2018 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 2018, 150 statewide ballot measures have been certified for 2018 statewide ballots. The following page lists media outlets that weighed in on specific 2018 ballot measures, broken out by state and by measure.

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

On this page, Ballotpedia included the official positions of the editorial boards of media outlets. This page does not feature opinion pieces or guest commentary. 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.

Alabama

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Alabama with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Alabama Amendment 3: Board of Trustees Membership for University of Alabama a

Alabama Amendment 1: Ten Commandments a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Amendment 1. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition The Anniston Star wrote: "Former state Chief Justice Roy Moore’s failed efforts to force-feed a Ten Commandments monument into Alabama’s public spaces proves the foolishness of this latest attempt to dismantle church-and-state barriers and allow these public displays. It’s unnecessary and against the American principle of religious equality.

Alabama Amendment 2: State Abortion Policy a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Amendment 2. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition The Anniston Star wrote: "The reprehensible attempt to steal a woman’s right to make decisions about her body is behind this amendment that would make it state policy to recognize the sanctity of life and declare that the state Constitution does not guarantee a right to an abortion or require funding for abortions. Should the amendment pass, the legal challenges against it (and legal expenses for the state) will be severe."

Alabama Amendment 4: Legislative Vacancies a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Anniston Star wrote: "We wholeheartedly agree that it is wise to hold open a seat in the state House or Senate should it become vacant on or after Oct. 1 of the year before the regular election. The Star recommends voting yes on Amendment 4." Opposition Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials opposing Amendment 4. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Arizona

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Arizona with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Arizona Proposition 125, Adjustments to Elected Officials’ and Corrections Officer's Retirement Plans Amendment a

Arizona Proposition 126: Prohibit New or Increased Taxes on Services Initiative a

Arizona Proposition 127: Renewable Energy Standards Initiative d

Arizona Proposition 306, Clean Election Account Uses and Commission Rulemaking Measure a

Arizona Proposition 305: Expansion of Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Referendum d

Arkansas

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Arkansas with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Arkansas Issue 2, Voter ID Amendment a

Arkansas Issue 5, Minimum Wage Increase Initiative a

Arkansas Issue 4: Casinos Authorized in Crittenden, Garland, Pope, and Jefferson Counties a

California

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in California with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

California Proposition 71: Effective Date of Ballot Measures Amendment a

Support The Desert Sun said, "Proposition 71 was placed on the ballot by unanimous bipartisan votes of both the state Assembly and Senate. It deserves overwhelming voter approval as well. Vote yes on Proposition 71." Los Angeles Times said, "The potential for a law to be wrongly put into effect grows every year as more voters cast mail ballots and the count on the day after the election becomes less reliable. ... Proposition 71 was placed on the ballot with the unanimous support of both houses of the Legislature. It deserves a unanimous yes from voters as well." The Mercury News said, "Proposition 71 would clarify when a ballot initiative goes into effect in California and prevent a situation that could turn into an ugly legal fight. Voters should give it overwhelming support on June 5." Monterey County Herald said, "Proposition 71, on the other hand, is straight forward, providing a common-sense solution to a non-political election issue that has widespread, bipartisan support." The Orange County Register said, "Proposition 71 is an uncontroversial, reasonable adjustment to the timing of when a ballot initiative, referendum or constitutional amendment approved by voters goes into effect." The Press-Democrat said, "This is a simple cleanup measure. Because it can take almost a month to count ballots, this would change the effective date for initiatives to five days after the results are certified." The Sacramento Bee said, "Yes. Of all the initiatives, this is probably the most needed. Right now under the state constitution, all propositions that appear likely to pass on election night automatically become law the next day. That may have been fine when the state was young, but absentee and provisional ballots and voting by mail can now add weeks to the time it takes to determine an election’s outcome. The result is a real potential for ballot measures to take effect, and then turn out to be defeated and have to be rolled back." San Diego Union-Tribune said, "Proposition 71 would fix a glitch in state law that lets ballot measures that seem to have won approval take effect the day after an election — before all votes are counted and voting tallies are official." San Francisco Chronicle said, "Under longtime rules, a result can take effect right away, even if the results are incomplete. This measure would delay the effect until the votes are counted, a process that assures the true outcome is tallied, not just the election night total. Vote Yes." Opposition Ballotpedia did not find any media editorial boards opposing Proposition 71. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

California Proposition 11: Ambulance Employees Initiative a

Support Bakersfield Californian: "Proposition 11 would make it clear that emergency medical technicians and paramedics working for private ambulance companies must remain reachable during paid work breaks so that they can respond immediately when needed. The proposition results from an earlier court ruling that placed the status of on-call workers in question. This is a sensible response. Vote yes." Los Angeles Times: "Proposition 11 on the Nov. 6 ballot would make clear that emergency medical technicians and paramedics working for private ambulance services must remain reachable during paid work breaks so that they can respond immediately when needed. It’s a sensible proposal that would maintain the status quo among emergency responders, and voters should support it." The Mercury News: "For the past 50 years, privately owned and operated ambulance firms in California have had their crews remain on call during their work breaks, making themselves available to answer emergency calls and then taking their breaks as time permits later in their shifts. It’s a reasonable practice in a life-or-death business. Especially in rural areas, where backup crews are not readily available or practical. But a 2016 state Supreme Court ruling on a private security provider case threw the legality of on-call breaks among paramedics and EMTs into question." Monterey Herald: "Labor unions are opposed to this measure, which they argue is a special carve out for one industry. But Prop. 11 also protects workers, by requiring that meal breaks not be during the first or last hour of a shift and that breaks be spaced at least two hours apart. If workers are needed to respond to a call during a break, that break would not be counted as a required break. Voters should approve Proposition 11." The Orange County Register: "Adequate rest is undeniably important for all emergency workers, and Prop. 11 requires ambulance operators to maintain staffing “at levels sufficient” to allow employees to take rest breaks during their typical 12-hour shifts. A court-imposed requirement for emergency medical workers to turn off electronic communication devices during those breaks could needlessly put lives at risk. It is simply good sense to state that labor law entitling hourly employees to take meal and rest breaks without being on-call does not apply to private-sector emergency ambulance employees. Prop. 11 it deserves a Yes vote." The Sacramento Bee: "EMTs and paramedics typically work 12-hour shifts, and being on call makes it difficult to plan meal and rest breaks. But they can squeeze them in during down time; it’s also what they signed up for when they took the job. ... We generally support workers and their rights on the job. On these ballot measures, however, patients have to come first." The San Diego Union-Tribune: "Meanwhile, it appears many emergency medical technicians and paramedics are fine with the current practice. No one bothered to submit a formal statement of opposition to election officials for use in the official state voter guide." The San Luis Obispo Tribune: "Statewide, it could cost ambulance companies as much as $100 million per year in additional staffing and equipment costs if they had to provide ambulance crews with off-duty breaks. According to the Legislative Analyst, counties that contract for ambulance services would probably bear most of those costs." Opposition Marin Independent Journal: "There’s a lot about this measure that makes sense, but asking voters to mandate that ambulance workers get paid for on-call time when, due to emergencies, they often wind up working on their breaks is not the kind of issue that should be resolved by voters, who are being flooded with campaign slogans. This is a matter for diligent review by state lawmakers." San Francisco Chronicle: "However, that bill stalled in the state Senate over two key issues: One was whether the interruptions could include less serious calls; the other was whether the legislation should effectively void pending labor-related lawsuits against American Medical Response, which also happens to be the funder of Prop. 11. Those workers should not be denied their day in court. This issue should be resolved in the Legislature, with all parties at the table to negotiate and compromise. Vote no on Prop. 11."

