California Proposition 3, Childrens' Hospitals Bond Act (2008)
Proposition 3 authorized $980 million in bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals. The annual payment on the debt authorized by the initiative will be about $64 million a year. Altogether, the measure will cost about $1.9 billion over 30 years out of California's general fund.
A smaller, but similar, bond measure for hospitals, Proposition 61, was approved by voters in 2004.
|California Proposition 3|
Turnout: 79.4% of registered
- Final results from the California Secretary of State
Text of measure
The ballot title was:
The official summary provided to describe Proposition 3 said:
- Authorizes $980,000,000 in bonds, to be repaid from state's General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children's hospitals.
- Designates that 80 percent of bond proceeds go to hospitals that focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis.
- Requires that qualifying children's hospitals provide comprehensive services to a high volume of children eligible for governmental programs and meet other requirements.
- Designates that 20 percent of bond proceeds go to University of California general acute care hospitals.
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:
- "State cost of about $2 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($980 million) and the interest ($933 million) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $64 million per year."
The official committee supporting the CHBA was called the California Children's Hospital Association Initiative Fund.
Arguments in favor
Notable arguments made in support of the measure included:
- Passing the initiative will help provide the hospitals with enough money for greater bed capacity and to purchase important equipment as well as the most modern technologies.
$7,908,647 was contributed to the campaign in favor of a "yes" vote on Proposition 3.
Donors of $100,000 or more were:
|Children's Hospital Los Angeles||$1,471,682|
|Rady Children's Hospital San Diego||$917,627|
|Miller Children's Hospital||$907,221|
|Children's Hospital of Orange County||$905,812|
|Children's Hospital Central California||$910,510|
|Children's Hospital and Research Center at Oakland||$899,131|
|Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford||$899,131|
|Loma Linda University Children's Hospital||$203,506|
All donors to the campaign of over $5,000 were hospitals.
Notable arguments made in opposition included:
- Proposition 3 is misuse of the public ballot system by special interests
- The measure also allows money to go to hospitals that are not childrens hospitals.
- These very same special interest groups initiated the passage of Proposition 61. Half of that money still remains unspent.
- Debt from Propositions 3, and its interest, must be paid from the general fund. This means that there will be less for other important state programs.
- See also Polls, 2008 ballot measures.
|Date of Poll||Pollster||In favor||Opposed||Undecided|
|September 2008||Field||47 percent||35 percent||18 percent|
"Yes on 3"
- The Bay Area Reporter
- Contra Costa Times
- The Los Angeles Times
- The Fresno Bee.
- Oakland Tribune
- San Jose Mercury News
"No on 3"
- The Appeal-Democrat
- The Los Angeles Daily News
- Orange County Register
- The Pasadena Star News
- Riverside Press-Enterprise
- The San Francisco Bay Guardian
- Sacramento Bee
- San Diego Union-Tribune
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
- Official Voter's Guide to Proposition 3
- PDF of the mailed November 4, 2008 voter guide for Proposition 3
- November 4, 2008 ballot proposition election returns (dead link)
- Proposition 3 in the Smart Voter Guide
- Analysis of Proposition 3 (dead link) from the Institute of Governmental Studies
- Guide to Proposition 3 from the California Voter Foundation
- Summary of donors to and against Proposition 3 from Cal-Access
- Donors for and against Proposition 3 from Follow The Money
- Imagine With Us, official website supporting Proposition 3
- State Proposition 3 would fund children's hospitals
- Children's hospitals seek more bond money with Prop 3
- Large donors to the Children's Hospital Bond Act campaign fund
- Official election results (dead link)
- Daily Breeze, "PROP. 3: HEALTH CARE: Measure would expand hospital funding," September 28, 2008
- Aztec Times, "Proposition 3 asks Californians to allot $980 million for hospitals; Children's Hospital Bond Act Grant Program will cost $64 million per year," September 4, 2008 (dead link)
- Follow the Money, "Donors to Yes on Proposition 3"
- Large donors to the Children's Hospital Bond Act campaign fund
- Sacramento Bee, "Field Poll: Voters who've heard of Proposition 3 tend to favor it," September 30, 2008
- Institute for Governmental Studies, "November 2008 endorsements" (dead link)
- Los Angeles Times, "Yes on California bonds; Bullet trains, children's healthcare and veterans' housing all deserve support," October 2, 2008
- Fresno Bee, "Vote Yes on Proposition 3"
- Appeal-Democrat, "Our View: Wrong way to fund a good cause," September 27, 2008
- Los Angeles Daily News, "Children's hospitals still have plenty of bond money and now we can't afford more"
- Pasadena Star News, "Vote 'no' on Proposition 3," September 30, 2008
- Expenditure details
State of California
|Ballot measures by year||
1910 | 1911 | 1912 | 1914 | 1915 | 1916 | 1919 | 1920 | 1922 | 1924 | 1926 | 1928 | 1930 | 1932 | 1933 | 1934 | 1935 | 1936 | 1938 | 1939 | 1940 | 1942 | 1944 | 1946 | 1948 | 1949 | 1950 | 1952 | 1954 | 1956 | 1958 | 1960 | 1962 | 1964 | 1966 | 1968 | 1970 | 1972 | 1973 | 1974 | 1976 | 1978 | 1980 | 1982 | 1984 | 1986 | 1988 | 1990 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1996 | 1998 | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2006 (local) | 2008 | 2008 (local) | 2009 | 2009 (local) | 2010 | 2010 (local) | 2011 (local) | 2012 | 2012 (local) | 2014 | 2016 |
|State executive offices||
Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Controller | Treasurer | State Auditor | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Insurance | Secretary of Agriculture | Secretary for Natural Resources | Director of Industrial Relations | President of Public Utilities |