Voter's Edge California Voter Guide
Get the facts before you vote.
Brought to you by
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Tuesday March 3, 2020 — Primary Election
Invest in unbiased information

With your support, we can reach and inform more voters.

Donate now to spread the word.

State of California
Proposition 13 — Bonds for Schools and Colleges Legislatively Referred Statute - Majority Approval Required

To learn more about measures, follow the links for each tab in this section. For most screenreaders, you can hit Return or Enter to enter a tab and read the content within.

Election Results


4,304,013 votes yes (47%)

4,856,154 votes no (53%)

100% of precincts reporting (20,346/20,346).

Authorizes bonds for facility repair, construction, and modernization at public preschools, K-12 schools, community colleges, and universities. Legislative Statute. Authorizes $15 billion in state general obligation bonds for construction and modernization of public education facilities. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs to repay bonds estimated at about $740 million per year (including interest) over the next 35 years.

What is this proposal?

Easy Voter Guide — Summary for new and busy voters

Information provided by The League of Women Voters of California Education Fund

The way it is now

One of the ways state government supports public education is by providing money to build and repair school and college buildings. This money usually comes from bonds.

What if it passes?

Prop 13 would allow the state to sell $15 billion in new bonds to help build and repair schools, including:

  • $9 billion for preschools and K-12 schools
  • $6 billion for public universities and community colleges

Schools could use this money to make buildings safer, to construct new buildings, or to increase the amount of student housing. Prop 13 would also increase the amount of money local school districts could raise by selling their own bonds. Districts with less money could also apply for more help from the state to pay for construction projects.

Budget effect

The state would spend about $740 million per year for the next 35 years to repay the bonds. The effect on local governments would depend on the choices that school districts and universities make about building repairs and new buildings.

People FOR say

  • Prop 13 is a smart investment that will make California’s schools and colleges safer.
  • Money from Prop 13 will help pay for badly needed repairs and security improvements.

People AGAINST say

  • Voters already approved $9 billion in 2016 to build and repair schools.
  • Prop 13 would allow school districts to borrow more money, which could increase taxes for all California property owners.

Details — Official information

YES vote means

A YES vote on this measure means: The state could sell $15 billion in general obligation bonds to fund school, community college, and university facility projects. In addition, school districts and community college districts would be authorized to issue more local bonds, and school districts would have new limits on their ability to levy developer fees. 

NO vote means

A NO vote on this measure means: The state could not sell $15 billion in general obligation bonds to fund education facility projects. The state also would not make changes to school districts’ and community college districts’ existing local borrowing limits or the existing rules for school districts to levy developer fees. 


Office of the Attorney General

  • Authorizes $15 billion in state general obligation bonds for public education facilities: $9 billion for preschools and K–12 (includes $5.2 billion for modernization, $2.8 billion for new construction, $500 million for charter schools, and $500 million for career technical education); $6 billion for public universities and community colleges.
  • Projects will improve facilities’ health/ safety conditions (including earthquake/ fre safety and removing lead from water) and increase affordable student housing.
  • Limits administrative costs to 5%.
  • Appropriates money from General Fund to repay bonds.


  • Increased state costs to repay bonds estimated at about $740 million per year (including interest) over the next 35 years.
  • Mixed effect on the amount of local bonds issued by school and community college districts and a likely reduction in the amount of developer fees collected by certain school districts going forward.

Summary of State Costs

New Borrowing:

Principal $15 billion
Interest $11 billion
Total Estimated Cost $26 billion


Average annual cost $740 million
Likely payment period 35 years
Source of payments General Fund tax revenues


Legislative Analyst's Office

California Provides Public Education to 9.2 Million Students. California provides public education spanning from preschool through the university level. About two-thirds of students are enrolled at the preschool, elementary, or secondary school levels. California currently has about 10,000 of these types of schools operated by 944 school districts. (About 1,300 of these schools are charter schools, which typically are approved by the nearest school district but operate somewhat independently.) The remaining one-third of students are enrolled in public colleges or universities. The California Community College (CCC) system consists of 115 campuses operated by 73 districts. The state has two public university systems—the California State University (CSU) and the University of California (UC). The CSU system has 23 campuses and the UC system has 10 campuses.

