California Proposition 51, Public School Facility Bonds (2016)
| California Proposition 51 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Bond issues and Education | |
Status Approved | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
The California Public School Facility Bonds Initiative, also known as Proposition 51, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as an initiated state statute. It was approved.[1]
| A "yes" vote supported the state issuing $9 billion in bonds to fund improvement and construction of school facilities for K-12 schools and community colleges. |
| A "no" vote opposes the state issuing $9 billion in new debt to fund the improvement and construction of education facilities. |
Election results
| Proposition 51 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 7,516,142 | 55.18% | ||
| No | 6,104,294 | 44.82% | ||
- Election results from California Secretary of State
Overview
Education bonds in California
Between 1914 and 2015, 42 education-related bond measures have appeared on the ballot in California, and all of them were legislatively referred. Proposition 51 was the first education bond to appear on the ballot as an initiative and the first education-related bond measure to appear on the ballot since 2006. Proposition 1D of 2006 issued a $10.4 billion bond for repairs and upgrades to K-12 schools, community colleges, and state colleges and universities.
State of ballot measure campaigns
Yes on Proposition 51 received $12.1 million in contributions. While an opposition campaign organized to fight the initiative, its political action committee was terminated in June 2016. Both the California Democratic Party and California Republican Party supported the measure. Gov. Jerry Brown (D), however, opposed Proposition 51. Polls indicated that around 53 percent of voters supported the initiative prior to the election.
Initiative design
Bond money purposes
Proposition 51 was designed to store the $9 billion in bonds in a 2016 State School Facilities Fund and a 2016 California Community College Capital Outlay Bond Fund. The measure was designed to allocate the bond revenue as follows:[1]
- $3 billion for the construction of new school facilities;
- $500 million for providing school facilities for charter schools;
- $3 billion for the modernization of school facilities;
- $500 million for providing facilities for career technical education programs; and
- $2 billion for acquiring, constructing, renovating, and equipping community college facilities.[2]
Total cost of the bonds
The state's legislative analyst estimated that the $9 billion in bonds would cost $17.6 billion to repay. The fiscal impact statement estimated $8.6 billion in interest. The statement also stated that the bonds would cost the state approximately $500 million per year.[3]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title was:[4]
| “ | School Bonds. Funding for K-12 School and Community College Facilities. Initiative Statute.[5] | ” |
Ballot summary
The long-form ballot summary was as follows:[3]
| “ |
|
” |
The shorter ballot label summary was as follows:[3]
| “ |
Authorizes $9 billion in general obligation bonds for new construction and modernization of K-12 public school facilities; charter schools and vocational education facilities; and California Community Colleges facilities. Fiscal Impact: State costs of about $17.6 billion to pay off both the principal ($9 billion) and interest ($8.6 billion) on the bonds. Payments of about $500 million per year for 35 years.[5] |
” |
The long-form, official ballot summary for Proposition 51 was identical to the initial summary provided to initiative proponents for the purpose of circulating the initiative for signature collection.
Fiscal impact statement
Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's legislative analyst and its director of finance.
The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[4]
| “ |
State costs of about $17.6 billion to pay off both the principal ($9 billion) and interest ($8.6 billion) on the bonds. Payments of about $500 million per year for 35 years.[5] |
” |
Full text
The full text of the initiative measure is available here.
