Premium
Does School Finance Litigation Cause Taxpayer Revolt? Serrano and Proposition 13
Author(s) -
Martin Isaac
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
law and society review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.867
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1540-5893
pISSN - 0023-9216
DOI - 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2006.00272.x
Subject(s) - taxpayer , opposition (politics) , supreme court , skepticism , ballot , campaign finance , economics , presumption , apportionment , california proposition 13 , public finance , property tax , finance , revenue , political science , law , public administration , voting , politics , philosophy , epistemology
An influential theory argues that court‐ordered school finance equalization undermines support for public schools. Residents of wealthy school districts who cannot keep their tax revenues for their own school districts may vote to limit school funding altogether. Proponents of this theory point to Serrano v. Priest , a 1977 decision of the California Supreme Court that mandated equalization of school financing and was followed almost immediately by Proposition 13, a ballot initiative to limit the local property tax. I test the theory that these two events were causally related by using hierarchical models to analyze voters within school districts. I find no evidence that opposition to school finance equalization contributed to the tax revolt. Claims about the perverse consequences of school finance litigation should be greeted with skepticism.