Election 2008 Results
With this year’s historic election now behind us and the Governor poised to call a special session tomorrow, November 6, 2008, to address California’s growing current-year Budget deficit, we pause to reflect on yesterday’s state and local election results and what they mean for K-14 public education.
Legislative Seats
In what had been viewed as a long shot, Democrats had nevertheless talked about picking up sufficient seats in the Assembly to make a two-thirds majority. That did not occur as the Democrats picked up seats in Assembly District 15, Assembly District 78, and Assembly District 80, but lost a seat to the Republicans in Assembly District 30. The gain of two seats brings the Democratic membership of the Assembly to 50 for the first time since 2000; however, Assembly Democrats still remain four seats shy of the two-thirds membership required to pass the Budget and other measures requiring 54 votes for passage, such as taxes and urgency measures. In two of the three districts picked up by Democrats (AD 15 and 78), Democratic voter registration had increased more than 5% from October 2006 to October 2008, giving them the edge in these battleground districts. In Assembly District 30, which the Republicans picked up, Democratic voter registration had also increased in the past two years, but in that case only by 1.5%. However, the Republican candidate benefited from the endorsement of the Democrat incumbent in this conservative Democrat seat.
The Democrats may also pick up an additional Senate seat in Senate District 19, where Democrat Hannah-Beth Jackson is set to beat Republican Tony Strickland by only 108 votes, to give the Senate a Democratic majority of 26 to 14 the morning after the election. While the vote gives Jackson an ever-so slim margin of victory, there still remains thousands of absentee and provisional ballots to count in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. Two years ago, another close Senate race (SD-34) saw the election night victor actually lose the election after all the votes were counted weeks later.
The failure to achieve a two-thirds Democratic majority in the Assembly means that Democrats will not automatically have the votes needed to pass a Budget. The two-member increase will make it only slightly easier for Assembly Democrats to garner the votes needed to pass a State Budget or enact urgency legislation as fewer Republican votes will be necessary to meet the vote threshold.
What is unclear is what the impact of the new composition of the incoming 2009-10 Legislature will have on the lame-duck Legislature that will be tasked with addressing California’s current-year Budget deficit in a special session. We would think that the absence of a Democratic landslide in the districts considered to be in play could embolden Republican members to hang tough for a “cuts only” approach despite the state’s deteriorating revenues.
Propositions
Despite the state’s fiscal mess, voters approved (with 96.4% of the precincts reporting as of November 5, 2008, at 10:19 a.m.) some of the costly bond measures on yesterday’s ballot including Proposition 1A, the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Train Bond Act (52.3% yes to 47.7% no); Proposition 3, the Children’s Hospital Bond Act (54.8% yes to 45.2% no); and Proposition 12, the Veterans’ Bond (63.5% yes to 36.5% no).
Both Proposition 1A and Proposition 3 will cost the state General Fund millions of dollars, increasing pressure on other areas of the State Budget. The non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimated that if the Proposition 1A bonds were sold at an average interest rate of 5%, with an assumed repayment period of 30 years, the General Fund cost would be about $19.4 billion to pay off both principal ($9.95 billion) and interest ($9.5 billion). The annual debt service payment on the bond would be about $647 million per year. Using the same assumptions for Proposition 3, the LAO estimated the cost to the General Fund of about $2 billion to pay off both the principal ($980 million) and the interest ($933 million), with the average payment for principal and interest about $64 million per year.
The General Fund implications are less significant for Proposition 12. The Cal-Vet program has always been supported by participating veterans, at no direct cost to taxpayers. But, if payments by participating veterans weren’t sufficient to cover the amount owed on the bonds, the state could be on the hook for the average payment for principal and interest on the Proposition 12 bonds of about $59 million per year.
On the other hand, voters turned down other costly bond measures. Proposition 7, relating to renewable energy generation, which could have increased local district electrical costs if it ultimately resulted in increased electricity costs, was defeated. The vote was 64.9% no to 35.1% yes.
Proposition 10, which would have allowed the state to issue $5 billion in General Obligation bonds for various renewable energy, alternative fuel, energy efficiency, and air emissions reduction purposes, was defeated with 60% of voters saying no. That measure would have cost about $10 billion to pay off principle and interest. The measure would have provided some funding for public education, including grants to public colleges and universities.
By a similar margin, voters also rejected Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, which would have expanded alcohol and other drug treatment programs for nonviolent offenders. That initiative would have cost the state an estimated $1 billion for treatment and rehabilitation annually, while saving more than $1 billion annually due to lower prison and parole costs. The California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) dropped its proposed recall of Governor Schwarzenegger earlier this fall in order to pour about $2 million into defeating this initiative. Defeat of Proposition 5 also means that community colleges will not need to dramatically ramp up their addiction studies programs for the thousands of new alcohol and drug counselors who would have been needed if the initiative passed.
Proposition 6, which would have increased state spending for law enforcement, was rejected 69.4% to 30.6%. The LAO had estimated that the initiative would increase net annual state costs by more than $500 million within the first few years, and tens of million of dollars annually thereafter.
As is evident, voters sent mixed messages on the statewide bond measures, approving some costly measures while rejecting others. The yes on Proposition 1A campaign did a good job of tying the costly measure to its ability to put people back to work in the Central Valley, first on constructing the high-speed train and later on operating it. It wasn’t clear whether the no votes on some of the costly measures were due to fiscal or policy concerns over the initiatives. But the sheer amount of money spent on the initiatives, and what would have been spent had all propositions been passed, will undoubtedly result in some calling for an overhaul of California’s initiative process.
Local School Bond Elections
Voters across the state saw a record numbers of local school bond measures before them yesterday. A total of 86 general obligation bonds totaling almost $22 billion were on the ballot, and, all but one required a 55% majority to pass; the remaining bond was a two-thirds measure. Additionally, there were ten School Facility Improvement District measures totaling $552 million on yesterday’s ballot. For results of those school bond elections, see SSC’s separate article on the bond measures.
—Deborah Harmon