California Proposition 12: Farm Animal Confinement Initiative a

Support East Bay Express: "Yes on strengthening cage-free farm regulations." Los Angeles Times: "It’s heartening that both farmers and buyers acknowledge the importance of improving animal welfare standards. But it’s also important that animal welfare standards be more than suggestions or good-hearted gestures to be undertaken when it’s convenient and withdrawn when it’s not. That’s why it’s important to have a law like Proposition 12 in place." Marin Independent Journal: "Proposition 12 extends humane cage-free requirements to other farm animals. It includes a provision giving farmers and ranchers time to make needed improvements. Even though these animals are being raised and handled to be food, it doesn’t mean humane treatment can’t also be part of the process." Monterey Herald: "While we would prefer, as we do with most ballot measures, the Legislature deal with these issues, improving the lives of hens, pigs and calves was the right thing to do in 2008. It still is. Vote yes on Proposition 12." San Diego Free Press: "This is an incremental improvement, opposed by those who want to preserve the status quo and those who insist on all or nothing." San Francisco Bay Guardian: "This one’s not easy. Prop. 12 would set stricter rules for the confinement of farm animals. It would require more space for chickens, veal calves, and breeding pigs. The Human Society and the ASPCA support it." Santa Cruz Sentinel: "The measure most likely would have little cost other than decreased tax revenue from farms and egg producers who might decide to get out of the egg or meat products business – which is the argument by farm industry opponents to Prop. 12 who say it may drive them out. As for the cost to consumers, McDonald’s, a major purchaser of eggs, has said the fast-food chain wouldn’t be raising prices as a result of producers having to go with cage-free hens." The Mercury News: "Some farmers argue that the end result will be increased prices for consumers. But McDonald’s said it wouldn’t be raising prices at all as a result of going with cage-free hens. And even if it did, it’s a small price to pay for substantially improving the lives of millions of hens, pigs and calves. Vote yes on Proposition 12." Opposition Bakersfield Californian: "Now, along comes Proposition 12, which appears to be an attempt to clarify the caging requirements in Proposition 2. But some supporters of Proposition 2 are crying fowl. [Yes, it’s a pun.] They claim they were sold out by the Humane Society of the United States, which has teamed up with California egg producers to push back on caging requirements in exchange for expanding the sales prohibition and using the ballot measure for fundraising. Californians should opt out of this food fight by just voting NO." Los Angeles Daily News/The San Bernardino Sun: "It makes more sense for the Legislature to tackle this issue without the emotion and misinformation that accompanies a political campaign for a ballot measure. We recommend that voters say “No” to Proposition 12." San Francisco Chronicle: "Since Prop. 2’s passage, California egg production has dropped significantly and egg prices have risen by 33 percent, according to the California Farm Bureau. The new measure is also an effective fundraising issue for the primary proponent, the Humane Society of the United States. The Chronicle recommended a “no” vote on the first proposition, saying the ballot box is not the place to regulate this aspect of California agriculture. That is also true this time, and voters should reject Prop. 12." The Fresno Bee/The Sacramento Bee: "Voters should reject Proposition 12, which would ban the sale of eggs, uncooked pork and veal from farms that don’t meet new space requirements for hens, pigs and calves. ... This is one more example of an issue that should have been resolved in the Legislature, not foisted upon voters through a ballot initiative." The Orange County Register: "But the first red flag that something is askew here is the opposition to Proposition 12 by the well-known animal rights activist group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals." The Press Democrat: "California voters took the lead in protecting egg-laying hens a decade ago. Farmers responded by investing in new cages to comply with the new law, and they are responding to consumer preferences and demands of their clients in the food service industry by increasing production of cage-free eggs. There’s no need for another new set of rules, or to have one deadline for retailers and an accelerated one for farmers. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 12." The San Diego Union-Tribune: "Animal-rights advocates say this means chickens should be allowed to stretch their wings — which requires at least 2 square feet. State regulators have not accepted this standard. But the Humane Farming Association, a San Rafael organization that lobbies for improved conditions for farm animals, says Proposition 12 amounts to “a step backward” for chickens. Because of this flaw — and because of ample signs that consumer pressure is leading grocers and farmers to care much more about the health of farm animals — The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board recommends a no vote on Proposition 12." The San Luis Obispo Tribune: "“It keeps hens in cages until 2022 and then leaves them in crammed warehouses with one square foot of space thereafter. We think we can do more and we should do more,” PETA spokesman Ben Williamson told The Los Angeles Times. That’s concerning. Animal welfare groups need to stop fighting, join forces and at least attempt to write a measure that has their broad support."

California Proposition 4: Children's Hospital Bonds Initiative a

Support Bakersfield Californian: "Some of Kern County’s most critically ill children are rushed to the Children’s Hospital in Madera for specialized treatment. Hospitals are expensive to operate and maintain. Constantly advancing medical technology is expensive to purchase. Investing in the specialized care of our children is worth supporting Proposition 4." Los Angeles Times: "It’s lamentable that children’s hospitals have to keep coming back to voters for help with their capital expenses, but it’s a direct consequence of the state’s low Medi-Cal reimbursement rates. The children these hospitals serve make up a big part of the state’s next generation, and we all have an interest in providing them with the healthcare they need. Vote yes on Proposition 4." Marin Independent Journal: "California’s 15 children’s hospitals need an investment — a $1.5 billion bond — to pay for needed construction, renovation and modern equipment to improve their care for more than 2 million of the state’s sickest children who find care in those specialty hospitals. Taxpayers have stepped forward in the past — in 2004 and in 2008 — approving bonds to jump-start those improvements. Proposition 4 builds on that important public initiative." San Francisco Chronicle: "The goal of the bond is to acquire the latest technology and life-saving medical equipment. It makes a difference. Children’s hospitals are on the cutting edge of pediatric research; perform 97 percent of pediatric organ transplants and 96 percent of all pediatric heart surgeries; and oversee 76 percent of all pediatric cancer treatments, according to the association." Santa Cruz Sentinel: "The issue is that children’s hospitals are dependent on low reimbursement rates from Medi-Cal, California’s public insurance program for lower-income residents. Because of that, the hospitals have trouble keeping current with improvements in medical technology. The Prop. 4 funds, much like the previous measures, would give health care providers the money to make vital upgrades." The Desert Sun: "Yes, lawmakers should be funding improvements at facilities that handle a combined 2 million-plus annual visits for California’s sickest and poorest patients via the state budget rather than subjecting taxpayers to the interest ($1.4 billion for Proposition 4) a bond will accrue over its 35-year repayment. Still, the need for these vital services and the track records of the institutions that will be funded by the bonds make this measure worthy. Vote yes on Proposition 4." The Mercury News: "California’s 13 children’s hospitals, which receive more than 2 million visits every year from the state’s sickest children, each require investments of $30 million to $50 million a year to meet the expectations of quality care citizens should demand. Donations and revenues from services don’t come close to meeting that need. Proposition 4 on the November ballot helps fill the gap." The Sacramento Bee: "Faced with a choice of whether to provide children with access to top-notch hospitals or leave them and their families to fend for themselves, big-hearted Californians have shown time and again that they will gladly hand over their tax dollars — even in the midst of a recession. They should do so again this year by voting “yes” on Proposition 4 on the Nov. 6 ballot." The San Diego Union-Tribune: "At a time when the state regularly sets aside billions of dollars in reserves, it’s tough to grasp the logic of using borrowed money to fix up hospitals that will end up costing taxpayers about $2.9 billion. Nevertheless, The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board supports Proposition 4. Thanks to Gov. Jerry Brown’s coolness to bonds, even if all the measures now before voters pass, the state is on track to spend less than 5 percent of its general fund budget on bond payments — a relatively small amount." The San Luis Obispo Tribune: "Medical science is advancing rapidly, but outdated, under-equipped hospitals cannot keep up with the demands of a growing patient population. Also, research conducted at children’s hospitals plays a role in keeping all children healthy, and that translates into a healthier population of California adults." Opposition Los Angeles Daily News/The Orange County Register: "If most agree the projects covered by this bond measure are truly needed, why doesn’t the state save taxpayers $1.4 billion in interest payments and make room in its ever-expanding budget to help cover the costs? ... If the state made better choices and prioritized services and projects the public needs, there’d be no need to consider Proposition 4. Instead of paying $2.9 billion for $1.5 billion in funds, voters should demand Sacramento spend within its means and prioritize practical needs over pipe dreams and special interests. While we encourage people to donate to children’s hospitals, they should vote no on Prop. 4."