Support
Yes on Proposition 51 - Californians for Quality Schools led the campaign in support of Proposition 51.[6]
Supporters
Officials
- Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D)[7]
- State Superintendent Tom Torlakson
- U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-15)
- Sen. Ben Allen (D-26)
- Sen. Pat Bates (R-36)
- Sen. Tom Berryhill (R-8)
- Sen. Anthony Cannella (R-12)
- Sen. Jean Fuller (R-16)
- Sen. Cathleen Galgiani (D-5)
- Sen. Steve Glazer (D-7)
- Sen. Jerry Hill (D-13)
- Sen. Janet Nguyen (R-34)
- Sen. Jim Nielsen (R-4)
- Sen. Sharon Runner (R-21)
- Sen. Andy Vidak (R-14)
- Asm. Katcho Achadjian (R-35)
- Asm. Luis Alejo (D-30)
- Asm. Catharine Baker (R-16)
- Asm. Frank Bigelow (R-5)
- Asm. Susan Bonilla (D-14)
- Asm. Ian Calderon (D-57)
- Asm. Ling-Ling Chang (R-55)
- Asm. Rocky Chavez (R-76)
- Asm. David Chiu (D-17)
- Asm. Jim Cooper (D-9)
- Asm. Bill Dodd (D-4)
- Asm. James Gallagher (R-3)
- Asm. Mike Gatto (D-43)
- Asm. Lorena Gonzalez (D-80)
- Asm. Shannon Grove (R-34)
- Asm. David Hadley (R-66)
- Asm. Young Kim (R-65)
- Asm. Tom Lackey (R-36)
- Asm. Eric Linder (R-60)
- Asm. Evan Low (D-28)
- Asm. Brian Maienschein (R-77)
- Asm. Devon Mathis (R-26)
- Asm. Chad Mayes (R-42)
- Asm. Patrick O'Donnell (D-70)
- Asm. Miguel Santiago (D-53)
- Asm. Marc Steinorth (R-40)
- Asm. Don Wagner (R-68)
- Asm. Scott Wilk (R-38)
Former officials
- Delaine Eastin, California State Superintendent of Public Instruction[7]
- Jack O’Connell, Former State Superintendent of Public Instruction
- Former Asm. Joan Buchanan (D-16)
- Former Asm. Bob Huff (R-29)
- Former Asm. Kristin Olsen (R-12)
Parties
- California Democratic Party[7]
- California Republican Party
- California Young Democrats
- Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club[8]
- Los Angeles County Democratic Party
- Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley
- Santa Monica Democratic Club[9]
Organizations
Education organizations
Healthcare organizations
Business associations
Unions
|
School districts
|
Businesses
- American Modular Systems, Inc.[7]
- BakerNowicki Design Studio
- Bush Construction
- Collins Electrical Company, Inc.
- Couts Heating & Cooling, Inc.
- JL Modules, Inc.
- Norman Wright Equipment Corp
- Project Frog, Inc.
- TBWB Strategies
- XL Construction
Individuals
Kevin Drum, political blogger for Mother Jones[10]
Arguments
Supporters made the following arguments in support of Proposition 51:[3]
- Many community colleges, high schools, and elementary schools are in need of maintenance or replacement in order to meet standards for earthquake safety, fire safety, and health risks, such as asbestos and lead paint.
- Proposition 51 would be fiscally responsible and contain many taxpayer protection and accountability measures.
- Improving and expanding community colleges would make affordable education accessible to more California residents, including veterans.
- Improvements to the education system would be a good investment because it would make good jobs available to more California residents and reduce college debt, thereby boosting the economy.
Official arguments
Justine Fischer, president of the California State PTA, Ken Hewitt, president of the California Retired Teachers Association, and Larry Galizio, CEO of the Community College League of California, wrote the official argument in support of Proposition 51 found in the state voter guide:[3] The following was their argument:
PROP 51 MAKES PROTECTING STUDENTS A TOP PRIORITY. Many schools and community colleges are outdated and need repairs to meet basic health and safety standards -- including retrofitting for earthquake safety, fire safety, and removing asbestos and lead paint and pipes. Prop. 51 will help make sure our local schools are updated and safe for students. PROP 51 WILL HELP ALL CALIFORNIA STUDENTS GET A QUALITY EDUCATION. "Nothing is more disheartening than teaching students when our classrooms are falling apart and don't provide access to student's basic academic needs. To help students succeed, Prop 51 will repair outdated and deteriorating schools and upgrade classroom technology, libraries, and computer and science labs." - Tim Smith, 2014 California Teacher of the Year, Florin High School IMPROVING VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND HELPING RETURNING VETERANS. "Prop 51 allows local schools and community colleges to upgrade vocational education classrooms so students can train for good-paying careers and contribute to California's growing economy. And, we owe it to our veterans to provide training and help them transition to the workplace." - Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction INCREASE ACCESS TO AN AFFORDABLE COLLEGE EDUCATION. "By upgrading and repairing our community college facilities, we can increase access to quality, affordable higher education for all Californians. Our community colleges contribute to the economic and social strength of local communities throughout the state, and help college students avoid thousands of dollars in debt. We need to