2017 ballot measure media endorsements

2025 ballot measures
Years
2009 • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 • 2022 • 2023 • 2024 • 2023 • 2025 • 2026

In 2017, 27 statewide ballot measures were certified for 2017 ballots. The following page lists media outlets that weighed in on specific 2017 ballot measures, broken out by state and by measure.

If you know of an editorial not listed below, please contact editor@ballotpedia.org.

In this page, Ballotpedia includes the official positions of the editorial boards of media outlets. It does not feature opinion pieces or guest commentary here. For lists of supporters and opponents, as well as arguments for and against ballot measures, click on the link for the ballot measure you are interested in.

Louisiana

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Louisiana with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Louisiana Amendment 1: No Property Tax on Properties Under Construction Measure a

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Advocate said: "The amendment makes it clear that completed portions of a major construction project should be placed on the rolls, but that materials stockpiled for a long-term construction project are not taxable. We urge voters to approve the amendment, although this type of law should be part of the statute books and not the constitution. Opposition Ballotpedia did not find media editorials opposing Amendment 1. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Louisiana Amendment 2: Property Tax Exemption for Surviving Spouses of Emergency Responders Killed Performing Duties Measure a

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not find media editorials supporting Amendment 2. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition The Advocate said: "This affects relatively few people and the state has many ways to help the deserving without cluttering the Constitution with another property tax amendment and without usurping the authority of local agencies, like school systems."

Louisiana Amendment 3: Dedicate New Taxes on Fuel to Transportation Construction Fund Measure a

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not find media editorials supporting Amendment 3. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition The Advocate said: "The 2017 Legislature had a chance to do something about Louisiana’s vexing transportation problems. Instead, lawmakers are offering up a largely meaningless constitutional amendment to create and protect a “construction subfund” that has no money in it — and none in sight. ... Louisiana has too many dedicated funds. Voters should reject this amendment and demand a real transportation solution from the Legislature."

Maine

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Maine with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Maine Question 1: Casino or Slot Machines in York County Initiative d

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not find media editorials supporting the measure. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition Bangor Daily News said: "The gambling market in Maine is only so large, so a new casino in York County would draw gamblers — and money and jobs — away from the five-year-old casino in Oxford, an area with a much higher need for jobs and investment than York County, and Hollywood Casino in Bangor." Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel (CentralMaine.com) said: "And again, the only thing a yes vote ensures is that Scott will get a casino license estimated to be worth $200 million, not that the casino mentioned in the campaign’s ads will get built, or the hotel, or the event center. To believe a York County casino will be everything promised, it is necessary to believe Shawn Scott. Based on what we’ve learned, that’s a bad bet." Seacoast Media Group said: "This casino initiative also makes clear the dark side of citizen initiatives; out-of-state interests can come in and, with enough money for promotion and propaganda, can essentially write laws to serve themselves rather than the public good." Seacoast Media Group also said in a later editorial: "Only idiots would vote to give the exclusive right to develop a casino in York County to a single developer; one who is under investigation by the state’s ethics committee for alleged irregularities pertaining to the gathering of signatures used to qualify the measure for this November’s ballot."

Maine Question 1: Technology Sectors Funds and Business Loans Bond Issue a

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support Bangor Daily News said: "Maine has woefully underfunded research and development for decades, lagging most other states, and lawmakers have failed to make this spending an ongoing priority. Question 1 is an important step in getting Maine back on track. Voters should support it." Portland Press Herald said: "The Maine economy is in the middle of a historic transition. We have seen the first part in the form of mill closures and the loss of manufacturing jobs. The other part is figuring out what’s next. Growing the state’s capacity to compete in research and development in biological sciences is part of the next step. Voters should make a point of getting to their polling station and saying “yes” to an important investment in the future." Opposition Ballotpedia did not find media editorials opposing the measure. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Maine Question 2: Medicaid Expansion Initiative a

