The measure would have funded asbestos removal, seismic retrofitting and other capital improvements on various California preschool, K-12, and college campuses.

[4] The measure contained provisions that would have eliminated school impact fees on multifamily housing development within half a mile of train and bus stations.

School districts that were less able to raise funding for construction projects or with underserved student populations (being determined by the percent of low-income students, foster youth or English language learners in the district) would have been eligible for matching state funds, for upwards of 55 to 65 percent of the total project cost.

[2] Supporters of the measure said voters' confusion over the numbering led to the idea that it was a disguised repeal of the popular Proposition 13 which passed in 1978, leading to its defeat.

Opponents said voters were concerned about how the measure would have raised taxes and the cost of living by increasing local school districts' debt limits.

[9] Assemblyman O'Donnell announced his intention to introduce a bill that would retire the number '13' for future ballot initiatives to avoid possible confusion, a position supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the main opponent of the failed 2020 measure and an advocate for the famous 1978 ballot initiative.