California Proposition 7: Legislative Power to Change Daylight Saving Time Measure a

Support Los Angeles Times: "In other words, Proposition 7 won’t stop the clock-changing; it would just allow the discussion to continue about the merits of doing so, as well as making the procedural changes needed to allow a future shift to permanent daylight saving time. It’s a debate worth having, and for that reason we urge voters to say “yes” on this measure." The San Diego Union-Tribune: "It is for this reason that The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board urges a yes vote on Proposition 7 — but with a huge caveat. Proposition 7 would allow the Legislature to stop the time changes and to put California on daylight-saving time or Pacific Standard Time year-round. Yet the proposition’s title — “Permanent Daylight Saving Time Measure” — shows advocates’ preference. Following Pacific Standard Time all year would be good for public health. Following daylight-saving time year-round would be horrible for adolescents." Ventura County Star: "So why do we mess with time twice a year? “It’s not free to change the clocks. It takes effort and coordination. It has a cost,” CSU Channel Islands economics professor Jared Barton wrote in a guest column last month. We agree and support Proposition 7 on the Nov. 6 ballot." Opposition Bakersfield Californian: "This is a bad idea for so many reasons, and a good idea for none. Granted, the decades-long tradition of moving clocks forward one hour in the spring and back in the fall to accommodate daylight saving time and standard time has dubious benefits, other than to annoy sunlight-lovers and clock-change haters, who helped put Proposition 7 on the ballot. But to suggest California should go its own way and adopt daylight saving time as a year-round standard is nuts." Marin Independent Journal: "Daylight saving time has been around for a long time. We’re all used to it. This proposition wants to get rid of it, but consider the fall and winter months when, without moving the clock back an hour, many children would be walking or riding their bikes to school in the dark." San Francisco Chronicle: "The most convincing case against daylight saving concerns the disruption and public health drawbacks of semiannual time changes. But putting the state on its own time, and out of sync with most of the country, would cause confusion, too." The Mercury News: "It’s impossible to predict what Congress would do if Californians pass Prop 7, but it should be clear that this is an issue that should be dealt with at the federal level, with an eye to creating as much uniformity and as less confusion as possible." Monterey Herald: "Then there’s the time the Legislature would spend on this issue, as Chu tried to get the required two-thirds support for his bill that would advance this dubious proposition. Considering the serious issues California faces – housing, water, fire suppression, infrastructure – is this really a priority? The answer is no. Voters should call time out and vote “no” on Proposition 7." The Press-Democrat: "When the East Coast is on daylight saving time, the three-hour time difference we’re all used to would become a four-hour difference shortening the window for dealing with East Coast counterparts during business hours. As we said in March, the switch to and from daylight saving time is annoying and inconvenient. But living without that switch would be even more annoying and inconvenient — and also dangerous for schoolchildren. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 7." The Sacramento Bee: "There’s also the added cost of doing business. Coordinating deadlines and conference calls with people in other states would be a hassle, especially for corporations with operations in multiple time zones. Every day, Californians would have to remind people across the country what time it is, as other states continue to fall back and spring forward. ... California doesn’t have time for this. Vote no on Proposition 7." The San Luis Obispo Tribune: "Besides, this is a change that affects every one of us, so why would we give the Legislature the power to decide this? The ultimate decision should be up to the voters."

California Proposition 69: Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox and Appropriations Limit Exemption Amendment a

Support The Desert Sun said, "The taxes are already in place and being collected and money already is being spent on improvements to California’s crumbling roads. This amendment, which was a companion measure to the Legislature’s tax legislation, gives voters the power to ensure the money is spent on what was promised." Los Angeles Times said, "Last year, legislators and Gov. Jerry Brown agreed to increase taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, and to impose new and bigger fees on vehicles, to help build and maintain the state's transportation infrastructure. To win support from tax-wary Republicans, proponents of the legislation (Senate Bill 1) promised that the new money would be used only for transportation. Proposition 69 would fulfill that promise. Voters should hold lawmakers to their word and pass it." The Mercury News said, "The measure might not be everything opponents and some supporters might want. But its defeat would be worse — opening the door to spending of some of the new money for any government program. Voters should make sure that doesn’t happen. Vote yes on Prop. 69." Monterey County Herald said, "Prop. 69 should not be confused with a possible repeal, however. The transportation taxes are already in place and being collected and money already is being spent on our crumbling roads. This amendment gives voters the power to ensure their taxes are spent on what was promised." The Orange County Register said, "Ultimately, while we have reservations about the measure’s raising of the Gann Limit by hundreds of millions of dollars according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, given the amount of revenues SB1 is dealing with, it’s important to have some degree of certainty that that money will go toward its intended purposes. On balance, we suggest voting yes on Proposition 69." The Press-Democrat said, "This constitutional amendment would ensure that taxes and fees approved for roads and transit aren’t diverted to other purposes. Yes." The Sacramento Bee said, "Yes. The 12-cent gas tax increase passed last year by California lawmakers was the first in 23 years, and, gauging from the number of potholes in need of filling, it was way overdue. This companion measure would ensure that $5 billion in new revenue only gets spent on transportation projects. While most transportation revenue is already constitutionally earmarked, some of the new funding falls outside those protections, so this is just common-sense cleanup, endorsed by a long list of good government groups." San Diego Union-Tribune said, "Given past diversions of fuel taxes, this is an excellent idea. That it is being pushed to help blunt the Republican attempt to repeal the overall fuel tax hike enacted in 2017 isn’t a good reason to oppose it." San Francisco Chronicle said, "If that reassurance seems unnecessary, it’s because anti-tax opponents are readying a repeal of the gas tax, claiming the funds may be diverted or misspent. For anyone driving potholed roads or tiring of fist-pounding traffic delays, that argument should sound ridiculous. California is at last tending to its highways, and this measure underlines that promise. Vote Yes." Opposition Ballotpedia did not find any media editorial boards opposing Proposition 69. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

California Proposition 8: Limits on Dialysis Clinics' Revenue and Required Refunds Initiative d

Support East Bay Express: "Yes on the regulation of the kidney dialysis industry." San Diego Free Press endorsed Proposition 8, but did not provide a statement. San Francisco Bay Guardian: "Prop. 8 would set caps on what providers could charge for life-saving dialysis treatments. It’s only one procedure, and not really a step toward single-payer, but it’s hard to oppose." Opposition Bakersfield Californian: "Let’s make this simple. This is an example of a special interest – in this case, a labor union – using the state’s initiative system to get what it could not get by organizing the workers of the state’s two largest dialysis businesses, DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care. The convoluted formula proponents would impose on company spending and revenues may apply organizing pressure on the companies. But smaller companies contend it could force them out of business and endanger their fragile clients, who depend on dialysis to live." Los Angeles Times: "But even if the revenue cap doesn’t drive clinics out of business, it would give them a perverse incentive to deliver care less efficiently — to raise patient-related spending in order to raise the revenue cap. And despite what supporters claim, there’s no guarantee that forcing clinics to spend more would do anything to make care better or more available." Marin Independent Journal: "This is a union-driven measure seeking to impose new requirements on private dialysis clinics. This is an issue that is complex and deserves to be studied and considered by the Legislature, not decided by a political shortcut to voters who won’t have time to dig into the issue and take a look at its long-term ramifications. This is a bad use of a state proposition." Merced Sun-Star/The Modesto Bee: "Proposition 8 is one union’s attempt to force two specific companies in a single industry segment – kidney dialysis – to hire more workers. It is unnecessarily elaborate, uses scare tactics and is unlikely to deliver what it promises. In fact, it’s more likely Proposition 8 will make matters worse in areas where specialized care can be difficult to obtain." San Francisco Chronicle: "Proposition 8, which would limit the profits of kidney dialysis clinics, is an example of a special interest trying to obtain from the ballot box what it could not achieve through other processes. ... This flawed measure should be rejected." Santa Cruz Sentinel: "But this measure, in attempting to regulate profit, deals with policy issues that should first have been taken up by legislators. Taking this directly to voters would be a last resort if no satisfactory remedies resulted from legislative give and take — a process that allows the complicated wording of new laws to be thoroughly reviewed and then altered if problems arise, as they often do." The Desert Sun: "Proposition 8 ostensibly is about dialysis patient care, but it boils down to an ugly $125 million brawl between a powerful labor union and California’s biggest dialysis clinic operators. This labor dispute disguised as health care policy has no place on the ballot and voters should reject it on Nov. 6." The Fresno Bee: "While SEIU has highlighted some valid financial issues, they should be addressed by state regulators – or by the Legislature, if necessary – not in a ballot measure that cannot be easily fixed if it causes problems. The same goes for patient care concerns, which should be dealt with by public health officials." The Mercury News: "California has a long history of propositions gone awry. Proposition 8 provides a classic example of a ballot measure that has no business being decided by California voters. The complex initiative designed to regulate the dialysis industry is better suited for the Legislature, where the wording of new laws can be thoroughly vetted and easily altered if problems arise." The Press Democrat: "We don’t have a position on whether clinic employees should unionize. However, we’re absolutely certain that voters shouldn’t be asked to judge a regulatory scheme for a specialty medical procedure that literally is a matter of life and death for tens of thousands of California residents suffering from serious kidney disease. That’s a job for the Legislature and the state Department of Public Health Services." Los Angeles Daily News/The San Bernardino Sun: "On the surface, Proposition 8 looks like a well-intended measure seeking to improve dialysis patient care. But upon even the most cursory of reviews, the measure is revealed to be nothing more than a cynical attempt by a labor union to accomplish what it couldn’t through the Legislature." The Sacramento Bee: "If we were confident that Proposition 8 would lead to better care for patients and lower bills, we would be inclined to support it. But because this measure is so complex – as is healthcare financing in general – it’s also possible that the measure could backfire and lead to less care." The Orange County Register: "By placing an artificially constructed cap on revenues, there will certainly be a bad impact on needed dialysis clinics across the state. Closures of existing clinics, and any slowdown in the opening of new clinics, would force patients into choosing between fewer and fewer options." The San Diego Union-Tribune: "Help dialysis patients? It could lead to the closure of an unknown number of dialysis clinics, especially in rural areas, which would up-end the lives of many of the nearly 70,000 Californians who depend on dialysis. That’s because the measure is written in a way that doesn’t allow clinics to count significant categories of spending in their profit-and-loss statements, a flaw that seems likely to lead to a court fight over revenue caps. ... A union should not put the lives of sick people at risk to win a labor battle. Vote no on Proposition 8." The San Luis Obispo Tribune: "Reform may be needed in this area, but the ballot box isn’t the place to do it."