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel (CentralMaine.com) said: "Thirty-one states have participated in Medicaid expansion, and there is plenty of evidence that it has not broken the bank. Instead, expansion states report not only that their state budgets are stable, but their hospital balance sheets are positive and insurance rates are lower than in non-expansion states. This is a good deal. It’s time Maine took part in this program." Seacoast Media Group said: "Medicaid expansion has passed the Maine Legislature five times. Each of those times, it has been met with a veto from Republican Gov. Paul LePage. Gov. LePage is wrong, blinded to the needs of the people he was elected to serve by his nasty political ideology. We urge Maine voters to support Question 2 to expand Medicaid in the state." Bangor Daily News said: "Now, Maine voters have a chance to overcome LePage’s intransigence to join the states that have expanded the reach of health insurance to people who, although they are working hard, can’t afford it. [...] Simple math shows the benefits to Maine far outweigh the costs by nearly 10-to-1." Opposition Ballotpedia did not find media editorials opposing the measure. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Maine Question 4: Public Pension Unfunded Liabilities from Experience Losses Amendment a

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support Bangor Daily News said: "The math may be complicated, but a longer payback period sought in Question 4 will dampen big swings in what the state has to pay into the pension system from year to year. Passing Question 4 makes sense." The Ellsworth American said: "The proposed amendment to the Constitution would spread that actuarial calculation over 20 years, reducing the need for any substantial increases in the state budget year to year. The Legislature overwhelmingly endorsed the proposed amendment to the Constitution with bipartisan votes in both the House and Senate. We recommend approval of Question 4 by the voters." Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel (CentralMaine.com) said: "Instead of covering the impact of losses over 10 years, the state could spread the payments out over 20 years. That would lessen the shock to the state budget, and make it less likely that a future Legislature would have to renege on promises made to retired public-sector workers." Opposition Ballotpedia did not find media editorials opposing the measure. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Maine Question 3: Transportation Bond Issue a

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel (CentralMaine.com) said: "Maine’s transportation infrastructure — and by extension, its economy — are screaming for greater investment. Voters can take an important, if not wholly sufficient, step in the right direction by approving Question 3 Nov. 7." Bangor Daily News said: "The funding in this year’s Question 3 is the second installment of funding for priority projects on a long list of state transportation maintenance and improvement needs. We recommend a 'yes' vote." Opposition Ballotpedia did not find media editorials opposing the measure. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

New Jersey

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in New Jersey with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

New Jersey Public Question 2: Revenue from Environmental Damage Lawsuits Dedicated to Environmental Projects Amendment a

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support Asbury Park Press said: "This question, which requires an amendment to the state constitution, was inspired by Gov. Chris Christie’s diversion of monetary awards won in environmental contamination lawsuits to the state’s general fund to help close budget gaps. It is a practice that should be stopped. The awards were made specifically to allow cleanup of contaminated sites." The Star-Ledger said, "The amendment will create a lockbox for NRD money -- beyond the reach of the governor and the Legislature - and with an incoming president that is hostile to environmental preservation, it cannot come at a better time for New Jersey. As of today, it's the easiest decision voters will have next Election Day." Opposition Ballotpedia did not find media editorials opposing the measure. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

New Jersey Public Question 1: Bonds for Public Libraries Measure a

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support Asbury Park Press said: "While fewer people in today’s digital world go to libraries to check out books, 43 million visits were made to public libraries in 2015, down only slightly from previous years. Libraries these days have evolved with the times, but one thing remains the same: They function as community centers in many towns, offering lectures, concerts and varied activities for children and adults alike." Opposition Ballotpedia has not found any media editorial boards opposing the measure. If you are aware of an editorial board's stance that is not listed above, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

New York

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in New York with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