show our support to California's students." - Jonathan Lightman, Executive Director, Faculty Association of California Community Colleges CALIFORNIA FACES A LONG BACKLOG OF NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECTS. "School nurses are aware of the need for improved school facilities, the overcrowding, plumbing and other environmental issues requiring modifications necessary to maintain optimum health and safety of the students, faculty, and staff will be addressed by Prop 51." - Kathy Ryan, President, California School Nurses Organization PROTECTS LOCAL CONTROL OVER EVERY PROJECT. "Prop 51 will protect local control by requiring funding only be used for school improvement projects approved by local school and community college boards. All of the money must be spent locally, where taxpayers can have a voice in deciding how these funds are best used to improve their neighborhood schools." - Chris Ungar, President, California School Boards Association A FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE WAY TO UPGRADE AND REPAIR SCHOOLS WITH TOUGH TAXPAYER ACCOUNTABILITY. "A statewide bond is the best option for meeting California's school construction needs, because education is a statewide concern. Without this bond, local taxpayers will face higher local property taxes that create inequalities between schools in different communities, treat taxpayers differently, and lack strong accountability provisions." - Teresa Casazza, President, California Taxpayers Association WE CAN'T WAIT ANY LONGER. We haven't passed a statewide school bond in ten years, and now we face a massive backlog of local school projects. Our schools are in desperate need of upgrades and repairs to keep our students safe and ensure they have facilities where they can learn. Prop 51 will help our students and veterans succeed, PLEASE JOIN US IN VOTING YES ON PROP 51. |
Campaign advertisements
The following video advertisements were produced by Yes on 51:[11]
|
|
Opposition
California Taxpayers and Educators Opposed to Sprawl and Developer Abuse led the opposition campaign for Proposition 51.[12] Although the organization remained active on social media, the official political action committee was terminated on June 27, 2016.[13]
Opponents
Officials
Parties
- Libertarian Party of California[16]
- Green Party of California[17]
- California Peace and Freedom Party[18]
Organizations
- California Taxpayers Action Network[3]
Arguments against
Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to Proposition 51:[3]
- The bond proposition proposes putting California further into debt, which the state can't afford.
- Local control over spending allows for the most accountability and efficiency; the bond proposition would give state officials control over the bond money, instead of providing local control over the funds.
- Local school bonds are more effective than state school bonds, and local voters have shown willingness to approve local school debt, making a statewide bond proposition unnecessary.
- Proposition 51 does not guarantee equitable distribution of the bond money, giving well-funded school districts with consultants a better chance of applying for and receiving money than smaller and poorer districts.
- Proposition 51 was written and sponsored by construction companies to benefit construction companies by providing $9 billion in state spending from which they could profit.
Gov. Jerry Brown (D), the most prominent official opposing the initiative, argued: "I am against the developers' $9-billion bond. It's a blunderbuss effort that promotes sprawl and squanders money that would be far better spent in low-income communities."[14]
Official arguments
G. Rick Marshall and Wendy M. Lack of the California Taxpayers Action Network provided the official argument against the measure in the state voter guide. Their argument was as follows:
Bonds are debts that must be repaid with interest, over time. Since 1998, California voters have approved $35 billion in state school construction bonds. All were placed on the ballot by the Legislature and backed by the Governor. Proposition 51 is different. The Legislature did not put Proposition 51 on the ballot. And the Governor opposes it. We join the Governor in opposition because Proposition 51 is: UNAFFORDABLE: Californians already pay $2 billion each year on state school bonds. Proposition 51 would cost an additional $500 million each year — money the state doesn't have. In total, California has over $400 billion in debt and financial commitments. Governor Brown calls this a "wall of debt." Borrowing more money we can't afford is reckless. UNACCOUNTABLE: With local school bonds, communities control spending. With state school bonds, bureaucrats and their cronies call the shots. Local control is the best way to minimize government waste. UNNECESSARY: For school construction, local bond measures work better than statewide bonds. Last June voters approved over 90% of local school bonds on the ballot, providing over $5.5 billion for school construction. School