Know your vote. Take a look at your sample ballot now!

California Proposition 13, School and College Facilities Bond (March 2020)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
California Proposition 13
Flag of California.png
Election date
March 3, 2020
Topic
Bond issues and Education
Status
Defeatedd Defeated
Type
Bond issue		Origin
State Legislature

California Proposition 13, the School and College Facilities Bond, was on the ballot in California as a legislatively referred bond question on March 3, 2020.[1] The ballot measure was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported this measure to authorize $15 billion in general obligation bonds for school and college facilities, including $9 billion for preschool and K-12 schools, $4 billion for universities, and $2 billion for community colleges.

A "no" vote opposed this measure to authorize $15 billion in general obligation bonds for school and college facilities.


Election results

California Proposition 13

Result Votes Percentage
Yes 4,304,013 46.99%

Defeated No

4,856,154 53.01%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Overview

What was the reaction to Proposition 13's defeat?

California Proposition 13 was the first statewide education-related bond issue that voters rejected since 1994. Between 1994 and 2020, voters approved six bond measures for school facilities—Proposition 203 (1996), Proposition 1A (1998), Proposition 47 (2002), Proposition 55 (2004), Proposition 1D (2006), and Proposition 51 (2016).

On March 11, 2020, Californians for Safe Schools and Healthy Learning, which led the campaign in support of Proposition 13, conceded that the ballot measure was defeated.[2] Asm. Patrick O'Donnell (D-70), who co-authored Proposition 13 (2020), said, "Despite this number having no relation to the content of the school facilities bond, many voters mistakenly believed the ballot measure made changes to the 'Proposition 13' originally passed in 1978 which dealt with property taxes."[3] Asm. O'Donnell introduced legislation to retire the use of Proposition 13 as an official ballot measure title.[4]

Susan Shelley, vice president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, responded to the proposition's defeat, saying, "Confusion over Proposition 13 is not the whole story here." She added, "People are cynical about how the money is being spent. Maybe the message is ‘enough is enough.’"[5]

What would Proposition 13 have used the bond revenue for?

See also: Measure design

Proposition 13 would have authorized $15 billion in bonds for school and college facilities in California, including $9 billion for preschool and K-12 schools, $4 billion for universities, and $2 billion for community colleges.[1] According to the California Legislative Analyst, the state would have made payments totaling an estimated $26 billion, including $15 billion in principal and $11 billion in interest, over 35 years from the General Fund.[6]

Proposition 13 was designed to distribute bond revenue as follows:[1]

School and College Facilities Bond (March 2020)
Amount Dedication
$9.0 billion Preschool and K-12
$2.8 billion new construction of school facilities
$5.2 billion modernization of school facilities
$500 million providing school facilities to charter schools
$500 million facilities for career technical education programs
$4.0 billion Universities
$2.0 billion capital outlay financing needs of the California State University
$2.0 billion capital outlay financing needs of the University of California and Hastings College of the Law
$2.0 billion Community colleges
$2.0 billion capital outlay financing needs of community colleges


Proposition 13 would have also made changes to the formula used to distribute state bond funds to schools, the rules governing local bond measures, and school districts' abilities to assess developer fees. See the measure design section of this page to learn more.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding Proposition 13?

See also: Campaign finance

Californians for Safe Schools and Healthy Learning, also known as Yes on Prop 13, led the campaign in support of Proposition 13. There were six committees organized to support the ballot measure, which raised a combined $13.06 million. There were zero committees organized to fund opposition to the ballot measure.[7]

The largest contributors to the committees supporting Proposition 13 were the California Teachers Association Issues PAC ($1.00 million), SEIU California State Council Issues Committee ($500,000), and California Charter Schools Association ($400,137).[7]

Measure design

Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of California Proposition 13.

