# 2020 California Proposition 15

Elections in California :
Federal government
U.S. President
1852
1856
1860
1864
1868
1872
1876
1880
1884
1888
1892
1896
1900
1904
1908
1912
1916
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
Dem
Rep
2000
Dem
Rep
2004
Dem
Rep
2008
Dem
Rep
2012
Dem
Rep
2016
Dem
Rep
2020
Dem
Rep
2024
Dem
Rep
U.S. Senate
1849
1850
1852 sp
1856
1857 sp
1860
1860 sp
1868
1872
1873
1873 sp
1878
1880
1885
1886 sp
1887
1891
1891 sp
1893
1895 sp
1897
1900 sp
1903
1905
1909
1911
1914
1916
1920
1922
1926
1928
1932
1934
1938
1940
1944
1946
1946 sp
1950
1952
1954 sp
1956
1958
1962
1964
1968
1970
1974
1976
1980
1982
1986
1988
1992
1992 sp
1994
1998
2000
2004
2006
2010
2012
2016
2018
2022
2022 sp
2024
2024 sp
2028
U.S. House of Representatives
1849
1851
1852
1854
1856
1859
1861
1863
1864
1867
1868
1871
1872
1875
1876
1879
1880
1882
1884
1886
1888
1890
1892
1894
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
12th
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1987
5th sp
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2001
32nd sp
2002
2004
2005
5th sp
48th sp
2006
50th sp
2007
36th sp
2008
12th sp
2009
10th sp
32nd sp
2010
2011
36th sp
2012
2014
2016
2017
34th sp
2018
2020
25th sp
2022
22nd sp
2024
16th
20th sp
30th
45th
47th
vte :
State government
Executive Governor
1849
1851
1853
1855
1857
1859
1861
1863
1867
1871
1875
1879
1882
1886
1890
1894
1898
1902
1906
1910
1914
1918
1922
1926
1930
1934
1938
1942
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2003 (recall)
2006
2010
2014
2018
2021 (recall)
2022
2026
Lieutenant governor
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Attorney general
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Secretary of state
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Treasurer
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Controller
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Insurance commissioner
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Superintendent
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Board of equalization
2018
2022
Legislature Senate
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Special
Assembly
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2021 (79th sp)
2022 (17th sp)
2024
Special
Judiciary Court of appeals
1994
1998
2002
2006
Elections by year
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2008
Feb
Jun
Nov
2009
2010
Jun
Nov
2012
Jun
Nov
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
vte :
State propositions
1910–1919
1911
4
7
8
1960–1969
1964
14
1970–1979
1978
6
8
13
1980–1989
1982
8
1986
64
65
1988
98
99
1990–1999
1994
187
1996
196
209
215
218
1998
6
10
227
2000–2009
2000
21
22
36
39
2003
53
54
2004
1A
55
56
57
58
59
60
60A
61
62
63
64
65
66
69
71
2005
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
2006
81
82
83
85
87
89
90
2008
91
92
93
94, 95, 96, and 97
98 and 99
1A
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2009
1A
1B
1C
1D
1E
1F
2010–2019
2010
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2012
29
30
32
34
37
38
39
2014
1
2
41
42
45
46
47
48
2016
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
2018
68
69
70
71
72
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2020–2029
2020
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2022
1
26
27
28
29
30
31
2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
32
33
34
35
36
Full listvte :
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles County Board of supervisors
1980
1996
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Ballot measures
1980
A
2008
R
2012
B
J
2016
M
Elections
2020
2022
2024
Los Angeles Mayor
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1909 (sp)
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1929
1933
1937
1938
1941
1945
1949
1953
1957
1961
1965
1969
1973
1977
1981
1985
1989
1993
1997
2001
2005
2009
2013
2017
2022
City attorney
2009
Ballot measures
1986
U
2017
S
Elections
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019 (sp)
2020
2022
2023 (sp)
2024
Long Beach Mayor
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
vte :
Orange County
Orange County Board of supervisors
2018
2020
2022
2024
District attorney
2018
Anaheim Mayor
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Irvine Mayor
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Costa Mesa Municipal
1947
1953
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
vte :
Sacramento
Mayor