New York Proposal 1: Constitutional Convention Question d

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support Lockport Union-Sun & Journal (November 3, 2017) said: "On the question whether to approve Ballot Proposal 1, the answer for every New York voter who doesn’t think the status quo works well for us is an unflinching 'yes.'" Syracuse.com (October 22, 2017) said: "A constitutional convention would give voters a path to making state government work better for them - a path their elected state legislators simply refuse to walk. ... A constitutional convention bypasses the intransigent state Legislature (and its sometime enabler, Gov. Andrew Cuomo). It gives citizens the power to make dramatic changes to the way government works. This unnerves the people in power." Democrat & Chronicle (October 21, 2017) said: "There is no question that change is badly needed in state government. The unknown, however, is whether opening the state’s Constitution will bring about positive change, or simply make matters worse. We believe the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks, and that voters, themselves, can safeguard against disaster. This is as close as it gets to “by the people, for the people.” The Journal News (September 29, 2017) said: "Voters haven't called a constitutional convention since 1938. Another opportunity for the public to convene one won't come until a century later, in 2037. At a time when many have become cynical about government, what better time than now to try to show that democracy does still work?" The Buffalo News (August 11, 2017) said: "These are serious questions, but they hover over this undeniable fact: New York is a damaged and corrupt state that will not fix itself. Any hope for improvement must come from voters. This fall, they will have a chance to force the issues that Albany prefers to ignore." New York Daily News (May 22, 2017) said: "The state’s government is a scandalous embarrassment. It is tilted to keep incumbents in power, to please special interests and to thwart reform. It is a system that, even on its good days, is maddeningly dysfunctional. ... At a moment of pervasive political cynicism and a hopelessness that government can get much good done, New York has a chance to renew itself for the sake of future generations." The Press Republican (December 17, 2015) said: "New Yorkers will be asked in 2017 whether to convene a constitutional convention to consider fundamental changes to their state's document. The answer should be a resounding “Yes.” It's a chance to curb the corruption that has all but depleted respect for the government in Albany." Opposition The Post Journal (October 25, 2017) said: "Imagine all of the costly, pie-in-the-sky ideas that come out every year in the State of the State address being on the table without the legislative process to keep things at least slightly in check. A constitutional convention could cost New York state millions of dollars in costly new regulations and programs that then can’t easily be repealed because they are part of the state constitution." The Daily Gazette (October 22, 2017) said: "To believe that a mass gathering of political insiders will be some kind of magical cure to all of the problems and shortcomings of our state government, to believe that it will cure all our disappointments and frustrations, is not just overly optimistic. It’s foolhardy. Voters should not be duped into believing that a statewide constitutional convention will be anything more than more of the same." Times Herald-Record (October 22, 2017) said: "The first question, whether or not to have a convention, is being asked in an off-off year, meaning a minority of New Yorkers will decide. In a state where incumbency is a job guarantee, there is little chance for outsiders to get elected as delegates to the convention. And the assurance that any amendments will be subject to further scrutiny is weak at best considering the way the political bosses managed to get voter approval for perpetual gerrymandering in a 2014 vote by calling it something else." Other The Niagara Gazette (January 2, 2016) did not take a position on the ballot question in its editorial, but said: "But like any knee-jerk reaction to an issue difficult to deal with, we shouldn’t consider a constitutional convention a kind of magic panacea, a quick cure for what ails us." The New Paltz Oracle (November 2, 2017) said: "This entire debate boils down to the level of faith one has in the Convention’s protective mechanisms and the integrity of the average New York voter. A constitutional convention is a huge opportunity for positive reform, but it involves putting decades of already-established reforms at risk. We at The New Paltz Oracle cannot tell you how to fill in the back of your ballot next month; we only ask that any decision made is an educated one. The magnitude of the outcome will be too high to have been decided with minimal information."

New York Proposal 3: Forest Preserve Land Bank Amendment a

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Adirondack Daily Enterprise said: "Adirondack environmental agencies agree and have endorsed voting “yes” to this measure, as have — no surprise — local government groups. We do, too." The Daily Gazette said: "By voting yes, voters will make it easier for communities to make infrastructure improvements in the most sensitive areas of the parks while ensuring the preservation of state land." Poughkeepsie Journal said: "Local governments in the Adirondacks and Catskills have sought this measure for years, and a slew of environmental groups agree with the notion. State lawmakers did their job by getting the proposal on the ballot this year, but it still requires voter approval. Proposal 3 makes a great deal of sense and deserves the public’s support." Opposition Ballotpedia did not find any media editorial boards opposing the measure. If you are aware of an editorial board's stance that is not listed here, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