Funds for school districts: distribution and prioritization of bond funds for schools

Proposition 13 would have appropriated $9.0 billion in bond revenue for preschool and K-12 schools, including $2.8 billion for new construction and $5.2 billion for modernization.[1]

As of 2020, the state government used facilities bond revenue to provide matching funds to school districts. Proposition 13 would have required the state government to cover between 50 and 55 percent of construction project costs and 60 and 65 percent of modernization project costs. Under Proposition 13, the state's percentage would have been determined based on a district's ability to raise funds and the district's share of low-income students, foster youth, and English learners. Districts also need to file a five-year facilities master plan to receive the bond funding from Proposition 13.[1]

Proposition 13 would have required the state Department of General Services to consider several factors when determining which modernization and construction applications to prioritize. Under Proposition 13, the factors would have been considered in the following order: (a) projects to address earthquake risks; (b) districts with financial hardships, as defined in law; (c) grants requested for remediation of lead in water; (d) the order of the applications that were submitted but not reviewed during the two prior quarters; (e) severe overcrowding, as defined in law; and (f) computation scores based on a district's tax base and percentage of English learners, students eligible for free or reduced-price meals, and foster youth. Within each of these factors, the department would have prioritize projects that include the use of a project labor agreement.[1]

Changes to local school bonds and fees: rules for schools to raise revenue

Proposition 13 would have made changes to school districts' abilities to raise revenue with local bond measures. Districts would have been permitted to issue a higher amount of local general obligation bonds. The limit on bond amounts would have increased from 1.25 percent to 2.0 percent of assessed property value for elementary and high school districts. The limit on bond amounts would have increased from 2.5 percent to 4.0 of assessed property value for unified school districts and community college districts.[1]

In California, school districts must place local general obligation bonds on the ballot, and the bond measure must receive 55 percent of the vote to be approved.[6]

As of 2020, school districts were permitted to assess one-time fees on developments to provide funds for school construction if the district can show that the new development would bring students into the district. Proposition 13 would have prohibited school districts from levying developer fees on multifamily residential developments, such as apartment complex, within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop. For other multifamily residential developments, developer fees would have been reduced by 20 percent through January 1, 2026.[1][6]

Note: As of 2020, state law defined major transit stop as (a) an existing rail or bus rapid transit station; (b) a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service; or (c) an intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.

Funds for higher education institutions: distribution and prioritization of bond funds for colleges and universities

Proposition 13 would have appropriated $6.0 billion to higher institutions of education, including $2.0 billion to the California State University, $2.0 billion to the University of California and Hastings College of the Law, and $2.0 billion to community colleges.[1]

Under Proposition 13, the state government would have provided bond revenue for colleges' and universities' projects as part of the annual budget act. Proposition 13 would have required the CSU Board of Trustees and the UC Regents to adopt five-year affordable student housing plans for campuses that seek bond funds.[1]

Note: Proposition 13 would have defined affordable student housing as "housing for low-income students for which the rental rate is either below the local market rate or the rent could be paid with the equivalent of 15 hours per week of federal work student wages in conjunction with financial aid."


Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:[6]

“

Authorizes Bonds for Facility Repair, Construction, and Modernization at Public Preschools, K–12 Schools, Community Colleges, and Universities. Legislative Statute.[8]

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:[6]

“
  • Authorizes $15 billion in state general obligation bonds for public education facilities: $9 billion for preschools and K–12 (includes $5.2 billion for modernization, $2.8 billion for new construction, $500 million for charter schools, and $500 million for career technical education); $6 billion for public universities and community colleges.
  • Projects will improve facilities' health/safety conditions (including earthquake/fire safety and removing lead from water) and increase affordable student housing.
  • Limits administrative costs to 5%.
  • Appropriates money from General Fund to repay bonds.[8]
 ”

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[6]

“
  • Increased state costs to repay bonds estimated at about $740 million per year (including interest) over the next 35 years.
  • Mixed effect on the amount of local bonds issued by school and community college districts and a likely reduction in the amount of developer fees collected by certain school districts going forward.
CA Prop 13 (2020) fiscal impact.png
[8] 		”

Full text

The full text of the ballot initiative is below:[6]

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The California Attorney General wrote the ballot language for this measure.


The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 17, and the FRE is -12. The word count for the ballot title is 19, and the estimated reading time is 5 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 16, and the FRE is 5.5. The word count for the ballot summary is 74, and the estimated reading time is 19 seconds.


