Summary of Proposition
55Facilities Bond Acts: 1986 to the Present
[Background Note: Prior to 1986, higher education capital construction was financed with Tideland Oil revenues. These revenues came from royalties paid to the state for oil and natural gas extracted by oil companies from state-owned land. The Legislature created the COFPHE (Capital Outlay Fund for Public Higher Education) to be the repository for these monies. When the price of oil dropped dramatically in 1985, revenue to the Fund dropped dramatically--to a quarter of what had been anticipated. The Legislature proposed the first Bond Act to supplement the COFPHE. However, in subsequent years, it became clear that Tideland Oil revenue was no longer a viable source for capital construction, and the Legislature turned to Bond Act measures to fully fund higher education's needs.
Up until 1996, separate measures were proposed for higher education and K-12. When two higher education bond measures failed passage, and private polls suggested that voters would be more likely to support higher education construction needs if they were combined into one measure with K-12, the Legislature began proposing K-University Bond Act measures.
|
Outcome: |
1986: |
Proposition 56 |
(Gubernatorial Election - June) |
|
|
|
[$400 million over 2 years] |
|
|
|
|
For: 3,981,501 |
60% |
|
Won |
|
Against: 2,691,612 |
40% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1988: |
Proposition 78 |
(Presidential Election - November) |
|
|
|
[$100 million over 2 years] |
|
|
|
|
For: 5,053,675 |
57.6% |
|
Won |
|
Against: 3,723,101 |
42.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1990: |
Proposition 121, Part 1 |
(Gubernatorial Primary - June) |
|
|
|
[$450 million over 2 years] |
|
|
|
|
For: 2,543,993 |
55% [55.1] |
|
Won |
|
Against: 2,075,455 |
45% [44.9] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1990: |
Proposition 143, Part 2 |
(Gubernatorial General Election - November) |
|
|
|
[$450 million over 2 years] |
|
|
|
|
For: 3,183,710 |
49% |
|
Lost |
|
Against: 3,349,708 |
51% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1992: |
Proposition 153 |
(Presidential Primary - June) |
|
|
|
[$900 million over 2 years] |
|
|
|
|
For: 2,812,027 |
51% |
|
Won |
|
Against: 2,706,811 |
49% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1994: |
Proposition 1C |
(Primary - June) |
|
|
|
[$900 million] |
|
|
|
|
For: 1,979,722 |
47% |
|
Lost |
|
Against: 2,197,831 |
53% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1996: |
Proposition 203 |
(Presidential Primary - earlier date: 3/26) |
|
|
|
[$3 billion for K-12/Higher Ed; $975 million specifically for Higher Ed] |
|
|
|
|
For: 3,258,669 |
61.9% |
|
Won |
|
Against: 2,010,050 |
38.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* 1998: |
Proposition 1A |
(Gubernatorial General Election - 11/3) |
|
|
|
[$9.2 billion for K-12; |
|
|
|
|
For: 4,318,508 |
62% |
|
Won |
|
Against: 2,605,477 |
38% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002 |
Proposition 47 |
(Gubernatorial General Election - 11/5) |
|
|
|
[$13.05 billion: $11.4 billion for K-12; $1.65 billion for Higher Ed] |
|
|
|
|
For: 3,846,045 |
59% |
|
Won |
|
Against: 2,678,389 |
41% |
* [Note: Through 1998, the amount of bond revenue for higher education has been split equally (1/3, 1/3, 1/3) among the three segments. In the bond measure proposed for November 2002, the split will be 40% for the community colleges and 30% each for the UC and the CSU. This split will be maintained for the November 2004 ballot as well.]
Analysis
of Proposition 55 by Nonpartisan Legislative Analyst
Voter Registration Information
This page last updated: January 9, 2004