- HOME
- About
- Topics
- Angelides
- Arnold Schwarzenegger
- California Attorney General Race
- California Congressional Races
- California Democratic Party
- California Governor Race 2010
- California Legislative Races
- California Lt. Governor Race
- California Secretary of State Race
- California State Budget
- California State Controller
- Campaign Finance Reform
- Campaigns
- Cell Phones
- Children and Families
- Consumer Rights
- Corporate Accountability
- Criminal Justice
- Death With Dignity
- Disaster Preparation
- Discrimination and Civil Rights
- Economy/ Economic Crisis
- Education
- Elections and Voting
- Electoral College
- Energy
- Environment
- Farm Animal Cruelty Ballot Measure
- Flood Control
- Food Safety
- Gas Prices
- Governor's Election Race
- Gun control
- Health Care
- Health Insurance
- Hiram Johnson's Corner
- Housing
- Human Rights
- Humor
- Immigration
- Infrastructure
- Initiative Reform
- Insurance Commissioner Race
- Labor
- Language and Politics
- Legal System
- Media and Communication
- Minimum Wage
- Open Government
- Pharmaceutical Companies
- Politics
- Preschool
- Presidential Election 2008
- Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act Prop
- Prison Reform
- Privacy
- Privitization
- Prop 11-Redistricting/Reapportionment
- Prop 12--Veterans Housing Bond
- Prop 1A--High Speed Rail
- Prop 2--Treatment of Farm Animals
- Prop 3-Children's Hospital Bonds
- Prop 4 Waiting Period and Parental Notification
- Prop 5--Non-violent drug offenses
- Prop 6--Police and law enforcement spending
- Prop 7 and 10-Alternative Fuel and Energy Bond
- Prop 8 and-Marriage Equality
- Prop 85 Parental Notification
- Prop 86 Tobacco Tax
- Prop 87--Alternative Energy
- Prop 9 Parole
- Prop 90
- Prop 91--Transportation Funding
- Prop 92- Community Colleges
- Prop 93--Term Limits
- Props 94-97--Tribal Gaming
- Props 98 and 99
- Racial Disparities
- Responsible Lending
- Retirement Benefits
- Site of the Day
- Solar Initiative
- Structure of California Government
- Taxes
- Toxic Chemicals
- Transportation/Transit
- Water
- Westly
- Workers' Compensation
- Stories
- Proposition 1B: Restoration of Education Funding – NO
- Cavala: Jack D. Maltester – Exemplar of Public Life
- Cal-Cobra Premium Assistance Passes Senate Floor With Bipartisan Support
- Senate Approves Sen. Romero’s Bill Increasing Transparency in Education Policy
- Proposition 1A: State Budget Stabilization – YES
- Local School District Receive Solar Grant
- $634 Million Coming To California For Special Education
- Essay Seven: Props 1D, 1E and 1F
- Running the Show with Wonks and Gurus
- California Needs Propositions 1a-1f to Protect Schools, Health Care And Public Safety From Devastating Cuts And Layoffs
- 33rd California Peace Officers Memorial Ceremony: With Duty and Honor
- Essay Six: Props 1A, 1B and 1C
- Directory
- Donate
- Contact Us
RSS Advertise Here
Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.
Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.
Our latest headlines
- The Black-White Fallacy of Public Option
- Targeting Obesity Remains A Priority in Tough Budget Times
- Thousands Speak Out Against CA’s Costly and Broken Death Penalty
- Cuts Would Jeopardize Well-Being of Many Disabled Citizens
- Fully Fund Our Schools
- Same Governor, Different Goals
- Assemblymember Evans Sets the Record Straight
About Us
David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)
Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.
About California Progress Report.
Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).
Sponsors
Books
Thirty Years After Prop 13, California Voters Supported Tax Increases in Tuesday’s Election
By Mark Paul
Senior Scholar
New America Foundation
Voting just three days before the 30th anniversary of the passage of Proposition 13, the landmark Jarvis-Gann initiative that cut property taxes and triggered a tax revolt across the country, voters in the primary election approved dozens of tax increases in local communities around the state.
By my count from semi-official election results available the day after the election, they passed 26 of 32 proposals to issue school and community college bonds; each of these measures, which raise local property taxes to repay the bonds, required a super-majority (55 percent) vote for passage. They approved 13 of 24 proposals to create or raise local per parcel property taxes to pay for a variety of services, including schools, libraries, parks, and law enforcement; parcel taxes can be passed only with a two-thirds vote. They approved tax increases not just in the liberal Bay Area but also in the Central Valley and Orange County. Overall, they passed 49 of the 75 tax-increase measures on local ballots around the state. And in many of the cases where the measures failed, it was with a majority that fell short of the required 55 percent or two-thirds requirement.
The result flies in the face of several different kinds of conventional wisdom. Turnout for the primary appears to have been the lowest in the state's history, about 22 percent of registered voters. Since it's generally assumed that low-turnout elections are dominated by older, better educated, affluent, and more conservative voters, the dismal turnout should have spelled death for many of the bond and tax measures. This time it didn't. It's also assumed that the combination of falling home values, rising gasoline prices, and a softening job market makes voters reluctant to open their pocketbooks to pay for public services. In the primary election, at least, that maxim didn't hold.
Why? It will take some good political scientists armed with regression analyses to know for certain, but I have a couple of hunches.
The first is what might be called California's residual electorate, the one that dutifully turns up at the polls, no matter how desultory the contests at stake, may still skew old, affluent, and educated, but it's less conservative than it once was, especially along the coast.
The second hunch is that the political consultants who run school bond campaigns have increasingly mastered the techniques of targeted recruitment and turnout of pro-bond voters, especially parents of school children. When they can run a school bond in an otherwise low-turnout election, they are not just making the case for the bond measure, they are picking the electorate too.
Mark Paul, senior scholar at the New America Foundation, was formerly deputy treasurer of California and deputy editorial page editor of the Sacramento Bee. This article was originally published in New America Voices, and is republished with their permission.
Comments
Also, I think voters are willing to pay an extra $100 a year in taxes if they know the taxes are going to support the public education system.
Public education is something very few people are willing to vote against, and most of the tax increases are for public education.
And seriously, is an extra $100 a year going to hurt anyone's pocket book. Only the extremist rabid red meat eaters will vote against all tax increases, and they really only constitute 15% of the population.
Posted by: ginardo at June 5, 2008 04:09 PM
where are all the dollars that were going to public education from the Calif. lotto ? Don't be fooled by the trivial sum of $100 extra tax dollars a year, multiply it by the number of tax payers that pick up the tab.
Posted by: watcher at November 5, 2008 08:29 AM
Post a comment
Commenters: You must preview your comment before posting. And please only hit "Post" once; it may take a while, but your comment is being processed. Thanks.
Get Email Updates
Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.
© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.
