California Bill Aims To Hide Key Ballot Measure Details From Voters

California State Capitol building

Getty

Political leaders in California and Texas have traded barbs this week over the comparative fairness of their congressional maps. While most media is focused on the political implications of the spat over redistricting, legislation recently introduced in both states underscores the Lone Star and Golden States’ contrasting approaches to policymaking.

California lawmakers are considering legislation that would make it harder for voters to access basic but important information ballot measures that would authorize higher taxes or new spending. Assembly Bill 699, introduced by Assemblywoman Catherine Stefani (D), would permit ballot measures that increase taxes or approve new debt obligations to appear on the ballot without listing the proposed rate change, its costs to taxpayers, and other key details that voters need to make an informed decision.

“It allows the estimate, rate, and duration of the tax to be DROPPED from the ballot question for ALL BOND MEASURES,” Marc Joffe, president of the Contra Costa County Taxpayers Association and a senior fellow at the California Policy Center, wrote about AB 699 in a July 17 post on X. “Instead these nine magic words will be substituted: ‘See county voter guide for detailed tax rate information.’”

The purpose of AB 699, Joffe added, is to “hide the cost of bond measures from voters.” AB 699 provides yet another example of the contrasting approaches to governance taken by California and Texas lawmakers. Whereas California lawmakers are advancing legislation to reduce the amount of information available to voters for proposed tax and bond measures, Texas lawmakers voted this year to do the opposite.

During the regular session of the Texas Legislature that ran from January until June, Texas Senator Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston) introduced Senate Bill 414, legislation that would require bond measures that appear on ballots in Texas to inform voters of the total debt obligation they are being asked to approve, not just the principal loan amount. SB 414 would mandate that all bond measures appear on the ballot with language also informing voters about total interest costs that taxpayers will have to pay off.

As Texans for Fiscal Responsibility noted about SB 414, the reform championed by Senator Middleton “promotes honesty, limits waste, and helps prevent unnecessary debt and tax hikes.” The goal and effect of Senator Middleton’s proposal stands in contrast with Representative Stefani’s bill in Sacramento, which would deprive voters with needed information about ballot proposals in an attempt to make it easier to authorize new debt and higher taxes.

As TFR explained, SB 414 “makes local bond elections more transparent by requiring ballots to show the full cost of the debt—including interest—rather than just the principal.” Representative Stefani’s bill, in contrast, would make local bond elections less transparent by allowing proposed bond measures to appear on the ballot without disclosure of costs that taxpayers will incur.

As TFR explained in their notice calling on Texas legislators to support SB 414, it does more than just force disclosure of total debt obligations and associated costs, SB 414 “also mandates a voter information document that shows how much debt a local government already has and estimates how much taxes would go up on a $100,000 home.”

Senator Middleton’s proposal, as TFR notes, gives Texas taxpayers more of “the tools they need to make informed decisions.” Representative Stefani’s proposal, meanwhile, would deprive Californians the tools and information they need to make informed decisions.

By requiring the language of bond measures to inform voters of not only the principal amount to be borrowed but also the interest costs that taxpayers will also have to pay back, state lawmakers and governors can improve truth in ballot measure advertising. Critics contend such a requirement will make bond measures harder to pass moving forward. However, if depriving voters of pertinent information is intregal to the passage of a bond proposal, that doesn’t say anything good about the proposal or those advocating for it.

A state mandate that bond measures disclose interest costs would ensure voters are provided complete information about the borrowing to which they’re being asked to consent. In Texas, lawmakers recognize that even more could be done to improve the bond proposal and approval process by maximizing the share of voters who get to decide.

Improving The Democratic Process For Initiatives And Referenda

While SB 414 is about increasing the information available to voters, another bill considered in Texas this year, Senate Bill 1209, aims to increase the number of voters who decide the fate of bond measures. SB 1209, introduced by Senator Bryan Hughes (R), requires bond measures seeking to authorize new public debt to appear on the November general election ballot.

Local government officials in Texas who seek to take on more public debt are now allowed to place bond measures on the November general election ballot or the May primary ballot. Proponents of SB 1209 point out that when a bond measure appears on the spring ballot, a small share of the electorate is able to saddle the entire community with new debt obligations. James Quintero, policy director at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, points to the low turnout documented in local elections across Texas this past May as further evidence of the need for SB 1209.

“In some of Texas’ largest, costliest bond elections, voter turnout was anemic, meaning that a tiny fraction of Texans obligated every one of their neighbors to new debt and higher taxes,” noted Quintero. “This is not a good way to make big, important decisions.”

“Bond elections are best decided when the most number of voters participate in the decision-making process,” Quintero added. “Something so obvious should prompt local governments to limit holding their bond elections to the uniform election date in November—and that’s it.”

A small sliver of a community having the ability to authorize new debt obligations for which all taxpayers are on the hook is a problem that is not limited to Texas. In fact, it’s on display right now in North Carolina’s most populous county.

Next week on August 8, Mecklenburg County Commissioners will meet to discuss a proposal to refer a local sales tax hike to the ballot this November. The North Carolina General Assembly granted that new taxing authority to Mecklenburg County with the recent passage of the PAVE Act. A review of turnout in recent elections underscores how North Carolina lawmakers could’ve increased the number of voters who get to decide by several multiples had the PAVE Act required local officials to place the proposed sales tax hike on the general election ballot in even years only.

In the 2024 general election, 580,321 voters cast ballots in Mecklenburg County, nearly five times the 120,662 Mecklenburg County residents who voted in November 2023, the last odd year general election. In the odd year general election prior to that, in November of 2021, only 120,040 Mecklenburg County voters went to the polls. Meanwhile, 569,999 voters turned out in November 2020.

North Carolina legislators who want to maximize the number of North Carolinians who decide costly ballot propositions could emulate a modified version of Senator Hughes’ proposal, proposing state legislation that forces all local tax and bond measures onto even-year general election ballots. Mecklenburg County Commissioners could significantly expand the share of the electorate that votes on the proposed sales tax hike by referring it to the ballot in November of 2026 rather than 2025, but don’t expect any of them to suggest that when they meet next week.