There is a legitimate debate to be waged over the current two-thirds voter threshold for approval of local bond measures in California.

Some feel it’s too stringent, undermining the will of the majority. Others argue it’s an appropriately tough hurdle to ensure that there is broad consensus before saddling future generations with additional tax debt.

But asking voters to settle that debate, by placing Proposition 5 on the Nov. 5 ballot, is putting the cart before the horse. California lawmakers should have first fixed the current deceitful ballot and campaign practices of local agencies and businesses that financially benefit from passage of bond measures.

That didn’t happen. Which is why voters should reject Proposition 5. Reform the process, and then we can debate whether to lower the vote threshold.

Proposition 5 would reduce the threshold for local government bonds for housing and roads from two-thirds to 55%. The two-thirds vote requirement for local bond measures has been part of the California Constitution since 1879.

In 2000, voters approved an exception for local bonds for school construction, which have since required only 55% approval. Proposition 5 would expand that carveout to bond measures for housing and infrastructure measures often proposed by local cities and counties. The new threshold would apply not only for future measures but also for the ones that are on the upcoming ballot.

Bonds are a form of borrowing, much like a mortgage. They must be repaid by taxpayers, usually over decades.

To read the entire column, please click here