New York Proposal 2: Pension Forfeiture for Convicted Officials Amendment a

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Adirondack Daily Enterprise said: "A New York state pension is a generous, taxpayer-funded privilege far beyond the hopes of most private-sector workers. It’s outrageous and unjust that the public will guarantee this money to crooks like [Joyce] Mitchell for the rest of their lives. Vote yes to rein that in." The Lockport Union-Sun & Journal and Niagara Gazette said: "The proposed change would serve two purposes. On the one hand, it would impose just punishment for individuals convicted of corruption crimes, hitting them where it hurts them the most, right in their pocketbooks. In addition, the measure should serve as motivation by promoting better behavior among lawmakers and others working on the public’s behalf." Watertown Daily Times said: "We urge voters to approve this proposed constitutional amendment in November. The measure grants courts the necessary leeway to consider how the loss of a state pension would adversely affect family members, which is a reasonable provision. But public officers must finally be put on notice that they’ll no longer be able to benefit from the state if they betray the public’s trust and are convicted of corruption." Opposition Ballotpedia did not find media editorials opposing the measure. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Ohio

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Ohio with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Ohio Issue 2: Drug Price Standards Initiative d

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Toledo Blade said: "Issue 2 is not a perfect or a complete solution, but it is a small, respectable first step toward more reasonable drug prices, self-government, and the public’s self-respect. [...] The Blade recommends a vote FOR Issue 2." If you are aware of any other editorials in support of Issue 2, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition The Canton Repository said: "You can rest assured, too, that Issue 2 would end up in court. Taxpayers would foot that bill, paying either the state attorney general or the “reasonable” attorney fees and other expenses of the petitioners. We cannot endorse such a blank-check likelihood." The Plain Dealer (Cleveland.com) said: "Rejecting this troubling, poorly drafted ballot issue doesn't mean that we support the drug industry's often arbitrary sky-high drug pricing. We categorically do not. Drug companies ought to be reined in. But passing a statute that is impractical, litigation-prone and that's likely to do little to address the problem of overpriced drugs isn't the answer. That's why Issue 2 is a problem, not a cure." The Columbus Dispatch said: "The Ohio Drug Price Relief Act would not do what its name suggests. It is based on wishful thinking and misinformation. It is strewn with health and financial landmines. It is bad public policy. And it won’t work." The newspaper published a second editorial on Issue 2, stating: "The highly confusing Ohio Drug Price Relief Act boils down to this: Ohioans would be stuck with an unworkable ballot-initiated law that, given its faulty premise, won’t produce the fantastical savings promised." The Herald Star, Parkersburg News and Sentinel, The Intelligencer, and Tribune Chronicle, which are owned by Ogden Newspapers, said: "Assume for a moment that pharmaceutical companies do grant additional discounts to government buyers. Surely no one believes those companies will not increase prices charged to private consumers to make up their losses on state contracts. Issue 2 could mean millions of Ohioans would pay more for drugs. ... Clearly, Issue 2 is bad medicine for Ohioans, who ought to say no to it Nov. 7." The Chronicle-Telegram said, "People are understandably angry about the high cost of drugs and want to send a message to Big Pharma. It's tempting, but ultimately Issue 2 would do more harm than good. There does need to be some sort of regulatory scheme to keep medication affordable, but Issue 2 isn't it. Voters should reject Issue 2." Other opinions Akron Beacon Journal published four editorials on Issue 2. The editorial board did not make an explicit recommendation on the initiative in the articles. August 26, 2017: "Yes, the drug companies are paying for the opposition, and true, they cut an unsympathetic profile. That doesn’t translate into looking past what is structurally unsound about Issue 2." September 5, 2017: "Issue 2 reflects the right instinct. Drug prices are too high, many left to choose between medication and other necessities. Other countries better manage the cost of prescription drugs. The problems with Issue 2 come in the flawed structure and lack of detail, reflected in the puny explanation of the savings analysis." September 11, 2017: "Suppose Issue 2 does pass, and implementation follows. Drug companies would seek to make up for any lost revenue. That would lead to a familiar element in health care — cost-shifting, [sic] Other Ohioans may see higher prices or less access to drugs. This collateral harm, as the four former directors explain, doesn’t appear to have a role in the analysis for proponents." October 12, 2017: "There may be merit in Ohio voters sending drug companies a message. Then, there is the morning after. State lawmakers would face adding practical detail in trying to make the law work. No doubt, prolonged lawsuits would follow. To what end? The state budget office cites too many unknowns about how Issue 2 would address the problem."