State Helps Cover the Cost of Public Education Facilities. Traditionally, the state helps cover the cost to construct or renovate academic facilities, including classrooms, science laboratories, and career technical education spaces (such as automotive workshops). New academic facilities typically are constructed when areas are growing in enrollment. Renovation (or modernization) projects typically are undertaken when a building’s components (such as its electrical, plumbing, or heating and cooling systems) are old and become less reliable or a lifesafety issue is identifed (such as the need to remove mold or strengthen a building’s ability to withstand an earthquake). Traditionally, the state has not funded preschool facilities, with school districts tending to fund these projects using local funding. 

State Reviews Facility Requests. For school facility projects, school districts submit applications for state funding to the Offce of Public School Construction. The offce reviews the applications and then brings eligible applications to the State Allocation Board for approval on a frst-come, frstserved basis. For community colleges and universities, campuses submit proposals to their system offces. (The CCC system is overseen by the Board of Governors, the CSU system by the Board of Trustees, and the UC system by the Board of Regents.) Each system’s governing board then compiles these campus requests and submits selected projects to the Legislature and Governor for review and approval.

State Has Rules for Sharing Project Costs With Schools. For school districts, the state traditionally covers a standard share of the cost of each approved facility project. Specifcally, the state covers 50 percent of the cost of most new construction projects and 60 percent of the cost of most renovation projects. School districts are expected to cover remaining project costs using local funds, though school districts that have diffculty covering their local share may qualify for additional state funding. For community college districts and university campuses, the state also often shares project costs, though state law does not have standard share-of-cost requirements for them. 

State Historically Has Used Bonds to Fund Education Facilities. The state typically uses general obligation bonds (a form of borrowing) to pay for its share of project costs. A majority of voters statewide must approve these bonds. Voters give the state permission to sell bonds to investors. The bonds provide the funding that the state uses for projects. The state then repays the investors, with interest, from the General Fund. (The General Fund is the state’s main operating account, which gets its revenues primarily from personal income taxes, state sales and use taxes, and corporation taxes.) The state typically repays investors by making annual payments over a few decades. Bond repayment is guaranteed by the state’s general taxing power. (For more information on the state’s use of bonds, see “Overview of State Bond Debt” later in this guide.) 

State Has Some Bond Authority Remaining but Much of It Has Been Committed. The chart below shows that from 2002 through 2016, voters approved four education facility bond measures that provided a total of $45 billion in state bond funding. Three of the bond measures provided funding for school and community college districts as well as universities, whereas one (Proposition 51 in 2016) funded only school and community college districts. Of the $45 billion in approved bond funding, the state already has sold bonds totaling $37.2 billion, with $7.8 billion not yet sold to investors. Virtually all of these unsold bonds are from remaining Proposition 51 funds. The state, however, already has received applications nearly in excess of the remaining Proposition 51 bond authority for school projects. (The state currently is processing these applications.) The state also has already committed about two-thirds of Proposition 51 bond funding for community college projects. (A lag typically exists from the time the state commits bond funding for projects to the time it sells the associated bond.) The state’s current annual payment on previously sold education facility bonds is $2.9 billion.

State Now Relies on University Bonds to Fund CSU and UC Projects. In 2013, the state developed a new way of funding university facility projects. Under the new way, the universities— rather than the state—issue bonds. Unlike state general obligation bonds, voters do not approve university bonds. The universities pay back the debt on their bonds using funding they receive from the state. This change was intended to give CSU and UC greater control over their facilities and encourage campuses to reduce projects costs. Since developing this new funding system, CSU and UC each have undertaken about $2 billion in university bond-funded facility projects. The universities currently make total annual payments of about $140 million for these projects.

Recent State General Obligation Bonds for Education (In Billions)

Authorized Amounts

Year Proposition Schools Community Colleges California State University University of California Totals
2002 47 $11.4 $0.7 $0.5 $0.4 $13.1
2004 55 10.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 12.3
2006 1D 7.3 1.5 0.9 0.7 10.4
2016 51 7.0 2.0 - - 9.0
Totals   $35.7 $5.2 $2.1 $1.8 $44.8

Districts Typically Raise Their Local Share by Issuing Local Bonds. School and community college districts tend to cover their local share of project costs using local general obligation bonds. Districts must get at least 55 percent of their voters to approve the sale of local general obligation bonds. Since 2002, voters have approved $154 billion in local general obligation bonds for school and community college facility projects. State Law Places Limits on Local Borrowing.