California Proposition 72: Rainwater Capture Systems Excluded from Property Tax Assessments Amendment a

Support The Desert Sun said, "Seems like a bit of a joke that someone who is trying to maximize water usage in chronically drought-stricken California by capturing that which falls onto his or her roof is effectively penalized for doing so. ... This isn’t a joke. Proposition 72 deserves your support. Vote yes." Los Angeles Times said, "Proposition 72 is an important part of that historic change in attitude and governance. It has no official opponents. Californians should put it on the books as law. And then, if they haven't already, get themselves a rain barrel, or maybe even a cistern." The Mercury News said, "Californians have demonstrated the ability to be conservation-minded citizens when given the opportunity. Proposition 72 eliminates a tax penalty for home owners trying to help the state conserve water. Vote yes on June 5." Monterey County Herald said, "Proposition 72 also seems common sense. The measure would eliminate any tax penalty for homeowners who install rainwater capture systems. The reused water can irrigate lawns and gardens — a worthwhile goal in a state where the next drought is more frequently than not just over the horizon." The Orange County Register said, "There are no serious arguments to be made against Proposition 72. For those peculiar few out there who might be worried about how much less money government might get as a result of exempting construction of rainwater storage from property tax reassessments, the fiscal effects are expected to be minimal." The Press-Democrat said, "Homeowners wouldn’t get dunned for higher property taxes when they install rainwater-capture systems. Similar exemptions already exist for solar energy systems, fire sprinklers, seismic retrofits and upgrades for disabled access." The Sacramento Bee said, "Yes. Homeowners who install systems to capture rainwater – and irrigate lawns and gardens with it – should be encouraged. Instead, they can now be dinged on their property taxes for adding the improvement, which can cost thousands of dollars." San Diego Union-Tribune said, "A case can be made that simple tax codes without such carve-outs are best, but a far stronger argument is that drought-plagued California should incentivize water conservation however it can." San Francisco Chronicle said, "This measure qualifies for the “Odd Problem & Quick Fix” award. It erases a tax hit faced by homeowners who improve their property by installing rainwater recovery systems. The state allows other upgrades like solar panels or fire sprinklers a pass on higher assessments. Saving water in an often-parched state should qualify too. Vote Yes." Opposition Ballotpedia did not find any media editorial boards opposing Proposition 72. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

California Proposition 5: Property Tax Transfer Initiative d

Support Bakersfield Californian: "Seniors in some counties who wish to move or downsize may be able to apply the lower tax rate to the new home they buy. But they can use this tax break only once. Proposition 5, which voters should support, will allow the rate to be applied to multiple future transactions in all California counties. This is a smart, compassionate way to help California’s growing senior population and to make existing affordable homes available to new buyers." Los Angeles Daily News/The Orange County Register/The Press-Enterprise/The San Bernardino Sun: "While it’s true this reform will benefit many wealthier Californians, the tens of thousands of moves estimated by the legislative analyst to result from Prop. 5 is sure to free up critically needed housing stock. Vote for Prop. 5." The San Diego Union-Tribune: "The sponsors of Proposition 5 — real estate agents — came up with the measure to pad their pockets. But it’s actually a smart idea that will both give older people more flexibility with their lives and introduce liquidity to a housing market that could badly use it. The revenue it would cost local government is relatively small. Vote yes on Proposition 5." Opposition East Bay Express: "This tax break for people over 55 will cost us billions a year in revenues needed for education and social programs." Los Angeles Times: "Everyone wants to help the elderly and the disabled. But Proposition 5 is a bad, costly way of doing so that expands the favorable tax treatment of people — including wealthy people — who are already treated very favorably under Proposition 13. California is in the midst of a serious housing crisis, and the California Assn. of Realtors would like voters to believe Proposition 5 is part of the solution. But in fact it would create not a single new unit of housing. It is a false promise; it should be rejected." Marin Independent Journal: "This tax break will benefit the real estate industry and seniors who want to move. But Prop. 5’s promise to create more affordable housing is a political reach. It just widens the Prop. 13 tax gap." San Diego Free Press: "A giveaway to people who don’t need it at the expense of those who do. Funded by real estate interests looking for more commissions on sales." San Francisco Bay Guardian opposed Proposition 5, saying the initiative was an expansion of Proposition 13. San Francisco Chronicle: "What makes this proposition all the more galling is the fact that this is the group of Californians who least deserve another tax break. They’re already reaping the benefit of rock-bottom property taxes and they’ve had the opportunity to build up equity in their homes. Meanwhile, their younger counterparts in California, who would bear the brunt of service cuts under Prop. 5, increasingly find homeownership out of reach. There’s nothing in Prop. 5 that would alter this calculus, and it should go down in flames." Santa Cruz Sentinel: "Worse, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Prop. 5 would eventually cost the state an extra $1 billion in tax revenue while handing a massive tax break to some of the wealthiest people in the state. The revenue shortfall would hit local governments and school districts the hardest, losing an estimated $100 million a year. And when that happens, voters are usually asked to raise taxes to make up the difference." The Desert Sun: "The bottom line: Those who’ve benefited from years of market-driven equity enhancement will be allowed even greater opportunities to leverage that wealth while those who struggle to keep a roof over their head won’t see any new housing stock from this move, but instead will see vital services in their areas hurt as funds dry up. This won’t help solve California’s housing crisis. Vote no on Proposition 5." The Fresno Bee/The Sacramento Bee: "If more older homeowners moved, it might make more houses available for younger families and ease California’s housing crunch. Proposition 5, however, is not how to make that happen. Instead, the Nov. 6 ballot measure would make property taxes in California even less fair while devastating the budgets of local schools and governments. Voters should reject it. ... Proposition 5 is a reminder that California’s property tax system does need to be made more equitable. But this measure would only make it worse. That is the wrong direction for California." The Mercury News: "California voters should reject Proposition 5, a regressive measure that would provide additional property tax breaks to long-term homeowners — especially those with pricier houses — who already pay significantly lower tax bills. ... What’s clear is that many of those who do downsize would add to the competition for a short supply of more-affordable smaller homes, squeezing out first-time buyers. This isn’t a solution to our housing crisis. In fact, it might make it worse." The Modesto Bee opposed Proposition 5, but did not write an article explaining the editorial board's endorsement. The Press-Democrat: "There is a public value in ensuring that homes are available for families. That was the main selling point for Proposition 60. The legislative analyst says about 85,000 homeowners older than 55 move to new houses each year. More might be better, but solving California’s housing crisis requires more housing, not special treatment for a small slice of the population that already qualifies for a tax break on home sales — and frequently is exempted from paying school parcel taxes." The San Luis Obispo Tribune: "Proposition 13 already is tough on young homebuyers, who can wind up paying thousands of dollars more in property taxes than their older neighbors living in comparable homes purchased many years ago. Giving older Californians an even bigger tax break will only exacerbate that inequity." Neutral Ventura County Star said the editorial board was undecided on Proposition 5: "On the one hand, we appreciate the effort by Realtors and other supporters to juice up the state’s housing market while giving homeowners 55 or older some additional property tax relief and incentive to stay in California. On the other, the concept seems to us like a private, exclusive club in which the older members fortunate enough to be long vested in property enhance their riches at the expense of younger ones. Prop. 5 essentially calls for a significant expansion of Proposition 13 — and of all the tax disparities and government funding problems the latter has brought. ... Prop. 13 created two classes of Californians — an older gentry of longtime property owners with low tax rates, and younger generations that may be paying twice as much tax for the same house next door. It’s hard to imagine Prop. 5 not widening that gap."

