Schools Need Election Change

The fact that a provision of California’s 1879 Constitution survives intact does not make it sacred. Such longevity is more likely to make a law an irrelevant relic, and this is the case with the constitutional requirement that a local school bond issue receive a two-thirds margin of approval from district voters. We support Republican Gov. Pete Wilson and legislative Democrats in their long effort to change the Constitution so that local school bond issues can be passed by a simple majority vote.

Legislation to effect the change has passed the state Senate and now is bottled up in the Assembly by Wilson’s fellow Republicans, who adamantly oppose the measure. They have the votes--a third or more of the chamber--to keep it there.

Meanwhile, local bond issues continue to fail and the crumbling public schools are stretched to the limit by the highly popular program to reduce class sizes. The Republicans argue that the two-thirds threshold for bond passage is needed to protect homeowners who pay the property taxes used to retire the bonds.

That logic was fine in the days when property taxes financed most or all of a school district’s budget--operating funds as well as construction money. But these days, especially since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978--financial support of local schools has shifted dramatically to the state level. In fact, the majority of revenue for school finance now comes from the state income and sales taxes that are paid by everyone.

As local bond issues repeatedly were defeated, Sacramento picked up some of the slack with statewide bond issues, which require only a simple majority vote. But Sacramento cannot do it all, nor should it.

According to Joel Fox, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., one compelling argument against the change to a simple majority is the fact that voters often pass local bond issues on the second or third attempt, as in the case of the Los Angeles school bond measure last year. That’s curious reasoning, Mr. Fox. If a bond issue was unacceptable in 1995 or 1996, what makes it all right in 1997? Is it the fact that the condition of school buildings has gotten that much worse? California needs to build for the future, not just scramble to make up for the neglect of the past.