Property Tax Information and Support for School Bond Referenda: Experimental Evidence

• Published date: 01 May 2021
• Author: Eric J. Brunner,Mark D. Robbins,Bill Simonsen
• Date: 01 May 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13201

Research Article

488 Public Administration Review • May | June 202 1

Abstract: This article reports on an experiment testing whether additional information influences support for bond

referenda. Respondents were randomly assigned to treatment conditions that varied the way the potential implications

of property tax increases were presented to voters. The results show a persistent negative effect of tax information on the

probability of support for school bond referenda across all treatments. Specifically, the results show that the probability

of voting yes decreased by 6 to 9 percentage points, depending on the treatment. This result persists across multiple

specifications and robustness tests. The effects are consistent across populations, with only those with high levels of

education showing no statistically significant effect of the treatment on their support for school referenda.

Evidence for Practice

• Some states require bond referenda to include statements that seek to make plain the connection between

ballot passage and property taxes, while others do not.

• We find a persistent negative effect of property tax information on the probability of support for school

bond referenda of 6 to 9 percentage points, depending on the wording.

• This line of research has become increasingly important to public policy making given that about half the

states, including the largest state, California, have some type of property tax wording requirements for

referenda.

• We argue that providing wording connecting property taxes to bond referenda passage is consistent with

transparency efforts governments have pursued for decades. However, such wording might not improve

the accuracy of information for citizens since, ultimately, the ensuing property tax levy depends on myriad

factors, only one of which is debt service on bonds.

Between 2009 and 2018, state and local

governments issued approximately $4.1 trillion

of municipal bonds to finance infrastructure

projects such as schools, hospitals, highways, and other

transportation projects (MSRB2019). In 2017 alone,

subnational governments issued more than $160

billion in general obligation bonds, of which a sizable

share was devoted to K–12 school construction and

modernization projects.1 General obligation bonds

are backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing

municipality and typically require voter approval. In

the case of local governments, general obligation bonds

are almost always backed by property tax increases that

remain in effect until the bonds are repaid.

Some states require bond referenda to include

statements that seek to make plain the connection

between ballot passage and property taxes, while

others do not. For example, in Minnesota, ballot

language includes the following wording in boldface

capital letters: “By voting ‘yes’ on this ballot question,

you are voting for a property tax increase.” In Nevada,

the ballot language includes the estimated rate change

and the expected impact on a home with a $100,000

assessed value.

When citizens enter the voting booth and express

their approval or disapproval of a bond referendum,

many things affect their calculus, including their own

circumstances, preferences, and ideologies. Those with

responsibility for facilitating school improvements

cannot control these voter attributes. Voters are

sensitive to depictions of proposals as tax increases or

service changes, and ballot wording that makes such

characterizations might reasonably be expected to affect

their choices (Dineen, Robbins, and Simonsen2017;

Ferrari and Randisi2013; Sussman and Olivola2011).

Scholars have categorized these effects in various ways

as tax aversion, information effects, fiscal illusion,

tax salience, and political salience. We contribute to

this research, but in a manner that preserves close ties

to how voters interact with this information. Our

randomized experiment isolates the effects of tax

information on support for school bond referenda.

Eric J. Brunner

Mark D. Robbins

Bill Simonsen

University of Connecticut

Property Tax Information and Support for School Bond

Referenda: Experimental Evidence

Bill Simonsen is professor in the

Department of Public Policy at the

University of Connecticut. His research

area is public budgeting and finance. He

was awarded the 2015 Aaron Wildavsky

Award by the Association for Budgeting and

Financial Management for lifetime scholarly

achievement in budgeting and financial

management.

Email: william.simonsen@uconn.edu

Mark D. Robbins is professor in the

Department of Public Policy at the University

of Connecticut. He conducts research in the

area of public budgeting and finance. His

research focuses on public preferences for

taxing and spending and on public debt.

Email: mark.robbins@uconn.edu

Eric J. Brunner is professor and

director of the MPA and MPP programs

in the Department of Public Policy at the

University of Connecticut. His primary

fields of research are state and local public

finance and education policy.

Email: eric.brunner@uconn.edu

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 81, Iss. 3, pp. 488–499. © 2020 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13201.