California Proposition 68: California Parks, Environment, and Water Bond a

Support The Desert Sun said, "Proposition 68 has special significance for the desert region. Some $200 million from the massive bond measure would flow to the Salton Sea, which threatens to become an environmental catastrophe as it continues to dry up." Los Angeles Times said, "Of course, if you read the endorsements of Proposition 68 in newspapers around the state, you will see enthusiasm in each for their own local projects. There is something for everyone in this measure." The Mercury News said, "Consider the Prop. 68 bond a mortgage. It allows the state to borrow a large amount of money and then spread the payments over time. If it passes, the state’s debt payments would still be below 6 percent of state revenues, which most analysts agree is a comfortable ratio. California voters should approve Proposition 68." Monterey County Herald said, "Proposition 68 is a comprehensive plan that will improve two vital aspects of life in our state: water and recreation. That’s why it’s supported by a broad coalition of business, civic and environmental groups. It deserves your support as well. Vote yes on Proposition 68." The Press Democrat said, "That’s less than one-fifth of one percent of the $125 billion general fund — barely a rounding error in the state budget. But it would go a long toward sprucing up state parks. And, as the legislative analyst’s report points out, the availability of state bond funds could produce savings for cities and counties “averaging tens of millions of dollars annually for the next several decades.” The Sacramento Bee said, "Yes. It has been more than a decade since California voters were last asked to approve a statewide bond to upgrade parks and make sure the state’s water supply is clean and protected. This $4.1 billion bond measure is intelligently constructed and a reasonable ask." San Francisco Chronicle said, "California’s landscape is an enduring treasure, but its rivers, beaches and parks require public stewardship, especially as harsh weather and population growth take a toll. That’s why voters should support Proposition 68, a $4 billion bond measure on the June 5 ballot." The San Diego Union-Tribune said, "A reassuring Legislative Analyst’s Office study of the measure cites its solid oversight provisions and its requirement that local governments share in the costs of some of the projects it would fund. On balance, The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board recommends a yes vote on Proposition 68." Opposition Chico Enterprise-Record said, "If legislators think funding parks are important, there’s a multibillion-dollar state surplus right now. Legislators could spend some of that money and it wouldn’t require future interest payments. Instead, legislators take the easy way out with a bond. It’s not worth it. California voters need to stop thinking of bonds as free money, and legislators need to learn to prioritize spending as part of the budget process." The Orange County Register said, "Instead of indebting Californians by $8 billion for $4 billion, the Legislature should make room for the sort of projects this measure would cover with current revenues. If these projects are as important to the politicians who want the bond as they pretend they are, they’ll find a way to make it work."

California Proposition 10: Local Rent Control Initiative d

Support East Bay Express: "Yes on the repeal of Costa-Hawkins. Cities like Berkeley and Oakland need to be able to enact tougher rent control laws to prevent displacement." Los Angeles Times: "Still, any predictions that Proposition 10 would either save or devastate the housing market are overstated. If passed, the measure would allow local communities to debate and decide what renter protections to adopt, if any. That’s important. Although the housing crisis is widespread, each city has its own challenges and needs the flexibility to adopt its own remedies." San Diego Free Press: "Even though this would repeal a law already on the books, it defenders come from the same mentality as those using state legislatures to quash local minimum wage increases. California has a one-size-fits-all law. This would change that. There aren’t many politicians who dare to say no to land barons, whether they’re local or multinational, so this will be opposed by many people who should know better." San Francisco Bay Guardian: "This is the most important issue on the state ballot. It would undo one of the worst pieces of housing legislation in California history, protect tens of thousands of tenants, and help fight evictions (and homelessness). That’s why the real-estate industry is going to spend tens of millions of dollars to defeat it. ... Prop. 10 won’t have any impact on new housing – but it will keep tenants in existing housing from becoming homeless, will discourage evictions, and will provide housing stability in cities that choose to use this tool. Again: Cities that don’t want vacancy control don’t have to enact it. If Prop. 10 passes, that will be up to the Board of Supervisors and the mayor. Vote yes." The Sacramento Bee: "It no longer makes sense to tie the hands of local officials in dealing with this crisis, especially when they’re also being left to deal with the financial and humanitarian consequences of rising homelessness. California need a mix of both short-term and long-term solutions. It took the threat of Proposition 10 to start serious discussions of short-term solutions. Minor attempts to help tenants were routinely blocked by deep-pocketed lobbying efforts. It’s time to tilt the power dynamic of this polarizing debate back to the control of local officials. Passing this measure will do that." The San Luis Obispo Tribune: "This is all about local control. Given the untenable cost of rental housing in many parts of the state, local communities should be able to craft solutions that work for them, without undue interference from Sacramento. If you’re worried that passage of this measure could bring rent control to SLO, that’s highly unlikely. Look what happened when the city passed a rental inspection ordinance: It was overturned." Opposition Bakersfield Californian: "Proposition 10, which would lift state limits on local rent control laws, would discourage construction of affordable housing and worsen California’s existing crisis. Voters should reject Proposition 10, which is being falsely presented as an easy way to combat increasing rents and to increase affordable housing. The answer to California’s housing crisis is to build more affordable housing, not to discourage construction." Los Angeles Daily News/The San Bernardino Sun: "Taxpayers could take a hit: If apartment values decline, owners can obtain a lower property-tax assessment to reflect the reduced value. That will reduce revenue to local governments and create pressure for other tax increases to maintain services. Prop. 10 would also require taxpayers to foot the legal bills for defending the measure in court if it is challenged. Rent control creates shortages. California can’t afford a reckless initiative that repeals an important law that has been on the books for more than 20 years. Vote no on Prop. 10." Marin Independent Journal: "Rent control is not the cure to California’s housing shortage that proponents promise. What’s needed is building more housing in the right places, including in Marin. Opponents of Proposition 10 argue that rent control could hinder rather than further answers to that growing state problem." San Francisco Chronicle: "Much like trade barriers, rent control enjoys persistent political and popular appeal despite its nearly universal rejection by economists. Its benefits accrue to those renters who happen to occupy the controlled units, who become a devoted lobby for the policy, at the expense not only of property owners but also of other tenants. Most alarmingly for a state with a crushing housing deficit, rent control tends to reduce the quality and quantity of rental housing, the construction and maintenance of which is discouraged by price caps." Santa Cruz Sentinel: "It won’t work, which is why we are recommending a “no” vote on Prop. 10. The shortage of affordable housing, which has led to higher rents, can be mostly attributable to higher demand as the economy booms, and to governments’ inability to respond with changes in zoning policies, fees and restrictions. The antidote is not to give government even more power to suppress housing supply." The Desert Sun: "California already has a systemic housing shortage that is fueling its staggering poverty rate as more and more family income is dedicated to rising rents. The chilling possibility of rent control, even in areas that don’t rush to impose it, won’t be an incentive to increase such properties. Additionally, in an area where vacation rentals already are seen as crowding out affordable rental housing stock for actual residents, this measure would likely serve to push more property owners toward that option." The Fresno Bee: "And there are better solutions. Cities that haven’t kept up with demand should to accept their failures and offer building incentives – property tax rebates, discounted loans, streamlined permitting. ... Our recommendation: Let market forces take care of rental pricing. Vote no on Proposition 10." The Mercury News: "Rents in California, especially the Bay Area, are soaring. Decent housing is unaffordable for far too many. But the solution is to build more housing, not restrict rents. That’s why voters should reject Proposition 10 on the Nov. 6 ballot. ... In other words, it would not fix the state’s housing crisis; it would exacerbate it." The Modesto Bee: "This is economics 101: Short supply, high demand, higher prices. More units, low demand, lower prices. Tell a landlord she can’t raise the rent, and repairs will be delayed. With rents locked in place, upgrades never pencil out. Keep rents stagnant as taxes, insurance premiums and utilities rise and landlords will convert apartments into condos, sell them and invest the cash elsewhere – like Nevada." The Orange County Register: "Proposition 10 is a fine example of chasing a disaster with a catastrophe. The disaster is the housing crisis in California. The escalation of home prices and rents has far outpaced wage growth, helping to give California the nation’s highest poverty rate when adjusted for the cost of living. The catastrophe is Prop. 10, the “Local Rent Control Initiative.” The Press-Democrat: "The antidote offered by Proposition 10 on the Nov. 6 ballot — repealing California’s long-standing restrictions on local rent control laws — could instead make a bad situation worse. Proposition 10 targets a symptom: soaring rents that are pricing some people out of the market. But it ignores the disease: a shortage of apartments and other housing units." The San Diego Union-Tribune: "The problem for advocates is that rent control has a long history that shows not only that it doesn’t work, but also that it makes housing problems worse. ... But adding considerable new housing is ultimately the most constructive, enduring way California can address its housing crisis. It’s the only way. Vote no on Proposition 10." Ventura County Star: "Adding rent control to their arsenal of no-growth tools runs counter to everything the state is trying to do right now to provide more affordable housing. ... Rent control is an enticing, simplistic approach to a complex housing problem it likely would make worse. We urge you to reject Proposition 10 on Nov. 6."