Ohio Issue 1: Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights Initiative a

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Canton Repository said: "This change to Ohio’s Constitution is a good one that protects those among who have been victimized. Say yes to Issue 1 on Nov. 7." The Columbus Dispatch said: "Amending the Ohio Constitution is a weighty matter, and The Dispatch generally opposes using voter-approved amendments to accomplish policy goals better addressed by Statehouse lawmakers. Issue 1 overcomes this objection for two reasons: First, the Constitution already has been amended to include language about victims’ rights. Second, a constitution is the place to spell out fundamental rights that protect society and ensure justice." The Courier said: "Criminal justice already carries a high price tag, but neither the accused nor victims should ever be shortchanged in the system. It’s time for Ohio to join others in recognizing that victims deserve to have full protections under the law. Vote yes on Issue 1." Salem News said: "Doesn’t it seem that victims of crimes nowadays do not get their just due? Is almost as if they are excluded from a legal process. Passage of Issue 1 would help would help immensely. Voices will be heard." Opposition Akron Beacon Journal said: "Which gets to another unsettling aspect, the invitation to see the rights of victims and defendants as equivalent. They are not equal. They have different interests. A defendant faces no less than the loss of liberty. The rights provided serve to protect against the state wrongly convicting a defendant. Victims do not face the prospect of time in prison." The Athens News said: "While this well-meaning amendment would grant crime victims more involvement and protections when it comes to prosecuting their alleged offender, it does so at the cost of due process and justice." Cleaveland.com said: "True, crime victims' privacy is a genuine issue. But Issue 1's poor wording is a recipe for trouble -- and further litigation." The Chronicle-Telegram said: "Issue 1 is full of good intentions, but it's a solution in search of a widespread problem that doesn't exist in Ohio and may indeed create new headaches. If the laws already on the books aren't being followed, the answer isn't more laws - it's to enforce those that do exist. Voters should reject Issue 1."

Pennsylvania

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Pennsylvania with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Pennsylvania Allow Local Taxing Authorities to Exempt Full Value of Homestead Amendment a

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the constitutional amendment. If you are aware of a media editorial board position that is not listed below, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org. Support Ballotpedia had not identified media editorial boards in support of the amendment. Opposition Philadelphia Daily News said: "Naturally, most will have an irresistible urge to press the “Yes” button. After all, who likes to pay property taxes? But stop for a minute and consider the reality behind this simply worded question. ... Property taxes are used to fund public schools. They cannot be abolished without replacing that money. There are bills in the state legislature today to increase the state income tax from 3.07 percent to 4.95 percent to partly fill in the hole. Another would increase the state sales tax from 6 percent to 7 percent (and from 8 percent to 9 percent in Philadelphia) and remove exemptions on such items as food, nonprescription drugs, and some clothing. Depending on your income and current property taxes, you could end up paying more."

Texas

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Texas with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Texas Proposition 7: Financial Institutions to Offer Prizes to Promote Savings Amendment a

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Dallas Morning News said: "We're all for this innovative way to encourage residents to save money. That's especially needed in a state where more than one-third of households lack a savings account and have little put back for emergencies." The San Antonio Express-News said: "The legislation is deemed necessary because the Texas Constitution generally bans lotteries by such institutions. But there is some debate about whether these prize-linked accounts are, in fact, a lottery since they don’t require a payment to enter. Money in a savings account belongs to the account holder; it is not a payment to the bank or credit union. But it is better to remove any doubt. Proposition 7 merits approval." Opposition The Austin Chronicle said: "The amendment would allow credit unions (and other financial institutions) to create “savings lotteries” (i.e., awarding a random prize to some depositor(s) who have “entered” the lottery by depositing a certain amount in a savings account). It’s not quite “gambling” – instead, a promotional gimmick to encourage savings, which is not lost. Does it belong in a Constitution? Well, neither do the rest of these effluvia."