enrollment is expected to decline over the next 10 years. Proposition 51 wastes money favoring construction of new schools over remodeling existing schools, INEQUITABLE: Proposition 51 funding would go to those first in line. Large wealthy districts would receive the "lion's share" because they have dedicated staff to fill out paperwork. This shuts out smaller, poorer districts that need help most. This is morally wrong. REFORM FIRST: Proposition 51 does nothing to change the bureaucratic, one-size-fits-none state bond program. Small, needy school districts can't afford expensive consultants used by the big, wealthy schools. Program reforms are needed so disadvantaged districts get the money they deserve. Last February Governor Brown told the Los Angeles Times, "I am against the developers' $9-billion bond... [it] squanders money that would be far better spent in low-income communities." Brown also said benefit promises to state employees are "liabilities so massive that it is tempting to ignore them... We can't possibly pay them off in a year or two or even 10. Yet, it is our moral obligation to do so — particularly before we make new commitments." We agree. Proposition 51 is supported by businesses and politicians who benefit from more state spending. Yes on 51 has already raised over $6 million from those who would profit most, including the Coalition for Adequate School Housing (CASH) and California Building Industry Association. California Taxpayers Action Network is an all-volunteer, non-partisan, non-profit that promotes fiscal responsibility and transparency in local government. We combat government secrecy, waste and corruption and seek to ensure everyone receives good value for their tax dollars. We're people just like you who support quality schools and want fiscal responsibility in government without waste. Join us in voting NO on Proposition 51. |
Campaign finance
Three committees were registered in support of the measure: Yes on Proposition 51 - Californians for Quality Schools, Torlaksons Invest in California a Ballot Measure Committee to Support Proposition 51, Superintendent Tom, and Community College Facility Coalition Issues Committee, Yes on 51. Together they reported over $12.1 million. One committee was registered in opposition: California Taxpayers and Educators Opposed to Sprawl and Developer Abuse. It did not report any contributions.[19]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $12,016,331.21 | $134,177.25 | $12,150,508.46 | $12,508,666.38 | $12,642,843.63 |
| Oppose | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Total | $12,016,331.21 | $134,177.25 | $12,150,508.46 | $12,508,666.38 | $12,642,843.63 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the ballot measure.[19]
| Committees in support of Proposition 51 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Yes on Proposition 51 - Californians for Quality Schools | $11,880,894.00 | $132,677.25 | $12,013,571.25 | $11,953,002.45 | $12,085,679.70 |
| Community College Facility Coalition Issues Committee, Yes on 51 | $90,637.21 | $1,500.00 | $92,137.21 | $510,650.03 | $512,150.03 |
| Torlaksons Invest in California a Ballot Measure Committee to Support Proposition 51, Superintendent Tom | $44,800.00 | $0.00 | $44,800.00 | $45,013.90 | $45,013.90 |
| Total | $12,016,331.21 | $134,177.25 | $12,150,508.46 | $12,508,666.38 | $12,642,843.63 |
Donors
The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in support of the ballot measure.[19]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coalition for Adequate School Housing Issues Committee | $2,186,000.00 | $4,500.00 | $2,190,500.00 |
| California Building Industry Association Issues Committee | $1,550,500.00 | $0.00 | $1,550,500.00 |
| Lewis Pacific Partners, including contributions from Lewis Investment Company, LLC | $275,100.00 | $0.00 | $275,100.00 |
| California Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization Political Action Committee | $250,000.00 | $0.00 | $250,000.00 |
| Lennar Homes of California Inc., and Affiliated Entities | $237,600.00 | $0.00 | $237,600.00 |
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the ballot measure.[19]
| Committees in opposition to Proposition 51 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| California Taxpayers and Educators Opposed to Sprawl and Developer Abuse | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Total | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Media editorials
Support
- San Diego Free Press and OB Rag endorsed Proposition 51.[20]
- San Francisco Chronicle: "Passing Prop. 51 can go a long way in modernizing schools and community colleges across California. Vote Yes on Prop. 51."[21]
- San Francisco Examiner: "It has no organized opposition and wide bipartisan support, including California’s Democratic and Republican parties, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Superintendent Tom Torlakson."[22]
Opposition