California Proposition 6: Vote on Future Gas and Vehicle Taxes and 2017 Tax Repeal Initiative d

Support Orange County Register: "No one would dispute that California’s roads are in terrible condition, or that the backlog of needed repairs must be addressed. The question is whether Californians were already paying enough in taxes before last year’s tax increase to maintain the state’s transportation infrastructure, or if a tax increase was unavoidably necessary. ... We understand why voters are angry. SB1 was not necessary to fix the roads. The state’s budget has increased from $86 billion in 2011-12 to nearly $139 billion in the current fiscal year, but money was not allocated to this vital public safety need. ... Proposition 6 repeals the SB1 tax increase and requires voter approval for future gas and car taxes. It deserves a yes vote." The Fresno Bee: "Most recently, Brown and the Legislature decided to put $16 billion into the so-called “rainy day fund” meant to cover state expenses when the next recession hits. They could have just as easily allocated some of that money back to roads. And why does the reserve fund exist? In large part because the state is too reliant on income taxes and capital gains. That’s because the lawmakers won’t do the hard work of reworking the state’s tax system to generate more stable revenues. Rather than come to drivers with their hands out for more, legislators and the governor need to look at the budget. They have $200 billion. Figure it out and be leaders. That is what they get elected to do." Opposition Bakersfield Californian: "No one wants to pay taxes. But, then again, no one wants to drive on pothole-plagued, deteriorating roads or get stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Those were the road conditions when state lawmakers bit the bullet and increased taxes – an act they knew would be unpopular. So unpopular it led to the recall of one lawmaker. Now it’s time for Californians to bite the bullet: They should reject efforts to repeal the much-needed tax. The Californian urges voters to reject Proposition 6." Los Angeles Times: "It’s hard to overstate how destructive Proposition 6 would be for California. It would eliminate $5 billion a year from the state budget, wiping out funds that could be used to fill potholes on local streets, smooth highways and stabilize bridges. It would cancel funding for highway and rail projects designed to move cargo more cleanly and efficiently, hurting the state’s vital freight industry. It would slash money for light rail lines and commuter rail service, meaning fewer trains for people trying to get to work." Marin Independent Journal: "This is a political proposition that will sidetrack many projects that motorists, weary of worsening traffic jams and bad roads, are counting on. We recommend voters reject Prop. 6. A no vote keeps the tax on the books and much-needed transportation improvements in the works." Monterey Herald: "If passed, Prop. 6, would not mean gas prices would drop. There’s nothing in the measure that would, or should, force oil companies to seek lower profits by lowering the price of gasoline. ... We strongly urge voters to reject this political ploy that would end up costing every California motorist far more than the relatively slight uptick in the cost of gasoline. Vote no on Proposition 6." San Francisco Chronicle: "California’s plan to improve the state’s roads, highways, and transit infrastructure is supported by major business groups, first responders, environmental groups, and nearly every public policy outfit with an interest in good governance. Proposition 6 is a cynical political ploy that will starve California’s already-crumbling transportation networks, and it may not save drivers any money. Vote no." Santa Cruz Sentinel: "And what’s an alternative source of revenue to improve roads and highways? Even the Trump administration has talked about a major reinvestment in highways and infrastructure and delivered a plan to Congress last year that required states and local communities to come up with the most of the money. As for what the federal government would contribute, Trump suggested raising the federal gas tax by … 25 cents a gallon. We strongly urge voters to reject this political ploy that would end up costing every California motorist far more than the relatively slight uptick in the cost of gasoline. Vote no on Proposition 6." The Mercury News: "So, in sum, Prop. 6 misses the mark on two counts: It reverses badly needed funding for roads and transportation, and it imposes unnecessary restrictions on future fuel and car taxes. For either or both reasons, voters should say no." The Press Democrat: "It seems more likely that Republicans hope tax-wary voters will help them hold on to some closely contested legislative and congressional seats this November. It’s a cynical approach, especially for a party that, to its credit, pioneered the user-fee system of financing roads and highways. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 6." The Sacramento Bee: "No one likes to pay more at the pump. But seriously tackling our state’s $130 billion backlog of highway and bridge maintenance and upgrades takes a significant, separate source of revenue. And these taxes and fees are the fairest method because those who use roads most are paying the most." The San Diego Union-Tribune: "But there’s one reason to reject the measure that deserves more attention: It’s that in a state in which many environmentalists believe cars are evil, the 2017 tax legislation amounts to an affirmation that our roads and freeways are and will be hugely important for many years to come. Nothing in California’s history suggests fixing these roads and freeways is feasible without it. Vote no on Proposition 6." The San Luis Obispo Tribune: "Here’s what we would lose locally: Over the next 10 years, the gas tax is expected to generate between $970 million and $1.4 billion for San Luis Obispo County communities. That’s money already being used to repair local streets and roads, as well as to fund regional projects, such as improvements to the “Y” intersection at Highway 41/46. Many of our roads already are in poor condition. If this revenue goes away, they will further deteriorate — and cost even more to repair down the road." Ventura County Star: "California’s economy and population depend on a strong highway and road network, and many projects will not be funded if Prop. 6 passes. The state gas tax increases were the first in 23 years. They are a fair form of user fee — those who drive the most pay the most. And under Proposition 69, approved by state voters in June, the new revenue cannot be diverted to other uses. With this safeguard in place and a huge need for road improvements in our state, we again urge a no vote on Prop. 6."

