VICKY CHON STARTED CANVASSING on a recent Saturday morning in the Glenmoor neighborhood of Fremont, where the 1950s to ‘70s ranch homes line streets evoking names from that era: Mildred, Gertrude, Bonnie, Helen.
“I’m a teacher in Fremont Unified, and I’m here to talk about Prop 3, which is gonna help protect funding for our students in Fremont,” she said. More often than not, she gave her pitch to a Ring video doorbell.
Chon, the president of the Fremont Unified District Teachers Association and a sixth-grade teacher, grew up in Fremont, a city of 230,000 and home of the massive Tesla manufacturing plant in the East Bay. Wearing a bright red T-shirt with the teachers union’s apple logo, she carried her 8-month-old daughter in a snuggie encircling her neck, and a pile of door-hanger flyers in a free hand.
One side read, “Yes on 3. PROPOSITION 3 WILL STOP DEVASTATING CUTS TO SCHOOLS.” Prop. 3, on the November state ballot, would make permanent an existing higher income tax rate on the top 2% of California earners. In effect since 2012, it has brought in billions for schools and community colleges. Without Prop. 3’s passage, the surcharge will expire in 2031.
On the flip side of the leaflet, with a big check mark, is a photo of Richard Barrera, candidate for state superintendent of schools. It reads “RICHARD BARRERA IS THE REAL DEAL”. Barrera, an ally of organized labor, is the president of the San Diego Unified school board and is running for state superintendent of public instruction.
To those at home who opened the door, Chen would continue, “If we don’t pass Prop. 3, we could lose $20 million for our Fremont students.”
“So my baby can, you know, have the funding she needs for school,” she added.
Chon and the 68 other Fremont Unified teachers knocked on 2,533 doors as part of the California Teachers Association’s Sept. 19 day of action for Prop. 3; 1,150 teachers from 69 districts elsewhere in the state knocked on 36,509 doors. Combined, they set a one-day canvassing record, CTA said.
Teachers are the first prong of the Yes on 3 campaign’s two-prong strategy. The other involves raising and spending money. Lots of it.
In the Sept. 24 filing to the California Secretary of State, the Yes on 3 campaign had raised $46.8 million, not counting donations under $1,000. The No on 3 campaign has raised $5,500 in total. The Family Business Association of California PAC gave $5,000 of the total.
The Yes campaign has raised $8,509 for every $1 of opposition dollars.
CTA, which led the signature drive to put Prop. 3 on the ballot, contributed $33.3 million — 71% of the total — while the CTA’s parent union, the National Education Association, donated $10 million. The California Federation of Teachers, the smaller of two California teachers unions, gave $1.75 million to go with the Service Employees International Union’s (SEIU) $1.5 million.
CTA’s elected 700-delegate State Council allocated the money in June, “not taking anything for granted,” said CTA President David Goldberg. CTA was less worried about the opposition than with the sheer number of 14 initiatives on the ballot. It’s been more important to raise awareness of Prop. 3 “above the noise,” he said.
Now, with five weeks to go before the election, he said, “I would assume there is enough for every scenario to win this,” including TV ads. ”It’s definitely an option.”
Two choices: a wealth tax and/or an income tax?
Prop. 3 is one of two tax-raising initiatives on the November ballot. The other, far more contentious one, is Prop. 40, which would create the nation’s first tax on the net worth of the state’s 200-plus billionaires.
The independent, nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the one-time, 5% tax on most of the billionaires’ assets would yield tens of billions of dollars. But it also cautioned it could result in a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue if the richest of the rich follow the lead of Elon Musk and Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and move out of state to cheaper tax states like Florida and Texas.
That’s one reason CTA opposes Prop. 40; the other is that TK-12 and community colleges would receive only 10% of the take from Prop. 40, a smaller ratio than the 40% that they already get annually as their share of the state’s general fund revenue under a constitutional amendment passed in 1988.
Prop. 3 would continue that ratio. The LAO projects that, depending on volatile income and capital tax revenue, Prop. 3 would continue to bring in $5 billion to $15 billion to the general fund with 40% — $2 billion to $6 billion — going to schools and community colleges annually.
A Prop. 3 surcharge of 1% starts with taxable income of $371,000 for single filers and $742,000 for joint filers. It would jump to an additional 3 percentage points for those single filers making more than $743,000 or $1.5 million for joint filers.
More than 50% support in a new voter survey
Conventional thinking of pollsters and veteran political observers is that multiple tax measures on the same ballot, especially complex initiatives like the wealth tax, could hurt the chances of all tax initiatives: Frustrated voters would throw up their hands and vote “no” across their ballots.
But, based on the Sept. 25 voter survey by the UC Berkeley Institute for Governmental Studies, that doesn’t seem to be happening; voters appear to be heading in opposite directions in support for Prop. 3 and Prop. 40.
Compared with a prior survey in August, support for Prop. 3 rose to 54% in favor, 34% opposed, and 13% undecided.
Support for Prop. 40 had fallen from above 50% in August to 45% in favor, 42% against, and 13% undecided, amid an onslaught of anti-Prop. 40 TV ads.
Although Fremont offers a small sample size — Democrats outnumber Republicans three to one in the Alameda County city — canvassing teachers said they heard widespread support for Prop. 3.
Nicole Black, a veteran kindergarten teacher, said someone came to the door in about half of the 50 houses she visited, with 20 of those indicating support, some asking for more information, and no one outright saying no. William Jung, a high school teacher, reported fewer conversations but proportionally higher support.
Vicky Chon encountered only one no — a shirtless man working in his garage who dismissed her with a flip of the hand, saying, “No more taxes.” But a woman who had said through her Ring doorbell video camera that she was driving her father to an appointment later was working in her garden and said she was all in. And an elderly lady with patchy English said, yes, she would vote for it, too.
No one wanted more details of Prop. 3 or asked about the wealth tax, so Chon and colleagues didn’t have to bring it up. They could stay on message: Prop. 3 will continue an existing tax. Voting yes will keep the status quo and prevent future layoffs of teachers.
In the coming weeks, voters can expect to be inundated with tens of millions of dollars worth of ads for, but mainly against, Prop. 40. Opponents have already spent $87 million — 85% of the $219 million total — compared with $32 million by the proponents.
Meanwhile, teachers will be going door to door every weekend, Goldberg said. “We always knew a lot would rest on our shoulders,” he said. “No other organization can match our capacity in every community.”
This story originally appeared in EdSource.
