Los Angeles Times - 05.03.2020

B4 THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2020 LATIMES.COM

ELECTION 2020

Jackie Goldberg appears
headed to reelection on the
Los Angeles Board of Edu-
cation, but little has been
settled with certainty in the
hard-fought, expensive and
pivotal contests to influence
the direction of the nation’s
second-largest school sys-
tem.
With many ballots yet to
be counted, two races seem
on their way toward a No-
vember runoff, but it is not
yet clear who will be in those
contests.
In the west San Fernando
Valley, incumbent Scott
Schmerelson was leading in
ongoing tallies, making him
a good bet to be in a runoff
against either Marilyn Kozi-
atek or Elizabeth Bartels-
Badger.
For a board seat that in-
cludes parts of South L.A.
and the Harbor area, four
candidates are locked in a
tight contest over the two
spots in the runoff. Leading
the pack Wednesday was Pa-
tricia Castellanos, but many
votes were yet to be tallied.
The outcome in only one
race was unequivocal, as in-
cumbent George McKenna
was the only candidate on
the ballot for a seat repre-
senting portions of south
and southwest L.A.
Throughout the cam-
paign season, these contests
were a battle between sup-
porters of charter schools
and the teachers union —
and that scenario is likely to
continue until the Novem-
ber general election. The
stakes are high for both
sides on a board that has di-
vided closely over issues af-
fecting charter schools.
The four seats up in this
election have all been held by
board members friendly to
the teachers union — and
the union has been cam-
paigning to keep it that way.
Charter advocates are con-
cerned about new state laws
that give school boards
more authority to limit char-
ter growth and have been
campaigning for candidates
more likely to support their
schools.
Charters are privately
operated and compete with
the school system for stu-
dents. Most charters are
nonunion.
“The new rules for char-
ter approval would let a pro-
union board cut back on
charter growth in L.A. in a
big way, but the unions, to
take advantage of that op-
portunity, can’t afford to lose
either of these last two

seats,” said Dan Schnur,

who teaches political com-

munications at USC and

Pepperdine. “This is going to

be a classic charter-versus-

union faceoff. Both sides are

all in.”

Each side has put a pos-

itive spin on the inconclusive

results.

The union focused on two

endorsed candidates —

Goldberg and McKenna —

winning seats outright. Two

others — Schmerelson and

Castellanos — are sitting for

now with first-place primary

finishes in contests headed

toward a runoff. These re-

sults, union officials said,

come after charter advo-

cates far outspent United

Teachers Los Angeles,

which represents teachers,

nurses, counselors and li-

brarians.

“UTLA ran the most ro-

bust ground game in our his-

tory, proving the power of

people versus money,” the

union said in a statement.

“While the charter lobby put

hate ads in the mail, we put

people in the streets, walk-

ing and talking to voters.”

Gregory McGinity, the

head of a pro-charter politi-

cal action committee, cited

the failure of an outright ma-

jority-vote win by the union-

backed Schmerelson and

Castellanos as boding well

for their side. Schmerelson,

he said, was in clear jeopar-

dy.

“When an incumbent of-

ficeholder gets barely over

40% in a contested primary,

that incumbent is in a lot of

trouble,” said McGinity, exe-

cutive director of California

Charter Schools Assn. Ad-

vocates.

McGinity also noted that

Goldberg’s margin of victory

was likely to be much

smaller than last May, when

she won a special election to

fill an open seat.

“There’s clearly a signifi-

cant number of families that

challenge her vision of where

LAUSD is going,” said

McGinity, “and her desire to

close down high-performing

schools,” a reference to the

charter sector he repre-

sents.

The campaign against

Goldberg barely referred to

charter schools. Instead, it

raised inaccurate claims

that Goldberg opposes gun

control and wants to cut

funding for schools. The

high-cost mailer attack also

asserted that Goldberg

doesn’t care about Latino

students.

“I think I had a deep

enough base that even with

someone spending $1.2 mil-

lion against me it didn’t turn

everyone off,” said Goldberg,

referring to expenditures by

Bill Bloomfield, a major past

contributor to CCSA Advo-

cates.

Bloomfield also spent

$2.9 million in the South

L.A.-Harbor area race. His

two favored candidates —

Tanya Ortiz Franklin and

Mike Lansing — remain in

contention along with

Castellanos for the runoff.

That spending included

more than $580,000 in a neg-

ative campaign against

Castellanos. Also still in the

running as votes continue to

be tallied is Long Beach sec-

ond grade teacher Lydia

Gutiérrez, who had no nota-

ble financial support. She

was the target of a nearly

quarter-million-dollar nega-

tive ad campaign by Bloom-

field.

2 runoffs likely in school board races

JACKIE GOLDBERGseemed likely to avoid a runoff after Tuesday’s vote, while another incumbent, George McKenna, ran unopposed.

Robert GauthierLos Angeles Times

INCUMBENTScott Schmerelson was leading in early tallies. He appears likely to

face a runoff against Marilyn Koziatek or Elizabeth Bartels-Badger.