State law limits the total amount of local bonds that school and community college districts may issue. The limits are based on the assessed value of property within the district. Elementary and high school districts may issue bonds equal to 1.25 percent of their assessed property value. For unifed school districts and community college districts, the limit is higher—2.5 percent— if the districts comply with certain other borrowing conditions. School districts that are unable to raise at least $5 million through local bonds under these limits may apply for additional state funding. School districts also may seek waivers from the state to exceed these caps. Since 2010, 7 percent of school districts have received these waivers.

School Districts Also Raise Local Funds From Developer Fees. Unlike community colleges and universities, school districts can raise funds for their facilities by assessing one-time fees on residential, commercial, and industrial developments. For example, a school district can charge a fee to a developer of a new housing community if the district can show that the new development will bring new students into the district. The exact amount that school districts can charge is based on rules specifed in state law. Districts use the resulting revenue to help cover the cost of constructing new schools within that area. Since 2002, approximately 90 percent of school districts have raised some revenue from developer fees. During this time, school districts have raised a total of about $10 billion from these fees. Though developer fee revenue makes up a small portion (about 5 percent) of overall funding for school facilities, these fees can contribute up to half of construction costs for certain projects. 

Impartial analysis / Proposal

Legislative Analyst's Office

Proposes Bond Funding for Public Education Facilities. As the chart below shows, this measure allows the state to sell general obligation bonds totaling $15 billion—of which $9 billion is for public schools and $6 billion is for higher education facilities. The funding for school facilities is designated for four specifc types of projects: renovation, new construction, charter schools, and career technical education facilities. School districts could seek some of the bond funding for their preschool facilities. The higher education funding is spread evenly among CCC, CSU, and UC. The measure is linked to legislation that makes several changes to the rules governing public education facility projects (described below). If the measure passes, these changes will go into effect.

Uses of Proposed Bond Funds (In Billions)

Public School Facilities  


$5.2 (a, b)
New Construction 2.8 (a)
Career technical education facilities 0.5
Charter school facilities 0.5
Total $9.0
Public Higher Education Facilities  
Community college facilities $2.0
California State University facilities 2.0
University of California facilities 2.0 (c)
Total $6.0
Grand Total $15.0 (d)

(a) Of this amount, up to 10 percent would be reserved for school districts with 2,500 or fewer students.

(b) Of this amount, $150 million would be reserved for testing and treating lead in water at schools.

(c) Some of this amount could be used for facilities at Hastings College of the Law, which is affiliated with the University of California.

(d) Up to 5 percent of bond funding may be used for administrative purposes.

Modifes Facility Rules for Schools. If the measure passes, three notable changes would be made to the rules for school facilities. First, the state’s existing share of project costs (50 percent for new construction and 60 percent for renovation) would be replaced with a sliding scale. Under the sliding scale, school districts would qualify for state funding equal to between 50 percent and 55 percent of costs for new construction projects and between 60 percent and 65 percent for renovation projects. The higher state share would be for districts that have less capacity to raise local funds and enroll higher shares of lowincome students, foster youth, and English learners. Second, the state would replace its existing frst-come, frst-served approach for reviewing applications with new rules. The new rules set forth certain prioritization categories. Health and life-safety projects would receive highest priority, followed by applications submitted by districts that have diffculty raising their local share and projects that test for and address lead in water at school sites, among other categories. Within each of these priority categories, applications would be further prioritized if districts have an agreement to use unionized construction labor. The third change is that a school district would be required to submit a fve-year facility master plan as a condition of receiving bond funding. 

Establishes New Expectations for Selection of University Projects. The state also would use new rules for prioritizing CSU and UC projects. To qualify for state bond funds, the CSU Board of Trustees and UC Board of Regents would be required to prioritize projects that address life-safety and certain other defciencies with existing facilities. University campuses also would be required to develop fve-year plans to expand affordable housing options for their students. The system boards would be required to consider these housing plans as an additional factor in prioritizing among campuses’ facility projects.

