ment Environ- ment Environ- ment Environ- Bond Prisons Sc ment Environ- Bond Prisons Bond Prisons aneous Miscell- hools PTA PTA PTA GO bonds Bond Bond Bond Bond PTA Bond Bond ax cut WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA A A PT PTA PTA Local taxes Bond Bond Redistrib- utive PT PTA Bond Bond Bond ater ent Prisons Bond Schools Bond ment W Local government Schools Bond Environ- ment Water Bond Miscell- aneous Environ- m ater of 1986 W w Act of 1984 Disasters. ation and v erson axation. hase Bond La Exemption c T e ••• ••• bled P ater Conser operty operty Taxation. Fire Protection 9999 nhancement Act of 1984 nhancement Lease-Pur Expenditure Bond Act of 1986 Bond Expenditure Structur of 1986 Quality Bond Law to Counties and Cities Taxes Disa System Exclusion of 1984 Bond Law of 1984 Bond Law Act of 1984 Bond of 1984 Bond Law E Construction Exclusion. •• ••• ••• ••• 74.1% W 70.5% Pr 66.7%Center Bond Senior 50.8% Pr ass ass ass ass 44 LS P 50 LCA P 30 LS31 P LCA P y y APPENDIX A: APPENDIX MEASURES, BALLOT FISCAL AND TAX CALIFORNIA 1978-2004 al al lection No. Init. Fail No. Init. lection E ear Leg./ Pass/ Prop of Type Yes Title Purpose Category AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 1986 General 53 LS Pass 60.7% Bldg School Greene-Hughes 1986 Primary 52 LS Pass 67.2% Capital Facility County Correctional 1986 Primary 43 LS Pass1986 Primary 67.3%Act of 1986 Community Parklands 47 Environ- LCA Pass 81.8% License Fee Vehicle Allocation of 1984 General 36 ICA Fail 45.2% Taxation Tax cut, 1984 General1984 34 General1986 LCA 36 Primary Fail ICA 47.4% 42 Fail Taxation. Property Historic 1986 LS 45.2% Primar Tax Taxation Pass1986 Primary 75.6%Act of 1986 Bond Veterans 461986 LCA Primar Pass Veterans 59.9% Bond taxation. Property GO bonds 1984 General 33 LCA Pass 82.2% Postponement. Tax Property 1984 General 26 LS Pass 60.7% Building Lease-Purchase State School 1984 Gener 1984 General 251984 LS General Pass1984 27 General 72.9% Bond LawWater Clean 1984 LS 28 General Pass LS 29 72.0% Substance Cleanup Hazardous Pass1984 LS Water Gener 73.5% Water California Safe Drinking Pass Bond 66.3%Act of 1984 Bond Veterans Veterans Bond 1984 Primary 23 LCA Pass 53.3% Taxation. Property Seismic Safety 1984 Primary 19 LS Pass 64.0% Habitat Wildlife and Fish Y ••• 100 ••• APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA TAX AND FISCAL BALLOT MEASURES, 1978-2004

Year Type of Prop Leg./ Pass/ Yes Title Purpose Category Election No. Init. Fail

1986 General 54 LS Pass 65.3% New Prison Construction Prisons Bond Bond Act of 1986 1986 General 55 LS Pass 78.7% California Safe Drinking Water Water Bond Bond Law of 1986 1986 General 56 LS Pass 59.4% Higher Education Facilities Schools Bond Bond Act of 1986 1986 General 58 LCA Pass 75.7% Taxation. Family Transfers. PTA

1986 General 60 LCA Pass 77.0% Taxation. Replacement Residences PTA

1986 General 62 IS Pass 58.0% Taxation. Local Governments And Local taxes Districts. 1988 Primary 68 IS Pass 52.8% Legislative Campaigns. Spending Campaign Redistrib- and Contribution Limits. Partial finance utive Public Funding. 1988 Primary 70 IS Pass 65.2% Wildlife, Coastal and Park Land Environ- Bond Conservation Bond Act ment 1988 Primary 71 ICA Fail 48.8% Appropriations Limit Adjustment. Spending limit 1988 Primary 72 ICA Fail 38.5% Emergency Reserve. Dedication of Transpor- Redistrib- Certain Taxes To Transportation. tation utive Appropriation Limit Change. 1988 Primary 74 LS Fail 49.99% Deddeh Transportation Bond Act Transpor- Bond tation 1988 Primary 75 LS Pass 65.0% School Facilities Bond Act of 1988 Schools Bond

1988 Primary 76 LS Pass 67.6% Veterans Bond Act of 1988 Veterans Bond A

S 1988 Primary 77 LS Pass 56.1% California Earthquake Safety & Housing Earthquake Bond U Rehabilitation Bond Act of 1988 retrofitting S 1988 General 78 LS Pass 57.7% Higher Education Facilities Bond Schools Bond P

I Act of 1988 H 1988 General 79 LS Pass 61.2% 1988 School Facilities Bond Act Schools Bond S R

E 1988 General 80 LS Pass 61.1% New Prison Construction Prisons Bond N

T Bond Act of 1988

R 1988 General 81 LS Pass 71.7% California Safe Drinking Water Water Bond A Bond Act of 1988 P 1988 General 82 LS Pass 62.4% Water Conservation Bond Water Bond G Law of 1988 N I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W •••••• 101 ••• APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA TAX AND FISCAL BALLOT MEASURES, 1978-2004

Year Type of Prop Leg./ Pass/ Yes Title Purpose Category Election No. Init. Fail 1988 General 83 LS Pass 64.4% Clean Water and Water Reclamation Water Bond Bond Act of 1988 1988 General 84 LS Pass 58.2% Housing and Homeless Bond Housing Bond Act of 1988 1988 General 85 LS Pass 52.7% Library Construction and Renovation Libraries Bond Bond Act of 1988 1988 General 86 LS Pass 54.8% County Correctional Facility Capital Prisons Bond Expenditure and Youth Facility Bond Act of 1988 1988 General 87 LCA Pass 67.9% Property Tax Revenues. PTA Redevelopment Agencies. 1988 General 90 LCA Pass 69.1% Assessed Valuation. Replacement PTA Dwellings. 1988 General 93 LCA Pass 70.8% Veteran's Property Tax Exemption. PTA

1988 General 98 ICAS Pass 50.7% School Funding. Education Redistrib- utive 1988 General 99 ICAS Pass 58.2% Cigarette and Tobacco Tax. Benefit Health Tax increase, Fund. services, fire targeted prevention 1990 Primary 107 LS Pass 52.5% Housing and Homeless Bond Housing Bond Act of 1990 1990 Primary 108 LS Pass 56.3% Passenger Rail and Clean Air Transport- Bond Bond Act of 1990. ation 1990 Primary 110 LCA Pass 80.2% Property Tax Exemption For PTA Severely Disabled Persons. 1990 Primary 111 LCA Pass 52.4% Traffic Congestion Relief - Gas Tax Highways, Tax increase, mass transit general W 1990 Primary 116 IS Pass 53.3% Rail Transportation. Bond Act. Transport- Bond O R ation K

1990 Primary 117 IS Pass 52.4% Wildlife Protection. Environ- Redistrib- I N ment utive G 1990 Primary 120 LS Pass 56.0% New Prison Construction Bond Prisons Bond Act of 1990 P A

1990 Primary 121 LS Pass 55.0% Higher Education Facilities Bond Schools Bond R

Act of June 1990 T N

1990 Primary 122 LS Pass 55.3% Earthquake Safety and Public Earthquake Bond E

Buildings Rehabilitation Bond retrofitting R Act of 1990 S H I P S U AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 S A ••• 102 ••• APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA TAX AND FISCAL BALLOT MEASURES, 1978-2004

Year Type of Prop Leg./ Pass/ Yes Title Purpose Category Election No. Init. Fail

1990 Primary 123 LS Pass 57.5% 1990 School Facilities Bond Act Schools Bond 1990 General 125 LCA Fail 45.6% Motor Vehicle Tax. Rail Transit Transport- Redistrib- Funding. ation utive 1990 General 126 LCA Fail 40.9% Alcoholic Beverages. Taxes. General Tax increase, (Industry led) Fund targeted 1990 General 127 LCA Pass 61.7% Earthquake Safety. Property Tax PTA Exclusion. 1990 General 128 IS Fail 35.7% Environment. Public Health. Environ- Bond Bonds. ment 1990 General 129 ICAS Fail 27.6% Drug Enforcement, Prevention, Prisons Bond Treatment, Prisons. Bonds. 1990 General 130 IS Fail 47.9% Forest Acquisition. Timber Environ- Bond Harvesting Practices Bond Act. ment 1990 General 131 ICAS Fail 37.8% Limits on Terms of Office. Ethics. Campaign Redistrib- Campaign Financing. finance utive 1990 General 133 IS Fail 37.9% Drug Enforcement and Prevention Drug Tax increase, Taxes. enforce- general ment, prevention 1990 General 134 ICAS Fail 31.0% Alcohol Surtax. Health Tax increase, services targeted 1990 General 135 IS Fail 30.4% Pesticide Regulation. Food Redistrib- safety utive 1990 General 136 ICA Fail 47.9% State, local taxation. Local taxes 1990 General 138 IS Fail 28.8% Forestry Programs. Timber Environ- Bond Harvesting Practices. ment 1990 General 142 LS Pass 59.0% Veterans Bond Act of 1990 Veterans Bond A

S 1990 General 143 LS Fail 48.8% Higher Education Facilities Bond Bond U Act of November 1990 Schools S 1990 General 144 LS Fail 40.4% New Prison Construction Bond Prisons Bond P

I Act of 1990-B H 1990 General 145 LS Fail 44.5% California Housing Bond Act Housing Bond S

R of 1990 E 1990 General 146 LS Pass 51.8% School Facilities Bond Act of 1990 Schools Bond N T

R 1990 General 147 LS Fail 37.3% County Correctional Facility Capital Bond A Expenditure and Juvenile Prisons P 1990 General 148 LS Fail 43.8% Water Resources Bond Act of 1990 Water Bond G N I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA ease, ease, A ax cut ax incr ax incr T general PTA T general Bond State budget, taxes PTA Bond cut Tax Bond Bond T PT al ofitting ansport- ent r etr Environ- m Gener Fund, local agencies Public safety Housing Bond Prisons Bond Earthquake r Children's facilities Schools Bond Schools Bond T ation otection Air ax Credit T Changes. e Act of 1994 v Access. ••• ••• axes. Act of 1992. T ofit Bond ildlife Enhancement Act of 1990 ildlife Enhancement operty Tax Exemption. operty Tax assenger Rail and Clean ersons' 103 103 Base Year Value. Base Year Act of 1993 and Improvement Act. Bond Investment W Act of 1990 Bond Expenditure Retr Act of 1990 P Act of June 1992 Act of June Products and Substanti 1994 Act of June Bond ••• ••• •• ••• 57.7% Local and Public Safety Pr 41.2% State 42.6% Renters' Income 48.1% P 51.6% Pr ass ass ail ail ail 167 IS F 175 LCA F 156 LS F 160 LCA P y APPENDIX A: APPENDIX MEASURES, BALLOT FISCAL AND TAX CALIFORNIA 1978-2004 al al al lection No. Init. Fail No. Init. lection E ear Leg./ Pass/ Prop of Type Yes Title Purpose Category AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 Y 1993 Special1993 Special 1711993 LCA Special 172 Pass LCA 51.7% 173 Taxation.Transfer Property P of LS Fail 42.1% California Housing and Jobs 1990 General 150 LS Fail 26.4% Capital County Courthouse Facility 1992 Gener 1990 General 149 LS Fail 47.1% California Park, and Recreation 1994 Primary 1A LS Fail 45.7% Relief and Seismic Earthquake 1990 General 151 LS Fail 47.5% Financing Facilities Child Care 1994 Primary 177 LCA Pass 67.4% Exemption. Tax Property Disabled 1992 Primary 153 LS Pass 50.8% Bond Facilities Higher Education 1994 Primary 1C LS Fail 47.4% Bond Higher Education Facilities 1992 Primary 152 LS Pass 52.9%Act of 1992 Bond Facilities School Schools Bond 1992 General1992 163 General ICAS Pass 165 66.6% ICAS of Certain Food Taxation Ends Fail 46.6% Budget Process. Welfare. Procedural 1994 Primary 1B LS Fail 49.6%Act of 1994 Safe Schools Schools Bond 1992 Gener 1992 General 155 LS Pass 51.8%Act Bond Facilities 1992 School Schools Bond 1992 Primary 154 LCA Fail 39.8% Postponement. Tax Property PTA 1994 Primar 1992 Gener ••• 104 ••• APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA TAX AND FISCAL BALLOT MEASURES, 1978-2004

Year Type of Prop Leg./ Pass/ Yes Title Purpose Category Election No. Init. Fail

1994 Primary 178 LCA Fail 45.0% Property Tax Exclusion. Water PTA Conservation Equipment. 1994 Primary 180 IS Fail 43.3% Park Lands, Historic Sites, Wildlife Environ- Bond and Forest Conservation Bond Act ment 1994 General 181 LS Fail 34.9% Passenger Rail and Clean Air Bond Transport- Bond Act of 1994. ation 1994 General 185 IS Fail 19.5% Gas Tax Passenger Tax increase, rail, mass general transit 1996 Primary 192 LS Pass 59.9% Seismic Retrofit Bond Act of 1996 Earthquake Bond retrofitting 1996 Primary 193 LCA Pass 67.3% Property Appraisal. Exception. PTA Grandparent-Grandchild Transfer. 1996 Primary 203 LS Pass 61.5% Public Education Facilities Bond Schools Bond Act of 1996 1996 General 204 LS Pass 62.9% Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Water Bond Supply Act 1996 General 205 LS Fail 40.6% Youthful and Adult Offender Local Prisons Bond Facilities Bond Act of 1996 1996 General 206 LS Pass 53.6% Veterans Bond Act of 1996 Veterans Bond

1996 General 216 IS Fail 38.7% Health Care. Consumer Protection. Public health Tax increase, Taxes on Corporate Restructuring. services targeted 1996 General 217 IS Fail 49.2% Top Income Tax Brackets. General Tax increase, Reinstatement. Revenues to Local Fund, local general Agencies. Initiative Statute. agencies 1996 General 218 ICA Pass 56.6% Voter Approval for Local Government Local taxes

A Taxes. Limitations on Fees, Assess-

S ments, and Charges. U 1998 General 1A LS Pass 62.5% Class Size Reduction Kindergarten- Schools Bond S University Public Education Facilities P

I Bond Act of 1998 H

S 1998 General 1 LCA Pass 71.1% Property Taxes: Contaminated PTA

R Property. E 1998 General 2 LCA Pass 75.4% Transportation: Funding. Transport- Redistrib- N

T ation utive

R 1998 General 8 IS Fail 36.8% Public Schools. Permanent Class Size Education Redistrib- A

P Reduction. Parent-Teacher Councils. utive Teacher Credentialing. Pupil Suspen- G sion for Drug Possession. Chief N

