The Swollen Majority

Orange County is heading into the next century with an outstanding bill of health. The county’s overall mood is at its most upbeat ever, and consumer confidence is at an all-time high, according to the 1999 Orange County Annual Survey, which we conduct each year at UC Irvine.

Residents’ ratings of the county’s economy, quality of life and housing market are also at peak levels. And optimism about the county’s future is greater today than at any point in the 17 years we have been tracking this question.

But in the midst of these extraordinary times, our survey finds two issues are causing a great deal of anxiety in Orange County. One is concern that local public schools lack the resources needed to prepare their diverse student bodies to succeed in California’s new economy. The other is that noise and traffic from a proposed airport at the former El Toro Marine base will ruin the suburban quality of life in South County.

Early in the new century, county voters will be asked to decide two ballot initiatives that could affect their chief policy concerns profoundly. Ironically, both ballot measures share the use of a highly controversial element of democracy--the notorious “supermajority” vote requirement for changing the status quo in California’s public policy.

A state measure would eliminate the required two-thirds majority for passage of local school bonds, and a county measure seeks to impose a two-thirds hurdle for approval of all major county projects, including new airports.

Our recent survey finds local voters divided on both of these proposals. Their collision early in 2000 should provide a lively debate about the wisdom of the supermajority rule. At this point, the outcome for each is far from certain.

Proposition 26, the “School Facilities Local Majority Vote” initiative on the state ballot in March, would end the 120-year-old supermajority vote requirement for local school bonds. The measure instead would allow local school bonds in California to pass with a simple majority (50% plus one) vote.

Statewide, a survey by the Public Policy Institute of California finds that Proposition 26 currently enjoys 2-to-1 backing, buoyed by the public belief that schools are underfunded. But Orange County voters are ambivalent about changing the vote requirement, this year’s Orange County Annual Survey finds, with just over half convinced that it is needed.

A big turnout among “no” voters in this conservative heartland could doom the measure to statewide defeat. How important is ending the supermajority vote for public school funding? Supporters and opponents of Proposition 26 agree on one thing: The change would alter the landscape of local school funding drastically.

Consider that every one of the 25 local school bond measures in the most recent California election had the support of a simple majority of voters, but 10 measures failed because they did not reach the two-thirds threshold. Or just ask the voters in Huntington Beach and Irvine, who saw their school funding measures pass by hefty majorities in November but fail to reach the lofty goal of two-thirds support.

Also appearing on the March 2000 ballot in Orange County is Measure F, the Safe and Healthy Communities initiative. This measure would require the approval of two-thirds of the voters countywide for certain large county projects, including airports, hazardous waste landfills and county jails. Measure F is the brainchild of a coalition of South County cities that vehemently oppose an airport in their midst.

The 1999 Orange County Annual Survey finds that a narrow majority of Orange County voters favors requiring a two-thirds vote on large county projects, but support drops below 50% when voters are told that a “yes” on Measure F could mean a “no” on the airport plans. Predictably, South County voters strongly support this latest plan to stop the airport while North County voters are not so sure about the wisdom of requiring a supermajority for certain county projects.

Orange County voters will have to sort through a barrage of seemingly conflicting claims. From Proposition 26 proponents, they will be bombarded with messages that the two-thirds requirement has been harmful to their local schools. At the same time, the supporters of Measure F will tell them they need the two-thirds requirement to protect their local communities. Will voters turn schizophrenic, ending supermajority rules in one domain and starting them in another?

The time has come to take a careful look at the pros and cons of the two-thirds vote hurdle for local policymaking. The stakes are high, as the outcome on these supermajority measures will determine the tools that Orange County has to grapple with its most pressing problems in the 21st century.