Electoral Reform: Should It Be Easier to Pass Local Taxes?

Written by Patch editors Jennifer Squires and Dan Abendschein

Special districts and other local agencies may find it easier for local communities to pass funding measures if two proposed amendments to the state Constitution move forward. 

The proposals would lower the threshold of votes required to approve bonds and special taxes from two-thirds to 55 percent.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8 passed the state House on Saturday with a 54-25 vote. ACA 8 would let communities pass infrastructure bond measures with the same 55 majority that now applies to school bonds. 

The state Senate will take up ACA 11 on Wednesday.  If passed and signed by the governor, it would go on the ballot for California voters to approve or reject.

If the rules were to change it could have a direct impact on Montrose and La Crescenta residents - for example, the county has been discussing a water clean-up parcel tax that would be levied on county home owners, a plan opposed by the Glendale Chamber of Commerce.

Glendale Unified has also discussed in recent years the possibility of a parcel tax, which would become much easier to pass if the state Constitution were amended.

The changes are inspired, in part, by the narrow failure of Measure J in Los Angeles County last year. It would have continued a half-cent sales tax that pays for transit improvements, but fell just short of the required two-thirds vote with 66.11 percent of voters in favor of the measure. 

“Our infrastructure investment need exceeds what the state budget can provide, and state bonds cannot be a substitute for local initiative and responsibility,” said Rep. Bob Blumenfield, a Democrat from the San Fernando Valley who authored ACA 8. 

ACA 8 and 11 would also include new accountability actions for local bond and revenue measures, according to the California Special Districts Association. These are the requirements: 

• Specify all purposes of tax proceeds to voters;
• Include annual independent audits of the proceeds collected and programs funded;
• Establish a citizens’ oversight committee to review all expenditures and financial audits.

The amendments would reverse a portion of Prop. 13, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 1978 that limited property taxes and set the two-thirds requirement for tax measures. 

If approved by the Senate, the constitutional changes would then go on the ballot for California voters to decide on.

What do you think? Should it be easier to pass bonds and special taxes?