I Inspector's Office. K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA ve argeted Bond Bond Tax increase, Tax t Bond uti Redistrib- utive School bonds cut Tax Redistrib- utive State budget, taxes bonds grams ater axes. W Miscellan- eous Environ- ment Water Bond Libraries Bond Prisons Bond Education Redistrib- Campaign finance T crime Early child- Early hood development & smoking prevention pro Allocation Safe . , y Air Clean , ater ••• ••• ote Requirements. Taxes. W V evelopment Programs.evelopment Additional he Hertzberg-Polanco Crime he Hertzberg-Polanco ees. 105 105 Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Act of 2002 Protection 2002. Act) (Shelley-Hertzberg Improvement and Public Library Improvement Construction & Renovation Bond and Spending Limits. Public Financing. Disclosures. Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Act of 2000 Bond Protection and Flood Protection Watershed Act Bond Protection Construction Bond Laboratories Act of 1999 for Instructional Materials. Surtax D Surtax. Tobacco ••• ••• •• ••• 46.3% T 53.0% State Lotter California 56.9% Clean 48.0% F ass ass ail ail 15 LS F 20 LIA P 40 LS P 37 ICA F y y y APPENDIX A: APPENDIX MEASURES, BALLOT FISCAL AND TAX CALIFORNIA 1978-2004 al lection No. Init. Fail No. Init. lection E ear Leg./ Pass/ Prop of Type Yes Title Purpose Category AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 Y 2002 Primary 41 LS Pass 51.6%Act of Bond Modernization Voting 2000 Primary 142000 Primar LS Pass2000 Primary 59.0%2000 and Literacy California Reading Primar 162000 Primary LS 25 Pass 62.3% ISAct of 2000Bond Homes Veterans' Veterans Fail Bond 34.7% Election Campaigns. Contributions 2000 Primary 122000 Primary LS 13 Pass 63.2% LS Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Pass 64.8% Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, 2000 Primary2000 26 Primary2000 ICAS 28 General Fail2000 General 48.7% IS 322000 Facilities. School Vote. Local Majority 36 Gener Fail Bonds, LS2000 27.8% IS Pass GeneralTobacco 10 Repeal of Proposition Pass 67.2%2002Act of 2000 Bond 39 Veterans Primar 60.9% Drugs.Treatment. and Probation ICAS Pass Drugs and 53.4% Veterans Facilities. School Bond School 1998 General 10 ICAS Pass 50.5% Childhood Early State and County ••• 106 ••• APPENDIX A: CALIFORNIA TAX AND FISCAL BALLOT MEASURES, 1978-2004

Year Type of Prop Leg./ Pass/ Yes Title Purpose Category Election No. Init. Fail

2002 Primary 42 LCA Pass 69.1% Transportation Congestion Improve- Transpor- Redistrib- ment Act. Allocation of Existing Motor tation utive Vehicle Fuel Sales and Use Tax Revenues for Transportation Purposes Only. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. 2002 General 46 LS Pass 57.6% Housing and Emergency Shelter Housing Bond Trust Fund 2002 General 47 LS Pass 59.1% Kindergarten-Univ Public Education Schools Bond Facilities Bond Act of 2002 2002 General 49 IS Pass 56.6% Before and After School Programs. Education Redistrib- State Grants. utive 2002 General 50 IS Pass 55.3% Water Quality, Supply/Safe Drinking Schools Bond 2002 General 51 IS Fail 41.4% Distribution of Existing Motor Transport- Redistrib- Vehicle Sales and Use Tax ation utive 2003 Special 53 LCA Fail 36.3% California Twenty-First Century Infrastruc- Redistrib- Infrastructure Investment Fund; ture utive Resolution Chapter 185, Statutes of 2002 (ACA 11, Richman) 2004 Primary 55 LS Pass 50.8% Kindergarten-Univ Public Education Schools Bond Facilities Bond Act of 2004 2004 Primary 56 ICAS Fail 34.3% State budget, related taxes, & reserve. State budget, Voting requirements. Penalties. taxes 2004 Primary 57 LS Pass 63.3% The Economic Recovery Bond Act Misc. Bond 2004 Primary 58 LCA Pass 71.7% The California Balanced Budget Act. Deficit Spending recovery limit, redistributive

A 2004 General 1A LCA Pass 83.6% Protection of Local Government Local Redistrib- S Revenues government utive U 2004 General 60A LCA Pass 73.3% Surplus Property. Deficit Redistrib- S recovery utive P

I 2004 General 61 IS Pass 58.3% Children's Hospital Projects. Children's Bond H Grant Program facilities S

R 2004 General 63 IS Pass 53.7% Mental Health Services Expansion, Mental Tax increase, E Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes health general N

T above $1 million services

R 2004 General 67 ICAS Fail 28.4% Emergency Medical Services. Emergency Tax increase, A

P Funding. Telephone Surcharge. medical general services G 2004 General 71 ICAS Pass 59.1% Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds Misc. Bond N I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA $30 $495 $500 $280 $450 $85 $200 $350 $375 $500 $495 $750 $285 $85 w Act chase chase elopment ater Bond La W Act Of 1982 ams (Bonds) Acquisition and Dev ogr hool Building Lease-Pur am Tahoe Acquisitions Bond Act Tahoe ans Bond e ogr eter arklands ••• ••• Pr of 1976. of 1981 V Lak Act Bond Home Buyers First-Time Of 1982 Parklands and renewable resources invest- resources and renewable Parklands ment pr Act of 1980 Bond Veterans P Act of 1980 Bond Acquisitions Tahoe Lake California Safe Drinking New Prison Construction Bond State Sc 1982. Of Bond Law Bond Capital Expenditure County Jail Act of 1981 State School Building Aid Bond Law of Aid Bond Law Building State School 1978 Conservation Water and Water Clean of 1978 Bond Law Act of 1978 Bond Veterans 107 107 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 9 1 1 2 1 2 1 ••• ••• •• ••• Y Y Y APPENDIX B:APPENDIX MEASURES, BOND 1978-2004 es: 3,621,422 (50.5%); es: 4,840,325 (67.1%); es: 3,780,098 (52.9%); es: 3,996,542 (51.7%); es: 2,538,667 (39.2%); es: 2,925,215 (56.1%); Y No: 3,554,500 (49.5%) 3,893,113 (54.3%); Yes: No: 3,276,068 (45.7%) Y No: 2,369,166 (32.9%) Y No: 3,365,937 (47.1%) 3,875,064 (53.8%); Yes: No: 3,323,877 (46.2%) Y No: 3,730,473 (48.3%) 3,757,009 (48.8%); Yes: No: 3,934,723 (51.2%) Y No: 3,942,248 (60.8%) Y No: 2,292,471 (43.9%) Yes: 3,111,505 (53.5%); Yes: No: 2,706,544 (46.5%) 3,878,181 (62.3%); Yes: No: 2,347,861 (37.7%) 2,800,038 (47.0%); Yes: No: 3,163,823 (53.0%) 3,952,383 (65.5%); Yes: No: 2,081,982 (34.5%) Yes: 2,047,496 (35.0%); 2,047,496 (35.0%); Yes: No: 3,809,609 (65.0%) ass ass ass ass ass ass Fail No. (millions) P Pass Pass P P P Fail P Pass P Pass Fail Fail Pass on ans APPENDIX B:APPENDIX MEASURES, 1978-2004 BOND viron vir hool ater eter AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 Purpose Pass/ Purpose Pass/ Votes Prop Title Amount Misc En Prison V Sc Prison Environ W En Veterans Environ Veterans School Water NOVEMBER 2, 1982 GENERAL JUNE 8, 1982 PRIMAR NOVEMBER 4, 1980 GENERAL JUNE 3, 1980 PRIMAR NOVEMBER 7, 1978 GENERAL JUNE 6, 1978 PRIMAR JUNE 6, 1978 ••• 108 ••• APPENDIX B: BOND MEASURES, 1978-2004

Purpose Pass/ Votes Prop Title Amount Fail No. (millions)

JUNE 5, 1984 PRIMARY Prison Pass Yes: 2,906,093 (58.8%); 16 County Jail Capital Expenditure Bond Act $250 No: 2,036,736 (41.2%) Of 1984 Prison Pass Yes: 2,835,869 (57.8%); 17 New Prison Construction Bond Act Of $300 No: 2,067,033 (42.2%) 1984 Environ Pass Yes: 3,088,486 (63.2%); 18 California Park And Recreational Facilities $370 No: 1,798,772 (36.8%) Act Of 1984 Environ Pass Yes: 3,132,792 (64.0%); 19 Fish And Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Act $85 No: 1,762,407 (36.0%) Of 1984

NOVEMBER 6, 1984 GENERAL Water Pass Yes: 6,509,295 (72.9%); 25 Clean Water Bond Law $325 No: 2,416,849 (27.1%) School Pass Yes: 5,337,372 (60.7%); 26 State School Building Lease-Purchase Bond $450 No: 3,451,296 (39.3%) Law of 1984 Environ Pass Yes: 6,302,811 (72.0%); 27 Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act of $100 No: 2,449,626 (28.0%) 1984 Water Pass Yes: 6,509,505 (73.5%); 28 California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law $75 No: 2,344,558 (26.5%) of 1984 Veterans Pass Yes: 5,845,487 (66.3%); 29 Veterans Bond Act of 1984 $650 No: 2,969,261 (33.7%) Misc Pass Yes: 5,903,868 (66.7%); 30 Senior Center Bond Act of 1984 $50 No: 2,940,911 (33.3%)

JUNE 3, 1986 PRIMARY Veterans Pass Yes: 3,338,320 (75.6%); 42 Veterans Bond Act Of 1986 $850 No: 1,076,981 (24.4%)

A Environ Pass Yes: 2,924,973 (67.3%); 43 Community Parklands Act Of 1986 $100 S No: 1,420,822 (32.7%) U Water Pass Yes: 3,204,793 (74.1%); 44 Water Conservation And Water Quality $150 S No: 1,120,499 (25.9%) Bond Law Of 1986 P I Prison Pass Yes: 2,795,123 (67.2%); 52 County Correctional Facility Capital $495 H

S No: 1,364,737 (32.8%) Expenditure Bond Act Of 1986 R

E NOVEMBER 4, 1986 GENERAL N

T School Pass Yes: 4,100,775 (60.7%); 53 Greene-Hughes School Building Lease- Prison R No: 2,651,479 (39.3%) Purchase Bond Law of 1986 $800 A

P Pass Yes: 87 (65.3%); 54 New Prison Construction Bond Act Of $500 4,471,3 No: 2,374,818 (34.7%) 1986 G N I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA $75 $60 $65 $300 $75 $500 $100 $400 $776 $1,000 $800 $510 $150 $600 $800 $817 Act Of Act Of acility Capital Expen- ater Reclamation Bond acilities Bond W And ectional F acilities Bond Act Of 1988 acilities Bond ater W And Youth Facility Bond Act Of 1988 Bond Facility Youth And e hool F 1988 County Corr ditur Veterans Bond Act Of 1988 Bond Veterans And Housing Safety California Earthquake Act Of 1988 Bond Rehabilitation Higher Education F 1988 Act Bond Facilities 1988 School New Prison Construction Bond Act Of Bond Water California Safe Drinking 1988 Of 1988 Bond Law Conservation Water Clean Act Of 1988 Act Of 1988 And Homeless Bond Housing Bond And Renovation Construction Library Act Of 1988 California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law Bond Water California Safe Drinking Of 1986 Act Of Bond Facilities Higher Education 1986 Wildlife, Coastal, Land Park And Act. Bond Conservation Bond Transportation Deddeh Act Sc ••• ••• 109 109 86 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 55 56 70 74 75 ••• ••• •• ••• Y APPENDIX B:APPENDIX MEASURES, BOND 1978-2004 es: 5,854,824 (64.4%); es: 4,913,599 (54.8%); es: 5,355,974 (57.7%); es: 5,591,465 (61.1%); es: 3,519,903 (65.0%); Y No: 3,230,261 (35.6%) 5,428,003 (58.2%); Yes: No: 3,902,220 (41.8%) 4,813,324 (52.7%); Yes: No: 4,321,576 (47.3%) Y No: 4,061,722 (45.2%) Y No: 3,929,062 (42.3%) 5,651,376 (61.2%); Yes: No: 3,578,516 (38.8%) Y No: 3,558,140 (38.9%) 6,621,966 (71.7%); Yes: No: 2,619,300 (28.3%) 5,601,764 (62.4%); Yes: No: 3,375,935 (37.6%) Yes: 2,640,711 (49.99%); Yes: No: 2,641,256 (50.01%) Y No: 1,899,245 (35.0%) 3,607,813 (67.6%); Yes: No: 1,731,881 (32.4%) 3,019,481 (56.1%); Yes: No: 2,358,551 (43.9%) Yes: 5,405,385 (78.7%); 5,405,385 (78.7%); Yes: No: 1,466,214 (21.3%) 4,038,085 (59.4%); Yes: No: 2,751,378 (40.6%) 3,531,629 (65.2%); Yes: No: 1,889,346 (34.9%) ass ass ass ass ass Pass P Pass P Pass Pass P Pass P P Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Fail No. (millions) hool hool ater OVEMBER 4, 1986 GENERAL OVEMBER 4, AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 Library Prison Housing W Water Water Prison School Sc Earth- quake Veterans Transport Sc Environ Water School Purpose Pass/ Purpose Votes Prop Title Amount NOVEMBER 8, 1988 GENERAL JUNE 7, 1988 PRIMAR JUNE 7, 1988 N ••• 110 ••• APPENDIX B: BOND MEASURES, 1978-2004

Purpose Pass/ Votes Prop Title Amount Fail No. (millions)

JUNE 5, 1990 PRIMARY Housing Pass Yes: 2,613,414 (52.5%); 107 Housing And Homeless Bond Act Of 1990 $150 No: 2,396,377 (47.5%) Transport Pass Yes: 2,795,092 (56.3%); 108 Passenger Rail And Clean Air Bond Act Of $1,000 No: 2,170,876 (43.7%) 1990 Transport Pass Yes: 2,579,810 (53.3%); 116 Rail Transportation. Bond Act. $1,990 No: 2,263,573 (46.7%) Prison Pass Yes: 2,714,145 (56.0%); 120 New Prison Construction Bond Act Of $450 No: 2,133,995 (44.0%) 1990 School Pass Yes: 2,687,831 (55.0%); 121 Higher Education Facilities Bond Act Of $450 No: 2,195,888 (45.0%) June 1990 Earth- Pass Yes: 2,679,875 (55.0%); 122 Earthquake Safety And Public Buildings $300 quake No: 2,190,057 (45.0%) Rehabilitation Bond Act Of 1990 School Pass Yes: 2,781,973 (57.5%); 123 1990 School Facilities Bond Act $800 No: 2,054,385 (42.5%)

