California Proposition 3, Children's Hospital Bonds Initiative (2008)

California Proposition 3
Election date November 4, 2008
Topic Bond issues
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 3 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 4, 2008. It was approved.

A yes vote supported authorizing $950 million in bonds for the construction, expansion, renovation, and equipping of children's hospitals in California.

A no vote opposed authorizing $950 million in bonds for the construction, expansion, renovation, and equipping of children's hospitals in California.

Overview

The ballot initiative issued $950 in general obligation bonds for constructing, renovating, and equipping children's hospitals in California. The state fiscal analyst estimated that repayment of the bond issue, including principle and interest, would be $64 million over 30 years.

In 2004, voters approved a children's hospital bond initiative, titled Proposition 61. In 2018, voters approved a $1.5 billion children's hospital bond measure, titled Proposition 4.

Election results

California Proposition 3
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		6,984,319	55.26%
No		5,654,586	44.74%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 3 was as follows:

“

Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Initiative Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

• 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.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

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.

”

Support

Yes on Children's Hospitals, also known as Yes on 3 led the campaign in support of Proposition 3. The California Children's Hospital Association sponsored the campaign.

Supporters

• Children's Hospital Los Angeles
• Rady Children's Hospital San Diego
• Miller Children's Hospital
• Children's Hospital of Orange County
• Children's Hospital Central California
• Children's Hospital and Research Center at Oakland
• Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford
• Loma Linda University Children's Hospital

Arguments

The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ Parents of seriously ill children, like us, appreciate the value of California’s Children’s Hospitals. Our children received the specialized care they needed and couldn’t get anywhere else. Over 1 MILLION times each year, California Children’s Hospitals treat children with the most serious illnesses and injuries. Children facing life-threatening diseases like LEUKEMIA, CANCER, HEART DEFECTS, SICKLE CELL ANEMIA, DIABETES, CYSTIC FIBROSIS, and countless other rare conditions are cared for at regional Children’s Hospitals every day, without regard to a family’s income or ability to pay. Children are referred to these pediatric centers of excellence by other hospitals and physicians from throughout California for the specialized treatment they need. Children’s Hospitals provide: 88% of the inpatient care for children who need heart surgery; 97% of all surgery for children who need organ transplants; and 71% of inpatient care for children with cancer. Imagine that. Children’s Hospitals save hundreds of children’s lives EVERY DAY. Many children are cured. Others have their young lives extended for many years. And all have the quality of their lives improved. Today, almost 90% OF CHILDREN BORN WITH HEART DEFECTS can be cured or helped considerably by surgery. The SURVIVAL RATE OF CHILDREN WITH LEUKEMIA IS 80%. Imagine that. The nation’s premier pediatric research centers are in Regional Children’s Hospitals making them the source of medical discoveries and advancements that benefi t all children. PROPOSITION 3 WILL ALLOW CHILDREN’S HOSPITALS TO PURCHASE THE LATEST MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES and special equipment for sick babies born prematurely, seriously underweight, or with defective organs. PROPOSITION 3 DOES NOT RAISE TAXES. The bonds are an investment in the lives of millions of children who will be cared for over the next 30 years. Children’s Hospitals do not have enough room to handle the growing number of seriously ill and injured children sent to them every day. PROPOSITION 3 FUNDS WILL HELP CHILDREN’S HOSPITALS BUILD MORE BED CAPACITY AND BUY ESSENTIAL EQUIPMENT TO ENSURE THAT ALL CALIFORNIA CHILDREN can get the same excellent care our children got. These University and nonprofi t charitable hospitals need our help! Children with Heart Disease or Cystic Fibrosis or Cancer have to be admitted over and over to a Children’s Hospital to stabilize and treat their life threatening and debilitating illnesses. Children’s Hospitals have the specialists to improve the quality of kids’ lives, helping them stay at home and stay in school. THE MOST SERIOUSLY ILL AND INJURED CHILDREN ARE BEING SAVED EVERY DAY AT A CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL! The doctors, nurses, and staff at Children’s Hospitals are unlike any other people you will ever meet. Their lives are dedicated to a mission. And that mission is to treat children with the most serious and deadly diseases like Leukemia, Cancer, Heart Defects, Sickle Cell Anemia, Diabetes, and Cystic Fibrosis. We can imagine a California where all seriously ill and injured children receive the same care our children got. IMAGINE WITH US. Please join our families and millions of others whose children need California’s Children’s Hospitals. PLEASE VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 3. ”

Opposition

Opponents

• National Tax Limitation Committee

Arguments

The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ At a time when California is already deeply in debt, when its residents’ ability to pay off bonded debt is questionable and its credit rating causes bond interest rates to soar, adding bonded indebtedness for anything but the most essential infrastructure is unwise to the point of absurdity. But even if more bond debt were not an issue, this measure is badly fl awed. This nearly $1 billion bond measure is another abuse of the initiative process in that it has been bought and paid for by the special interests (hospitals, their administrators, and staffs), who will benefit directly, personally, and monetarily from its passage. And this is not the first time that these same special interests have turned to the initiative process. In 2004 they sponsored a carbon copy of this initiative for $750 million. They are back again, this time for even more. And yet hundreds of millions of dollars from the earlier bond (Prop. 61) remain unspent. Remember, these are not impoverished institutions. Several are part of the well-funded University of California system, and the others have substantial private and foundation support. This gigantic spending initiative is framed as helping “children’s hospitals,” using “children” as the justification for circumventing the normal legislative process by which state spending priorities are better determined. Yet a careful reading of the definition of “children’s hospital” reveals that 80% of the money may go to any acute hospital so long as it treats children, among other patients. It appears that a driving force behind this measure is to provide a backdoor way of compensating hospitals for treating indigents (including illegal aliens) who don’t pay their way through the front door. While this bond measure represents that the proceeds will be used for capital improvements, the definitions are so loose that it appears funds can fl ow to fi nance or reimburse just about any project a creative grant-writer is nimble enough to “sell” to the bond fund decision-makers. And “selling” isn’t tough, because the decision-makers are all part of the same team—and nearly $10 million of the bond funds are available for “administrative costs,” i.e., paying grant writers and others. Any one of the acute general hospitals that qualifies under this measure may receive a grant of up to $98 million. Is it any wonder that the hospitals which stand to benefit directly from this measure have been eager to fund the signature-gathering and the campaign for this measure? Proponents hope you will react emotionally to their framing of this measure: it’s “for the children.” Don’t be swayed by the labeling. You have a chance to stop this special-interest abuse of the initiative process and discourage others from misusing it in the future. And remember who will pay the bill for the bond over the next 30 years: your children and grandchildren. If you really want to help them, don’t saddle them with more debt of this kind. ”

Polls

See also Polls, 2008 ballot measures.

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided
September 2008	Field Poll	47%	35%	18%

Media editorials

Support

• Bay Area Reporter
• Contra Costa Times
• Los Angeles Times
• The Fresno Bee
• Oakland Tribune
• San Jose Mercury News

Opposition

• Appeal-Democrat
• Los Angeles Daily News
• Orange County Register
• Pasadena Star News
• Riverside Press-Enterprise
• The San Francisco Bay Guardian
• The Sacramento Bee
• San Diego Union-Tribune

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 2008, at least 433,971 valid signatures were required.

Arno Political Consultants was hired to conduct the signature drive for the ballot initiative.

See also

2008 Measures

• 2008 Measures
• Healthcare facility funding on the ballot
• Bond issues on the ballot
• 2008 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• November 4, 2008, General Election Voter Guide