- The Bakersfield Californian: "Proponents — primarily real estate developers, interests tied to the bond and construction industry, and large, affluent school districts — should have heeded the governor’s and legislative analyst’s pleas to reform the mechanism that doles out state bond money to build new schools and upgrade existing ones."[23]
- Daily Bruin: "Because of its flawed approach to tackling the deficiencies in California’s public school system, this board does not endorse Proposition 51."[24]
- East Bay Express: "And we worry that high-powered school districts will swoop up most of the funds. It’s unfortunate that lawmakers and the governor couldn’t pass a smaller bond package to fix aging schools. We typically agree to support school bonds, but Prop. 51 isn’t the right policy."[25]
- East Bay Times: "Proposition 51, a $9 billion school construction initiative on the November ballot, would lock in a costly, outdated, inefficient and inequitable program that benefits builders at taxpayers' expense. Bankrolled by $7 million, mostly from the construction industry, Prop. 51 is an end-run around calls from Gov. Jerry Brown and the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office for much-needed reform. Brown has condemned 'the developers' $9 billion bond.' He called it 'a blunderbuss effort that promotes sprawl and squanders money that would be far better spent in low-income communities.' We agree. Voters should reject Prop. 51. Before taxpayers spend another dime on this program, it must be radically revamped."[26]
- Los Angeles Daily News: "Rather than forcing school districts into looking at less-expensive and more targeted ways to place much-needing investment into our schools, continuing to approve bond measures only encourages greater public indebtedness."[27]
- Los Angeles Times: "That doesn’t mean there isn’t already need for new and fixed-up schools in the state, and some of it is urgent. But California is past the situation that prevailed some 15 years ago, when schools were in dire condition statewide. It’s tempting to say, let’s just pass this bond and then fix the funding system. But as long as California keeps patching the problem with more of the same old bond measures, there will be less motivation to fix an inefficient and often unfair system while the state’s bonded indebtedness piles up. Better to get it right, first."[28]
- The Mercury News: "Prop. 51 also would continue doling out school bond money primarily on a first-come, first-served basis rather than helping the neediest districts. ... Prop. 51 is a good deal for developers but a bad deal for taxpayers and for the neediest school districts. Vote no."[29]
- The Modesto Bee: "We’ve been begging our Legislature to fix our roads, fund water storage and help us clean up our region’s dirty air. But little happens. Asked to address this problem, the Legislature punted. Perhaps that’s why Californians so frequently turn to the ballot box to fix problems that matter."[30]
- Monterey Herald: "But there’s a problem with this measure, found by following the money. Prop. 51 is primarily bankrolled by the construction industry, which would benefit from its open-endedness by having taxpayers underwrite what should primarily be the responsibility of developers."[31]
- Orange County Register: "Rather than forcing school districts into looking at less-expensive and more targeted ways to place much-needed investment into our schools, continuing to approve bond measures only encourages greater public indebtedness."[32]
- The Record: “Vote no. This is too costly and has a flawed set of rules. The state’s track record on school bonds is sketchy at best. Critics also argue this would help affluent schools more than those in low-income communities.”[33]
- The Sacramento Bee: “Voters should reject Proposition 51, but Brown should engage in a serious effort with legislators to fashion a smaller school construction bond, while updating the nearly 20-year-old formula for allocating school bond money. … Public schools and community colleges deserve support. But Proposition 51 is inflated and relies on an outdated formula.”[34]
- San Diego City Beat: “The money would be delegated to schools on a first-come-first-served basis and likely favor wealthy districts with more staff. Plus, this proposition was written and sponsored by stakeholder construction companies prioritizing their own interests, and it could increase state debt.”[35]
- San Diego Union-Tribune: "Gov. Jerry Brown’s announcement last week that he opposes a $9 billion school construction bond on the November state ballot is based on a simple, powerful argument. Instead of allocating bond funds based on need, the measure would provide money on a first-come, first-served basis — meaning affluent school districts with more experienced staffs would likely fare better than districts in poorer communities. This inequity has plagued previous school construction bonds. Brown is absolutely right to say the problem should have been addressed in crafting the measure."[36]
- San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a "No" vote on Proposition 51.[37]