Support

Californians for Safe and Healthy Learning 2020.png

Californians for Safe Schools and Healthy Learning, also known as Yes on Prop 13, led the campaign in support of Proposition 13.[9]

Supporters

Parties

Officials

Organizations

  • University of California Board of Regents[10]
  • California Building Industry Association
  • California Business Roundtable
  • California Chamber of Commerce
  • California Charter Schools Association[7]
  • California Community College Board of Governors
  • California Medical Association
  • California Retired Teachers Association
  • California School Boards Association
  • California School Nurses Association
  • California State PTA
  • California State University Board of Trustees
  • Community College League of California
  • League of Women Voters of California

Unions

  • California Federation of Teachers[10]
  • California Teachers Association[10]
  • California State Pipe Trades Council[7]
  • Northern California Carpenters Regional Council[7]
  • Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters[7]
  • State Building and Construction Trades Council of California[7]
  • United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America[7]

Arguments

  • Sen. Toni Atkins (D-39), president pro tempore of the state Senate, said, "These are funds that our schools desperately need to ensure our children are learning in safe, up-to-date classrooms, and there is no better investment for our state resources than our students. This is money that will fund critical health and safety improvements, such as removing mold and asbestos from classrooms and lead from school drinking water, fund emergency relief for schools struck by disasters, and modernize career and vocational training facilities, including those for veterans returning from duty. And it comes complete with transparency, by providing annual independent audits and public hearings so taxpayers can see how the money is being spent."[13]
  • Tony Thurmond (D), the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, said, "Most school districts struggle just to keep up with basic, basic maintenance and repairs. They need help from our state to be able to handle some of these larger needs that will be able to keep our kids safe and help schools deal with lead and mold and seismic needs."[12]

Opposition

Opponents

Officials

Organizations

Arguments

  • Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, stated, "Currently, there are strict limits on how much bond debt local school districts are allowed to carry. But a hidden provision of Prop. 13 (2020) nearly doubles the limits school districts can borrow. This means huge increases in property taxes are a near certainty. Who pays property taxes? We all do, either directly in property tax bills or through higher rents and other costs. Unlike the Prop. 13 from 1978, this Prop. 13 puts all taxpayers at risk of higher taxes."[15]

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures
The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through June 30, 2020.


There were six ballot measure committees registered to support Proposition 13. Together, the committees raised $13.06 million and spent $12.26 million.[7]

There were no ballot measure committees registered to oppose the measure.[7]

Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Support $12,768,607.81 $286,761.51 $13,055,369.32 $11,975,792.30 $12,262,553.81
Oppose $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total $12,768,607.81 $286,761.51 $13,055,369.32 $11,975,792.30 $12,262,553.81

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of Proposition 13.[7]

Committees in support of Proposition 13
Committee Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Californians for Safe Schools and Healthy Learning, Yes on Prop 13 $10,204,983.00 $276,264.66 $10,481,247.66 $10,106,901.00 $10,383,165.66
Californians for Quality Schools $1,113,984.38 $0.00 $1,113,984.38 $943,524.24 $943,524.24
Yes on Proposition 13 - California Coalition for Public Higher Education Issues Committee $761,880.18 $0.00 $761,880.18 $694,105.00 $694,105.00
Coalition for Adequate School Housing Issues Committee - Yes on 13 $414,608.98 $9,096.85 $423,705.83 $159,547.72 $168,644.57
Community College Facility Coalition Issues Committee - Yes on 13 $243,751.27 $1,400.00 $245,151.27 $58,656.71 $60,056.71
Citizens for a Strong Economy & Safe Schools, Yes on Prop 13; Patrick O'Donnell Ballot Measure Committee $29,400.00 $0.00 $29,400.00 $13,057.63 $13,057.63
Total $12,768,607.81 $286,761.51 $13,055,369.32 $11,975,792.30 $12,262,553.81

Donors

The following were the top five donors who contributed to the support committees.[7]

Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
California Teachers Association Issues PAC $1,000,000.00 $0.00 $1,000,000.00
SEIU California State Council Issues Committee $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00
California Charter Schools Association $400,137.42 $0.00 $400,137.42
Five Point Holdings, LLC and Affiliated Entities $350,000.00 $0.00 $350,000.00
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America $334,000.00 $0.00 $334,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the ballot measure. If you are aware of a media editorial board position that is not listed below, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