NOVEMBER 6, 1990 GENERAL Environ Fail Yes: 2,636,663 (35.7%); 128 Environment. Public Health. Bonds. $300 No: 4,760,022 (64.3%) Prison Fail Yes: 1,982,372 (27.6%); 129 Drug Enforcement, Prevention, Treatment, $740 No: 5,192,742 (72.4%) Prisons. Bonds. Environ Fail Yes: 3,528,887 (47.9%); 130 Forest Acquisition. Timber Harvesting $742 No: 3,842,733 (52.1%) Practices. Bond Act. Environ Fail Yes: 2,108,389 (28.8%); 138 Forestry Programs. Timber Harvesting $300 No: 5,201,891 (71.2%) Practices. Veterans Pass Yes: 4,153,879 (59.01%); 142 Veterans' Bond Act of 1990 $400 No: 2,884,851 (40.99%)

A School Fail Yes: 3,449,401 (48.8%); 143 Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of $450 S No: 3,619,457 (51.2%) November 1990 U Prison Fail Yes: 2,871,183 (40.4%); 144 New Prison Construction Bond Act of $450 S

P No: 4,239,091 (59.6%) 1990-B I Housing Fail Yes: 3,113,975 (44.4%); 145 California Housing Bond Act of 1990 $125 H

S No: 3,904,145 (55.6%)

R School Pass Yes: 3,679,099 (51.8%); 146 School Facilities Bond Act of 1990 $800 E No: 3,324,276 (48.2 %) N

T Prison Fail Yes: 2,574,002 (37.3%); 147 County Correctional Facility Capital $225 R No: 4,329,678 (62.7%) Expenditure and Juvenile Facility Bond Act A

P of 1990 Water Fail Yes: 3,024,141 (43.8%); 148 Water Resources Bond Act of 1990 $380 G No: 3,886,587 (56.2%) N I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $9,200 $995 $437 $200 $30 $1,900 $900 $2,000 $1,000 $900 $2,000 acilities Bond Act of acilities Bond une 1994. Class Size Reduction Kindergarten-University Act Bond ofPublic Education Facilities 1998. Safe, Clean, Supply Water Act. Reliable Earthquake Relief and Seismic Retrofit Earthquake Act of 1994. Bond Act of 1994. Safe Schools Act of Bond Higher Education Facilities J Lands,Park Historic Sites, and Wildlife Act. Bond Conservation Forest Act of Air Bond Rail and Clean Passenger 1994. Act of 1996. Bond Seismic Retrofit Public Education F 1996. California Park, Recreation,Wildlife and Act of 1990Enhancement Capital Facility County Courthouse Act of 1990 Bond Expenditure 1990 Act of Financing Facilities Child Care Act of 1992 Bond Facilities School Act of Bond Higher Education Facilities 1992 June ••• ••• 111 111 1A 204 1A 1B 1C 180 181 192 203 149 150 151 152 153 ••• ••• •• ••• Y Y Y APPENDIX B:APPENDIX MEASURES, BOND 1978-2004 es: 3,542,816 (61.5%); Yes: 3,347,257 (59.9%); Yes: No: 2,239,191 (40.1%) Y No: 2,175,917 (38.5%) 4,886,570 (62.5%); Yes: No: 2,934,131 (37.5%) 6,019,951 (62.9%); Yes: No: 3,560,084 (37.1%) Yes: 21,109,103 (47.4%); Yes: No: 2,338,608 (52.6%) 1,944,530 (43.3%); Yes: No: 2,548,642 (56.7%) 2,791,681 (34.9%); Yes: No: 5,203,161 (65.1%) Yes: 3,119,441 (52.9%); Yes: No: 2,774,699 (47.1%) 2,967,657 (50.8%); Yes: No: 2,869,403 (49.2%) 2,067,707 (45.7%); Yes: No: 2,457,475 (54.3%) 2,229,596 (49.6%); Yes: No: 2,268,662 (50.4%) Yes: 3,330,877 (47.1%); 3,330,877 (47.1%); Yes: No: 3,743,765 (52.9%) 1,830,612 (26.4%); Yes: No: 5,100,520 (73.6%) 3,360,443 (47.5%); Yes: No: 3,719,971 (52.5%) ass Pass Pass Pass P Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Fail No. (millions) hool OVEMBER 6, 1990 GENERAL OVEMBER 6, AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 Water School Sc Earth- quake Transport Environ School School Transport School School Children Environ Prison Purpose Pass/ Purpose Votes Prop Title Amount NOVEMBER 5, 1996 GENERAL MARCH 26, 1996 PRIMAR NOVEMBER 8, 1994 GENERAL JUNE 8, 1994 PRIMAR JUNE 2, 1992 PRIMAR N ••• 112 ••• APPENDIX B: BOND MEASURES, 1978-2004

Purpose Pass/ Votes Prop Title Amount Fail No. (millions)

NOVEMBER 5, 1996 GENERAL Prison Fail Yes: 3,834,745 (40.6%); 205 Youthful and Adult Offender Local Facilities $700 No: 5,606,214 (59.4%) Bond Act of 1996. Veterans Pass Yes: 4,993,677 (53.6%); 206 Veterans' Bond Act of 1996. $400 No: 4,330,354 (46.4%)

MARCH 7, 2000 PRIMARY Water Pass Yes: 4,657,600 (63.2%); 12 Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, $2,100 No: 2,722,030 (36.8%) Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000. (The Villaraigosa- Keeley Act) Water Pass Yes: 4,745,872 (64.8%); 13 Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Water-shed $1,970 No: 2,547,456 (35.2%) Protection, and Flood Protection Bond Act. Library Pass Yes: 4,298,471 (59.0%); 14 California Reading and Literacy Improvement $350 No: 2,994,289 (41.0%) and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000. Prison Fail Yes: 3,265,416 (46.3%); 15 The Hertzberg-Polanco Crime Laboratories $220 No: 3,772,513 (53.7%) Construction Bond Act of 1999. Veterans Pass Yes: 4,402,818 (62.3%); 16 Veterans' Homes Bond Act of 2000. $50 No: 2,665,311 (37.7%)

NOVEMBER 7, 2000 GENERAL Veterans Pass Yes: 6,743,986 (67.2%); 32 Veterans' Bond Act of 2000. $500 No: 3,294,310 (32.8%)

MARCH 5, 2002 PRIMARY Water Pass Yes: 2,776,345 (56.9%); 40 Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood $2,600 No: 2,108,512 (43.1%) Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002.

A Misc Pass Yes: 2,481,027 (51.6%); 41 Voting Modernization Bond Act of 2002. $200 S No: 2,332,512 (48.4%) (Shelley- Hertzberg Act.) U S

P NOVEMBER 5, 2002 GENERAL I Housing Pass Yes: 3,895,071 (57.5%); 46 Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund $2,100 H

S No: 2,880,506 (42.5%) Act of 2002

R School Pass Yes: 4,044,743 (59.0%); 47 Kindergarten-University Public Education $13,050 E No: 2,809,844 (41.0%) Facilities Bond Act of 2002 N

T Water Pass Yes: 3,727,561 (55.4%); 50 Water Quality, Supply and Safe Drinking $3,440 R No: 3,006,792 (44.6%) Water Projects. Coastal Wetlands Purchase A

P and Protection G N I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA $12,300 $15,000 $750 $3,000 AL PROPOSED $113,887 TOT TOTAL APPROVEDTOTAL $98,573 ogram ogram Kindergarten -University Public Education Kindergarten -University Act of 2004 Bond Facilities Act Bond Economic Recovery The Hospital Projects.Children's Grant Pr Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds ••• ••• 113 113 55 57 61 71 ••• ••• •• ••• Y APPENDIX B:APPENDIX MEASURES, BOND 1978-2004 Yes: 6,965,423 (59.1%); Yes: No: 4,829,908 (40.9%) Yes: 3,181,725 (50.8%); 3,181,725 (50.8%); Yes: No: 3,076,099 (49.2%) 3,991,044 (63.3%); Yes: No: 2,312,254 (36.7%) 6,577,304 (58.3%); Yes: No: 4,713,881 (41.7%) Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail No. (millions) ARCH 2, 2004 PRIMAR ARCH 2, 2004 AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 Misc Children School Misc Purpose Pass/ Purpose Votes Prop Title Amount NOVEMBER 2, 2004 GENERAL NOVEMBER 2, M ••• 114 ••• APPENDIX C: CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT RATES, 1978-2004

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Data, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (Seasonally Adjusted), http://www.bls.gov/data/

Year Period Unemployment Year Period Unemployment Year Period Unemployment Rate Rate Rate

1978 Jan 7.5 1979 Nov 6.1 1981 Sep 7.6 1978 Feb 7.5 1979 Dec 6.2 1981 Oct 7.9 1978 Mar 7.5 1980 Jan 6.2 1981 Nov 8.1 1978 Apr 7.5 1980 Feb 6.2 1981 Dec 8.5 1978 May 7.4 1980 Mar 6.3 1982 Jan 8.8 1978 Jun 7.3 1980 Apr 6.7 1982 Feb 9.0 1978 Jul 7.3 1980 May 7.0 1982 Mar 9.3 1978 Aug 7.1 1980 Jun 7.2 1982 Apr 9.7 1978 Sep 6.9 1980 Jul 7.1 1982 May 9.8 1978 Oct 6.7 1980 Aug 7.3 1982 Jun 9.9

A 1978 Nov 6.6 1980 Sep 7.2 1982 Jul 10.2 S 1978 Dec 6.6 1980 Oct 7.2 1982 Aug 10.4 U 1979 Jan 6.5 1980 Nov 7.1 1982 Sep 10.5 S

P 1979 Feb 6.4 1980 Dec 6.9 1982 Oct 10.7 I

H 1979 Mar 6.3 1981 Jan 7.0 1982 Nov 11.0

S 1979 Apr 6.3 1981 Feb 7.2 1982 Dec 11.0 R

E 1979 May 6.2 1981 Mar 7.1 1983 Jan 10.9

N 1979 Jun 6.1 1981 Apr 7.1 1983 Feb 11.0 T

R 1979 Jul 6.1 1981 May 7.0 1983 Mar 10.8

A 1979 Aug 6.3 1981 Jun 7.0 1983 Apr 10.5 P 1979 Sep 6.3 1981 Jul 7.2 1983 May 10.4 G 1979 Oct 6.3 1981 Aug 7.4 1983 Jun 10.0 N I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA 7.9 8.1 8.3 8.5 9.0 8.9 8.9 9.2 9.4 9.5 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.8 9.9 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.3 6.6 6.8 7.1 7.3 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.9 y y v un an Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Dec J Feb Mar Apr Ma Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Ma J Jul Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct No 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1990 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1989 1989 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.2 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.2 6.2 6.0 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.7 ••• ••• 115 115 v eb eb un ul un Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Oct No Dec Jan F Mar Apr May J J Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan F Mar Apr May Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May J Jul Aug Sep ••• ••• •• ••• 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1988 1988 1986 1986 1986 1986 1987 1987 1987 1987 6.9 6.9 6.7 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.8 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.2 8.1 7.9 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.3 9.7 9.5 9.1 8.9 8.7 8.6 8.3 8.2 Rate Rate Rate APPENDIX C: CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT RATES, UNEMPLOYMENT C: CALIFORNIA APPENDIX 1978-2004 y v an Jun Jul Aug J Feb Mar Apr May Aug Sep Oct No Dec Mar Apr Ma Jun Jul Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb May Jun Jul Aug Sep Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Year Period Unemployment Year Period Unemployment Period Year Unemployment Period Year Period Unemployment Year AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1985 1986 1986 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1984 1985 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1983 1983 1984 1983 1983 1983 1983 ••• 116 ••• APPENDIX C: CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT RATES, 1978-2004

Year Period Unemployment Year Period Unemployment Year Period Unemployment Rate Rate Rate

1993 Jan 9.9 1996 Mar 7.7 1999 May 5.2 1993 Feb 9.8 1996 Apr 7.6 1999 Jun 5.2 1993 Mar 9.7 1996 May 7.4 1999 Jul 5.1 1993 Apr 9.6 1996 Jun 7.4 1999 Aug 5.1 1993 May 9.6 1996 Jul 7.3 1999 Sep 5.0 1993 Jun 9.6 1996 Aug 7.2 1999 Oct 5.0 1993 Jul 9.5 1996 Sep 7.1 1999 Nov 5.0 1993 Aug 9.4 1996 Oct 7.0 1999 Dec 5.1 1993 Sep 9.4 1996 Nov 7.0 2000 Jan 5.0 1993 Oct 9.4 1996 Dec 6.9 2000 Feb 5.0 1993 Nov 9.3 1997 Jan 6.9 2000 Mar 5.1 1993 Dec 9.3 1997 Feb 6.7 2000 Apr 5.0 1994 Jan 9.3 1997 Mar 6.6 2000 May 5.1 1994 Feb 9.2 1997 Apr 6.5 2000 Jun 5.0 1994 Mar 9.0 1997 May 6.4 2000 Jul 5.0 1994 Apr 8.9 1997 Jun 6.4 2000 Aug 5.0 1994 May 8.9 1997 Jul 6.3 2000 Sep 4.9 1994 Jun 8.8 1997 Aug 6.3 2000 Oct 4.8 1994 Jul 8.6 1997 Sep 6.3 2000 Nov 4.8 1994 Aug 8.5 1997 Oct 6.2 2000 Dec 4.8 1994 Sep 8.3 1997 Nov 6.1 2001 Jan 4.7 1994 Oct 8.1 1997 Dec 6.2 2001 Feb 4.7 1994 Nov 7.9 1998 Jan 6.1 2001 Mar 4.8 1994 Dec 7.9 1998 Feb 6.1 2001 Apr 5.0 1995 Jan 8.1 1998 Mar 6.0 2001 May 5.1 1995 Feb 7.8 1998 Apr 6.0 2001 Jun 5.3

A 1995 Mar 7.8 1998 May 6.0 2001 Jul 5.4 S 1995 Apr 7.8 U 1998 Jun 5.9 2001 Aug 5.6 1995 May 7.9 1998 Jul 5.9 2001 Sep 5.8 S

P 1995 Jun 7.8 1998 Aug 5.9 2001 Oct 6.0 I

H 1995 Jul 7.9 1998 Sep 6.0 2001 Nov 6.3 S 1995 Aug 7.9 1998 Oct 5.9 2001 Dec 6.4 R

E 1995 Sep 7.8 1998 Nov 5.8 2002 Jan 6.5

N 1995 Oct 7.8 1998 Dec 5.9 2002 Feb 6.6 T

R 1995 Nov 7.9 1999 Jan 5.7 2002 Mar 6.7

A 1995 Dec 7.8 1999 Feb 5.6 2002 Apr 6.7 P 1996 Jan 7.8 1999 Mar 5.6 2002 May 6.7 G 1996 Feb 7.7 1999 Apr 5.4 2002 Jun 6.8 N I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA Rate Rate ••• ••• 117 117 ••• ••• •• ••• Year Period Unemployment Period Year Unemployment Period Year 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.8 Rate APPENDIX C: CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT RATES, UNEMPLOYMENT C: CALIFORNIA APPENDIX 1978-2004 y an Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mar Apr Ma Jun Jul Oct Nov Dec J Feb May Jun Jul Aug Sep Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Year Period Unemployment Unemployment Period Year AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2003 2004 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2002 2002 2003 2002 2002 2002 2002 ••• 118 ••• INDEX

