Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

California Proposition 20, Lottery Funds for Instructional Materials Measure (March 2000)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
California Proposition 20
Flag of California.png
Election date
March 7, 2000
Topic
Education and Lottery
Status
Approveda Approved
Type
State statute		Origin
State legislature

California Proposition 20 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred state statute in California on March 7, 2000. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported mandating that of the future growth in lottery funds, one-half of that increase must go to K-14 public schools to be spent on instructional materials.

A "no" vote opposed mandating that of the future growth in lottery funds, one-half of that increase must go to K-14 public schools to be spent on instructional materials.


Election results

California Proposition 20

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

3,716,726 52.93%
No 3,305,062 47.07%
Results are officially certified.
Source

Overview

The State of California has operated the California State Lottery since 1985. From 1985 through 2000, revenues from the lottery were allocated as follows:

  • 50% was returned to players as prizes.
  • A minimum of 34% was allocated to public education.
  • A maximum of 16% was used to administer the lottery.[1]

In 2000, the California State Lottery had gross revenues of about $2.6 billion a year.[1]

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 20 was as follows:

“California State Lottery. Allocation for Instructional Materials. Legislative Initiative Amendment.”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

• Amends Government Code section 8880.4 which provides that at least 34% of the total annual state lottery revenues shall be allocated to benefit public education.

• Provides that beginning with 1998–99 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, one-half of the amount of the share allocated to public education that exceeds the amount allocated in fiscal year 1997–98 shall be allocated to school and community college districts for the purchase of instructional materials.

• The funds are distributed on the basis of an equal amount per unit of average daily attendance.		”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.


Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 20. That estimate was:[2]

“
  • In the near term, tens of millions of dollars in annual lottery revenues that go to public education would be earmarked for instructional materials. Amounts earmarked in future years would depend on changes in the level of overall lottery revenues.[3]
 ”

Support

Official arguments

The official arguments in support of Proposition 20 were signed by Tony Cardenas, California State Assemblymember, 39th District, and Nell Soto, California State Assemblymember, 61st District:[2]

“

California has an alarming textbook shortage. A YES vote for PROPOSITION 20 will guarantee that California’s students have a consistent source of funding for textbooks, without increasing taxes or expanding the lottery. When it comes to academic achievement, textbooks are second only to competent teachers.

  • California is currently ranked at the bottom, 47th out of the 50 states, in per pupil textbook spending.
  • 54% of California teachers surveyed say that they do not have enough books for students to take home for homework and test preparation, and nearly 25% of students have to share books in class.
  • 40% of teachers say that they waste valuable class time doing activities to compensate for the textbook shortage.
  • In most California schools, students are unable to take books home to study; often schools only have one set of textbooks to be used by many students.

Proposition 20, the CARDENAS TEXTBOOK ACT OF 2000, will guarantee that a portion of lottery revenues are used for the purchase of textbooks and other instructional materials. Currently, 50% of lottery revenues go to prizes; 34% are allocated to the benefit of public education and 16% are used for the payment of administrative expenses and promotions. The education funds can only be spent for instructional purposes.

  • When the voters approved the Lottery in 1984, the California Department of Education strongly recommended that districts use lottery funds for one-time costs such as textbooks, computers and field trips.
  • The Department discouraged the funding of ongoing costs with fluctuating lottery revenues. However, districts continually spend Lottery funds for ongoing costs.

This Act would create a mechanism to ensure continuous funding for textbooks and instructional materials within the current education lottery revenues. Specifically, Proposition 20 would require that half of any increase in education revenue be reserved for the purchase of textbooks and instructional materials. The 1997–1998 fiscal year would serve as the base amount to determine each year’s increase.

For example, if there were a $100 million difference between education revenues in 1997–1998 and 1998–1999 then $50 million would be dedicated to textbooks and instructional materials. The funds are to be distributed proportionally based on each district’s average daily attendance.

Proposition 20 would guarantee additional projected revenues of $60 million in fiscal year 1998–1999, $80 million in 1999–2000, and $90 million in 2000–2001 for textbooks and instructional materials. A recent statewide survey indicates that the majority of Californians support increased funding for textbooks.

  • 72% of Californians believe it is 'important' or 'very important' that all California public school students have current textbooks.
  • 65% of Californians believe that the state, not the local governments, should fund the purchase of new textbooks.
  • 60% believe it is more important to provide funds for current textbooks than to fund class size reduction and new classrooms.

A YES vote for PROPOSITION 20 will help ensure that students have the textbooks they need to succeed. We cannot expect students to meet our new high education standards without current materials.[3]

”

Opposition

Official arguments

The official arguments in opposition to Proposition 20 were signed by Assemblyman George R. House Jr., Assembly District 25, and Assemblyman Steve Baldwin, Assembly District 77:[2]

“

– This proposition has no merit. It is about state control as opposed to local control.

– School management needs some flexibility to best serve our children.

– School instructional materials are already funded, by several sources, at $542 million. This would add an estimated $15 million in the first year, money more critically needed for school security, safety, and other identified needs.

– Public school funding is already highly restricted as to use, so restricted, in fact, that school management must shuffle and scrape to fund such necessities as:

  • School safety and security
  • Expenses for class size reduction
  • Reading Specialists
  • Student Counselors
  • Outdoor Education
  • Needs locally identified

Additionally, unnecessary detailed state control creates burdensome record keeping and reporting requirements, involving extra employees and wasted expenditures. Who should run our schools, politicians or political appointees in Sacramento, or parents, caring local school boards and school administrators?

Who knows best the needs of our children for:

  • Security and safety?
  • Protection from drugs while at school?
  • Classroom deficiencies and needs?

Proposition 20 handicaps already burdened local administrators, school boards, parents and teachers, adversely affecting our children’s safety, health and basic education, and is wasteful of our funds requiring additional employees for burdensome and unnecessary record keeping, planning and reporting. Support local control. Please vote NO on Proposition 20[3]

”

Path to the ballot

Proposition 20 was voted onto the ballot by the California State Legislature via Assembly Bill 1453 of the 1997-98 Regular Session (Chapter 800, Statutes of 1998).

Votes in legislature to refer to ballot
Chamber Ayes Noes
Assembly 59 11
Senate 22 12

See also

2000 Measures

California

News and analysis


External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Secretary of State, "LAO's analysis of Proposition 20," accessed March 1, 2000
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 University of California Hastings, "Voter Guide," accessed April 21, 2021
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
Flag of California
v • e
State of California
Sacramento (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_20,_Lottery_Funds_for_Instructional_Materials_Measure_(March_2000)&oldid=9011206"