- Santa Cruz Sentinel: "That’s why Gov. Jerry Brown and the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office say this measure doesn’t bring necessary reform to school bond provisions. State funds should go to needy districts — with developers paying more to help districts that are trying to cope with an influx of students from additional residential development. Brown calls it a 'blunderbuss effort that promotes sprawl and squanders money' that should instead first go to poorer school districts. Instead this measure‘s funding process favors schools that apply for projects early, allowing affluent districts with more seasoned administrators could [sic] muscle out poorer ones."[38]
Polls
- See also: Polls, 2016 ballot measures
- Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates surveyed Californians on a statewide $9 billion school bond in December 2014. A majority of Democrats, independents, Republican women, and Republicans ages 18 to 49 supported the measure.[39]
- In mid September 2016, the Public Policy Institute of California found support for Proposition 51 to be around 47 percent.[40]
- In mid October 2016, CALSPEAKS surveyed 622 likely voters on Proposition 51. Support among respondents was 56 percent.[41]
- The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) surveyed 1,017 likely voters in mid- to late October 2016 and found support at 46 percent. PPIC broke respondents down into three racial/ethnic categories, "White," "Latino," and "Other." Latinos in the sample had the most favorable view, at 64 percent, of Proposition 51. Whites had the least favorable view, at 40 percent. Around 54 percent of those classified as "Other" supported the measure.[42]
| California Proposition 51 (2016) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Support | Oppose | Undecided | Margin of error | Sample size | ||||||||||||||
| Public Policy Institute of California 10/14/2016 - 10/23/2016 | 46.0% | 41.0% | 12.0% | +/-4.3 | 1,017 | ||||||||||||||
| CALSPEAKS 10/7/2016 - 10/13/2016 | 56.0% | 21.0% | 23.0% | +/-7.0 | 622 | ||||||||||||||
| Public Policy Institute of California 9/9/2016 - 9/18/2016 | 47.0% | 43.0% | 10.0% | +/-3.5 | 1,702 | ||||||||||||||
| Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates 12/01/2014 - 12/07/2014 | 63.0% | 33.0% | 4.0% | +/-3.3 | 860 | ||||||||||||||
| AVERAGES | 53% | 34.5% | 12.25% | +/-4.53 | 1,050.25 | ||||||||||||||
| 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. | |||||||||||||||||||
- The Public Policy Institute of California asked respondents about their support for a statewide school bond. However, the amount was not specified nor was the proposition mentioned in the question. Without these specifications, the institute found 76 percent of respondents in favor and 21 percent opposed to a bond.[43]
| California Support for Statewide School Bond (2016) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Support | Oppose | Undecided | Margin of error | Sample size | ||||||||||||||
| Public Policy Institute of California 4/03/2016–4/12/2016 | 76.0% | 21.0% | 3.0% | +/-3.5 | 1,703 | ||||||||||||||
| 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
History of education bonds
 |
| Education policy is a major issue in California. To learn more, see "Public education in California." |
- See also: Education on the ballot and Bond issues on the ballot in California
Since 1914, 42 education-related bond measures have appeared on the ballot in California, and all of them were legislatively referred. In 2014, legislators tried to place a legislatively referred bond act that called for $9 billion for school maintenance and construction on the ballot. The legislation passed the California State Assembly, but Governor Brown opposed it before it could pass the California State Senate, and so it did not qualify for the 2014 ballot. Proposition 51 was the first education-related bond measure to appear on the ballot since 2006, and it was the first ever education-related bond measure that was citizen-initiated.[44][45]
Education statistics
- See also: Public education in California
California's public school system had, at the time, over 10,000 schools, including 1,100 charter schools, and 950 school districts. About 6.2 million students attend these schools. There are 113 community college campuses in the state, operated by 72 community college districts, with a total of 2.1 million students.[3]
The following chart shows how California compares to three neighboring states with respect to the number of students, schools, teachers per pupil, and administrators per pupil for the 2012-2013 school year. The chart also displays that information at the national level. Further comparisons between these states with respect to performance and financial information are given in other sections of this page. In the 2012-2013 school year, California had the highest teacher-to-student ratio among its neighboring states, 1:24. The state had the lowest administrator-to-student ratio among its neighboring states, 1:385. Per student spending in 2013 was $9,220.