Texas Proposition 4: Require Court to Provide Notice to Attorney General Amendment a

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Dallas Morning News said: "You'd think that if someone challenged a state law, the attorney general's office would know quickly. Not so. In 2013, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals struck down a state law requiring courts to notify the attorney general of challenges. Proposition 4 rightly restores the opportunity for the AG's office to defend constitutional challenges in a timely manner." The San Antonio Express-News said: "Proposition 4 is a common sense proposal. [...] There have been an estimated 60 to 90 court challenges a year filed over the constitutionality of state laws since 2014. Prop 4 ensures the attorney general has notice of the court challenges so the office can weigh in if deemed necessary." Opposition The Austin Chronicle said: "The amendment would impose a notice requirement and waiting period in litigation that would challenge the constitutionality of a state law, requiring a court to wait 45 days before declaring a law unconstitutional (enabling the attorney general to appeal). A 2013 statutory version of this amendment was declared unconstitutional, so the Lege is now asking the voters to overrule the Court of Criminal Appeals. Hell no."

Texas Proposition 6: Property Tax Exemption for Surviving Spouses of First Responders Killed in Line of Duty Amendment a

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Dallas Morning News said: "This measure had overwhelming support in Austin across party lines, and would be in line with how the state taxes the surviving spouses of U.S. military members killed in action. These families have already endured immeasurable suffering. Voters should OK this proposition to keep them from facing financial hardship that could force them from their homes and cause them to suffer even more." San Antonio Express-News said: "The measure would apply not just to police officers and firefighers, but also to such first responders as probation and parole officers, jailers, juvenile correctional employees and other emergency responders if killed in the line of duty. Vote yes on Proposition 6." Opposition The Austin Chronicle said: "The amendment would provide a homestead property tax exemption to the surviving spouse of a first responder killed in the line of duty. The arguments for and against such exemptions for veterans or their spouses apply here as well; they help one set of taxpayers at the expense of all the others, and dodge the responsibility to create a fair state revenue system."

Texas Proposition 3: Appointed Officer Term Expiration Amendment a

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Dallas Morning News said: "This measure would limit the time these holdover appointees could serve to the last day of the regular legislative session after the term has expired. It would allow the state Senate time to consider and confirm nominees. And surely, we need fresh ideas from a diverse group of qualified Texans. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle gave it overwhelming support. Texas voters should do the same." The Austin Chronicle said: "The amendment would create firm term limits (effectively the end of next regular session) of gubernatorial appointees for volunteer boards and commissions, making more certain that appointees would be subject to regular Senate confirmation." The San Antonio Express-News said: "Proposition 3, limiting the terms for certain appointees of the governor, merits voter approval. [...] Over the course of a four-year term, a Texas governor has the privilege of appointing more than 3,000 people to serve on boards and commissions. Those appointments need to be made in a timely manner." Opposition The Houston Chronicle said: "Altering this system risks turning appointed positions into tug-of-wars between interest groups or proxy battles for greater political fights. Keeping those holdovers offers a sense of stability. The last thing Texans need are empty seats or more opportunity for political chaos."

Texas Proposition 5: Definition of Professional Sports Team in Charitable Raffles a

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Dallas Morning News said: "Our state's gambling rules — at least in the name of a good cause — already contain exceptions for the lottery and bingo nights, etc. This should have little impact on the vast majority of Texans, but it could bring needed help to more charities, including those in rural and suburban areas." The San Antonio Express-News said: "Proposition 5 would expand the use of raffles for professional sports team charitable foundations. We urge a yes vote. [...] Besides, there have been no abuses of the practice, and Proposition 5 isn’t removing any safeguards. This isn’t gambling for a profit. It’s just a fun way to raise money for causes important to Texas communities." Opposition The Austin Chronicle said: "Currently, 10 major state sports franchises’ foundations are allowed to sponsor “charitable raffles.” This amendment would open the door to more major and minor sports franchises and their “foundations” – with the likely result of both cheesier and potentially more fraudulent exercises in “charity.” The slope has been made quite slippery enough."