6 American Lung Association · 49, 51 60-Plus Association · 25 Assembly Bill 80 (AB 80), 1967 · 14 Association of California School Administrators · A 75 Action for Better Cities · 91 Association of California Water Agencies · 21 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians ·80 Association of Concerned Taxpayers · 73 Alatorre, Richard · 20 Association to Aid Victims of Domestic Violence alcohol companies · 11, 13, 54, 65, 66, 67, 68, · 29 69, 70 Atlantic Richfield · See oil companies Adolph Coors Company · 53 Audubon Society · 21, 23, 32, 77 Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc. · 53, 91 Avery International · 69 Bacardi Corporation ·53 Beer Institute ·53 B Brown-Forman Corp. · 53 Bank of America · 15, 44, 47 California Beer & Beverage Distributors · 91 benefit assessment districts · 11, 86, 89, 96 California Beer & Wine Wholesalers ·53 Bergeson, Marian · 36 Distilled Spirits Council of the Unites States Betty Ford Center · 74 Inc. · 91 Beverly, Robert · 77 Glenmore Distilleries · 53 Bing, Stephen · 51, 76 Guinness America Inc. · 53 Black Chamber of Commerce of Los Angeles Heublein Inc. · 53 County · 31 Hiram Walker & Sons · 53 Boland, Paula · 34 Jim Beam Brands Co. · 53 bond measures · 8, 9, 12, 18-38, 42, 46, 73, 77, Miller Brewing Company · 53 84-85, 94-96, 107-113 National Beer Wholesalers Association Inc. · childrens facilities bond measures ·8, 18, 26-27, 53 38 Wine Institute ·53, 91 earthquake retrofitting bond measures ·8, 18,

A alcohol taxes · See targeted taxes 26-28, 38 S Allen, Doris · 79 environmental bond measures · 8, 18, 30-32, U Alliance of California Taxpayers and Involved 38, 95 S

P Voters · 44 general obligation bonds · 9, 18, 83, 83-84, 92 I

H Alpert, Deirdre W. · 31 housing bond measures · 8, 18, 29-30, 38

S Alquist, Alfred E. · 34, 47 library bond measures · 8, 18, 29-31, 38 R

E American Academy of Pediatrics · 91 prison bond measures · 8, 18, 33-34, 38

N American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) school bond measures · 8, 9-11, 18-19, 23-25, T

R · 21, 29, 32, 39, 76, 85, 86, 91 38, 92-93, 95 A

P American Association of University Women · 76 transportation bond measures · 8, 11, 18, 35- American Cancer Society · 49, 51 36, 38 G

N American Diabetes Association · 38 veterans bond measures ·8, 18-20, 38, 95 I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA Association · 47, ches · 28, · ches 69, 91 ys olice and Sheriffs · 72 Nurses Association · 47 Nurses Association · 47, 79-80, Patrol · 27,Patrol 80 y Attorne y a Chiefs e ir 81 58 48 88 53 Association · 40, 43, 46, 74, 75 Economic Balance · 32 Agencies · 43 75 · 74 29 Commission · 48 75-76, · California Homeless Coalition · 28 California Hospitals Committee · 53 AFL-CIO · 25, Federation California Labor 29, California Grape & Tree Fruit League · 77 Fruit Tree & California Grape Association · 77 California Grocers Association · 43 California Healthcare California Highw California Conservation Campaign · 80 California Conservation · Abuse Councils of Child California Consortium Officers Peace California Correctional and California Council for Environmental California Council of Chur Mental Health California Council of Community California Council of P California District California F California Coalition for Mental Health ·53 Coalition for Mental California Club · 47 Commerce California Aging · 44 on California Commission on Education Quality · California Commission of Small Business Owners California Committee · Corporation California Economic Development Medical Services California Emergency California Emergenc California Farm Bureau Federation · 77 Federation Bureau California Farm · 42,Teachers of California Federation 44, 69, California Emergency Physicians Medical Group Physicians California Emergency ••• ••• 119 119 INDEX 40 y ••• ••• •• ••• 36 ysicians · 43 · Ph d Association ·29, y y amil ces Boar of F y ysicians · 53 Ph y Association · 48 Abortion Rights Action League · 34 Abortion Rights Academ Air Resour 39, 53, 55, 72, 79 Number Emergenc Corps · 32 52 Abuse Counselors · 74 34 35, Association · 35 California 1975-1983 ·14,California 1975-1983 56, 82 1959-1967 ·23, 35, 69 · 38 present California Chapter of the National Emergenc · 29 Women California Coalition for Battered California Business Alliance · 42 California Business California Business League · 72 ·21,California Business Roundtable 85 American College California Chapter of California Association of Local Conservation California Association of Realtors · 29 California · Tobacconists Association of Retail California California Building Industr California Association of Alcoholism and Drug Association of California · Directors Association of Crime Lab California · Patrolmen Association of Highway California California California Officers Control Air Pollution California California C water bond measures ·8, bond measures water 18, 19, 20-23, 38, 95 Brown, Dennis · 35 Brown, Edmund G.Jr., 'Jerry' of Governor Brown, Edmund G. 'Pat', of California Governor Brown, Jr., L. Willie · 27, 29 Brownstein, Bob · 12 Brulte, 34 Jim · Statistics · 38, of Labor Bureau 114 Bush,W., George of the U.S. President 2000- AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 ••• 120 ••• INDEX

79, 81 (PTA) ·23, 25, 30, 42, 43, 62, 75, 76, 79, California League of Conservation Voters · 77, 85, 86, 88, 91 91 California State Park Rangers Association · 32 California Library Association · 31 California State Sheriffs Association ·29, 34, 48, California Manufacturers Association · 21, 42, 76, 78 79, 81, 85 California Tax Reform Association · 44, 75, 78, California Medical Association · 47, 48, 50 81, 88, 91 California Medical PAC · 69 California Taxpayers Association · 15, 21, 25, California Mortgage Bankers Association · 29 27, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39, 42, 48, 72, 75, California Nurses Association · 29, 43, 53, 58, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 86, 89, 91, 92 74 California Taxpayers Coalition · 23, 25 California Organization of Police and Sheriffs · California Teachers Association ·23, 25, 29, 42, 22, 31, 32, 34, 47, 80, 85 43, 72, 75, 76, 80, 85, 89 California Park and Recreation Society · 53, 77 California Transit Association · 36 California Peace Officers Association · 34, 46 California Transportation Commission · 35, 79 California Police Chiefs Association · 34, 43, 46, California Union of Safety Employees · 34 88 California Waterfowl Association · 77 California Primary Care Association ·47, 48 California Wildlife Federation · 77 California Professional Firefighters ·29, 34, 42, Cannella, Sal · 34 44, 47, 85, 88 Cedars Sinai Health Associates · 58 California Public Interest Research Group · 37 Center for the California Taxpayer · 32, 47 California Public Securities Association · 91 Chamber of Commerce, California State · 9, 15, California Real Estate Association (CREA) · 16 21, 25, 27, 29, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 42, 73, California Republican Party · 52 78, 79, 81, 83, 84-86, 91, 92 California School Boards Association · 75, 79 Chamber of Commerce, Hispanic · 85 California School Employees Association · 75 Chamber of Commerce, Los Angeles · 22, 23, California Seismic Safety Commission · 27 29

A California Sexual Assault Investigators Chevron Oil · See oil companies S Association · 74 Chief Probation Officers of California · 74 U California Small Business Roundtable · 91 childrens facilities bond measures · See bond S

P California Society of Addiction Medicine · 74 measures I

H California State Association of Counties · 78 City and County of San Francisco v. Farrell, State

S California State Automobile Association · 80 Supreme Court decision, 1982 · 86-88 R

E California State Board of Education · 75, 80 Clean Water Action · 91

N California State Council of Laborers · 21 Cluff, Lloyd S. · 27 T

R California State Council of Service Employees Clute, Steve · 20, 24 A

P (SEIU) · 53, 81 Committee to Protect the Political Rights of California State Employees Association · 43 Minorities · 69 G

N California State Parent Teachers Association Common Cause · 15, 37, 69, 72, 88 I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA 41, 47, 87, 88, 89 39, 77 · inancial Corporation · 47 inancial Corporation y err Brett · 32 Brett T estern F W al taxes · 11, 25 87, 89, 92 118 44 58 amendi, ·31, John 32, 35, 36, 39 eat een Stripe Media · 79 anlund, riedman, riends of Earth · 72 oundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights · and Consumer Rights Taxpayer oundation for Exxon · See oil companies Exxon · F gas taxes · 35, 39, 95 income taxes · 42, 43, 62, 69, 95 Getty Oil · See oil companies Goldberg, · 6, Lenny 44 Gr Gr Gr Gulf Oil · See oil companies Gann Limit · See Proposition 4,Gann Limit · See Proposition 1979 November Gann, · 7, Paul 15, 32, 46, 62, 65, 82, 83, 86, Gar taxes gas taxes · See general Gates, Bill · 38 Gautreau, N. Paul · 34 · 10, obligation bonds general 18, 83, 84, 92, gener Fazio, Vic, U.S.35 · Congressmember Associations · of Minority Business Federation Feinstein, Dianne, U.S. Senator · 35 Ferguson, Gil · 47 Filante, Bill · 21 associations · 67 firefighters' Floyd, · 27 Richard Folino, · 76 Paul Fonda, · 50 Jane F Fox, J. Michael · 38 F F G ••• ••• 121 121 INDEX ••• ••• •• ••• 23, 32, 77, 81 vices · 72 oups ·21, es ildlife · 77 arty · 84 W ong · 72 F h atic P c Delaine · 25 ree America Foundation · 74 America Foundation ree es 20, 21, 34, 85 onmental gr deh, · 35 Wadie Mar ur bond measur 1983-1991 ·23, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35,83 39, 75, · 37, 44, 48, 69, 72, 73, 78, 80 vir Excellence through choice in Education League · choice Excellence through Eu, en Eastin, · 29 Corporation Economic Development · 53 Medical PAC Emergency · 76 Emulex Corporation bond meas- · See bond measures environmental earthquake retrofitting bond measures · See bond measures retrofitting earthquake Dutra, · 20 John E Democratic Central Committee · 73 Central Democratic Democr Department of Health Ser Deukmejian, George, of California, Governor Dickerson, Dick · 22 · 69 DiGiorgio Corporation Drug F Davis, Ed · 34, 77, 88 Davis, Gray, of California, Governor 1999-2003 Ded Defenders of Congress of California Seniors ·25, Seniors of California Congress 28, 29, 31, Connelly, · 77 Lloyd · 85 of California Consumer Federation · 69 Consumers Union Cortese, L. Dominic · 27, 84 Costa, 35, Jim · 79 Fund · 53 Counties' Preservation Craven, · 84 William D AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 ••• 122 ••• INDEX

Jarvis, Howard ·7, 10, 15, 16, 22, 25, 29, 32, H 37, 39, 41, 43, 62, 76, 77, 79, 80, 85, 90, Habitat for Humanity · 29 91 Hallett, Carol · 82, 84 Johannsen, K. Maurice · 20 Hammer, Susan · 25 Jones, Bill · 37 Hart, Gary K. · 25 Justice for Murder Victims · 34 Hauser, Dan · 25 Hayden, Tom · 50 K Hayes, Thomas · 35 Katz, Richard · 77 Haynes, Ray · 22, 29, 31, 32, 43 Keene, Barry · 30 Health Access · 80 Klehs, Johan · 34 Health Action Committee · 53 Knight, WM. J. · 25 health care taxes · See targeted taxes Knox, John T. · 13 Hertzberg, Robert · 34, 37 Koop, Dr. C. Everett · 51 Heston, Charlton · 51 Kopp, Quentin L. · 36 Hewlett Packard · 42 Hillwood Development Group, L.P. · 80 L Holmdahl, John ·84 labor unions ·43, 47, 60, 72, 73, 80, 91 Honig, Bill · 23, 46, 82 Laborers AFL-CIO International Union ·25, 29, Horcher, Paul V. · 29 79, 81 House, George · 27 Laffer, Dr. Arthur · 60 housing bond measures · See bond measures League for Coastal Protection · 23 Houston, Thomas K. · 72 League of Women Voters · 35, 37, 42,56, 62, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association ·10, 22, 69, 72, 76, 80, 85, 88, 89, 91 25, 29, 32, 37, 39, 41, 76, 77, 80, 85, 90, League to Save Lake Tahoe · 31 91 Leonard, Bill · 24, 28, 46 Libertarian Party · 20, 21, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30,

A I 34, 79 S IBM · 15 local taxes ·3, 10, 62, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, U Imbrecht, Charles R. · 31 93, 99, 100, 102 S

P income tax credits · 43, 61, 62, 103 Lockheed · 15 I

H income taxes · See general taxes Lockyer, Bill · 34, 35

S Indian Motorcycle · 76 Los Angeles Police Department · 46, 88 R

E inflation · 7, 10, 14, 15, 53, 62, 63, 74, 80, 86 Los Angeles Times · 37, 48, 52

N Institute for the Study of Politics & Media · 73 Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital · 27 T

R insurance companies · 43, 44, 58, 69 A

P Irvine Company · 44, 79 M Maddy, Ken · 30 G

N J McCain, John, U.S. Senator · 72 I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA es 63,66, es · 9, es · See bond measur holas C. · 13 Max · 72 46 , y Nic y, Robert · 26, 34, 77 42, 41, 69, 77, 79, 80 Control · 75 Control · 77, 96 dee Construction · 80 Exxon · 56,Exxon · 91 Getty · 56 Gulf · 56 Mobil · 56 Mobile · 91 Shell · 42, 56 Oil · 15,Standard 56 · 56 Tenneco · 42 Texaco Union oil · 42 esle operty tax adjustment measur alevsk ar etris, oil taxes · See targeted taxes Oller, Rico · 25 Oropeza, · 73 Jenny · 38 Our Bodies Ourselves P pr Peace, · 21 Steve Perenchio, · 76 Jerry Pescetti, · 29 Anthony · 77 Watch Pesticide pesticides · 77 P PG&E · 47, 43 League · 21,Planning and Conservation 23, 27, Polanco, · 34, Richard 74, 105, 112 Pr prison bond measur Pacific Institute for Women's Health · 38 Women's Institute for Pacific P P and Educators for Local Parents, Teachers Gann's Citizens Committee · 32,Paul 46 Association · 91 Officers Research Peace Association of California Officers Research Peace ••• ••• 123 123 INDEX ••• ••• •• ••• 118 56, 43, 44, 47, 56, 57, 90, 72 42, ancy Action Fund · 21, ancy 22, 23, hfield · 42, v evin · 79 K 97 Conser Ralph · 58, , y , e al Resources Defense Council · 77 Defense Council al Resources ay, Jr, H. Willard · 34 a 94, 32 Parkinson's Action Network · 38 Network Action Parkinson's 42 27, 29, 31, 32, 37, 43, 69, 80 Fund · 67 Atlantic Ric Chevron · 40,Chevron 42, 47, 91 oil companies ·39, Nader Nolan, ·23 Pat O National Coalition for Cancer Research and National Coalition for Cancer Research · 69 Women National Council of Jewish · 91 National Council of Senior Citizens of Independent Business · National Federation · 76 Women National Organization of Limitation Committee · 21,Tax National 22, 25, · 21, Federation Wildlife National 23 Natur Natur McCarthy, · 46 Leo McClintock, · 36, Tom 37, 38 · 69 Corporation McKesson Association in California · 43 Mental Health American Legal Defense & Educational Mexican · 72 Miller, Tony companies Mobil Oil · See oil & Co · 69 Morgan Stanley Morgan, Q. Rebecca · 26 Morrow, Bill · 37, 73 · 77 Mountain Lion Foundation Mountjoy, Dennis · 37 Mountjoy, L. Richard · 35, 47 Murr Murr N AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 ••• 124 ••• INDEX