| Regional comparison, 2012-2013 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Schools | Districts | Students | Teachers | Teacher to pupil ratio | Administrator to pupil ratio | Per pupil spending* |
| California | 10,315 | 1,181 | 6,299,451 | 266,255 | 1:23.7 | 1:385.4 | $9,220 |
| Arizona | 2,267 | 666 | 1,089,384 | 48,866 | 1:22.3 | 1:436.2 | $7,208 |
| Nevada | 664 | 18 | 445,707 | 20,695 | 1:21.5 | 1:441.7 | $8,339 |
| Oregon | 1,251 | 220 | 587,564 | 26,410 | 1:22.2 | 1:389.2 | $9,543 |
| United States | 98,454 | 18,093 | 49,771,118 | 3,109,101 | 1:16 | 1:294.1 | $10,700 |
| *Per pupil spending data reflects information reported for fiscal year 2013. Sources: National Center for Education Statistics, "Table 2 - Number of operating public schools and districts, state enrollment, teacher, and pupil teacher ratio, by state: School year 2012–13" United States Census, "Public Education Finances: 2012" | |||||||
Reports and analyses
UC Berkeley’s Center for Cities and Schools
Researchers at the University of California—Berkeley’s Center for Cities and Schools released a study titled "Building Pressure: Modeling the Fiscal Future of California K-12 School Facilities" in late September 2016. Researchers concluded that Proposition 51 would increase the adequacy and equity of schools in the state relative to making no changes. However, Proposition 51 would be "less effective, equitable and cost-efficient" than two alternatives, one targeting high-need districts and the other providing grants to schools on the basis of relative wealth with the intent of equalizing district funds and expenses. The report stated:[46]
| “ | Whether voters approve Proposition 51 in 2016 or not, providing sufficient K-12 school facilities to the state’s more than 6 million school children will remain an ongoing, long-term challenge for Californians. As such, state policymakers must look beyond the 2016 ballot measure to consider future options to meet this challenge. ...
... it appears that going forward with no state funding over the long-term would be clearly worse for school facility adequacy and equity than passing Proposition 51 in 2016. If Proposition 51 fails, inequity and inadequacy would almost certainly increase...[5] |
” |
The full report is available here.
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
- Thomas W. Hiltachk submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on January 12, 2015.
- A title and summary were issued by the attorney general of California's office on March 23, 2015.
- 365,880 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
- Supporters had until September 21, 2015, to collect the required signatures.[2]
- Proposition 51 was deemed eligible on September 17, 2015, after officials verified signatures, and was slated to become qualified 131 days before the election.[47]
- Proposition 51 qualified for the ballot on June 30, 2016.[48]
Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired National Petition Management, Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $1,252,534.01 was spent to collect the 365,880 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $3.42.
- See also: Ballot measure signature costs, 2016
State profile
| Demographic data for California | ||
|---|---|---|
| California | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 38,993,940 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 155,779 | 3,531,905 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 61.8% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 5.9% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 13.7% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 0.7% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0.4% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 4.5% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 38.4% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 81.8% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 31.4% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $61,818 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 18.2% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in California. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
Presidential voting pattern
- See also: Presidential voting trends in California
California voted for the Democratic candidate in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.
More California coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in California
- United States congressional delegations from California
- Public policy in California
- Endorsers in California
- California fact checks
- More...