  • Chico Enterprise-Record: "But this proposition is just a $15 billion school bond, although it does have a few differences from your run of the mill school bond. We’re going to endorse it because of one of those quirks. The bulk of the money — $9 billion — goes to K-12 schools. But it’s not dumped into a single mosh pit for new construction that favors well-off districts able to hire deft grant writers. The measure steers $5.2 billion of that $9 billion toward modernization of existing schools, with things like dealing with lead in water systems and asbestos specifically mentioned in the law’s language. These are critical priorities for the state’s children, and there are many small districts that wouldn’t be able to to take those steps without support."[16]
  • Los Angeles Times: "Proposition 13 on the March ballot – ignore the iconic number, it’s just a coincidence – was written to avoid the problems of previous bonds, and it deserves passage. ... California schools already are underfunded compared with other states. The minimum that voters can do is ensure that students attend schools that are safe and modern, reflecting California’s commitment to education, perhaps the state’s most important investment."[17]
  • San Francisco Chronicle: "A well-educated workforce is essential to California’s future economy — and bringing the state’s many substandard school facilities is critical to creating a learning environment. This is a big investment, but it is a wise investment. We recommend a yes vote on Proposition 13.”[18]
  • The Sacramento Bee: "Prop. 13 is more than new funding for school capital projects. It reforms how funding is spent and lowers fees for the dense housing development California critically needs. The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board supports Proposition 13 and encourages you to do the same."[19]

Opposition

  • The Mercury News: "In other words, owners of existing homes would be called on to finance more of the school construction needed for new homes. While Prop. 13 might make some homes near transit slightly more affordable, assuming developers pass on the savings to buyers and renters, it would drive up the cost of housing for existing homeowners, especially in communities that are growing and adding more students to their schools. Many of those homeowners already pay hundreds of dollars annually in property taxes to cover the cost of past school construction measures."[20]
  • The Orange County Register: "Yet this is no ordinary school-construction bond. In addition to creating state debt, it has a hidden and pernicious provision that raises the debt limit for local districts. School districts have repeatedly asked voters to approve facilities bonds – so much so that many school districts have bumped up against state-imposed caps on local indebtedness. ... We urge voters to embody the spirit of the original Prop. 13 and halt this endless spending cycle – and thereby force state and local officials to do a better job budgeting the money they already have."[21]
  • The San Diego Union-Tribune: "With more bond money available, school board members who already face constant pressure to boost employee pay will keep eyeing borrowed money for day-to-day bills. That shouldn’t happen. Californians should send a message to the state Capitol and require responsible budgeting. Vote no on Proposition 13."[22]

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls
California Proposition 13, School and College Facilities Bond (March 2020)
Poll Support OpposeUndecidedMargin of errorSample size
PPIC (likely voters)
2/7/2020 - 2/17/2020		 51.0%42.0%8.0%+/-4.41,046
PPIC (likely voters)
1/3/2020 - 1/12/2020		 53.0%36.0%10.0%+/-4.6967
PPIC (likely voters)
11/3/2019 - 11/12/2019		 48.0%36.0%16.0%+/-4.31,008
PPIC (likely voters)
9/16/2019 - 9/25/2019		 54.0%40.0%6.0%+/-4.21,031
AVERAGES 51.5% 38.5% 10% +/-4.38 1,013
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Bond issues on the ballot in California

See also: Bond issues on the ballot

Californians cast ballots on 43 bond issues, totaling $173.656 billion in value, from January 1, 1993, through January 1, 2019. Voters approved 32 (74 percent) of the bond measures—a total of $151.174 billion. Eight of the measures were citizen's initiatives, and five of the eight citizen-initiated bonds were approved. The legislature referred 35 bond measures to the ballot, and 27 of 35 legislative referrals were approved. The most common purpose of a bond measure during the 25 years between 1993 and 2018 was water infrastructure, for which there were nine bond measures.

Click show to expand the bond revenue table.

Path to the ballot

See also: Authorizing bonds in California

Section 1 of Article XVI of the California Constitution requires that general obligation bond issues of $300,000 or more be referred to voters for approval or rejection.

A two-thirds vote is required in both chambers of the California State Legislature to place a bond issue on the ballot. That amounts to a minimum of 54 votes in the California State Assembly and 27 votes in the California State Senate, assuming no vacancies. In California, bond issues require the governor's signature to be referred to the ballot.