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
vte :
San Diego County
San Diego County Board of supervisors
2020
San Diego Mayor
1887
1889
1891
1893
1895
1897
1899
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1927
1929
1931
1932
1935
1939
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983 (sp)
1984
1986 (sp)
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2005 (sp)
2008
2012
2013–14 (sp)
2016
2020
2024
City attorney
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
City council
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Special
vte :
San Francisco
Mayor
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1931
1935
1939
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983 (recall)
1983
1987
1991
1995
1999
2003
2007
2011
2015
2018 (sp)
2019
2024
District attorney
2019
2022 (recall)
2022 (sp)
2024
Board of supervisors
1977
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Board of education
2018
2022 (recall)
Elections
2004
Mar
Nov
2005
2006
Jun
Nov
2007
2008
Feb
Jun
Nov
2009
2010
Jun
Nov
2011
2012
Jun
Nov
2013
2022
Feb
vte :
San Jose
Mayor
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2024
vte :
Other localities
Bakersfield
Mayoral elections:
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Fresno
Mayoral elections:
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Oakland
Mayoral elections:
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Riverside
Mayoral elections:
1997
2001
2005
2009
2012
2016
2020
2024
San Bernardino
Mayoral elections:
2005
2009
2014
2018
2022
Stockton
Mayoral elections:
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
vte :
vte :
California Proposition 15 was a failed citizen-initiated proposition on the November 3, 2020, ballot. It would have provided $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by creating a "split roll" system that increased taxes on large commercial properties by assessing them at market value, without changing property taxes for small business owners or residential properties for homeowners or renters. The measure failed by a small margin of about four percentage points.
Proposition 15 would have amended the Constitution of California to adjust the limitations on property taxes introduced by 1978 California Proposition 13. It would have changed the property tax assessment on owners of commercial properties with a combined value of greater than $3 million to pay property tax based on the property's current market value, not purchase price. The measure would have exempted all agricultural land and small businesses that owned their own properties. It also included a small business tax cut by increasing the small business personal property tax deduction. All residential properties for homeowners and renters were exempt and other special circumstantial exemptions were provided under the proposition, such as an exemption for rental units or properties with a higher value in which the owner does not in the property (in this case, the tax would have been based on the market value of the property starting in 2022).
According to the official ballot summary, Proposition 15:
* Would have raised $8 billion to $12.5 billion in new funding—$6.5 billion to $11.5 billion after the costs of implementation—in new funding.
* First, funding would have gone to the state to supplement for the decreasing tax revenue.
* Only 60% of the remaining funding will go to local government services such as public health, safety and fire prevention and only 40% of the remaining funding will go to K–12 public schools and community colleges.
* Would have required commercial properties worth $3 million or more to be taxed at fair market value—not purchase price
* Would have exempted small businesses, agricultural lands and residential properties for homeowners and renters
* Would have cut taxes for small businesses by reducing personal property taxes
According to the official voter information guide:
* "A YES vote on this measure means: Property taxes on most commercial properties worth more than $3 million would go up in order to provide new funding to local governments and schools."
* "A NO vote on this measure means: Proposition 13 still stands—property taxes on commercial properties would stay the same. Local governments and schools would not get new funding."
It was one of two ballot measures on the 2020 California ballot that would adjust the original Proposition 13, the other being Proposition 19.