Changes Local Funding Rules for Districts. The state also would make three key changes relating to school districts’ and community college districts’ local revenue-raising capacity. First, districts would be allowed to issue a higher amount of local general obligation bonds. Specifcally, for elementary and high school districts, the limit would be raised from 1.25 percent to 2 percent of assessed property value. For unifed school districts and community college districts, the limit would be raised from 2.5 percent to 4 percent of assessed property value. Second, school districts unable to raise $15 million under these new limits (up from the existing $5 million threshold) would be able to apply for additional state funding. Third, the state would establish new limits on developer fees. Specifcally, school districts would be prohibited from assessing developer fees on multifamily residential developments (such as apartment complexes) located within a half-mile of a major transit stop (such as a light rail station). For all other multifamily residential developments, currently allowable developer fee levels would be reduced by 20 percent moving forward. These limitations would be in place until January 1, 2026.

Financial effect

Legislative Analyst's Office

Measure Would Increase State Costs to Repay Bonds. This measure would allow the state to borrow $15 billion by selling general obligation bonds. The state would pay off the bonds, with interest, from the General Fund. The cost of these bonds would depend on various factors, such as the interest rates on the bonds when sold and the time period over which they are repaid. We estimate that the cost to pay off the bonds would total $26 billion—$15 billion for the principal plus $11 billion for the interest. The state would pay off the bonds by making annual payments of about $740 million per year for 35 years. This amount is about one-half of 1 percent of the state’s current General Fund budget. 

Uncertain How Measure Would Affect University Facilities. For CSU and UC projects, the measure’s effect would depend upon future decisions. If the state provided funding for university bonds in addition to the proposed state bond, then more CSU and UC projects would be undertaken and state costs would be higher than estimated above. Alternatively, if the proposed state bond were used instead of university bonds, then state costs would not be higher than estimated above. 

Measure Would Impact Districts in Various Ways. Many school and community college districts could undertake more facility projects because of the additional state bond funding available and the additional capacity to issue local bonds. Other districts could decide to undertake the same number of facility projects as otherwise planned but at lower local cost (accessing the available state bond funding but not increasing local borrowing). A few school districts, primarily those affected by the new limits on developer fees, might undertake fewer projects. 

Published Arguments — Arguments for and against

Arguments FOR

YES on PROP. 13 funds essential repairs to make California public schools safer and healthier. Removal of toxic mold and asbestos from aging classrooms. More school nurse facilities. Cleaner drinking water. Fire and earthquake safety upgrades. Strong taxpayer controls. Endorsed by frefghters, doctors, nurses, and teachers. For California’s children.

Arguments FOR


The current condition of California’s school buildings is unacceptable.

Despite research showing students learn better in classrooms which are modern and safe, too many school buildings are dilapidated, unsafe, and unhealthy. Thousands remain at risk of wildfres or earthquakes. Others are contaminated with lead, mold, asbestos, and other hazardous materials. California’s children deserve better.

Prop. 13 is the STRONGEST STATEWIDE SCHOOL BOND IN HISTORY, making California’s school buildings healthier, more secure, and more conducive to learning. It’s an essential step forward to protecting and educating our children.

According to Public Policy Institute of California, 70% of our state’s 10,000-plus schools and 300,000 classrooms are more than 25 years old. 10% are at least 70 years old. Schools statewide are projected to need more than $10O billion over the next decade simply to meet basic health, safety, and curriculum standards. Yet California’s per-pupil spending on school facilities has sharply declined since 2006.

PROP. 13 REPAIRS AND UPGRADES CALIFORNIA’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Too many schools suffer from unsafe conditions, including poor air and water quality and contamination from mold and asbestos. Prop. 13 provides funding to fx rundown buildings, replace deteriorating water pipes with clean drinking water, and remove hazardous materials from aging classrooms.

PROP. 13 ADDS CRITICAL SAFETY MEASURES TO SCHOOLS. It provides schools needed resources to increase student safety including fre and violence prevention. Prop. 13 provides for functioning smoke and fre alarms, physical security improvements, and long-overdue seismic upgrades. It also expands access to preschool, guidance counselors, and school nurses for health care and mental health.

PROP. 13 RESTORES SCHOOLS AFFECTED BY WILDFIRES, EARTHQUAKES, AND OTHER NATURAL DISASTERS. In emergencies, safe operation of local schools is more important than ever. Prop. 13 provides vital and immediate assistance, including temporary facilities and power generators, to schools impacted by wildfres and catastrophic events.

