PROPOSITION 39 - CON: TAXPAYERS MERIT PROTECTION.

Byline: Jon Coupal

IN the famous words of Yogi Berra, it's deja vu all over again. This November, Californians will face yet another attempt to destroy the 121- year-old two-thirds vote protection for approval of local school bonds.

Proposition 39 is identical to Proposition 26, which taxpayers defeated in March, except that instead of replacing the two-thirds vote requirement to pass local school bonds with a simple majority, Proposition 39 would lower the requirement to 55 percent.

This standard would provide little comfort to taxpayers because it would mean that, based on elections since 1996, more than 9 out of 10 (or 94 percent of) bonds would pass. Each of these bonds would burden property owners with additional taxes. The legislative analyst estimates the cost to taxpayers at hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Proposition 39 promoters have stated that if this proposition passes it will bring in $20 billion in new revenue. Counting interest on the new bonds, that's nearly $40 billion in new property taxes - on both businesses and homeowners.

Since its inception in the original California Constitution, the two- thirds

vote has maintained a high level of popularity. Efforts in 1966, 1993 (Proposition 170) and, of course, Prop 26 in March, all failed.

Independent polling on just the issue of the two-thirds vote for local general obligation bonds consistently garners about 70 percent support.

The basic rationale of two-thirds vote for local bonds is simple. Unlike state bonds, local bonds always come with a tax increase and, more important, a tax increase that discriminates against property owners.

Subjecting property owners to a long-term debt repayment via a simple majority vote is not in the public interest.

The two-thirds vote requirement appears throughout our state and federal constitutional frameworks. A two-thirds vote appears 10 times in the United States Constitution and is used for important matters where some degree of certainty and consensus is necessary. Impeachment and the adoption of treaties are just two examples.

Moreover, the bond debt assumed becomes a lien on the property. Failure to pay property taxes can lead to the loss of the property - whether it is a home or a business.

A fundamental question facing promoters of Proposition 39 is why is this necessary? California is enjoying a $14 billion to $16 billion surplus, just a portion of which could easily be dedicated to school construction. Even a fraction of the surplus could support a $10 billion to $20 billion statewide school bond that does not face the discriminatory tax increase implications of local bonds.

There is little doubt that were Proposition 39 to present just the issue of the two-thirds vote, it would fail. However, in order to enhance its chance of passage, the promoters of the initiative have added what they contend are accountability measures and provisions related to making bond proceeds available to charter schools. The voters don't seem to buy it.

The sensible reaction has been to ask, Why should we sacrifice an important constitutional protection in order to get accountability and help for charter schools?

Voters also want to know why promoters of 39 are back so quickly, having just lost a few months ago. The answer probably is that Proposition 26's outcome was very close - the measure lost by a margin of a couple of percentage points. According to the promoters, the turnout in November is bound to be more liberal, and thus, more tax friendly.

But it appears the promoters of Proposition 39 miscalculated. In a recent Field poll, support for the measure was still under 50 percent. Even worse, the PPIC poll had Proposition 39 trailing badly - 55 percent opposed, 35 percent in favor.

There are undoubtedly several explanations for this abysmal showing. First, the backers have lost the clarity of perhaps their best issue: the principle of ``simple majority vote.'' Proposition 39's 55 percent supermajority appears nowhere in any democratic system. In short, 55 is a speed limit, not a vote threshold.

Second, the electorate may be reacting negatively over having to face this issue again after having just voted on the issue. What part of ``no'' don't you understand? voters seem to be asking.

Third, the California Teachers Association is sitting this one out - absorbed in its battle against Proposition 38, the voucher initiative. Although promoters of Proposition 39 have virtually unlimited funding, CTA provided its significant army of foot soldiers and affiliated organizations but will not make a major showing in support of the new measure.

Proposition 39 presents Californians with a clear choice: Do we need higher property taxes or should we retain the two-thirds vote, which has served California well for more than a dozen decades?