## Background

In 1978, the California voters passed Proposition 13, which limited property taxes to 1% of assessed value, limited increases in assessed value to at most 2% per year, and set assessed value at the 1975–76 value. The assessed value only changes when the property is sold, when there is new construction on the property, or when a change of ownership otherwise occurs. This led to a 60% decrease in property tax revenue collected by local governments the year after Proposition 13 was passed, and forced local authorities in California to subsequently rely on sales taxes, which are more regressive, as well as on state government funding originating from California's personal income tax, which is more progressive but also more volatile.
If Proposition 15 passed, it would have required owners of large commercial, non-residential properties of a combined value of over $3 million to pay property taxes based on current market value, not purchase price. Owners of commercial parcels with a combined value of under $3 million and owners of agricultural or residential property would still be covered by Proposition 13. This type of "split roll" property tax system would have resulted in most owners of large commercial properties paying higher property taxes commensurate with the property's current market value, without changing property taxes for small businesses, agricultural lands, or residential properties. Upon this proposition passing, there would have been a reduction in taxes on business equipment. The amount of funding allocated to the local government and schools is dependent on the Local Control Funding Formula.

### Property transfer loophole

Some businesses have exploited a property transfer loophole in Proposition 13 implementing statutes created by the California Legislature that define what constitutes a change in property ownership. To take advantage of this loophole, businesses only have to make sure that no change in ownership exceeds 50% in order to avoid a property tax reassessment.
One of the world's largest investment firms The Blackstone Group, for example, avoided paying $2.7 million in property taxes when they purchased 49% ownership of a San Francisco property in 2017. The Trump Organization, owned by Donald Trump, is another notable property owner who has avoided millions of dollars in California property taxes as a result of the loophole. In 2018, the California Board of Equalization estimated that closing this loophole would raise up to $269 million annually in new tax revenue.
The Legislature could close the property transfer loophole with a 2/3 vote. The loophole was almost closed in 2014 by a bipartisan coalition in the state legislature but the effort died after progressive politicians, organized labor, and community groups refused to support the effort. In 2015 and 2018, Republican efforts to fix this loophole were stalled by Democratic state legislators in legislative committee. Another Republican attempt to close the loophole was made in 2020. Democrat Don Perata, former California senate leader, said this loophole is left open by his party to create justification for ending Proposition 13.

## Support
### Political endorsements

This measure was supported by over 650 federal, state, and local elected officials and the California Democratic Party. Notable endorsements include:
* Newspapers: Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Sacramento Bee, San Francisco Chronicle
* Candidates for president and vice president: Former Vice President Joe Biden and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris
* U.S. senators: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Cory Booker
* U.S. representatives: Barbara Lee, Ro Khanna, Karen Bass
* Statewide elected officials including Governor Gavin Newsom, Secretary of State Alex Padilla, State Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, State Controller Betty Yee, and Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond
* 8 CA State senators including President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, Nancy Skinner, Scott Wiener, and Bob Wieckowski
* 21 CA State assembly members including Speaker pro Tempore Anthony Rendon
* 66 mayors including Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, San Francisco Mayor London Breed, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf and Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg
* 9 counties including Alameda, Los Angeles, Santa Clara, and San Francisco
* 340 school board members and 182 city council members

### Organizational endorsements

The measure was also supported by a broad coalition of over 900 education, health and public service employees, and advocacy groups. Notable endorsing organizations included:
* Education advocates: California State PTA, California Federation of Teachers, California Teachers Association
* Health and public safety unions: California Nurses Association, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, California State Firefighters Association
* Civic organizations: League of Women Voters of California, ACLU of Northern and Southern California, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, Dolores Huerta Foundation
* Environment groups: Sierra Club California, California League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council
* Agriculture: Community Alliance with Family Farmers, California Climate and Agriculture Network
* Business: Consumer Federation of California, Silicon Valley Minority Business Consortium, Kern County Black Chamber of Commerce, Sierra Business Council
* Housing: California Housing Partnership, California Coalition for Rural Housing, Housing California, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, Southern California Association of Nonprofit Housing
* Senior advocates: California Alliance for Retired Americans, California Retired Teachers Association, Senior and Disability Action
* Philanthropy organizations: California Community Foundation, The Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, United Ways of California
* Racial and social justice groups: California Calls, PICO California, Courage California
This initiative attracted 1.7 million signatures as part of the ballot initiative campaign, a number which organizers describe as 'record-breaking'.

### Donations

The Yes on Proposition 15 campaign raised over $67.6 million mostly from foundations and public service unions. The top 3 contributors were the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, California Teachers Association, and SEIU California.