Proposition 1, November 1973 · 14 Proposition 15, March 2000 · 34 Proposition 1, June 1978 · 23 Proposition 16, March 2000 · 20 Proposition 1, June 1980 · 31 Proposition 20, March 2000 · 75 Proposition 1, November 1980 · 31 Proposition 23, June 1984 · 66 Proposition 1, November 1998 · 66 Proposition 25, March 2000 · 72, 73 Proposition 1A, June 1994 · 27 Proposition 25, November 1984 · 21 Proposition 1A, November 1998 · 23, 25 Proposition 26, March 2000 · 10, 84, 85, 92, 93 Proposition 1A, November 2004 · 78 Proposition 28, March 2000 · 9, 52, 62 Proposition 1B, March 1994 · 25 Proposition 29, November 1984 · 20 Proposition 1C, March 1994 · 25 Proposition 30, November 1984 · 35 Proposition 2, November 1980 · 31 Proposition 31, November 1984 · 67 Proposition 2, November 1998 · 79 Proposition 32, November 2000 · 20 Proposition 3, June 1978 · 66 Proposition 33, November 1984 · 63 Proposition 3, June 1982 · 20, 66 Proposition 34, November 1984 · 67 Proposition 3, November 1979 · 66 Proposition 34, November 2000 · 73 Proposition 4, November 1979 · 10, 82 Proposition 36, November 1984 · 9, 62, 86, 87, Proposition 4, November 1980 · 10, 84, 92 88, 93 Proposition 4, November 1982 · 32 Proposition 36, November 2000 · 73, 74 Proposition 5, June 1982 · 62 Proposition 39, November 2000 · 10, 85, 92, 93 Proposition 5, November 1980 · 65 Proposition 40, March 2002 · 21, 22, 23 Proposition 5, November 1982 · 28 Proposition 41, March 2002 · 37 Proposition 6, June 1982 · 62 Proposition 42, March 2002 · 79, 80 Proposition 7, June 1982 · 62 Proposition 46, June 1986 · 10, 84, 92 Proposition 7, November 1980 · 66 Proposition 46, November 2002 · 28, 29 Proposition 7, November 1982 · 66 Proposition 47, June 1986 · 78 Proposition 8, June 1978 · 15, 16 Proposition 47, November 2002 · 23, 25 Proposition 8, November 1978 · 64, 65 Proposition 49, November 2002 · 75, 76

A Proposition 8, November 1998 · 75, 76 Proposition 50, June 1986 · 65 S Proposition 9, June 1980 · 9, 60, 61, 62, 87 Proposition 50, November 2002 · 19, 22 U Proposition 10, November 1998 · 9, 51, 52, 61, Proposition 53, October 2003 · 77 S

P 62, 105 Proposition 55, March 2004 · 23, 25 I

H Proposition 11, June 1980 · 56, 57, 58 Proposition 56, November 1986 · 23

S Proposition 12, March 2000 · 21, 32 Proposition 56, March 2004 · 11, 91, 95 R

E Proposition 13, June 1978 · 7, 8, 12, 13-17, 10, Proposition 57, March 2004 · 18, 37, 38, 73, 81,

N 11, 18, 42, 49, 60, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 82, 83, 84 T

R 84, 85, 86, 87, 90, 92, 96 Proposition 58, March 2004 · 68, 73, 83, 84 A

P Proposition 13, March 2000 · 21 Proposition 58, November 1986 · 64 Proposition 14, March 2000 · 31 Proposition 60, November 1986 · 63 G

N Proposition 14, November 1964 · 16 Proposition 60A, November 2004 · 73, 81 I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA 21 68 ember 1990 · 20, ember 1990 · 34 ember 1990 · 26 vember 1993 · 65 1993 vember v v v une 1994 · 32 une 1994 · 66, J No 1994 · 64 June J No No No 90 47 72, 73 56, 58 88, 90, 93, 89 95 56, oposition 180, oposition 171, oposition 177, oposition 178, oposition 147, 1990 · 34 November oposition 148, oposition 150, oposition 151, oposition 160, 1992 · 66 November Pr 181,Proposition 1994 · 36 November Pr 172,Proposition 1993 · 42, November 45, 46, 173,Proposition 1993 · 29 November 175,Proposition 1994 · 62 June Pr Pr Proposition 131,Proposition 1990 · 68, November 70, 71, 133,Proposition 1990 · 45, November 46, 47 134,Proposition · 53, 1990 November 54, 55, 135,Proposition 1990 · 77, November 81 136,Proposition 1990 · 9, November 11, 54, 55, 138,Proposition 1990 · 32 November 142,Proposition 1990 · 19, November 23 143,Proposition 1990 · 23 November 144,Proposition 1990 · 34 November 145,Proposition 1990 · 29 November 146,Proposition 1990 · 23 November Pr Pr Proposition 149,Proposition 1990 · 32 November Pr Pr 152,Proposition 25 1992 · March 153,Proposition 25 1992 · March 154,Proposition 1992 · 66 June 155,Proposition 1992 · 25 November 156,Proposition 1992 · 36 November Pr 163,Proposition 1992 · 62 November 165,Proposition 1992 · 43, November 90, 91, 167,Proposition 1992 · 42, November 43, 44, ••• ••• 125 125 INDEX ••• ••• •• ••• 34 ember 1990 · 33, ember 1990 · 32, 56, 77 v v ember 1988 · 67 ember 1988 · 30 ember 1988 · 28 v v v une 1990 · 35, 36 No November 1990 · 66 November No J No No No 53, 56, 76 83 76, 83 52, 93 oposition 129, oposition 128, oposition 127, oposition 116, oposition 87, oposition 85, oposition 84, oposition 77, 1988 · 27 March Proposition 130,Proposition 1990 · 32 November Pr Pr Proposition 117,Proposition 1990 · 76, June 77 122,Proposition 1990 · 27 June 125,Proposition 1990 · 79 November 126,Proposition 1990 · 53, November 54, 55 Pr Proposition 107,Proposition 28 1990 · March 108,Proposition 1990 · 35 June 110,Proposition 1990 · 63 June 111,Proposition 1990 · 10, June 39, 40, 41, 56, Pr Proposition 90,Proposition 1988 · 63 November 93,Proposition 1988 · 66 November 98,Proposition 1988 · 39, November 48, 51, 74, 99,Proposition 1988 · 9, November 49, 50, 51, Pr Proposition 81,Proposition 1998 · 21 November Pr Pr Proposition 61,Proposition · 27 2004 November 62,Proposition 10, 1986 · November 87, 88, 89, 63,Proposition 2004 · 42, November 43 64,Proposition 2004 · 43 November 68,Proposition · 69, 1988 June 81, 95 70,Proposition · 32 1988 June 71,Proposition · 83 1988 June 71,Proposition 2004 · 38, November 43 72,Proposition · 78, 1988 June 79, 80, 81 73,Proposition 1988 · 69 June 74,Proposition 1988 · 35 June 76,Proposition 1988 · 20 June 76,Proposition 2005 · 10, November 90 Pr AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 ••• 126 ••• INDEX

Proposition 185, November 1994 · 39, 41, 42, 73 56 Save Our Homes Committee · 85 Proposition 186, November 1994 · 45, 49 Save the Redwoods League · 32 Proposition 192, March 1996 · 27, 28 SBC · 48 Proposition 193, March 1996 · 64 Schrag, Peter · 12, 60 Proposition 205, November 1996 · 34 Schwarzenegger, Arnold, Governor of California Proposition 206, November 1996 · 19 2003-present · 37, 38, 73, 75, 76, 78, 83, Proposition 217, November 1996 · 42 90 Proposition 218, November 1996 · 10, 89, 90, Seastrand, Eric · 35 93 Self, Robert · 16 Public Citizen · 72 senior organizations · 60 Service Employees International Union · 43, 80 R Seymour, John · 36 Rainey, Richard K. · 31 Shell · See oil companies Reagan, Ronald, Governor of California 1967- Shelley, Kevin · 37 1975 · 14 Sheriffs Association · 46 redistributive measures · 68, 70, 71, 76, 78, 81, Sierra Club · 27, 35, 36, 69, 77, 81, 89 95, 96 Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group · 37 redistributive taxes · 69 Simpson, Richard · 84 Reeve, Christopher · 38 Sisters of Mercy · 58 Reiner, Rob · 51 Society for Range Management · 77 Republican Party · 52, 77 Southern California Edison Co · 15, 47 Responsible Voters for Lower Taxes · 73 spending limits · 3, 10, 48, 49, 51, 69, 70, 72, Reyes, Sarah · 73 79, 82, 83, 105 Richardson, H.L. · 31, 84 split roll · 15 Richter, Bernie · 27 Standard Oil · See oil companies Riverside Land Conservancy · 80 Stanford University · 69, 72

A Roberti, David · 27, 28, 29, 72 State Association of Manufacturers · 15 S Robinson, Richard · 84 State Board of Education · 75, 80 U Roman Catholic Church · 38 State Board of Equalization · 13, 78 S

P Roos, Mike · 35 State Building & Construction Trades Council of I

H Rushing, Conrad · 34 California · 44

S S State Office of Emergency Services · 27, 80 R

E Sacramento Bee · 12, 48, 52 State Water Project · 86

N Salvation Army · 28 Steinfeld, M.D., Jesse · 49 T

R San Diego Tax Fighters · 73 A

P San Francisco Chronicle · 37, 48, 52 T San Joaquin Valley Wildlife Society · 77 targeted taxes · 49, 56, 118 G

N Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association · alcohol industry ·9, 53-56 I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA erty · 60 v o and P w 46, 47, 75, 85, 90 35, Kirk · 84 10, · ilderness Society · 77 estern Center on La est, omen's shelters · 53 ucaipa Companies · 76 oung, Bruce · 28 W Wolden, Russell · 13 w Wyman, Phillip D. · 28, 36 Y Western Growers Association · 77,Association Growers Western 91 Westly, · 37, Steve 78 W Wilson, Pete, of California 1991-1999 Governor Y Y Wachs, Dr. · 35 Martin · 76 Wagner, Todd · 44 Company Disney Walt Walton, · 76 John · See bond measures bond measures water Waters, Maxine · 74 Waters, Norman · 21 Watson, Diane E. · 26 Watson, Philip · 14 Publications · 76 Weider Wesley, B. Gary · 27 Jr.,Wesson Herb J. · 73 W W ••• ••• 127 127 INDEX ••• ••• •• ••• ation v ce Conser Alliance · 20 John · 34,John 45, 49, 69, 72, 77, 83 irgenes Resour , V om · 34 T Art · 27 , Lewis · 83 aigosa, Antonio · 32 es, ures District · 21 health care industry · 9, industry health care 58, 94 · 56 oil industry · 9,tobacco industry 49, 50-53 Cheaper! · 52 Cigarettes Philip Morris ·42, 47, 49, 51, 52, 77,R.J. 91 · 49, Reynolds 91 Institute · 50 Tobacco illar an De Kamp oter Information oters Rights 2000 · 72 orr opanga-Las orlakson, V V Uhler Union oil · See oil companies of Southern California · 80 University Vasconcellos, · 34 John · 48 Verizon · See bond measures bond measures veterans · 28 of California Veterans Vietnam V T See bond meas- · bond measures transportation · 76 Fox Century Twentieth U V V tax cuts · 1, 8, 9, 12, 60, · 28 Against Bureaucracy 62,Taxpayers 63, 94 companies Oil · See oil Tenneco companies Oil · See oil Texaco 91 · Project Partnership The Thompson, Bruce · 27 · 9,tobacco companies 42, 47, 49, 51, 52 tobacco taxes · See targeted taxes T T AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 ••• 128 ••• NOTES

1 “The 2003-04 Budget and Beyond,” California Budget Project 24 California State Legislative Analyst's Office. “An Overview of Budget Watch, 9, no. 3 (September 2003): 1, State Bond Debt,” Official Voter Information Guide: California http://www.cbp.org/2003/0309bwvol93.pdf [accessed on General Election, November 2004, http://www.ss.ca.gov/elec- November 4, 2005]; “The Fiscal Survey of States: December tions/bp_nov04/public_display/ bond_overview.pdf [accessed 2004,” (Washington, DC: National Governors Association and on November 4, 2005]. National Association of State Budget Officers, 2004): 25, http://www.nasbo.org/Publications/fiscalsurvey/fsfall2004.pdf 25 Ibid. [accessed on November 4, 2005]. 26 California Field Poll, August 23-27, 1982, Study 8205, 2 Stephen J. Carroll, Cathy Krop, Jeremy Arkes, Peter A. Variable 125 (San Francisco, CA: Field Institute), Berkeley, CA: Morrison and Ann Flanagan, “California's K-12 Schools: How University of California Data Archive [distributor], are they doing?” RAND Education (Santa Monica, CA: RAND http://gort.ucsd.edu/calpol/ [accessed on November 4, 2005]. Corporation, 2005) http://www.rand.org/ pubs/mono- 27 California Field Poll, April 6-10, 1988, Study 8802, Variable graphs/2004/RAND_MG186.pdf [accessed on November 4, 108 (see note 26). 2005]. 28 California Field Poll, October 27-30, 1984, Study 8407, 3 Jennifer Sloan McCombs and Stephen J. Carroll, “Ultimate Variable 44 (see note 26). Test: Who is Accountable for Education If Everybody Fails,” Rand Review 29, no. 1 (Spring 2005) 29 California Field Poll, October 31-November 2, 1988, Study http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/spring200 8807, Variable 22 (see note 26). 5/ ulttest.html [accessed on November 4, 2005]. 30 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California 4 Robert O. Self, American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and Postwar Oakland (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, Expenditure Search System, 2003): 103, 337. http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on November 7, 2005]; “Nature conservancy Action Fund of 5 Robert Kuttner, Revolt of the Haves (New York: Simon and California,” ID #970866, California Campaign Disclosure Schuster, 1980); In Alameda County, assessments averaged 21% Statement, July 1 - December 31, 2000; “Californians for safe of market for residential and 28% for commercial property - neighborhood parks & clean water - Yes on Propositions 12 & more even, but still tilted to commercial. (Self, Babylon, 287). 13 sponsored by clean air, clean water and conservation groups,” 6 Kuttner, Revolt. ID #991829, California Campaign Disclosure Statement, July 1 - December 31, 2000; “Californians for clean, safe, reliable water 7 Self, Babylon. Yes on Propositions 12/13,” ID #991968, California Campaign Disclosure Statement, July 1 - December 31, 2000; and 8 Ibid. “Northern California Water Association, A committee supporting Proposition 13,” ID #1221999, California Campaign Disclosure 9 Ibid, 282. Statement, July 1 - September 15, 2000, http://cal- 10 J. Citron and F. Levy, “From 13 to 4 and Beyond,” in Property access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures [accessed on November 7, Tax Revolt - the Case of Prop 13, ed. George C. Kaufman and 2005]. Kenneth t. Rosen (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1981). 31 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California 11 “Facts about Proposition 13,” Assembly Revenue and Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and Taxation Committee (February 15 1978). Expenditure Search System, http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on 12 Ibid. November 7, 2005]; “Nature conservancy Action Fund of California,” ID #970866, California Campaign Disclosure 13 Kuttner, Revolt. Statement, October 20 - December 31, 2002; and “Yes on 40,

A protect California's land, air and water, supported by conserva- 14 Self, Babylon.