Allen J. SchabenLos Angeles Times

BOARD candidate Eliz-

abeth Bartels-Badger

BOARDcandidate

Marilyn Koziatek

Koziatek campaign

Early returns showed

two union-backed

incumbents winning,

and two races still to

be decided.

By Howard Blume

A combination of confus-
ing messages and an unfor-
tunate name contributed to
what appears to be the first
failure of a state school bond
measure in a quarter of a
century, education and pub-
lic policy experts said
Wednesday.
Proposition 13 would
have raised $15 billion from
general obligation bonds for
preschools, K-12 schools,
community colleges and
state universities. Although
ballots were still being
counted in Los Angeles
County and the statewide
tally is not complete, the
“no” vote led, 56% to 44%,
with virtually all precincts
reporting at least partial
numbers, according to the
California secretary of state.
“It’s certainly one of the
big surprises of last night
that a state bond on a ballot
in ... the Democratic presi-
dential primary with Bernie
Sanders leading all the other
candidates failed to reach
majority support,” Mark
Baldassare, president of the
Public Policy Institute of
California, said Wednesday.
Baldassare said that high

Democratic turnout and a

good economy were ex-

pected to help the measure,

and that historically voters

have supported funding for

schools. The last time a

school bond failed was in

1994.

“The first question that I

have ... is, is the fact that the

bond measure failed some

indication of nervousness

that voters are having about

the economy?” he said.

The measure — which

had no relation to the land-

mark 1978 Proposition 13

that capped property tax in-

creases — would have

funded safety repairs, lead

testing and remediation,

and construction of new

classrooms, among other

school projects. Nine billion

dollars would have gone to

preschool through K-

schools, with priority given

to districts that were unable

to raise money locally and

served high shares of low-in-

come students, English-lan-

guage learners, and foster

youth. The remaining $6 bil-

lion would have been split

evenly among community

colleges and the Cal State

and University of California

systems.

In the weeks leading up to

the vote, a statewide survey

by the Public Policy Institute

of California showed that

only a slim majority, 51%, of

likely voters supported Pro-

position 13. Of those, fewer

than half said the outcome

was “very important” to

them, which Baldassare

said may have indicated a

lack of urgency around the

measure.

Others said that the

name of the measure and

confusion about its effect on

property taxes led to its de-

mise.

“There’s no other pro-

position number in the his-

tory of California that reso-

nates in voters’ minds like

1978’s Proposition 13. It’s no-

torious and infamous,” said

Jeff Vincent, a director at the

Center for Cities and

Schools at UC Berkeley.

Compounding the confu-

sion is a measure that ap-

pears headed for the Novem-

ber ballot that would modify

the original Proposition 13

by making it easier to raise

commercial property taxes

to fund schools and other lo-

cal services.

“So you have various mai-

lers and messaging talking

about Prop. 13 ... but they’re

different Prop. 13s,” Vincent

said. “Confusion is the friend

of the ‘no’ vote.”

On Wednesday, Assem-

blymember Patrick O’Don-

nell (D-Long Beach), who

co-authored the bill that put

the bond on the ballot, an-

nounced that he will intro-

duce legislation to retire the

use of the number 13 on fu-

ture ballot measures “to en-

sure voters are not misled.”

Opponents of the school

bond measure attacked it by

focusing on the possibility

that it could pave the way for

local property taxes to go up,

capitalizing on California

residents’ worries over hous-

ing costs and property taxes

in an already expensive

state.

A provision in the mea-

sure would have increased

the amount school districts

could borrow through local

bonds, which require voter

approval and are repaid by

property owners. The $15 bil-

lion in general obligation

bonds, however, would have

been paid back, with inter-

est, out of the state’s general

fund over 35 years, without

adding a new tax on voters.

The Howard Jarvis Tax-

payers Assn., named for the

man behind the original Pro-

position 13, was the only reg-

istered opposition to the

bond and seized on the pos-

sibility of increased local

bonds in its messaging.

“In social media this was

blasted all over the place,”

said Jeff Freitas, president of

the California Federation of

Teachers, which endorsed

the measure. “There’s a lot of

misinformation out there,

and that’s what the oppo-

nents wanted.”

The measure may also

have suffered from a lack of

key support, observers said.

Los Angeles Unified School

District — the largest dis-

trict in the state — did not

campaign in favor of the

measure, which may have of-

fered only limited aid to the

district while reducing some

of the revenue it takes in

from developer fees paid to

the district when new multi-

family housing is built.

“Was there an effort to

convince L.A. voters?” Bal-

dassare asked. “You need

those trusted voices.”

Why Prop. 13 school bond measure lacked support

VOTERS cast their ballots Tuesday on new machines in the Mid-Wilshire area.

Proposition 13’s poor showing amid high Democratic turnout surprised pollsters.

Al SeibLos Angeles Times

Its apparent failure is

a first in 25 years. Its

name and confusing

messages didn’t help.

By Nina Agrawal
and Sonali Kohli