California Proposition 26 (2000)

From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

California Proposition 26 appeared on the March 7, 2000 ballot in California, where it was defeated in spite of a $21 million campaign to vote "yes". 51.2% of voters were opposed.

Proposition 22 would have changed the California Constitution to lower the voting requirement for passage of local school bonds from a 2/3rds supermajority approval to a simple majority approval. It also would have changed California's laws regarding charter schools facilities.

The ballot measure was an initiated constitutional amendment with some related state statute changes.

Ballot language

The ballot language prepared by the California Attorney General said:

  • Authorizes school, community college districts, and county education offices that evaluate safety, class size, information technology needs to issue bonds for construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation or replacement of school facilities if approved by majority of applicable jurisdiction's voters.
  • New accountability requirements include annual performance, financial audits.
  • Prohibits use of bonds for salaries or other school operating expenses.
  • Requires that facilities be available to public charter schools.
  • Authorizes property taxes higher than existing 1% limit by majority vote, rather than two-thirds currently required, as necessary to pay the bonds

Fiscal impact estimate

The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 26. That estimate was:

  • Increased local school district debt costs--potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars statewide each year within a decade. These costs would depend on voter action on future local school bond issues and would vary by individual district.
  • Unknown impact on state costs. Potential longer-term state savings to the extent local school districts assume greater responsibility for funding school facilities.

Campaign donations

$21,151,081 was spent in favor of the measure. $1,441,265 was spent opposing the measure.

Supporting the measure were:

Opposing the measure:

See also

External links

Personal tools