S tion groups and owners of open space,” ID #991829, California Campaign Disclosure Statement, July 1 - September 23, 2002, U 15 Kuttner, Revolt. http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures [accessed on

S 16 Bill Butcher (public relations advisor to the Jarvis campaign) November 7, 2005].

P quoted in Kuttner, Revolt.

I 32 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California Automated 17 Citron and Levy, “From 13.” No data provided for Asians, Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Search H Native Americans or Latinos. System, http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed S on November 7, 2005]; “Yes on 50, coalition of conservationists, R 18 Self, Babylon. business, water & engineering cos., owners of open space,” ID E #1245318, California Campaign Disclosure Statement, October

N 19 Citron and Levy, “From 13.” No data provided for Asians, 20 - December 31, 2002; and “Yes on 50, Californians for safe, T Native Americans or Latinos. clean water, funded by PACs and organizations established to pro- R 20 Ibid. tect the environment conservation groups, and owners of open

A space,” ID #1241134, California Campaign Disclosure Statement,

P 21 Ibid. October 20 - December 31, 2002, http://cal- access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures [accessed on November 7,

G 22 Ibid. 2005].

N 23 Ibid. 33 California Field Poll, May 27-30, 1992, Study 9204, Variable I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA Search e California California California Automated ” ” ” .aspx [accessed on y Data Report, Data Report, Data Report, y y y 2005]. v/BallotSummar System, Summar Summar Summar e e h e ember 7, 2005]. c ying and Campaign Contribution and ying and Campaign Contribution and v b b h.ss.ca.go 2005]. c Sear California Campaign Disclosure Statement,California Campaign Disclosure 1 - July e ember 7, v ying and Campaign Contribution and Expenditur ember 7, ember 7, 41, on Prop “Yes 2005]; voting Sequoia Pacific 2002, http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures b “Ballot Measur “Ballot Measur “Ballot Measur v v ••• ••• Automated Lob System, Search Expenditure [accessed on http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx 7,November Against “No On 57/Californians 2005]; Future,Mortgaging Our Children's Treasurer Supported By State ID #1260631, Bing,” and Steve Angelides Phil California Statement,Campaign Disclosure October 17 - October 27, 2004, [accessed http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures on No 54 Lob http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on [accessed http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx 7,November 2005] Poll, Field 47 California 16-22, May 1988, 8803, Study Variable 140 (see note 26). Poll,48 California Field 11-16, May 1994, 9404, Study Variable 55 (see note 26). Automated California Data Report,” Summary “Ballot Measure 49 Search Contribution and Expenditure and Campaign Lobbying System, [accessed http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx 7,on November on 40.“Yes 2005]; California's Land, Protect Air Water. and Water and and Groups Conservation Supported by ID# 991829,Owners of Open Space,” Campaign California Statement,Disclosure 31, 1 - December January “Nature 2000; ID #970866,Action Fund of California,” Conservancy California Statement,Campaign Disclosure 1 - December 31, January 2000; ID 12,” on Proposition Yes - “Californians for Safe Parks #992051, Statement, California Campaign Disclosure 1 - January December 31, 2000, http://cal- 7, [accessed on November access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures 2005]. California Data Report,” Summary “Ballot Measure 50 Automated Lob System, Search Expenditure http://dbsear August 10, #1263036, ID for 57/58,” “Democrats 2004; and Statement,California Campaign Disclosure 1 - December July 31, 2004, http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures [accessed on No 53 November 7,November crime and upgrade “Committee to repair 2005]; ID #992071, 15,” on Prop Yes California - labs fighting forensic Statement,Campaign Disclosure 31, 1 - December July 2000, [accessed on http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures No and Campaign Contribution and Automated Lobbying Expenditur [accessed on http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx No ID #1239872, developers,” technology equipment and voting Statement,California Campaign Disclosure - December 1 July 31, 7,[accessed on November 2005]. California Data Report,” Summary “Ballot Measure 52 and and Campaign Contribution Automated Lobbying System, Search Expenditure [accessed on http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx 7,November ID Budget,” a Balanced “Californians For 2005]; #1261936, 51 129 129 NOTES ••• ••• •• ••• vember 7, vember California ” es [accessed on No Data Report, y March 15-20,March 1996, 9602, Study oll, 15-20, March 1996, 9602, Study oll, System, Summar e h c ield P ield P v/Campaign/Meaures [accessed on November 7, [accessed on November v/Campaign/Meaures v/Campaign/Meaur 2005]; “Yes on 46,“Yes 2005]; a coalition of teachers, home- Sear e ID #1245448, California Campaign Disclosure ” ember 7, “Ballot Measur “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California Data Report,” Summary “Ballot Measure November 7,November and better 47 for accountability on “Yes 2005]; 7,November hospitals, on children's “Yes 2005]; on 61, yes v AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 ariable 91 (see note 26); California Field Poll, 91 (see note 26); California Field ariable October 10-16, ariable 50 (see note 26). ariable ariable 49 (see note 26). ariable n 1988, 8806, Study (see note 26). 70 Variable Poll,45 California Field 2, October 31-November 1988, Study 8807, 26 (see note 26). Variable 46 2005]. Poll,44 California Field September 6-13, 1988, 8805, Study V builders, labor, lenders, realtors, Burton, John housing,” shelter and affordable other supporters of emergency businesses and ID #1244196, Statement, California Campaign Disclosure October 20 - December 31, 2002, http://cal- access.ss.ca.go Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and and Campaign Contribution Automated Lobbying System, Search Expenditure [accessed on http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx No V Poll,42 California Field August 23-27, 1982, 8205, Study 129 (see note 26). Variable 43 Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and and Campaign Contribution Automated Lobbying Expenditur V 41 California F 2005]. Poll,38 California Field 16-22, May 1988, 8803, Study Variable 144 (see note 26). Poll,39 California Field 11-16, May 1994, 9404, Study Variable 52 (see note 26). 40 California F schools,of taxpayers, a coalition seniors, educators, builders, ID #1245448, and business,” labor California Campaign Statement,Disclosure October 20 - December 31,“Yes and 2002; and better schools,for accountability on 55 - Californians a coalition of taxpayers, parents, seniors, educators, builders,business, and labor Statement, 1 - December 31, July 2004. 7, [accessed on November http://cal- access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures 2005]. Automated California Data Report,” Summary “Ballot Measure 37 Search and Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Lobbying System, [accessed http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx on ID Association,” Hospital Children's California by sponsored #1257432, Statement, California Campaign Disclosure October 17 - December 31, 2004, http://cal- access.ss.ca.go 41 (see note 26). 41 (see note Poll, Field 34 California 27-30, May 1992, 9204, Study Variable 26). 43 (see note Poll,35 California Field 11-16, May 1994, 9404, Study Variable 57-58 (see note 26). Automated California Data Report,” Summary “Ballot Measure 36 Search Contribution and Expenditure and Campaign Lobbying System, [accessed http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx o ••• 130 ••• NOTES

System, http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed ID#761010, California Campaign Disclosure Statement, on November 7, 2005]; “Yes on 71: coalition for stem cell October 20 - December 31, 1996; and “Californians for Jobs, research and cures,” ID #1260661, California Campaign not more taxes - No on 217,” ID#960774, California Campaign Disclosure Statement, October 17 - December 31, 2004, Disclosure Statement, October 20 - December 31, 1996. http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures [accessed on November 7, 2005]. 68 Mark DiCamillo and Mervin Field, “Health-Related Propositions: Support for Prop. 71, stem cell research bond, 55 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California Automated continues to grow. Voters moving to the no side on Prop. 72, Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Search health insurance requirements,” Release #2147 (San Francisco, System, http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed CA: Field Research Corporation, October 2004), on November 7, 2005]; “Californians against loan and clone, no http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/ RLS2147.pdf on Prop 71 - sponsored by the Catholic Common Good [accessed on November 7, 2005]. Foundation of California,” ID #1268971, California Campaign Disclosure Statement, October 17 - December 31, 2004; 69 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California Automated “Doctors, patients and taxpayers for fiscal responsibility - No on Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Search 71,” California Campaign Disclosure Statement, October 17 - System, http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed December 31, 2004; and “Focus on the family California commit- on November 7, 2005]; “Campaign for Mental Health - tee against Proposition 71,” California Campaign Disclosure Yeson63.org - Community Health Providers, Families, and Statement, October 17 - December 31, 2004, http://cal- Consumers, and other supporters of increase mental health servic- access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures [accessed on November 7, es funding,” ID#1254533, California Campaign Disclosure 2005] Statement, October 17 - December 31, 2004, http://cal- access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/ [accessed on November 7, 56 “Californians for Higher Education, Yes on 121 and 111,” “Yes 2005]. on 111 & 118,” “California Building Industry Association for Transportation Improvement Programs,” “Californians for Planned 70 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California Automated Economic Growth,” “Inland Empire Political Action Committee” Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Search and “Citizens for Transit 2000,” California Campaign Disclosure System, http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed Statements, May 20 - December 31, 1990. on November 7, 2005]; “No on Prop 63, Citizens for a Healthy California,” ID#1260771, California Campaign Disclosure 57 “Citizens Against Unfair Taxation” and “Californian Against Statement, October 17 - December 31, 2004; and “No on Tax Increases - No on 111,” California Campaign Disclosure Proposition 63, sponsored by the National Tax Limitation Statements, July 1, 1990 - December 31, 1990. Committee,” ID#1267628, California Campaign Disclosure Statement, October 17 - November 8, 2004, http://cal- 58 California Field Poll, July 12 - July 23, 1989, Study 8903, access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/ [accessed on November 7, Variable 111 (see note 26). 2005]. 59 California Field Poll, October 23 - October 28, 1989, Study 71 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California 8904, Variable 83 (see note 26). Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Search System, 60 California Field Poll, February 2 - February 10, 1990, Study http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on 9001, Variable 105 (see note 26). November 7, 2005]; “Californians Against Government Run 61 Ibid; California Field Poll, May 1 - May 8, 1990, Study Healthcare, A Committee Against Propositions 72, with major 9002, Variable 39-40, (see note 26); California Field Poll, May funding by restaurants and retailers,” ID#1260240, California 29 - June 3, 1990, Study 9003, Variable 39-40 (see note 26). Campaign Disclosure Statement, October 17 - December 31, 2004, http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/ [accessed 62 Donna Alvarado, “'Three strikes' is in, but other propositions on November 7, 2005]. out smoking, transit and health care measures defeated,” San 72 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California Automated A Jose Mercury News, November 9, 1994, p. 8EL. Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Search S 63 “Yes on 185, Californians for Transportation Solutions, System, http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed U Sponsored by the Planning and Conservation League,” California on November 7, 2005]; “Yes on 64 - Californians to Stop Campaign Disclosure Statement, July 1 - June 30, 1994. Shakedown Lawsuits, a coalition of taxpayers, automobile dealers, S business groups and civil justice reform supporters,” P 64 “Californians against the $700 million tax increase / No on I ID#1257254, California Campaign Disclosure Statement, Prop. 185,” California Campaign Disclosure Statement, October October 17 - December 31, 2004, http://cal- H 23 - December 31, 1994; Virginia Ellis, “Measure's foes press access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/ [accessed on November 7, S for convincing loss: Opponents want to discourage promoters of 2005]. R beleaguered gas tax initiative from similar future efforts,” Los E Angeles Times, November 3, 1994, p. A-25. 73 Vlae Kershner, “Budget initiatives follow separate paths: Prop

N 165 would give broad powers to governor,” San Francisco

T 65 “Yes on Proposition 217,” ID#960200, California Campaign Chronicle, September 14, 1992, p. A4.