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms California public education bond Proposition 51 2016. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
Related measures
2016
See also
External links
Basic information
Support
Opposition
Other resources
Additional reading
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 California Attorney General, "Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 15-0005," January 7, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Pending Signature Verification," accessed September 15, 2015
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 California Secretary of State, "California General Election November 8, 2016, Official Voter Information Guide," accessed August 18, 2016
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 California Secretary of State, "New Measure Eligible for California's November 2016 Ballot," accessed January 7, 2016
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Yes on 51 - Californians for Quality Schools, "Homepage," accessed September 14, 2016
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 Yes on 51 - Californians for Quality Schools, "Endorsements," accessed September 14, 2016
- ↑ Harvey Milk Democratic Club, “Official Endorsements for the November 8, 2016 Election,” August 17, 2016
- ↑ Santa Monica Daily Press, “Endorsements surge as campaigns heat up,” September 17, 2016
- ↑ Mother Jones, “California Voters Were Hit With a Blizzard of Ballot Propositions. Here’s Your Cheat Sheet,” October 18, 2016
- ↑ Yes on 51 Youtube, "Yes on 51 Channel," accessed September 14, 2016
- ↑ California Taxpayers and Educators Opposed to Sprawl and Developer Abuse Facebook, "Homepage," accessed September 14, 2016
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Statement of Organization, California Taxpayers and Educators Opposed to Sprawl and Developer Abuse," accessed August 29, 2016
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Jerry Brown opposes $9-billion school bond measure," February 12, 2016
- ↑ Sierra Sun Times, “Congressman Tom McClintock Comments on California Ballot Propositions,” October 14, 2016
- ↑ Libertarian Party of California, "Measures," August 21, 2016
- ↑ Green Party of California, “Green Party positions on Statewide Propositions - November 2016 General Election,” October 3, 2016
- ↑ Peace and Freedom Party, "Peace and Freedom Party recommends," accessed September 17, 2016
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 Cal-Access, "PROPOSITION 051 - SCHOOL BONDS. FUNDING FOR K-12 SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITIES. INITIATIVE STATUTORY AMENDMENT," accessed February 18, 2025
- ↑ San Diego Free Press, "San Diego 2016 Progressive Voter Guide," October 13, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Chronicle recommends: Yes on Prop. 51," September 9, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "Examiner Endorsements: Statewide ballot measures," October 23, 2016
- ↑ The Bakersfield Californian, "OUR VIEW: Reform state school bonds; vote no on Prop. 51," September 26, 2016
- ↑ Daily Bruin, "2016 Election: No on Proposition 51," November 3, 2016
- ↑ East Bay Express, "Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016," October 11, 2016
- ↑ East Bay Times, "Editorial: Stop subsidizing developers; reject Proposition 51," July 27, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Daily News, "Vote no on Prop. 51 and more school bonds: Endorsement," October 25, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "No more school bonds until California fixes its system for funding school construction. No on Prop 51," September 22, 2016
- ↑ The Mercury News, "Mercury News editorial: Proposition 51 school bond deserves a rare no vote," July 27, 2016
- ↑ The Modesto Bee, "Prop. 51 invests in tomorrow’s students," October 13, 2016
- ↑ Monterey Herald, "Editorial, Sept. 16, 2016: No on Proposition 51 because there’s no school bond reform," September 15, 2016
- ↑ Orange County Register, "No on Proposition 51," October 14, 2016
- ↑ The Record, “Record endorsements: Voters faced with 17 state ballot measures,” October 15, 2016
- ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Yes, we need schools, but not the Prop. 51 $9 billion school bond," September 22, 2016
- ↑ San Diego City Beat, “2016 Voter Guide: State measures,” October 12, 2016
- ↑ San Diego Union-Tribune, "The biggest reason school bond measure won't work," February 14, 2016
- ↑ San Mateo Daily Journal, "Editorial: Daily Journal proposition endorsements," October 28, 2016
- ↑ Santa Cruz Sentinel, "Editorial, Sept. 16, 2016: No on Proposition 51 because there’s no school bond reform," September 15, 2016
- ↑ Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates, "Summary of California School Bond Measure Survey Results," December 31, 2014
- ↑ Public Policy Institute of California, "Californians & Their Government," September 2016
- ↑ CALSPEAKS, "General Election October 2016 Survey of Californians," October 20, 2016
- ↑ Public Policy Institute of California, "Californians and Their GovernmentOctober 2016 Full Crosstabs – Likely Voters Only," October 26, 2016
- ↑ Public Policy Institute of California, "Californians & Education," April 2016
- ↑ Sacramento Bee, "$9 billion school bond clears signature threshold for November 2016 ballot," September 18, 2015
- ↑ KQED News, "Showdown Looms Over California’s School Construction Needs," January 23, 2015
- ↑ Center for Cities and Schools, "Building Pressure: Modeling the Fiscal Future of California K-12 School Facilities," September 2016
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Eligible Statewide Initiative Measures," accessed November 9, 2015
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "November 8, 2016, Statewide Ballot Measures," accessed August 18, 2016
 |
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 |