California Proposition 1: Housing Programs and Veterans' Loans Bond a

Support Los Angeles Times: "As we’ve observed before, the state needs to build 3.5 million homes by 2025 to satisfy pent-up demand for housing and to stabilize prices. To even get close to that number would require a building boom unlike any California has seen since the 1960s. Proposition 1 is a necessary step, even if it’s not a sufficient one." Marin Independent Journal: "This is a public investment in a statewide crisis that needs public funding to get affordable housing constructed." San Francisco Chronicle: "It’s going to take more than dollars to solve California’s housing crisis. Regulations need to be streamlined, policies need to be realigned to steer development into areas that can accommodate higher density, and more communities need to be open to accepting growth. But make no mistake: Public investment needs to be part of the equation. ... It’s a statewide problem that demands statewide approaches — including public investment. Vote yes on Prop. 1." The Desert Sun: "We believe the desert area would benefit greatly from this measure, which the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates could result in the building of 30,000 new units for low-income families and 7,500 for farmworkers." The Fresno Bee: "To solve the housing crisis, we need all of this and more. And while some taxpayers might understandably be concerned about the $170 million a year that the state will need to repay over the next 35 years, this is one debt that is worth it." The Mercury News: "Prop. 1 can’t possibly solve the state’s housing crisis on its own. But it’s an essential piece of the puzzle, designed to work with Prop. 2, the mental health housing measure on the same ballot, and local and federal housing programs to offer critical funding for the state’s most needy residents. To help solve the state’s housing crisis, voters should back Prop. 1 on Nov. 6." The Modesto Bee: "Since our elected officials can’t find the gumption to make CEQA rules more equitable, or insist that cities create more reasonable building-fee schedules, or encourage more infill, we should give Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 a shot. ... Proposition 1 could actually move the needle." The Press Democrat: "Santa Rosa should be in good position to compete for a share of this funding if voters also approve Measure N to fund affording housing efforts here. And local veterans would qualify for reduced-interest loans to buy homes and farms under Cal-Vet, a program that pays for itself while rewarding those who volunteer to serve their country. Thumbs up." The Sacramento Bee: "To solve the housing crisis, we need all of this and more. And while some taxpayers might understandably be concerned about the $170 million a year that the state will need to repay over the next 35 years, this is one debt that is worth it." Bakersfield Californian endorsed Proposition 1, but did not provide an explanation. Opposition The Orange County Register/The Press-Enterprise/The San Luis Obispo Tribune: "If California’s leaders are serious about making California a more affordable place to live, they should concentrate their efforts on curtailing onerous regulations and restrictive land-use policies and making it easier for homebuilders to build. And if they insist on subsidizing housing, they should do so directly, rather than wasting taxpayer money on interest payments. Vote No on Prop. 1." The San Diego Union-Tribune: "But “affordable housing” programs help only the relatively few lucky families that win lotteries allowing them to use the units. These programs do more to create an impression of government responding to housing problems than to actually addressing these problems. ... California must adopt solutions, not nostrums. Vote no on Proposition 1."

California Proposition 70: Vote Requirement to Use Cap-and-Trade Revenue Amendment d

Support The San Diego Union-Tribune said, "The measure is best seen as a clunky way to achieve a worthy goal: forcing a supermajority of the Legislature to take responsibility for continued funding of the state’s massively troubled $77 billion bullet-train project, which Brown wants to get a substantial cut of all cap-and-trade revenue in coming years." Opposition The Desert Sun said, "In the past, when supermajorities were required to pass the state budget Sacramento routinely became bogged down in long delays and state government uncertainty trickled down into the lives of everyday people. Needing to get to that two-thirds threshold didn’t necessarily spur thoughtful decision-making, but instead usually led to giveaways for projects to individual lawmakers in order to to secure their vote." Los Angeles Times said, "In fact, they should reject this pointless exercise. There is little indication that a supermajority vote in 2024 would result in more responsible spending, as supporters of Prop 70 claim. History shows that when legislators need to find enough votes to reach a two-thirds threshold, they are more likely to end up funding pet projects to persuade (or buy the votes of) on-the-fence lawmakers." The Mercury News said, "But Prop. 70’s two-thirds approval requirement would, if anything, give more power and money to special interests seeking their pieces of the revenue pie. In sum, there’s nothing to be gained from Prop. 70. It’s bad public policy and a waste of voters’ time. Vote no." Monterey County Herald said, "Proposition 70, on the June 5 California primary ballot, is an attempt by opponents of California’s landmark cap-and-trade law regulating greenhouse gas pollution to hoodwink voters into giving Republicans and the oil industry more control of how the money is spent. It’s a bad idea and should be rejected." The Orange County Register said, "All things considered, we don’t think voters need to be party to political games like this. This measure won’t stop the bullet train, nor will it ensure anything in particular. If anything, it might just encourage more miscalculated negotiations like the one that produced this. Vote no on Proposition 70." The Press-Democrat said, "This is a head-scratcher. It would require lawmakers to approve a spending plan for revenue from the state’s cap-and-trade auctions by a two-thirds majority. But just once. Six years from now. No." The Sacramento Bee said, "No. In the last-minute deal-making that extended California’s landmark cap-and-trade law regulating greenhouse gas pollution, Brown gave Republicans this gift in exchange for their critical votes. ... But if Californians want to change the way cap-and-trade money is spent, they have an easier fix: Elect Republicans and put them in control of the Legislature. This measure is an attempted end run around a much-needed public works project that a lot of Californians want and that the majority of voters approved, at the behest, by the way, of a Republican governor." San Francisco Chronicle said, "Instead of a simple majority in approving where cap-and-trade money goes, this measure obliges a two-thirds vote in 2024, a higher threshold that gives Republican skeptics a chance to curb the program. Though Brown felt he needed to put that concession on the ballot, voters shouldn’t feel obliged. A majority of elected lawmakers in the Legislature oversee the budget. It doesn’t make sense to boost the number up to a supermajority of two-thirds in six years. Vote No."

California Proposition 3: Water Infrastructure and Watershed Conservation Bond Initiative d

Support Bakersfield Californian: "Proposition 3 is a citizen’s initiative bond to continue the investments in the state’s water supply and water quality. Remarkably, in this partisan environment, valley support for this $8.9 billion bond initiative is crossing party lines. Money from the sale of the bonds will be spent on many critical valley water projects and to provide clean drinking water in communities that now have unsafe water." The Fresno Bee: "The Bee strongly recommends approval because of how Proposition 3 would directly benefit the Valley. Fixing the Friant-Kern Canal, improving Sierra watersheds and getting clean water to Valley communities in a broad sweep, as this measure would do, is a once-in-a-lifetime chance." Opposition Los Angeles Times: "Especially when money is flowing and water isn’t, it’s easy to be seduced into spending on the wrong water projects at the wrong time and for the wrong benefits and beneficiaries. Proposition 3 would lead us into exactly that kind of trap. Vote no." Marin Independent Journal: "The proposition is largely funded by organizations — nonprofit and corporate and large and small — that want taxpayers’ dollars to pay for their projects. These are priorities that should be culled by lawmakers, not by those paying to get the signatures needed to get the bond measure on the ballot and then running a multi-million-dollar campaign for it. This measure has strong local support, but we don’t think this is the right way to further their plans." San Francisco Chronicle: "This scheme was devised as an initiative that is being funded, in part, by individuals and entities that are going to be receiving a share of the bond money. The pay-to-play aspect in itself should give voters ample reason to reject Prop. 3." Santa Cruz Sentinel: "Instead, this initiative was in part funded by the very people and organizations that will receive a portion of the bond money – reason enough for voters to reject Proposition 3. ... Voters in 2002 defeated a similarly constructed pay-to-play scheme by the main framer of Prop. 3. They should reject this one as well. Vote “no” on Proposition 3." The Mercury News: "Proposition 3 is a classic “pay-to-play” initiative that California voters should soundly defeat on Nov. 6. The $8.9 billion water bond package points to some serious water issues that demand the Legislature’s attention. But loading up an initiative with giveaways to special interests and local public agencies is no way for the state to conduct its business. Voters should reject this end run around the legislative process." The Orange County Register: "In contrast, Prop. 3 is a product of special interests, seeking to take advantage of Californians’ apparent willingness to consistently vote for water bonds. As the Sierra Club noted, and editorial boards across the state have echoed, this measure reeks of “pay-to-play.” The Sacramento Bee: "But this is not how water spending should be done in California. While the state’s water politics and finances are immensely complicated, they come down to who pays and who benefits. On Proposition 3, all taxpayers would have to repay the bonds. But the list of beneficiaries is far smaller – not enough to deserve voters’ support." The San Diego Union-Tribune: "Passing a third water bond in just four years feels like throwing money at a problem. Given the poor condition of water infrastructure in California, it might be justifiable. But that only holds for a bond that was crafted in an impartial way by lawmakers or citizen committees — not by groups that would benefit from it. Vote no on Proposition 3." The San Luis Obispo Tribune: "This would be the largest water bond in state history, and while it would be a boon for the Central Valley and other pockets of California, there’s not that much in it for the rest of us."

