California should end deceitful bond elections before lowering vote threshold

There is a legitimate debate to be waged over the current two-thirds voter threshold for approval of local bond measures in California.

Some feel it’s too stringent, undermining the will of the majority. Others argue it’s an appropriately tough hurdle to ensure that there is broad consensus before saddling future generations with additional tax debt.

But asking voters to settle that debate, by placing Proposition 5 on the Nov. 5 ballot, is putting the cart before the horse.  California lawmakers should have first fixed the current deceitful ballot and campaign practices of local agencies and businesses that financially benefit from passage of bond measures.

That didn’t happen. Which is why voters should reject Proposition 5. Reform the process and then we can debate whether to lower the vote threshold.

Proposition 5 would reduce the threshold for local government bonds for housing and roads from two-thirds to 55%. The two-thirds vote requirement for local bond measures has been part of the California Constitution since 1879.

In 2000, voters approved an exception for local bonds for school construction, which have since required only 55% approval. Proposition 5 would expand that carveout to bond measures for housing and infrastructure measures often proposed by local cities and counties. The new threshold would apply not only for future measures but also for the ones that are on the upcoming ballot.

Bonds are a form of borrowing, much like a mortgage. They must be repaid by taxpayers, usually over decades.

Statewide bonds — like those in the upcoming ballot’s Proposition 2 for school construction and Proposition 4 for environmental projects — are repaid with funds from the state budget. They don’t involve a direct tax increase and only require simple-majority voter support for passage.

But local bonds require property tax increases to cover the debt. So, when voters approve local bond measures, they are also approving property tax increases. Which is why there’s logic behind a higher threshold for approval.

But, as we’ve seen repeatedly in the Bay Area, the carveout for school bonds has been an electoral disaster. Proposition 5 would magnify the abuse.

We have witnessed local school officials, sometimes with questionable relationships with companies that stand to benefit, engage in deceitful political tactics and campaigns at taxpayer expense to pass their measures.

We often see ballot wording carefully crafted by political consultants to puff up the benefits of the measure, never mention the word tax and hide the true costs to taxpayers. Rather than fix these abuses, some state lawmakers have sought to enable and expand the deception.