### Supporter arguments

Supporters said Prop 15 is a broad coalition of 1600 organizations launched by civil rights organizations, housing groups, parents, teachers, nurses, firefighters and community-based organizations who advocate for equality and justice for communities of color.
Supporters stated that 92% of the revenue generated from Prop. 15 would be paid by 10% of the highest value commercial properties based on a study using the assessor's property tax data. Almost half of the revenue generated would be paid by properties that have not been reassessed since before 2000.
Supporters cited a report that Proposition 15 will not impact small businesses, including those who rent and are in triple net leases. The report was published by Beacon Economics and commissioned by the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. The study said that rents are determined by the local market, not by the property taxes paid.
U.S. President-elect Joe Biden said: "Every kid deserves a quality education, and every family deserves to live in a safe, healthy community. That's why I support Prop 15." while previous U.S. Senator from California and Vice President–elect Kamala Harris, also a supporter, stated: "A corporate tax loophole has allowed billions to be drained from our public schools and local communities. No more. I'm proud to support Prop 15."
Proponents of the split roll property tax system said the intent of Proposition 13 was to protect residential property taxes from spiking and say the broad application of Proposition 13 to corporate property is a loophole.
Governor Gavin Newsom announced his endorsement of Proposition 15, calling the proposal "a fair, phased-in and long-overdue reform to state tax policy." The governor said in a written statement, "It's consistent with California's progressive fiscal values, it will exempt small businesses and residential property owners, it will fund essential services such as public schools and public safety and, most importantly, it will be decided by a vote of the people."
Many argued that the additional public revenue provided by this initiative is badly needed. After Proposition 13 was passed in 1978, San Jose had to cut public services and resulted in the first public school in America in 40 years to declare bankruptcy. These issues with educational inequality have only worsened in light of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. San Francisco mayor London Breed referred to this in her statement of support, saying "When I look at our dire budget deficits over the next couple of years, and then I see these revenue estimates showing how much we can invest in our community without having to raise any taxes on residents, it makes it more important for me to give my full support on this initiative."
Labor leader Dolores Huerta also argued that this revenue will help fund public health services such as clinics and public hospitals, which are facing the additional burden of the pandemic.
Socialists supporting Proposition 15 stated: "Prop 15 is a progressive tax, drawing its revenue from those best able to pay on behalf of the common good."
Environmentalists also argues that the tax reform would constrain urban sprawl, which increases greenhouse gas emissions and exacerbates climate change by inducing vehicle travel demand.
California State PTA President Celia Jaffe stated: "Our schools have been desperately underfunded for years, and we need this measure to ensure our children have the resources they need in order to learn. We urge parents and families across the state to support this act to give classrooms – and our children – the funding they need."

## Opposition
### Political opponents

The measure was opposed by over 190 current and former federal, state, and local elected officials, and the California Republican Party. Notable opponents include:
* U.S. representatives: Former U.S. Congressman Tom Campbell
* Statewide elected officials: Former Governor of California Pete Wilson
* 7 CA State senators including Republican Leader Shannon Grove, Scott Wilk, and Bob Archuleta
* 8 CA State Assembly members including Adam Gray, Devon Mathis, and Jay Obernolte; Former S.F Mayor and Speaker of the Assembly Willie Brown
* 34 mayors including Orange Mayor Mark Murphy, Palos Verdes Mayor John Cruikshank, and Santa Clarita Mayor Cameron Smyth
* 5 school board officials and 53 city council members

### Organizational opponents

This measure is also opposed by a coalition of over 350 business groups, taxpayer and civic organizations, land developers, and agricultural interests. Notable opposing organizations include:
* Business: California Business Properties Association, California Business Roundtable, and California Small Business Association
* Taxpayers: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, National Tax Limitation Committee, and California Taxpayers Association
* Real estate: California Retailers Association, National Association of Industrial and Office, and Building Owners and Managers–California
* Civic: California State Conference of the NAACP, Latino Community Development Association, and National Veterans Foundation
* Construction: California Builders Alliance, California State Council of Laborers, and California Building Industry Association
* Agriculture: California Farm Bureau Federation, Western Growers Association, and California Cattlemen's Association
* Energy: California Fuels & Convenience Alliance, California Independent Petroleum Association, and Western Propane Gas Association
* 104 local chapters of the Chamber of Commerce including the California Chamber of Commerce

### Donations

The No on Proposition 15 campaign raised over $73.1 million mostly from land developers, agricultural interests and golf and country clubs. The largest donor was the California Business Roundtable Issues PAC, which contributed more than $38 million to the No on 15 campaign. The Business Roundtable's biggest donors were New York–based Blackstone Property Partners, which gave $7 million, and Michael Hayde, CEO of the Irvine real estate investment firm Western National Group, who gave $4.5 million.