PROP. 13 SUPPORTS CAREER TECHNICAL EDUCATION FOR VETERANS. Prop. 13 enables local schools and community colleges to expand high-quality career technical education to help more Californians, including veterans who have served our country, prepare for high-skill, high-wage jobs in the modern economy.

PROP. 13 PROTECTS LOCAL CONTROL OVER EVERY PROJECT. It funds local school improvement projects, where local communities and taxpayers have a powerful voice in deciding how these funds can be prioritized to strengthen neighborhood schools.

PROP. 13 CONTAINS ROBUST TAXPAYER ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES. Fiscally responsible, Prop. 13 strictly limits administrative costs, ensuring that funds are directly spent on schools, not government bureaucracy. It requires tough independent audits and open public hearings.

PROP. 13 HAS STRONG BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. It was placed on the ballot by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of state lawmakers. It’s also supported by a broad-based coalition of teachers, doctors, nurses, frefghters, and military veterans.

The science is clear—safe, healthy, high-quality school buildings increase learning. And California’s students can’t afford to wait any longer.

For the safety of our children and our future as a state, PLEASE JOIN US IN VOTING YES ON PROP. 13.

BRIAN RICE, President
California Professional Firefghters

E. TOBY BOYD, President
California Teachers Association

PAMELA KAHN, President
California School Nurses Association

— Official Voter Information Guide

Arguments AGAINST

This measure authorizes $15 billion in borrowing, costing taxpayers $27 billion including interest, to build and repair schools. Borrowing is nearly twice as expensive as paying for school construction from the regular budget, which has a huge $21 billion surplus. This is just more government waste. Vote no. 

Arguments AGAINST


Don’t be confused by the deceptive title of this spending measure to be “Prop. 13.” Unlike the landmark taxpayer protection of 1978, this year’s Prop. 13 instead will put taxpayers on the hook for $27 billion.

The politicians plan to borrow $15 billion from Wall Street and then make taxpayers pay it back plus 80% in total interest costs. That’s an additional $12 billion we’ll be forced to pay, bringing the entire bill to $27 billion.

Instead of spending the state’s $21 billion surplus on upgrading school facilities and providing high quality education for our children, the Governor and the Legislature are wasting our money on their own pet projects. That surplus money could have gone into solutions for our education system—both in classroom instruction and for new facilities—without new debt that our children will be paying for three decades!

We’ve seen this before from Sacramento politicians—they overspend, they issue bonds, and they punish us with tax hikes on our cars, gasoline, and income. And those tax hikes almost never go to what the politicians say they will— just look at our crumbling roads and see the billions of dollars diverted to High Speed Rail!

Wasteful money pits in the vast education bureaucracy will grab much of this money while not one cent of it will be spent for direct instruction in school classrooms. This money will go to wasteful construction projects that beneft special interests.

A hidden provision of this proposition will encourage local school districts to increase their borrowing by more than 60%. Local school debt is paid back with higher property taxes. We’re already paying a fortune for previous borrowing, and the problem is never fxed.

Only in the State Capitol would someone decide to subsidize wealthy developers while withholding money from local police and fire fghters. Yet that’s exactly what this proposition would do. The politicians were hoping no one would read the small print, but we did and we caught them red-handed.

California’s schools are consistently ranked near the lowest in the country. Rather than just throwing $27 billion into school construction projects, our state needs a wellthought out, long-term solution to achieve a high standard of excellence in reading, writing, and math. This costly measure does nothing to improve classroom instruction or help our children succeed.


District 38

JON COUPAL, President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

LARRY SAND, Retired Teacher 

— Official Voter Information Guide

Replies to Arguments FOR


Hidden in this year’s Proposition 13 is a near DOUBLING of the limits that local school districts can borrow. When school districts borrow money, that debt is repaid exclusively by PROPERTY TAXES! Who pays property taxes? We all do, either directly in property tax bills or through higher rents and other costs. Unlike the original Proposition 13 from 1978, this Proposition 13 puts all taxpayers at risk of higher taxes.

The question isn’t whether we need well-maintained school buildings, but how best to pay for them and whether past promises have been kept. Voters already approved $9 billion in 2016 to build and repair schools. Now they tell us they never repaired the deteriorating water pipes and removed asbestos from classrooms? How does High Speed Rail get full funding but yet schools don’t?

