On July 24, 2026, the California Court of Appeal declared in the case of Osborne v. Logan that the expression of the tax rate in a school district bond measure ballot question (also known as the “ballot label”) must match the expression of the tax rate contained in the tax rate statement, and it must be stated as an amount in dollars per each $100,000 of a property’s assessed value rather than in cents per each $100 of a property’s assessed value (Shawn Osborne et al. v. Logan [July 24, 2026, B342516] 2026 WL 2137313.)
While approaches to this issue have varied, most experts believed that in the absence of a statutory directive otherwise, school districts had the discretion to express the tax rate in a bond measure ballot label in either dollars or cents. This new decision to the contrary comes at a difficult time as many school districts have already submitted bond measures for November elections and may need to take corrective action prior to August 7, 2026 to bring their measure into conformity with the decision.
Background
The Osborne decision stems from a bond election held by Los Angeles Unified School District in 2024. Prior to the placement of the measure on the ballot, two registered voters (Petitioners) sought a court order to compel the school district to change aspects of the bond measure ballot question. The Petitioners challenged multiple aspects of the measure wording, one of which was how the tax rate (the amount of tax each property owner would pay) is expressed in the ballot label.[1] In the challenged ballot label, the tax rate is described as “2.5¢ per $100 of assessed valuation,” while the tax rate statement contained in the voter information guide describes the tax rate as “$25.04 per $100,000 (2.504 cents per $100).” Although these two expressions of the tax rate equate to the same amount, Petitioners argued that the expression of the tax rate in the ballot label should have matched the tax rate statement in the voter information guide and be expressed in dollars rather than cents. The trial court denied the relief, and the measure was placed on the ballot and later passed with 68% of the vote.
Petitioners filed an appeal after certification of the election results, arguing that even though the appeal was technically moot, the appellate court should exercise its discretion to decide the limited question about the tax rate expression under an exception to the mootness doctrine that allows such an appeal to go forward if it presents issues of general public interest that are likely to recur.
Decision
After explaining its policy and legal rationale for hearing an otherwise moot appeal, the Court took a deep dive into the statutes governing bond ballot measures and evolution of those statutes over time. In order to call a school bond measure, a school district must prepare several pieces of information for voters. In addition to the ballot question/label that is placed before the voters, a district must also create a detailed tax rate statement that provides voters with additional information about the tax rate over the life of the bonds. The content of a bond measure ballot label is governed by a particular section of the Elections Code that does not mandate the form of tax rate expression. However, tax rate statements are mandated by a different section of the Elections Code and by law must express tax rates in dollars per $100,000 of assessed value.
While agreeing that the law governing the content of a bond measure ballot question contained no express directive regarding the expression of the tax rate, the Court nevertheless concluded that under rules of statutory construction, “it would frustrate, not further, [the purpose of voter education] for the tax rate for bond measures to be expressed in one format on the ballot label and a different format in the related, statutorily required information materials.” (Osborne, supra, 2026 WL 2137313, at *6.) The Court concluded further that legislative history confirms that the Legislature intended the bond measure tax rate in the ballot label to be expressed in the same terms as the rates stated in the related information materials.
Impact
The Osborne decision definitively eliminates the discretion most school districts and bond professionals believed districts had for determining how best to express the tax rate to their voters in their bond measure ballot label. Going forward, school bond ballot labels must express the tax rate in “dollars per $100,000” of assessed valuation rather than in “cents per $100 of assessed valuation,” to ensure that the ballot question matches the tax rate information in the voter information guide. While this outcome may not be difficult to accomplish for future measure election cycles, many districts have already placed measures on the ballot for November, and some may not comply with this new decision. We recommend districts check their measures for compliance and determine whether the board must take action to approve a change to their measure or whether discretion has been delegated to staff to make changes to conform to these kinds of late-breaking developments. Districts should consult their bond counsel for specific guidance. As a reminder, the statutory deadline to call a bond measure is August 7, 2026, although some counties may advance that deadline, and counties may not accept any changes to measure wording after the submission date.
If you have any questions about whether this decision impacts your bond measure, please contact DWK’s Public Finance Group.
[1] /The full ballot measure question presented: “Local Public Schools Safety and Upgrades Measure: To update school facilities for 21st century learning and career/college preparedness; improve school facilities for safety, earthquakes and disability access; upgrade plumbing, electrical, HVAC; replace leaky roofs; provide learning technology; and create green outdoor classrooms/schoolyards; shall Los Angeles Unified School District’s measure be adopted authorizing $9,000,000,000 in bonds at legal rates, levying approximately 2.5¢ per $100 of assessed valuation (generating $456,123,000 annually) until approximately 2059, with audits/citizens’ oversight?” [emph. added.]
