School Voucher Plan Placed on Nov. 2 Ballot : Special election: Initiative would allow state grants for private education. Each county’s voters could decide whether to raise sales tax 1 cent for local government.

Gov. Pete Wilson on Thursday called a statewide special election for Nov. 2 in which voters will consider a sweeping school choice initiative that could fundamentally change public education in California.

At a Los Angeles news conference, Wilson said he called the election to give voters in each county a chance to decide whether to raise the state sales tax by up to 1 cent to help subsidize local government services that are facing cutbacks.

That announcement surprised and angered most members of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, who criticized Wilson for “passing the buck” while counties continue to suffer financially at the hands of the state.

Under the state Constitution, all qualified statewide ballot measures will be placed on the November ballot, including several tax- and budget-related issues and the widely watched school choice initiative.

Supporters and opponents of the initiative, which would provide parents with state-funded grants to help pay tuition for private and parochial schools, were surprised by Wilson’s decision. The measure won enough petition signatures last year and was expected to go before voters in June, 1994, which until Wilson’s declaration was the next statewide election.

If the measure passes, California would become the first state to take tax money from public schools and allow it to be spent for private school tuition.

The initiative would supply families with vouchers equal to about half of what the state spends per-pupil on its public schools--or $2,000 to $2,500--for each child enrolled in a private or parochial school. Public school spending would be cut by that amount.

Supporters of the voucher plan say it would extend the opportunity for school choice to the state’s poorest families and provide competition that would spur public schools to improve.

Opponents say it would cripple underfunded public school systems and allow the proliferation of unscrupulous and discriminatory private schools.

The idea of putting tax money into the hands of parents to spend at whatever schools they wish--public or private--has long been advocated in some conservative and business circles as a way to make schools more responsive to students’ needs.

The George Bush Administration advocated voucher systems as part of its “America 2000” education revitalization package. The Clinton Administration opposes private school vouchers, favoring choice only among public schools.

Only two states have placed similar measures on the ballot--Oregon in 1990 and Colorado in 1992--and both were soundly rejected.

The California campaign is expected to be hard-fought and intense, conducted against the backdrop of public school systems saddled with the twin afflictions of an increasingly needy student population and a shrinking funding base brought on by the state’s deepening fiscal crisis.

The voucher measure is opposed by a coalition of public school interest groups, including the powerful statewide teachers union, the California Teachers Assn.

The groups have pledged to provide hundreds of thousands of volunteers to walk precincts, and to raise as much as $10 million--”or whatever it takes”--to defeat the measure, said Rick Manter, campaign consultant for the anti-voucher coalition, Committee to Educate Against Vouchers.

Much of that money will come from public schoolteachers, administrators, school board members and other school employees.

“Stopping it is not going to be easy,” said Denise Rockwell-Woods, vice president of United Teachers-Los Angeles, the 30,000-member teachers union. “But there will be at least 250,000 public schoolteachers across this state working to see that this is defeated. “We’re going to have to work harder and we’re going to have to work quicker, but I think it’s winnable.”

The new timeline will give both sides little more than five months to rally support.

“We’re mobilized and ready to move,” said Kevin Teasley of the Choice in Education League, which is sponsoring the voucher initiative.

In June, the initiative’s backers by a narrow margin fell short of collecting the 677,554 signatures needed to qualify for the November, 1992, ballot. It was later certified for the next statewide election, June, 1994.

Teasley said the group’s campaign organization is still in place, but acknowledged that the new date will hamper its ability to finance a successful campaign.

“The big problem will be fund raising,” he said. “Instead of writing checks in January for a June ballot, our supporters are going to have to start thinking now about November.”

Much of the group’s financial support comes from conservatives and the state’s business community. Teasley would not say how much is left in the group’s coffers, but said it intends to raise $5 million to $6 million for the campaign.

“We know we’re going to be outspent by at least two to one, probably three to one,” by the anti-voucher forces, he said.

Teasley insisted that the November date will not pose problems in getting out the vote. “Our people are the kind of people who will turn out for any election and we have no doubt they outnumber the actual voters of the opposition,” he said.

But Manter of the anti-voucher group said the initiative will be easier to defeat in a special election than on a general election ballot crowded with other candidates and issues.

Manter said the switch from the June primary to the November special election will force the group to rely more on direct mail and to seek support from suburban Republicans and older residents, who are likely to be drawn to the ballot by the sales tax issue.

Although there is a vacancy in the office of state superintendent of public instruction, that post apparently will not appear on the November ballot. The state Constitution requires the job to be filled at each gubernatorial election.

Wilson has not taken a public position on the initiative; he is known to favor choice among public schools.

In calling for the special election, Wilson did not mention the voucher initiative until asked. He said he called for the special election “to put power in the hands of the people” and allow residents of each community to decide if they are willing to pay higher sales taxes to avoid deep cuts in services such as police and fire protection.

But the announcement left Orange County supervisors stunned, confused, and in most cases, angry.

Recent history shows that Orange County voters generally will not support tax increases, and supervisors said they probably would not even place the governor’s proposal on the November ballot.

Orange County residents currently pay 7 3/4 cents in sales tax for every dollar spent.

“I have no optimism whatsoever that this proposal is workable at the local level,” Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez said. “I certainly think there’s definitely a shift of funding responsibility (by Wilson) at a time when the economy is suffering.”

It took three tries before a one-half-cent sales tax for specific transportation improvements was approved by voters in 1990. Another proposal to raise taxes by another half-penny to pay for a new county jail was defeated in 1991.

Having previously suffered financial setbacks at the hands of the state, the supervisors did not receive Wilson’s announcement warmly.

“My first response to the governor would be ‘Thank you, very much.’ It’s almost like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic,” Board Chairman Harriett M. Wieder said. “We should be partners in this . . . it’s too bad local governments are being put in an adversarial role.”

Supervisor Thomas F. Riley added: “I am still trying to figure out what the governor hopes to gain by this. . . . I guess he feels he can pass the buck this way.”

County Budget Director Ronald S. Rubino said the county’s budget faces another major hit in the governor’s plan because it includes shifting property tax dollars from the counties to the schools.

For Orange County, that would mean a $19-million loss from the general fund, plus another $41 million to $72 million from special districts that pay for libraries, fire protection, flood control, and maintenance of harbors, beaches and parks.

The supervisors also challenged the legality of Wilson’s proposal, although the governor’s office said it can be done.

Supervisor William G. Steiner sympathized with Wilson, saying the governor has “had his share of tough budget decisions.” While it will not be easy for local governments to make ends meet, he added, it is time for local governments and their voters “to bite the bullet.”

Wilson said he selected the Nov. 2 date to cut costs because counties that are home to nearly 40% of the state’s voters had already planned to hold elections then. The election is expected to cost the state $10 million to $20 million.

Ken Khachigian, a longtime Wilson confidant, said the most pressing reason for calling the special election is to force local governments to exercise their leadership and take the heat for any needed tax increases. Only counties that choose to hold sales tax elections will do so and the decision will be made county by county.

The new timing could either benefit or harm the efforts of the voucher proponents, he said. The November date gives the less-organized pro-voucher forces little time to mount a campaign, which Khachigian called “a fairly strong negative for the ‘yes’ campaign.”

But because special elections traditionally draw fewer voters, fewer votes would be needed for the initiative to prevail, “and it’s not inconceivable that the (voucher) campaign can motivate voters to get out,” he said.

Times staff writers Cathy Decker, Gebe Martinez, Bill Stall, Jerry Gillam and Daniel M. Weintraub contributed to this report.