R Disclosure Statement, October 20 - December 31, 1996. 74 “Yes on 167 - Californians for a Recovering Economy, spon- A 66 Interview by email with Lenny Goldberg, Executive Director sored by the California Tax Reform Association,” ID#920703, P of the California Tax Reform Association, October 3, 2005. California Campaign Disclosure Statement, October 18 - December 31, 1992. G 67 “California Business Political Action Committee, sponsored

N by the California Chamber of Commerce (AKA CALBUSPAC),” 75 “Californians for jobs, not more taxes - No on 167, a coali- I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA 1987: 1988. Study September 24, Generated using Generated hapt4.html [accessed on epared for the Tobacco for the epared v/c Taking initiative: A Case Study initiative: Taking oll (Pr une 10 - June 16,une 10 - June 1996, 9603, Study ” 1987: 11-12; University of California, 1987: 11-12; University J Census 1990. October 10 - October 16, oll, eau, oll, obacco Tax Initiative,” Confidential memo Initiative,” Tax obacco T ield P ield Poll, September 6 - September 13, 1988. ield P our: Media, Bregman & Maullin,Bregman Report Summary “Executive ebruary 8,ebruary 2005]. the Advocacy Institute, The Trauma Foundation, Institute,Advocacy Trauma the The .tf.org/tf/alcohol/ari September 10, y 5-6. Census Bur ” 8, 2005]. . y .S ed b ancisco [distributor], http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobac- 8805, 109 (see note 26). Variable airbank, r ble 72 (see note 26). “Chapter F y November 7, 2005]; “Stop the Phone Tax - No on 67, 7, - No November Tax “Stop the Phone A 2005]; ••• ••• epar aria n ebruar D#1256587, Statement, California Campaign Disclosure to Roger Monzingo and Hurst Marshall, Disclosure Statement,Disclosure 17 - December 31, October 2004; and firefighters, by - sponsored Care Emergency to Preserve “Coalition paramedics, on 67,” doctors,Yes - providers and healthcare nurses I 31,October 17 - December 2004, http://cal- 7, [accessed on November access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/ 2005]. Automated California Data Report,” Summary “Ballot Measure 94 Search Contribution and Expenditure and Campaign Lobbying System, [accessed http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx o Coalition of Seniors, Taxpayers, Consumers, Business and Small ID #1258201, Providers,” Telecommunications California Statement,Campaign Disclosure 1 - December 31, January 2004, [accessed on http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures 7,November 2005]. Poll,95 California Field August 30 - September 4, 1980, Study 8005, 115 (see note 26). Variable Poll,96 California Field 26, 17 - March March 1986. Study 8601, 160 (see note 26). Variable / No on Increases Tax Unfair Against “Californians 97 99,Proposition indus- the tobacco by a committee sponsored Statement, Campaign Disclosure California try,” October 1 - 22, 1988, p. 4. 98 California F Stud 99 California F 8806, 88 (see note 26). Variable Campaign California California,” “Coalition for a healthy 100 Statement,Disclosure October 1 - December 31, 1988. Poll,101 California Field 2,- November October 31 1988. 8807,Study 59 (see note 26). Variable Associates,A-K 102 Inc. Kinney, and Paul “Status and Campaign Plan for 13, http://www.library.ucsf.edu/ on February tobacco/calminnesota/html/3410/003/ [accessed 21, 2005]. 103 Ibid, 3. 104 Ibid, 4. 105 Ibid, 106 F co/calminnesota/html/3410/002/ otherpages/allpages.html [accessed on F 107 Pr F on a California Statewide P Institute), San F http://www 108 California F 109 U V 131 131 NOTES h c ••• ••• •• ••• Sear e 9004, Fund (AKA y e v Stud Initiati 1990, Inc. 1993. ranchise Tax Board Tax Audit ranchise October 17 - December 31, October 4-10, Statement, oll, October 8-15, 1993, 9304, Study oll, October 8-15, 1993, 9304, Study oll, August 12-18, 1993, 9303, Study oll, e 1993. 2005]; “American College of Emergency 2005]; 1- December 31, ield P ield P ield P ield Poll, October 25-30, 1992, 9208, Study ield P y State of California F anuar J ember 7, v ble 71 (see note 26). ying and Campaign Contribution and Expenditur b “Californians for Strong Law Enforcement,” California Enforcement,” Law “Californians for Strong No “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California Automated California Report,” Data Summary “Ballot Measure ysicians State Chapter of California, AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 aria ariable 59 (see note 26). ariable ariable 99 (see note 26). ariable ariable 59 (see note 26). ariable Lob Report, 93 System, [accessed http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx on 1993; “Citizens for a Safer Community South Bay AFL-CIO Bay “Citizens for a Safer Community South 1993; Statement, California Campaign Disclosure Council,” Labor July 1- December 31, Increases,Tax Against “Californians 172,” No on Prop 92 ID#931338, Campaign Disclosur V 91 Ph Variable 70 (see note 26). Variable 90 California F CAL/ACEP) - Yes on 67,” ID#1242018, on 67,” Yes California Campaign - CAL/ACEP) V 89 California F Variable 172 (see note 26). Variable Poll,85 California Field October 4-10, 1990, 9004, Study 174 (see note 26). Variable 133,“Californians for Proposition 86 - Initiative Safe Streets The Lt.Organized by California Campaign Leo McCarthy,” Governor Statement,Disclosure 31, October 21 - December 1990. Poll,87 California Field August 12-18, 1993, 9303, Study 58 (see note 26). Variable 88 California F 83 California Field Poll,83 California Field October 4-10, 1990, 9004, Study 173 (see note 26). Variable 84 California F Variable 48 (see note 26). Variable Poll,81 California Field October 25-30, 1992, 9208, Study 49 (see note 26). Variable Poll,82 California Field August 17-27, 1990, 9004, Study V tion of taxpayers and business,” ID#921686, and business,” tion of taxpayers California Statement, Disclosure Campaign - December 31, October 18 Prop - Non on PAC Association Insurance “American 1992; ID#923084,167,” Statement, Disclosure California Campaign 31,October 18 - December Issues Industry “Wine 1992; and ID#922273, 167,” to Prop Committee - Opposed California Statement,Campaign Disclosure 1- September 30, July 1992. Poll,76 California Field September 8-15, 1992, 9206, Study V Poll,77 California Field September 8-15, 1992, 9206, Study 60 (see note 26). Variable Poll,78 California Field October 3-10, 1992, 9207, Study 75 (see note 26). Variable Poll,79 California Field October 3-10, 1992, 9207, Study 76 (see note 26). Variable 80 California F ••• 132 ••• NOTES

American FactFinder. http://factfinder.census.gov 128 California Field Poll, November 12 - November 23, 1997, Study 9704, Variable 169 (see note 26). 110 Editorial, “A win for the future: Passage of Prop. 10 is a victory of hope over money,” The Sacramento Bee, November 13, 129 California Field Poll, April 30 - May 7, 1985, Study 8502, 1998, p. B8. Variable 127 (see note 26). 111 Ibid. 130 California Field Poll, January 29 - February 2, 1998, Study 9801, Variable 117-119 (see note 26). 112 “Committee Against Unfair Taxes, No on Proposition 10, Sponsored by Tobacco Companies and the California 131 “Taxpayers for Common Sense, with major funding from Distributors Association,” California Campaign Disclosure the Beer Institute & Industry, Wine Institute & Distilled Spirits Statement, October 18 - December 31, 1998, p. 7. Council, A Committee Against Proposition 134,” “California Beer & Wine Wholesalers Association Issues Committee - A 113 Ibid, 2. Committee Against Proposition 134,” “Wine Institute 1990 Issues Committee Opposed to Proposition 134” and “Beer 114 “California Children and Families Initiative,” California Institute, A Committee Against Proposition 134,” California Campaign Disclosure Statements, April 1 - December 31, 1998. Campaign Disclosure Statements, July 1 - December 31, 1990; 115 “California Children and Families Initiative,” California “Yes on 126 - Supporting the Alcohol Abuse and Drug Campaign Disclosure Statement, October 18, 1998 - December Education Act of 1990, A Committee sponsored by beer, wine 31, 1998, p. 2. and distilled companies,” California Campaign Disclosure Statements, October 21 - December 31, 1990. 116 California Field Poll, January 29 - February 2, 1998, Study 9801, Variable 118 (see note 26). 132 Ken McLaughlin, “Prop. 136 could kill other ballot measures 'poison pill' backed by alcohol industry,” San Jose Mercury 117 California Field Poll, August 18 - August 24, 1998, Study News, October 31, 1990, p. 1A. 9805, Variable 145 (see note 26). 133 California Field Poll, March 1 - March 9, 1983, Study 118 California Field Poll, September 27 - October 5, 1998, 8301, Variable 107 (see note 26). Study 9806, Variable 84 (see note 26). 134 California Field Poll, March 17 - March 26, 1986, Study 119 California Field Poll, October 22 - November 1, 1998, 8601, Variable 159 (see note 26). Study 9807, Variable 98, 100 (see note 26). 135 California Field Poll, August 17 - August 27, 1990, Study 120 Sabin Russell, “Absentee ballots give tobacco tax win,” The 9004, Variable 120 (see note 26). San Francisco Chronicle, November 12, 1998, p. A1. 136 Ibid, Variable 151-152. 121 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and 137 California Field Poll, October 4 - October 10, 1990, Study Expenditure Search System, 9005, Variable 151-152 (see note 26). http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on 138 California Field Poll, August 17 - August 27, 1990, Study November 7, 2005]. 9004, Variable 154-155 (see note 26). 122 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California 139 California Field Poll, October 4 - October 10, 1990, Study Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and 9005, Variable 166-167 (see note 26). Expenditure Search System, http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on 140 “Taxpayers for Common Sense, with major funding from November 7, 2005]; “STOP BIG TOBACCO - No on Prop. 28, the Beer Institute & Industry, Wine Institute & Distilled Spirits sponsored by American Cancer Society, American Lung Assn, Council, A Committee Against Proposition 134,” “California

A American Heart Assn & Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids,” Beer & Wine Wholesalers Association Issues Committee - A

S California Campaign Disclosure Statement, July 1 - December Committee Against Proposition 134,” “Wine Institute 1990 31, 2000, p. 3; “Coalition to Save Prop 10, No on 28,” U Issues Committee Opposed to Proposition 134” and “Beer California Campaign Disclosure Statement, July 1 - December Institute, A Committee Against Proposition 134,” California

S 31, 2000, p. 3. Campaign Disclosure Statements, July 1 - December 31, 1990. P

I 123 California Field Poll, October 8 - October 17, 2000, Study 141 Ibid.

H 9903, Variable 102 (see note 26). 142 California Field Poll, August 17 - August 27, 1990, Study S 124 California Field Poll, February 1 - February 6, 2000, Study 9004, Variable 153 (see note 26); California Field Poll, October R 0001, Variable 71 (see note 26). 4 - October 10, 1990, Study 9005, Variable 153 (see note 26). E

N 125 Tracey Kaplan, “Tussle over tobacco tax Prop. 28: Backers 143 California Field Poll, August 17 - August 27, 1990, Study

T say levy is unfair,” San Jose Mercury News, February 27, 2000, 9004, Variable 156 (see note 26); California Field Poll, October

R p.1B. 4 - October 10, 1990, Study 9005, Variable 168 (see note 26).

A 126 California Field Poll, February 22 - March 4, 2000, Study

P 144 “Chapter Four: Media.” 0002, Variable 86 (see note 26). 145 Ibid. G 127 California Field Poll, June 10 - June 16, 1996, Study 9603,

N Variable 77 (see note 26). 146 Ibid. I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA 8802, Committee y Stud ernment, v 1988, December 1999, h, c April 6-10, oll, y, 200 Significant of the Century: “Laws all ield P anchise Tax Board Audit Report, Board Tax 1, January anchise r .3. ember 7, 2005]. p v ble 149 (see note 26). “Californians for Cleaning Up Go “Californians For a Balanced Budget,” ID #1261936, a Balanced Budget,” “Californians For ••• ••• aria 150 (see note 26). ariable ariable 90 (see note 26). ariable see note 26). anuary 1,anuary 30, 1988 - June the “Committee to Protect 1988; http://www.sen.ca.gov/sor/reports/ REPORTS_BY_SUBJ/LAWS_OF_CENTURY/LAWS_OF_CEN- 8, [accessed on November 2005]. TURY.HTP Poll,180 California Field August 17-27, 1990, 9004, Study 170 (see note 26). Variable Poll,181 California Field October 4-10, 1990, 9005, Study V Poll,182 California Field October 4-10, 1990, 9005, Study V Poll,183 California Field October 4-10, 1990, 9005, Study 208 (see note 26). Variable 184 170 California Field Poll, Field 170 California 12-19, November 1979, 7904, Study Poll, Field note 26); California 117 (see Variable 9-14, February 1980, 8001, Study California Field 94 (see note 26); Variable Poll, April 2-8, 1980, 8002, Study 63 (see note 26); Variable Poll,California Field 9-15, May 1980, 8003, Study 34 Variable ( P.171 Kenneth Miller, Role of Courts in the Initiative “The Science American Political for Standards,” A Search Process: Association, September 1999, http://www.iandrinstitute.org/New%20IRI%20Website%20Info/ I&R%20Research%20and%20History/I&R%20Studies/Miller%2 [accessed on 0-%20Courts%20and%20I&R%20IRI.pdf 8,November 2005]. on the statewide tax measures the general 172 Less than half of passed since 1978.ballot have of the six special two Only passed. tax measures interest approved were Bond measures of the time. three-quarters nearly 173 Statement,California Campaign Disclosure August 10, - 1 July 2004, [accessed http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures on No Poll,174 California Field 17-21, February 1988, 8801, Study 103 (see note 26). Variable ID #860361, to limit campaign spending,” “Taxpayers State 175 of California F 30,1986 - June ID 68 & 73,” “No on Proposition 1988; Audit Report, #880805, Board Tax Franchise State of California J ID #880354, Rights of Minorities,” Political California Statement,Campaign Disclosure October 23 - December 31, 1988, 176 California F V Poll,177 California Field 16-22, May 1988, 8803, Study 125 (see note 26). Variable to the contribution limits and public financing 178 In addition ban, prohibit- 73 also limited gifts to elected officials while Prop candidates and their controlled between transfers ing money committees. Moreover, to using public money it disallowed send newsletters or other mass mailings. 179 Rebecca LaV Statutes and Constitutional Amendments of the 20th Century,” Statutes and Constitutional California Senate Office of Resear 133 133 y NOTES cur ••• ••• •• ••• ose Mer cent voters San J ” ose Mercury News, ose Mercury San J ” “Campaign costs at record high,“Campaign costs at record report essuring' state commission, ble 147 (see note 26): 52.9 per op 11 is a bad idea, “Pr aria ose Mercury News,ose Mercury September 17, 1980, p. 11A. 160-161. V , ag 18E. San J . hr ” p 9704, 8001, 56 (see note 26). Variable “Oil firms 'pr y y eals, AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 repared by the Advocacy Institute,Advocacy the by repared http://www.tf.org/tf/alco- Institute,Advocacy the by repared http://www.tf.org/tf/alco- ariable 47 (see note 26). ariable ev May 23,May 1990, p. 10B. News, Mercury San Jose 11 costs debated,” “Prop 165 7, May 1980, 166 Ibid. Poll,167 California Field August 29 - September 7, 1996, Study 9604, Poll, Field 88 (see note 26); California Variable October 1-9, 1996, 9605, Study 128 (see note 26); California Variable Poll,Field October 25-28, 1996, 9606, Study 40 (see Variable note 26). Poll,168 California Field 23, 12 - November November 1997, Stud hol/ariv/argumnt.html [accessed on February 21, [accessed on February hol/ariv/argumnt.html 2005]. A Case Study initiative: Taking Money,” Three: “Chapter 149 P 21, [accessed on February hol/ariv/chapt3.html 2005]. 150 Ibid. “Californians and Supra Common Sense.” for “Taxpayers 151 California Campaign on 134,” Yes a Drink - for a Nickel Statements,Disclosure October 1 - December 31, 1990. Three: Money.” 152 “Chapter D.153 Mervin Field, special tax on oil compa- favor “Voters News, Mercury San Jose nies,” 6, March 1980, p. 8A. 154 Chuck Buxton, “Oil firms, spend millions on developers News, Mercury San Jose ballot fight,” 12, May 1980, p. 13A. 155 Chuck Buxton, 147 Ibid. A Case Study initiative: Taking and Responses,” “Arguments 148 P r “$212,156 Ibid; Mercury San Jose tax,” 657 spent on energy News, 5, February 1980. 157 163 Ibid, 49-50. Variable 164 Editorial, News, 26, March 1980, p. 8A. San ads,” on oil down to crack “State commission refuses 158 News, Mercury Jose April 1, 1980, p. 48D. Poll,159 California Field 14, 9 - February February 1980, 8001,Study 56 (see note 26). Variable Poll,160 California Field April 8, April 2 - 1980, 8002, Study 76 (see note 26). Variable Poll,161 California Field 15, - May 9 May 1980, 8003, Study V Poll,162 California Field 14, 9 - February February 1980, Stud agreed that an increased tax on tobacco would discourage peo- discourage tax on tobacco would that an increased agreed ple, people, and young children particularly smoking. from 169 Sc ••• 134 ••• NOTES

