Prop. A, Sales Tax Increase for Jails, Appears Doomed : Measures: Prop. B, mandating funding, was leading by wide margin; its passage would cancel out Prop. C.

Proposition A, which sought to impose a half-cent sales tax on San Diego County residents in return for hundreds of new sheriff’s deputies and jail and courthouse improvements, fell far short Tuesday night of the two-thirds majority needed for passage.

The measure was trailing substantially in early returns. On a night when voters throughout the county and state nixed almost every new tax, Proposition A proved to be no exception.

Proposition C, requiring minimum staffing for the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, was trailing slightly, but even if it eked out a victory, it was likely to be canceled out by another proposition.

Proposition B, which required a funding source for any proposition approved by voters, was leading by a wide margin. Should B and C both pass, experts said, C would automatically be negated, since--unlike A--it failed to allocate a method of funding.

The San Diego County Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. had campaigned aggressively for C, while Sheriff Jim Roache had lobbied hard for A. Representatives for both conceded before the election that victories by neither would make their jobs even tougher.

“I, quite frankly, felt from the very beginning that it would be exceedingly difficult to get a two-thirds margin (for Proposition A), particularly in light of economic conditions,” Roache said late Tuesday.

The sheriff said he knew a victory for A would be “an uphill battle” but that he wasn’t giving up hope that “one day, a precisely tailored ballot measure that concentrates on funding for jails can and will pass.”

However, it will have to be “very focused,” Roache said, citing the chief criticism of Proposition A, “so that people will know exactly how their money is going to be spent.”

Proposition A took its place on the ballot despite reservations from some of its fiercest supporters. Almost no one believed it would get the necessary two-thirds majority.

A similar measure passed in 1988 with 50.6% of the vote. The county quickly collected money in a special fund, with proceeds from the half-cent sales tax increase reaching $379.3 million.

All of that stopped in December, however, when the state Supreme Court ruled that under the provisions of Proposition 13, the landmark 1978 tax-cutting measure, Proposition A required a two-thirds majority for approval.

The fate of the money remains in limbo. A hearing is scheduled for today in San Bernardino, where the 4th District Court of Appeals could allow the county to use the money already collected or order the funds rebated to consumers in the form of a lower sales tax.

Proposition A was designed to generate funds for jails, courthouses, a crime lab, a communications complex, officers to run such facilities and more police for law enforcement agencies.

But even its boosters gave it little hope this time around. County Supervisor John MacDonald, among others, questioned the $50,000 cost of placing it on the ballot when almost no one liked its chances.

County Supervisor Brian Bilbray spearheaded Proposition B, which is designed to mandate a funding source for any proposition implemented by voters.

“People can’t go on demanding things without identifying resources,” Bilbray said. “It’s like a reality check. If you want to acquire something in your own family, any sane person should first figure out how he’s going to pay for it.”

Others argued that Proposition B could lead to chaos. Randy Dibbs, president of the San Diego County Deputy Sheriffs’ Assn., said it could grant the county inappropriate power, such as challenging state and federal mandates.

“It could totally change the rules of the game,” Dibbs said. “You could have the county fighting the state and federal government, saying, for instance, ‘We don’t want smog devices, we don’t want gasoline taxes.’ It could get ridiculous.”

Dibbs admits to a vested interest. He’s the author of Proposition C--”C for cops,” as he put it--whose passage would have doubled the number of deputies by 1997. That measure was not expected to pass, given the current economy.

Dibbs said the county has 1.16 deputies per 1,000 residents, contrasted with 1.64 San Diego police officers per 1,000 residents. Dibbs said that, had it passed, Proposition C would have strived for 2.25 officers per 1,000 residents by 1997.

The problem with A, B and C, as boosters and detractors admitted, was the fiscal strings attached to each, and the mood of an electorate not wanting to spend one penny more in additional taxes.

Even Dan Greenblat, spokesman for Sheriff Roache, said his department was leery of Proposition C, preferring instead the “wiser” choice of Proposition A. Why? In Greenblat’s words, A acknowledged the county’s lack of money whereas C never did.

“We are, frankly, unclear about the fiscal impact,” Greenblat said of C. “That can be argued many, many ways. We just haven’t seen a fiscal analysis we concur with. It could cost an inordinate amount of money.”

The difference between A and C, Greenblat said, is that A carried a long-term funding mechanism, while C was driven by the county’s seriously depleted general fund.

If you believed the county had plenty of funds, then, in his words, you would have voted for C. If you believed the county lacked money--as many attest it does--then, he said, A would have been your choice.

“Either one,” he said, “benefits us.”

But many people opted for none of the above, leaving the county to search for still new sources of revenue for law enforcement.

Times staff writer Alan Abrahamson contributed to this report.