The bond act was introduced into the legislature as Assembly Bill 48 (AB 48) on December 3, 2018. The original version of AB 48 included two bond measures, one for the election on March 3, 2020, and one for the election on November 8, 2022. Both of the proposed bond measures addressed school and college facilities. Legislators amended AB 48 to include just one bond measure, which was named the Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020.[1]

The final version of AB 48 came up for a vote in the state Senate on September 13, 2019, and in the state Assembly on September 14, 2019. The state Senate voted 35-4. The state Assembly voted 78-1.[1]

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed AB 48 on October 7, 2019, which placed the bond measure on the ballot.[1] Gov. Newsom said, "We are back asking the voters yet again to do what they historically have always done, and that is to embrace our children and embrace their fate and future and do more to do justice to the cause of public education in the state of California."[23]

Vote in the California State Senate
September 13, 2019
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 27  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total3541
Total percent87.50%10.00%2.50%
Democrat2900
Republican641
Vote in the California State Assembly
September 14, 2019
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 53  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total7810
Total percent98.73%1.27%0.00%
Democrat6100
Republican1710

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in California

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in California.

See also

External links

Measure

Support

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 48," accessed June 6, 2019
  2. ↑ Twitter, "Californians for Safe Schools and Healthy Learning," March 11, 2020
  3. ↑ Asm. Patrick O'Donnell, "O’Donnell Bill Will End the Use of Proposition 13 for Ballot Measures," March 4, 2020
  4. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Prop. 13 school bond measure appears headed for defeat. How did that happen?" March 5, 2020
  5. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Column: Proposition 13 appears headed for a fall. Here’s why voters might have rejected it," March 9, 2020
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 California Secretary of State, "California Presidential Primary Election March 3, 2020, Official Voter Guide," accessed January 22, 2020
  7. ↑ 7.00 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08 7.09 7.10 7.11 Cal-Access, "Propositions & Ballot Measures," accessed January 23, 2020
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  9. ↑ Californians for Safe and Healthy Learning, "Homepage," accessed January 22, 2020
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 Californians for Safe Schools and Healthy Learning, "Supporters," accessed January 22, 2020
  11. ↑ EdSource, "$15 billion California school bond headed for March ballot with Newsom’s signature," October 7, 2019
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Cap Radio, "California’s Lone March Ballot Measure: A $15 Billion School Bond With A Confusing Name," February 7, 2020
  13. ↑ YubaNet.com, "Atkins, Senate Leaders Praise Signing of $15 Billion Education Construction Bond," October 7, 2019
  14. ↑ EdSource, "For better or worse, school construction bond on March 2020 ballot will be Prop. 13," November 7, 2019
  15. ↑ Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, "Hidden agenda in masquerading big bond measure," November 24, 2019
  16. ↑ Chico Enterprise-Record, "This version of Proposition 13 warrants a ‘yes’," January 29, 2020
  17. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Endorsement: Yes on Proposition 13 for school upgrades," February 11, 2020
  18. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, “Editorial: Yes on California Prop. 13,” January 26, 2020
  19. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "California ballot measure brings fairness to school bonds. It deserves your vote in March," February 5, 2020
  20. ↑ The Mercury News, "Editorial: Reject Prop. 13, California’s $15 billion school bond plan," February 9, 2020
  21. ↑ The Orange County Register, "The latest Prop. 13 is bad for taxpayers. Vote No on March 3," February 2, 2020
  22. ↑ The San Diego Union-Tribune, "Endorsement: Vote no on Proposition 13 school bond measure," February 19, 2020
  23. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Californians will vote on biggest-ever school construction bond in 2020," October 7, 2019
  24. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Section 3: Polling Place Hours," accessed August 12, 2024
  25. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed August 13, 2024
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed August 13, 2024
  27. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Same Day Voter Registration (Conditional Voter Registration)," accessed August 13, 2024
  28. ↑ SF.gov, "Non-citizen voting rights in local Board of Education elections," accessed November 14, 2024
  29. ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
  30. ↑ Democracy Docket, "California Governor Signs Law to Ban Local Voter ID Requirements," September 30, 2024
  31. ↑ Congress, "H.R.3295 - Help America Vote Act of 2002," accessed September 30, 2025
v • e
2020 ballot measures
I&R States
 • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming
Non I&R States
 • Alabama • Georgia • Iowa • Kentucky • Louisiana • New Jersey • Rhode Island • Virginia • Wisconsin
Political topics
Other
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_13,_School_and_College_Facilities_Bond_(March_2020)&oldid=10108999"