Borrowing $15 billion for school construction and repairs makes no sense when California has a $22 billion budget surplus. What’s worse, the 80% estimated interest cost means we’re actually on the hook for $27 billion. Instead, let’s spend the money we have directly in the classroom to address declining test scores and high dropout rates. Don’t let Sacramento’s misplaced priorities and irresponsible borrowing put California deeper in debt and lead to higher local taxes.


District 38

JON COUPAL, President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

LARRY SAND, Retired Teacher

— Official Voter Information Guide

Replies to Arguments AGAINST

Don’t believe the false attacks.

Proposition 13 will fx and upgrade public schools all across California that are unsafe, out-of-date, and badly in need of repair. It’s broadly endorsed by teachers, principals, frefghters, doctors, and nurses—and has the strong support of Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike.

Proposition 13 makes local school buildings stronger and healthier. Removes asbestos, toxic mold, and hazardous materials from aging classrooms. Replaces deteriorating pipes so children have safe drinking water. Adds school nursing facilities. Makes schools safer in wildfres, earthquakes, and natural disasters. Studies show that safe school buildings are more likely to result in higher student performance.

Proposition 13 also guarantees that every dollar spent is accountable, audited, and transparent to state taxpayers. It requires administrative costs be limited to no more than 5%, ensuring that more funds than ever are invested directly into schools.

Don’t take our word for it. Listen to the experts: California Professional Firefghters President Brian Rice says: “Proposition 13 will fund improvements to make our schools safer. Safer schools create safer communities. That’s why public safety experts support Prop. 13.”

Dr. Peter Bretan, President of California Medical Association, the state’s largest physician organization, says: “Students deserve access to healthy schools with clean water, breathable air, and school nurses. California’s health providers support Proposition 13.”

California Association of School Business Offcials CEO Molly McGee Hewitt says: “School bonds are proven to be the most effective and fscally responsible way to fund repairs to deteriorating school buildings. Yes on Proposition 13!”

CELIA JAFFE, President
California State Parent Teachers Association

Association of California School Administrators

PAMELA KAHN, President
California School Nurses Association 

— Official Voter Information Guide

Who gave money?


Yes on Proposition 13

Total money raised: $13,951,862
Bar graph showing total amount relative to total amount for this entire campaign.

No on Proposition 13

No data currently available.
Bar graph showing total amount relative to total amount for this entire campaign.

Below are the top 10 contributors that gave money to committees supporting or opposing the ballot measures.

Yes on Proposition 13

California's Coalition for Adequate School Housing
California Teachers Association
SEIU California
California Charter School Association
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America
Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
Northern California Carpenters Regional Council
Rancho Mission Viejo
Southern California Partnership for Jobs

No on Proposition 13

More information about contributions

Yes on Proposition 13

By State:

California 92.91%
District of Columbia 2.39%
Texas 1.76%
Arizona 0.80%
Other 2.14%

By Size:

Large contributions (100.00%)
Small contributions (0.00%)

By Type:

From organizations (93.60%)
From individuals (6.40%)

No on Proposition 13

More information

Videos (1)

Proposition 13 is a $15 billion state bond for California public schools, community colleges and universities. Watch as's education reporter Ricardo Cano explains the Prop. 13 in 1 minute.

Contact Info

Yes on Proposition 13
Community College Facility Coalition Issues Committee
Phone: (415) 389-6800
Californians for Quality Schools, Sponsored by the California Building Industry Association
Phone: (916) 442-7757
Coalition for Adequate School Housing Issues Committee - Yes on 13
Phone: (415) 389-6800
Newsom, Teachers, Nurses, And Firefighters; Californians For Safe Schools And Healthy Learning, Yes On Prop 13, A Commit
Phone: (916) 285-5733
O'donnell Ballot Measure Committee; Citizens For A Strong Economy & Safe Schools, Yes On Prop 13
Phone: (562) 427-2100
Yes On Proposition 13 - California Coalition For Public Higher Education Issues Committee
Phone: (323) 854-4410
No on Proposition 13
Not available.
Use tabs to select your choice. Use return to create a choice. You can access your choices by navigating to 'My Choices'.

Get the Easy Voter Guide for this measure in these languages

Who supports or opposes this measure?

Yes on Proposition 13

Organizations (85)

Elected & Appointed Officials (64)

Please share this site to help others research their voting choices.