### Opposition arguments

Opponents said the costs of the tax increase would ultimately be borne by commercial property renters (business owners), and at a time already challenging for retail businesses to survive. Property taxes are paid by the tenant (as opposed to the landlord) under most retail leases. That is because retail leases are generally structured as triple-net leases, whereby a building's property taxes, insurance premiums, and maintenance expenses are passed through to the tenant, who is responsible to pay for its proportionate share of those costs in addition to base rent. Retailers, already struggling due to the pandemic, may be unable to meet the increased tax bill, putting their survivability at greater risk. It was also expected to affect tenants who enter into gross leases (whereby expenses are included in base rent), as the higher taxes may be offset with higher rent. This would have a negative impact on tenant finances, and tenants may ultimately pass the higher costs to consumers. Opponents and analysts say Proposition 15 will have the greatest adverse impact on minority- and family-owned businesses, hitting local and regional players the hardest.
County assessors were almost uniformly against Proposition 15, saying the measure would lead to an unmanageable workload which would result in expenditures exceeding revenues to the state for many years, while revenue would be less than expected due to costly litigation associated with assessment appeals by property owners. Assessors said running the transition alone would cost $470 million per year for up to 10 years, and that the costs and challenges of the transition and increased workload could exceed any additional tax revenues. They also were critical of the tax breaks offered in the initiative, purportedly to appease small businesses. The measure provided that businesses with 50 employees or fewer would be exempt from the property tax on "equipment and fixtures," which assessors said did not make sense and would be impossible to implement as they have no means to determine a business's workforce. According to the California Assessor's Association, Proposition 15 would require the hiring of up to 900 new assessors statewide at a total cost of $517 million to $639 million per year.
Opponents said that while the measure targets the large commercial beneficiaries of Proposition 13, it will ultimately burden property renters, consumers, and business owners alike. They also state it may inevitably lead to a full repeal of Proposition 13. "We're next on the menu," said the president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, who also said: "California has the highest income tax rate in America, we have the highest sales tax in America, we have the highest gas tax in America." and that "Even with Proposition 13 protections, California has higher property taxes than two-thirds of the nation."
Opponents drew attention to the significant financial support Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has given the measure through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI). Newer Silicon Valley corporations like Facebook derive smaller benefits from Proposition 13 than traditional California businesses do. While Facebook has not come out in support of the measure, opponents at the California Business Roundtable say: "We see CZI as a tool of Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. It's a tool in his toolbox." Officials at the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative say the two entities operate independently.
Prop. 15 was also opposed by the California NAACP State Conference, which said it will harm minority small business owners. The endorsement received criticism because the leader of the California NAACP, Alice Huffman, owns a political consulting firm which has received cumulatively over $1.2 million in payments by campaigns that she endorsed. Huffman said she only takes on political clients whose campaigns are aligned with the California NAACP's positions.
Some commentators noted how the initiative would not provide funding for affordable housing development and would further lower the incentive for governmental approval of needed residential development in favor of more-taxable commercial development (for its attendant sales, payroll, business, and/or property tax revenue).
Opponents of the split roll property tax system said voters deliberately sought to extend Proposition 13 protections to all commercial property by rejecting a split roll promoted by Jerry Brown in 1978, and that the transfer loophole was created by the legislature and was not a component of the original Proposition 13 voters approved in the same election that year.
Some people contended this would be a way for state and local governments to pay off their significant unfunded pension liabilities rather than reforming pensions (by capping large payouts and making employees contribute more) that they feel are overly generous and adopted not because of market necessity, but because of unions' political power and bad legislative choices.
The California Farm Bureau opposed the measure because it feared that improvements to farms could be taxed at higher rates.
Another oppositional argument came from the fact that Proposition 15 would have a varying effect on different regions of the state because of the decreased business equipment taxes. It is possible that the rural areas would actually lose money, which would decrease the amount of funding going to public schools, amongst other local needs, deepening inequities state-wide.