Texas Proposition 1: Property Tax Exemption for Partially Disabled Veteran with Donated House Amendment a

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Dallas Morning News said: "These men and women have already sacrificed so much for this country; it's wrong to place a tax burden on handicap-accessible homes that have been mostly donated — especially if the veterans are already shouldering some of the cost. No disabled veteran, or their surviving spouse, should be at risk of losing proper housing because of a big tax bill." The Houston Chronicle said: "But these Texans sacrificed their bodies for our national defense, and they and their spouses deserve to live without worry of losing their homes to tax bills that bear little relation to what folks can actually afford." The Austin Chronicle said: "While support for disabled veterans is understandable, It’s also arguable that such tax carve-outs only shift the tax burden and make the state property tax system even more unfair." San Antonio Express-News said: "Texas voters approved an amendment in 2013 for disabled veterans whose homes had been donated in full. This amendment simply fixes things for veterans who put money toward the cost of their homes. Vote yes on Proposition 1." Opposition Ballotpedia has not found any media editorial boards opposing the measure. If you are aware of an editorial board's stance that is not listed above, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Texas Proposition 2: Home Equity Loan Amendment a

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Dallas Morning News said: "When the state legalized home-equity loans in 1997, many worried that Texans would irresponsibly tap the value in their homes. Texas instituted some of the nation's toughest limits on how much a person could borrow. But those fears were misplaced. ... homeowners should have the flexibility to pick whatever works best for them." The San Antonio Express-News said: "Proposition 2 would also allow homeowners on agricultural properties to use home equity loans. It would allow borrowers to refinance home equity loans and traditional mortgages into one payment. And it would streamline how advances are made for home equity loans in Texas in a way that would give borrowers more flexibility. For these reasons, Proposition 2 merits voter support." Opposition The Houston Chronicle said: "We've yet to hear a convincing reason to change the state's status quo on home-equity borrowing. Why should certain fees be exempted from a cap on costs? Why should lenders be allowed to grant advances on a home equity line of credit on an over-leveraged loan? Why should Texas permit the refinancing of home equity loans into another sort of loan that still has a lien on property but offers fewer consumer protections? All these alterations seem designed to shift the balance away from homeowners and towards the banks - away from caution and towards recklessness." The Austin Chronicle said: "The amendment would revise several complicated provisions of home equity law – lowering maximum interest rates while enabling other fees, allowing a shift to less restrictive home loans, loosening refinancing standards, and opening home equity loans to agricultural homesteads. This seems a textbook example of legislation that does not belong in a constitution, nor on a ballot."

Washington

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Washington with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Washington Advisory Vote 18: State Property Tax for Schools Bill d

Washington Advisory Vote 17: Sales and Use Tax and Business and Occupation Tax Bill d

Washington Advisory Vote 16: Commercial Fishing Licenses, Fees, and Taxes Bill d

West Virginia

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in West Virginia with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

West Virginia Amendment 1: Bonds for Roads and Bridges Measure a

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements Support Bluefield Daily Telegraph said: "Passage of the road bond is of particular importance to Mercer and McDowell counties where two vital future four-lane corridors — the King Coal Highway and the Coalfields Expressway — have been long stalled. If voters approve the road bond Saturday, construction on the next segment of the King Coal Highway in Mercer County, near Bluefield’s so-called Bridge to Nowhere, can be expedited." Charlestown Gazette-Mail said: "When the state fixes roads, people enjoy construction jobs (and the related paychecks and tax revenues) in the short term. After the projects are done, repaired and improved roads make the region more inviting, pleasant, safe and profitable." The Exponent Telegram said: "The Exponent Telegram Editorial Board agrees with the governor’s assessment. We must invest in our roads and bridges to attract new business and industry to our state, as well as tourists to allow them to see and enjoy all of the natural assets that make West Virginia "Almost Heaven." Opposition Ballotpedia did not find media editorials opposing Amendment 1. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.