Organized by John Van de Kamp,” ID #891763, State of 2004, http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures [accessed California Franchise Tax Board Audit Report, January 1, 1989 - on November 7, 2005]. December 31, 1990; “Taxpayers for Clean Government,” ID #900695, State of California Franchise Tax Board Audit Report, 192 The FPPC requires all state measure committees that are January 1 - September 30, 1990; “Yes On 131… The Clean primarily formed to support or oppose a state initiative, referen- Government Initiative, A Committee Organized by John Van de dum or recall to electronically file campaign statements. No Kamp, Tom McEnery and California Common Cause,” ID electronic filings were found on http://cal- #901792, State of California Franchise Tax Board Audit Report, access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures [accessed on November 7, January 1 - December 31, 1990; “CURE,” California Campaign 2005]. Disclosure Statements, July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 193 California Field Poll, June 8-18, 2000, Study 0003, Variable 185 “Californians to Protect Our Constitution: A Committee In 80 (see note 26). Opposition to 131 & 140; David Roberti, Chair,” ID #901902, 194 California Field Poll, August 18-22, 2000, Study 0004, California Campaign Disclosure Statement, October 21 - Variable 64 (see note 26); California Field Poll, October 4-8, December 31, 1990, p. 3; “No on 131 and 140 (A Committee 2000, Study 0005, Variable 58 (see note 26). Against Prop 131 and 140),” ID #902530, State of California Franchise Tax Board Audit Report, January 1 - December 31, 195 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California 1990; “No On 131 (A Committee Against Prop 131),” ID Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and #902884, California Campaign Disclosure Statement, October Expenditure Search System, 21 - December 31, 1990, p. 2. http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on November 7, 2005]; “California Campaign for New Drug 186 California Field Poll, February 1-6, 2000, Study 0001, Policies, Yes on Prop 36,” ID #992045, California Campaign Variable 67 (see note 26). Disclosure Statement, October 22 - December 31, 2000, http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures [accessed on 187 California Field Poll, February 22 - March 4, 2000, Study November 7, 2005]. 0002, Variable 82 (see note 26). 196 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California 188 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Search System, Expenditure Search System, http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on November 7, 2005]; “Californians United Against Drug Abuse November 7, 2005]; “Voters Rights 2000 - Yes On 25,” ID Sponsored By: Law Enforcement, Drug Treatment Professionals, #990416, California Campaign Disclosure Statement, July 1 - Healthcare, Crime Victims and Taxpayers - No On 36,” ID December 31, 2000, http://cal- #1223780, California Campaign Disclosure Statement, October access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures [accessed on November 7, 22 - December 31, 2000, http://cal- 2005]. access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures [accessed on November 7, 189 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California 2005]. Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and 197 Rob Manwaring, “Proposition 98 Primer,” California State Expenditure Search System, Legislative Analyst's Office, February 2005, http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/prop_98_primer/prop_98_primer_ November 7, 2005]; “Taxpayers For Fair Elections / No On 020805.htm [accessed on November 5, 2005]. Prop 25, A Coalition of Taxpayers, Seniors, Teachers, Business, Labor and Campaign Finance Reform Experts,” ID #991931, 198 California Postsecondary Education Commission, California Campaign Disclosure Statement, July 1 - October 21, “Summary of Proposition 98 Funding for Public K-12 2000, http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures [accessed Education, the California Community Colleges, and Other on November 7, 2005]. Funded Entities - 'Funding Guarantee' Basis - for Fiscal Years

A 1988-89 Through 2002-03,” Fiscal Profiles, 2002,

S 190 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California http://www.cpec.ca.gov/completereports/2003reports/03- Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and U 08/11.PDF [accessed on November 5, 2005]. Expenditure Search System,

S http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on 199 California Field Poll, September 6-13, 1988, Study 8805,

P November 7, 2005]; “Californians For a Balanced Budget,” ID Variable 108 (see note 26).

I #1261936, California Campaign Disclosure Statement, July 1 - 200 California Field Poll, October 10-16, 1988, Study 8806, H August 10, 2004; and “Democrats for 57/58,” ID #1263036, Variable 87 (see note 26); California Field Poll, October 31 -

S California Campaign Disclosure Statement, July 1 - December November 2, 1988, Study 8807, Variable 58 (see note 26).

R 31, 2004, http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures

E [accessed on November 7, 2005]. 201 “School Funding For Instructional Improvement &

N 191 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California Accountability Coalition,” ID #871665, State of California T Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and Franchise Tax Board Audit Report, January 1 - December 31, R Expenditure Search System, 1998. A http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on 202 “Californians Against Proposition 98,” ID #881646, P November 7, 2005]; “No On 57/Californians Against California Campaign Disclosure Statement, October 23 - Mortgaging Our Children's Future, Supported By State Treasurer December 31, 1988, p. 3. G Phil Angelides and Steve Bing,” ID #1260631, California

N Campaign Disclosure Statement, October 17 - October 27, 203 California Field Poll, August 18-24, 1998, Study 9805, I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W WORKING P ARTNERSHIPS USA yers Against yers axpa California California T ” ” oposition 53, Data Report, Data Report, y y .2. p Summar Summar “No On Pr “Yes On Californian's Infrastructure, on “Yes Yes ID #1258131, California Campaign e e ” 2005]. 1990, v/Campaign/Meaures [accessed on November 7, [accessed on November v/Campaign/Meaures 2005]; 2005]; ch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on ch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx 2004. Statement, 9, 1 - March January 2004, http://cal- Deficits, e y ember 7, a v w ble 104 (see note 26). ID #1253055, Statement, Disclosure California Campaign “Ballot Measur “Ballot Measur ernment Organizations,” ID #1260376,ernment Organizations,” California ember 7, ember 7, ” v v v ••• ••• aria ariable 205 (see note 26). ariable Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and Automated Lobbying System, Search Expenditure [accessed on http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx No Disclosur Runa Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and Automated Lobbying System, Search Expenditure [accessed on http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx No 31, 15 - May February 2004, http://cal- 7, [accessed on November access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures 2005]. 225 access.ss.ca.go 2005]. 226 Gig Conaughton, “Counties, pro- watch cities nervously Times, North County posed constitutional amendment,” October 17, California Data Report,” Summary “Ballot Measure 227 and and Campaign Contribution Automated Lobbying System, Search Expenditure [accessed on http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx Local Protect 7,To November On 1A Californians “Yes 2005]; and Public Safety,A Coalition of Local Taxpayers By Sponsored Go Campaign Disclosure Statement,Campaign Disclosure October 17 - December 31, 2004, [accessed http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures on No California Data Report,” Summary “Ballot Measure 228 and and Campaign Contribution Automated Lobbying System, Search Expenditure http://dbsear 7,November 2005]. Poll,229 California Field April 6-10, 1988, 8802, Study V 222 “Yes On 135 - A Coalition of Farmers and Farm of Farmers A Coalition 135 - On “Yes 222 ID #892155,Organizations,” Campaign Disclosure California Statement, October 21 - December 31, 1990, p. League, Fruit Tree 2; and & “California Grape A Committee For #900762, ID 135,” Proposition California Campaign Statement,Disclosure October 21 - December 31, 1990, p. 3. ID #901935,Against 135 & 138,” “Californians 223 California Statement,Campaign Disclosure October 21 - December 31, 1990, ID #900063, Issues PAC,” p.Watch “Pesticides 3; and Statement,California Campaign Disclosure October 21 - December 31, 224 53, 218 California Field Poll, Field 218 California August 17-27, 1990, 9004, Study note 26). 173 (see Variable Poll, Field 219 California 4-10, October 1990, 9005, Study 140 (see note 26). Variable Poll,220 California Field October 4-10, 1990, 9005, Study 141 (see note 26). Variable Poll,221 California Field October 4-10, 1990, 9005, Study V 135 135 NOTES ••• ••• •• ••• did not Statement, e oll, October 1990. ield P Statement, e December 31, - 1 y ul J California Campaign Disclosur System, h c ying and Campaign Contribution and b Sear California Campaign Disclosur ble 47 (see note 26); California F Statement, e e aria V “Stop Prop 49,“Stop Prop 49 spon- Against Proposition A Committee ”” ID #1240592, ed by the League of Women Voters of California,” ID of California,” Voters Women the League of ed by ctober 22 - November 1,ctober 22 - November 1998, 9807, Study (see 94 Variable AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS TAX OF ANALYSIS AN HISTORICAL 1978-2004 ote 26). http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx 7,November 2005]. 212 sor file,electronically http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/ 7, [accessed on November Campaign/Measures 2005]. Programs,After School on Proposition “Citizens for 213 Yes 49, October 20 - December 31, 2002, http://cal- 7, [accessed on November access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures 2005]. Poll,214 California Field August 26-September 3, 2002, Study 0204, 48 (see note 26). Variable Poll,215 California Field August 26-September 3, 2002, Study 0204, Expenditur #1248678, Variable 136 (see note 26). 136 (see Variable Poll, Field 204 California 5, 27 - October September 1998, 9806,Study Poll, 26); California Field 73 (see note Variable 1,October 22 - November 1998, 9807, Study 93 (see Variable n Poll,205 California Field 18-24, August 1998, 9805, Study 137 (see note 26). Variable Poll,206 California Field September 27 - October 5, 1998, 9806,Study Poll, (see note 26); California Field 74 Variable O note 26). found on http://cal- filings were 207 No electronic access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures. all requires FPPC The formed to support primarily that are committees state measure or oppose a state initiative, to electronically or recall referendum or spent over raised have file campaign statements if they $50,000, [accessed on http://www.ss.ca.gov/prd/faqs.htm 8,November 2005]. ID 8,” Against Prop “Parents, 208 Teachers,Taxpayers Cops and #981689, Statement, Disclosure California Campaign October 18 - December 31, 1998, p. 2. 209 See note 207. Brown,210 Julie Education and After School 49: “Proposition Capital Center for Government Act of 2002,” Safety Program and Policy,Law 2002 Review November California Initiative Initiatives, 2002, http://www.mcgeorge.edu/government_law_and_policy/califor- nia_initiative_review/november_2002/ccglp_cir_Nov2002_prop 8,_49a.htm [accessed on November 2005]. California Data Report,” Summary “Ballot Measure 211 Automated Lob 24-30, 2002, 0205, Study 25 (see note 26). Variable Poll,216 California Field October 24-30, 2002, 0205, Study 26 (see note 26). Variable Protection,Wildlife Spending On Fair “Californians For A 217 and Recreation Professionals Wildlife Agriculture Committee of California Campaign 117,” to Oppose Proposition Interests Disclosur ••• 136 ••• NOTES

230 California Field Poll, May 16-22, 1988, Study 8803, 241 Brad Williams and David Vasché, “The State Appropriations Variable 132 (see note 26). Limit,” California State Legislative Analyst's Office, April, 13 2000, 231 California Field Poll, May 16-22, 1988, Study 8803, http://www.lao.ca.gov/2000/041300_gann/041300_gann.html Variable 131 (see note 26). [accessed on November 4, 2005]. 232 “Committee For California's Future, A Project Of California 242 “Analysis by the Legislative Analyst; Proposition 26,” 2000 Tax Reduction Movement,” ID #870542, State of California California Primary Election Voter Information Guide/Ballot Franchise Tax Board Audit Report, January 1, 1987 - June 30, Pamphlet, 1988. http://primary2000.ss.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/26analy- sis.htm [accessed on November 8, 2005]. 233 “No On Proposition 72,” ID #880476, State of California Franchise Tax Board Audit Report, January 1, 1988 - June 30, 243 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California 1988. Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Search System, 234 “Yes On Proposition 2, Sponsored By The California Fund for Transportation Education,” ID #981778, California http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on Campaign Disclosure Statement, October 18 - December 31, November 7, 2005]. 1998, p. 2. 244 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California 235 What cost $2.7 million in 1988 would cost about $4.1 Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and million in 2002, according to the Consumer Price Index, Bureau Expenditure Search System, of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator, U.S. Department of http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on Labor, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl [accessed on November 7, 2005]. November 8, 2005]. 245 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California 236 California Field Poll, May 16-22, 1988, Study 8803, Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and Variable 131 (see note 26). Expenditure Search System, http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on 237 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California November 7, 2005]. Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Search System, 246 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and November 7, 2005]; “Yes On 42 - Taxpayers, Construction, Expenditure Search System, Business, Labor, Engineers,” ID #1238613, California http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on Campaign Disclosure Statement, July 1 - August 28, 2002; November 7, 2005]. “Associated General Contractors Issues Political action 247 Vlae Kershner, “Welfare reduction defeated: Snack tax is Committee,” ID #970230, California Campaign Disclosure repealed, Proposition 167 loses,” San Francisco Chronicle, Statement, October 20 - December 31, 2002, http://cal- November 4, 1992, p. A12. access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures [accessed on November 7, 2005]. 248 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and 238 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California Expenditure Search System, Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on Expenditure Search System, November 7, 2005]. http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on November 7, 2005]; “Orange County Voters for Good 249 “Californians Against Hidden Taxes,Yes on Proposition 37, Government, Yes on Prop. 51,” ID #1248158, California A Coalition of Taxpayers, Consumers, Business and Farmers,” A Campaign Disclosure Statement, January 1 - December 31, 2002; ID # 992080, California Campaign Disclosure Statement, S “Yes on 51 Project of Planning & Conservation League, January 1 - December 31, 2000, http://cal-

U Conservationists, Higher Ed, Community Groups, Home access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures Builders, Transportation Developers, Indian Gaming, Open Space

S Landowners, Clean Engine Makers,” ID # 1239911, California 250 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California

P Campaign Disclosure Statement, January 1 - December 31, 2002, Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and I http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures [accessed on Expenditure Search System, H November 7, 2005]. http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on

S November 7, 2005]; “Taxpayers Against Polluter Protection, No

R 239 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California on 37,” ID # 1228025, California Campaign Disclosure

E Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and Statement, January 1 - December 31, 2000, http://cal- Expenditure Search System,

N access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on T November 7, 2005]; “No on Proposition 51 committee,” ID 251 “Ballot Measure Summary Data Report,” California R #1247731, California Campaign Disclosure Statement, January Automated Lobbying and Campaign Contribution and A 1 - December 31, 2002, http://cal- Expenditure Search System, P access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Meaures [accessed on November 7, http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/BallotSummary.aspx [accessed on 2005]. November 7, 2005]. G

N 240 Citron and Levy, “From 13.” 252 Ibid. I K R AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF TAX AND FISCAL PROPOSITIONS IN CALIFORNIA, 1978-2004 O W