## Expenditure of tax proceeds

All local governments that receive funds from the property tax increases imposed by Proposition 15 would have been required to publicly disclose for each fiscal year the amount of property tax revenues received thereunder for that fiscal year and how those property tax revenues were spent. Spending decisions on Proposition 15 tax proceeds will be made by local elected officials as part of the annual budget process.

## Education funding allocation

Of the Proposition 15 revenue, 40% would have been allocated for K–12 public school districts (89%) and community colleges (11%). The additional education revenue would have been distributed to local school districts through the state Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) that uses state taxes to supplement the local property tax revenue so that every school district in the state reaches a minimum funding level based on the following principles:
* Funding schools more equitably based on student needs
* Making more decisions at a local level — local control of spending
* Measure achievement using multiple metrics and supporting schools to improve
Some wealthier school districts receive more funding through their local property taxes than the LCFF limit. These school districts keep all their local property taxes and only receive "basic aid" from state taxes. On average, basic-aid school districts have more than $4,000 per student (30.6% increase) than LCFF school districts. Proposition 15 guarantees that all school districts will receive at least $100 more per student regardless of their LCFF or basic aid status.
Revenue projections for each district were calculated based on 2019–2020 enrollments and have been identified by School Services of California (as published by EdSource).

## Polling

In order to pass, it needed a simple majority (>50%).
| Poll source | Date(s) administered | Sample size | Margin of error | For Proposition 15 | Against Proposition 15 | Undecided |
| UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies | October 16–21, 2020 | 5,352 (LV) | – | 49% | 42% | 9% |
| Public Policy Institute of California | October 9–18, 2020 | 1,185 (LV) | ± 4.3% | 49% | 45% | 6% |
| Ipsos/Spectrum News | October 7–15, 2020 | 1,400 (A) | ± 3% | 55% | 29% | 16% |
| SurveyUSA | September 26–28, 2020 | 588 (LV) | ± 5.4% | 49% | 21% | 30% |
| UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies | September 9–15, 2020 | 5,942 (LV) | ± 2% | 49% | 34% | 17% |
| Public Policy Institute of California | September 4–13, 2020 | 1,168 (LV) | ± 4.3% | 51% | 40% | 9% |
| Probolsky Research | August 27 – September 2, 2020 | 900 (V) | ± 3.3% | 41% | 49% | 10% |
| Public Policy Institute of California | April 1–9, 2020 | 1,091 (LV) | ± 3.7% | 53% | 47% | 1% |
| Public Policy Institute of California | November 3–12, 2019 | 1,008 (LV) | ± 4.3% | 46% | 45% | 9% |
| Public Policy Institute of California | September 16–25, 2019 | 1,031 (LV) | ± 4.2% | 47% | 45% | 8% |
| Public Policy Institute of California | April 5–15, 2019 | 1,035 (LV) | ± 4% | 54% | 45% | 1% |
| Public Policy Institute of California | January 20–29, 2019 | 1,154 (LV) | ± 4% | 49% | 43% | 8% |
| Public Policy Institute of California | October 27 – November 5, 2018 | 1,095 (LV) | ± 4.4% | 56% | 40% | 4% |
| USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times | September 17 – October 14, 2018 | 980 (RV) | ± 4% | 46% | 22% | 31% |
| Public Policy Institute of California | March 25 – April 3, 2018 | 867 (LV) | ± 4.4% | 53% | 42% | 5% |

## Result

| Choice | Votes | % |
| For | 8,213,054 | 48.03 |
| Against | 8,885,569 | 51.97 |
| Blank votes | 686,528 | - |
| Total | 17,785,151 | 100 |
| Registered voters/turnout | 22,047,448 | 80.67 |
| Source: elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov |||