Proposition 98

Prop 98: May Its Author Live Forever?

Joe Mathews — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:09:00 -0400

Here's my piece on Prop 98, California's education funding guarantee, in today's Los Angeles Times. Prop 98 is very, very complicated, but it generally does what it's supposed to: protect education. In the piece, I consider various problems with the formula and various ways to fix it, but conclude with only one reform.

Defeated Initiative Spawns Tenants' Movement in California

Joe Mathews — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:42:00 -0400

The San Francisco Chronicle argues today that the effort to defeat Prop 98, a measure to limit eminent domain that also would have outlawed rent control, has sparked a new tenants' rights movement in California.

98 Ends Rent Control, 99 Undermines Mom and Pop

Joe Mathews — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:05:00 -0400

At the LA Weekly, Jill Stewart deconstructs the two competing California ballot initiatives to limit eminent domain. Prop 98 puts more restrictions on government's ability to take land for private development. Stewart argues that the two main things to know are these. Prop 98 would end rent control (a provision added to attract funding for the initiative) and Prop 99 would protect some homeowners but would leave cities free to take the land of mom-and-pop stores.

Scaring the Seniors

Joe Mathews — Thu, 22 May 2008 23:50:00 -0400

This new No on Prop 98 ad ( the more conservative of the two measures to limit eminent domain in California) shamelessly doesn't even mention eminent domain. Instead, it attempts to frighten seniors by highlighting an AARP endorsement and suggesting old folks will be kicked out of their homes. The initiative does limit rent control, but this exaggeration is pretty gross.

And here's the Yes on 98 ad, which isn't any more honest. It omits the fact that the initiative would end rent control. And according to the LA Times, the woman who claims her home was seized actually sold it -- 30 years ago -- after there was a threat of eminent domain.

PPIC Poll: California Eminent Domain Measures Lack Majority

Joe Mathews — Thu, 22 May 2008 16:42:00 -0400

A new poll from the Public Policy Institute of California finds that the two competing eminent domain measures, Propositions 98 (backed by conservatives, anti-tax groups) and Prop 99 (backed by cities), have less than 50 percent support. Less than two weeks before an election, that often spells doom for both measures. As such, this would be a victory for the backers of Prop 99, who qualified the measure in order to beat Prop. 98. Qualifying your own measure to defeat one you don't like is a time-tested tactic. In most cases, both initiatives go down. Each initiaitve purports to restrict the ability of governments to take property for private purposes, though Prop 98's protections are stronger--so strong the initiative also would eliminate rent control.

In other findings, the poll shows that Gov. Schwarzenegger's lottery plan is unpopular with the public--and his back-up proposal, a one-cent sales tax increase, has support from a narrow majority.

Prop 98 and 99

Joe Mathews — Tue, 13 May 2008 11:29:00 -0400

Here's a San Jose Mercury News look at the two measures. One thing that distinguishes Prop 98 from 99 is the former's elimination of rent control, which is why it's backed by owners of apartment buildings and trailer parks, including Tribune Company chairman Sam Zell.

Round Up: Show Me The Blocking Campaign

Joe Mathews — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:57:00 -0400

SHOW ME STATE BLOCKING CAMPAIGN: The blockbuster democracy world is afire with reports that Lee Albright and his firm National Petition Management have been hired to lead a blocking campaign against the signature gathering for Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action initiative in Missouri. The Wall Street Journal publishes an opinion piece that provides a decent overview -- but with an over-the-top spin that suggests that blocking campaigns are way out of bounds.

The truth about blocking campaigns is: in almost any form they take, they are a waste of time and money. A well-funded, well-organized signature effort is almost always going to qualify, blockers or not. The physical intimidation -- often standing around looking menacing or screaming at signature gatherers and voters -- used by blockers can slow gathering and raise the costs, but in my experience, they rarely stop it. One form of blocking campaign that is permitted in some states and cities -- a signature gathering effort in which people sign up to have their signatures taken off petitions -- have had limited effectiveness at slowing things down. People in the blockbuster democracy biz know all this, and as a result, most blocking campaigns don't have much muscle or money behind them. They are part of the show, the public relations back-and-forth of initiative campaigns that rely on claims the other side is abusing the process. ("I am shocked, shocked to hear of this despicable campaign to block our initiative which seeks only to enshrine truth, justice and the Americna way in the constitution of our humble state").

ARKANSAS CHURCHES RALLY AGAINST LOTTERY: The IRS in recent years has investigated churches that involve themselves in political activity. But that's not stopping Arkansas churches from organizing against a state lottery proposed by the lieutenant governor.

PETE'S DOMAIN: Former Gov. Pete Wilson opposes Prop 98, the first of the two eminent domain initiatives on this June's California ballot. Prop. 98 is backed by property owners and taxpayer groups, and the opposition of a prominent Republican -- even if it's a relatively moderate governor who is not particularly popular -- is a bit of a blow.

CAN'T ANYBODY IN COLORADO GET ALONG? There's a dust-up now between a Republican Senate candidate and pro-lifers about the candidate's attempts to remain neutral on the state's "personhood" initiative, one of the newest genre of anti-abortion measures.

THIS 'NO' CAMPAIGN IS ARMED: North Dakota hunters are ramping up their campaign against an initiative that would prohibit so-called "high fence" hunting at game and elk preserves.

Refighting Prop 98, and Why John Mockler Must Never Die

Joe Mathews — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:31:00 -0400

Updated: The San Diego Union-Tribune is engaged in a curious war over a very old question: when is an increase in spending a cut in spending? The added wrinkle is that the paper is focusing on education spending in California, and that takes us back to the education spending formula -- and incomprehensible morass -- known as Proposition 98.

To help the easily confused, this is a different Prop 98 than the eminent domain measure that will appear on your ballot this June. (Every decade or so, the Secretary of State busts open the odometer of blockbuster democracy, and resets the Proposition numbers at 1).

The education funding formula Prop 98, passed by California voters 20 years ago, is one of the two ballot initiatives that has the most influence over how our state is governed. The other, Prop 13, passed by voters in 1978, limits how fast taxes can go up, and requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature to pass a tax increase. (Two-thirds for passing a budget came decades earlier). Taken together -- and they must be considered together -- Props 13 and 98 represent the central problem of California budgeting and finance, and thus reflect what the voters want: 1. Limits on taxes, and 2. ever escalating spending on the government programs people most cherish.

Prop 98 is nearly impossible to understand. Based on extensive reporting I did on the subject for a 2006 book, I'm convinced that, among California's more than 36 million residents, there's exactly one person who may truly understand it -- its author, John Mockler, a longtime education official and consultant. God save us all if Mr. Mockler is ever so selfish as to die. I, for one, believe it would be very much in the state's interest if the legislature and the governor would make it the law that John must live forever. Better yet, let's make it a constitutional amendment and put a Mockler Must Not Die measure on the next statewide ballot.

In brief, Prop 98 consists of three different formulas, or "tests." Each budget year is governed by a different test. What determines which test is used in a given year? The growth of general fund revenues, the economy, and the relation between the two. Exactly how does this work? Ask John Mockler.

In a gross over-simplification, Prop 98 effectively provides a constitutional guarantee of increasing education spending. In California, with a growing population, that makes a certain amount of sense.

But there have been criticisms that Prop 98 contributes to the state's up-and-down budget fluctuations. Gov. Schwarzenegger, who now knows more about this subject than he would like, is a particular critic of how the formula is reset each year. In my conversations with him, he often argued that one outlier year -- a very bad or very good year for state revenues -- can throw the Prop 98 guarantee and thus the whole budget out of whack. The California Teachers Assn., which sponsored the measure and protects it with a ferocity the early Christians should have devoted to the Holy Grail, has been privately amenable to a little bit of smoothing of the formula, but will never sign on for wholesale changes. Why? They believe in funding schools. And Prop 98 is a major source of their power. Or to put it another way: If you control half the state budget, you control the entire state budget. Goo goo types occasionally argue for a simplification, but don't hold your breath. Prop 98's very complexity is its most effective defense against reform. It is difficult to change what you cannot understand.

So when is a cut in education spending a cut in education spending? When the state doesn't fully fund the Prop 98 guarantee. And when is that exactly? Well, there's one guy who can tell you.