Colorado

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Colorado with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Colorado Proposition 109: "Fix Our Damn Roads" Transportation Bond Initiative d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Gazette wrote: "Hear this loud and clear. Passage of the secret society’s Prop 110 means high taxes and fewer road improvements in southern Colorado. [Proposition 109] issues bonds immediately, pays for them with existing revenues, and generates more transportation money without raising taxes. Supporters pitch [Proposition 110] as a resolution to our crisis of dangerously bad highway infrastructure. Yet less than half the money would go to fix highways. No wonder they met in secret. Don’t be fooled by a tax increase so bad a cabal of special interests concocted it behind closed doors. Vote against a secret scheme to benefit a few and for a measure created in public to benefit all with better roads. Vote 'no' on 110 and 'yes' on 109." The Greeley Tribune wrote: "We’re throwing our support behind Proposition 109. We believe the state should invest in roads as a core function of government. And we think now is the time to act. While voters could chose to support both 109 and 110, we think Proposition 109 is better for Greeley, Evans, Windsor and northern Colorado. One big reason is the list of projects that would get funded. Perhaps most importantly, though, we like that Proposition 109 doesn’t include a sales tax hike. That’s important for communities like Greeley, which recently passed its own sales tax bump to support investment in local transportation projects. To be sure, Proposition 109 isn’t perfect. For example, it offers no long-term solution to the state’s overall budget challenges that have helped create our current transportation crisis. Proposition 109 offers voters the best chance to immediately improve our roads and bridges across the state." Opposition The Aurora Sentinel wrote: "Prop 109, Fix Our Damn Roads, takes $3.5 billion away from schools, colleges, public safety or other services and forces the state to build a proscribed list of projects that may not even make sense by the time Colorado gets the roads cash. [...] And Fix Our Damn Roads comes with a written-in-legal-stone list of projects it must fund. It’s billions of dollars of projects that would be hard or impossible to change if state transportation experts and engineers found new ways to save money or improve the system. Fix Our Damn Roads is the equivalent of letting your kids handle the family finances. It’s bad for the kids and bad for everyone. Vote no." The Craig Daily Press wrote: "The way we see it, Proposition 110 is the clear winner. Proposition 109 asks us to commit ourselves to $5.2 billion in bonded indebtedness with no specific revenue stream to service that debt. And, while the notion of repairing the state's crumbling highways without increasing taxes or fees might, at a glance, seem appealing, the fact remains: If you take a loan, you have to pay it back. This leaves us with Proposition 110. It, too, creates new debt, but it also creates new revenue dedicated to paying that debt, and while we are hesitant to advocate another new tax, the modest increase proposed by 110 is, in our opinion, the most sensible path." The Aspen Times wrote: "These are two transportation funding questions getting lumped together. Prop 109 is the wrong way to address the funding for transportation improvements. Called "Fix Our Damn Roads," adding $3.5 billion in bonds and contributing to the state's debt is not the right road. We are for Proposition 110, which would add a 0.62 percent sales tax for 20 years and is earmarked for transportation fixes. We'll all share in the burden without messing with the state debt. In 20 years, it would raise about $21.7 billion and essentially pay as we go."

Colorado Proposition 112, Minimum Distance Requirements for New Oil, Gas, and Fracking Projects d

Support The Daily Camera wrote, "In the bigger picture, Proposition 112 comes before voters amid ubiquitous signs of a climate change emergency. The last four years saw the hottest January-June periods ever recorded on Earth. Detractors label the setback measure as extreme. But what is more extreme, expanded setbacks or neighborhoods infested with heavy industry? Proposition 112 is the people's response to an unresponsive government. As a grassroots initiative it's imperfect. But it's a statutory measure, so that if in practice it proves unexpectedly onerous or unintended consequences arise, the Colorado legislature can make adjustments as deemed appropriate. Weighed against years of official deference to industry, Proposition 112 deserves voter approval." The Aspen Times wrote: "We feel that it is time for the state to take control of these setback issues. The oil and gas industry has been adjusting to rules and crying wolf whenever groups try to push back, and we think now is the time for people to have their say as a state and look to public health first. While we agree that some of the language in the question could be overreaching, we'd rather we jump into this now and work a bit back on the language through the Legislature. It's a better scenario than continuing to talk about oil and gas issues and getting nothing accomplished. The claims of tens of thousands of lost jobs and millions in lost revenue continues to be the drumbeat of the opposition. We feel those jobs and revenue will come back, or find other ways to pull oil and gas from underneath Colorado's soil. As a statutory measure, our elected officials can take a look and examine what doesn't work in the coming years. It's time to be bold as a state." Opposition The Durango Herald wrote, "In effect, [Proposition 112] would ban new drilling on 85 percent of Colorado’s non-federal land. We simply do not see the need for a top-down approach to what is a real problem for some people in Colorado, in at least some places – a problem that will only grow as more people come to the state and oil and gas production increases. In the governor’s race, both Stapleton, the industry-friendly conservative, and Polis, the green liberal, think 2,500 feet is too far. If it’s outside the gulf between these two candidates, it is certainly too far for us. We are a NO vote on [Proposition 112]." The Aurora Sentinel wrote, "Colorado has a serious problem balancing public safety and regulating the gas and oil industry across the state. Proposition 112 is the wrong answer. Increasing an arbitrary, universal setback would punish an industry that carries a great deal of public risk, but it wouldn’t ensure everyone living or working near a drilling site would be any safer than they are now. Only additional reputable research and flexible set-back regulations, allowing for local control, can keep state residents and the petroleum industry healthy. Vote no on Prop 112 and elect state lawmakers willing to pass flexible regulations." The Pueblo Chieftain wrote, "If oil and gas companies start abandoning Colorado for other states, that could drive up energy costs. Also, placing draconian restrictions on the domestic oil and gas industry doesn’t support our country’s goal of becoming less dependent on energy from foreign sources. Regulating businesses sometimes requires a balancing act between public safety and free enterprise. However, this ballot initiative seems like overkill. The Pueblo Chieftain recommends a ‘no’ vote on Proposition 112." The Craig Daily Press wrote, "The measure would essentially ban new oil and gas developments in Colorado, a move that would be disastrous for the state's economy, particularly the energy-dependent economies of its northern regions. Second, we're tremendously concerned by the language used in the definition of "vulnerable" areas, particularly the phrase, "… and any additional vulnerable areas designated by the state or a local government." This language is far too vague and suggests that any outdoor area could be subject to a subsequent declaration of vulnerability. All in all, this is not a balanced approach. We agree that areas intended for human habitation and recreation should be protected from pollution, but Proposition 112 is akin to using a sledgehammer to swat a fly." The Fort Morgan Times said: "The 2,500-foot proposal is too extreme. Don't assume what you might find to be good for Boulder or Denver is good enough for the rest of the state. Say yes to jobs, yes to thriving economies, and say a resounding 'no' to Proposition 112." The Colorado Springs Gazette wrote: "Along with Amendments 73 and 74, Prop 112 completes a trifecta of ballot measures that threaten catastrophic results for our state. Prop 112 would impose a 2,500-foot setback on all oil and gas operations in Colorado. Both gubernatorial candidates and nearly all responsible political leaders on the right, left and all points between agree this measure would kill hundreds of thousands of Colorado jobs and throw our state into recession for years. Schools will lose funding and small businesses will close. Vote no on Prop 112." Other opposing media editorial endorsements Aside from the above media editorials endorsing a no vote on Proposition 112, the following editorial boards have also endorsed a no vote on the measure: Brush News Tribune Cortez Journal Denver Post Grand Junction Sentinel Greeley Tribune Steamboat Pilot The Coloradoan

Colorado Amendment 74: Compensation to Owners for Decreased Property Value Due to State Regulation d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials supporting Amendment 74. If you are aware of one, please email editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition The Daily Camera said: "Any time a city or county tries to regulate any land use, it could expose itself to a lawsuit. Any time a government seeks to enforce zoning laws or pursue affordable housing initiatives or get behind an urban renewal project, a private property owner could seek damages in court. [Amendment 74] would in practice cause untold disruptions to essential government responsibilities. If Colorado voters do nothing else in November's election, they should unequivocally say no to Amendment 74." The Gazette said: "Amendment 74 sounds like a good idea and originally had us fooled. Don’t fall for it. This proposal inadvertently threatens property rights, while paving the way for expensive, frivolous and opportunistic litigation that will waste hard-earned taxpayer dollars." The Gazette editorial board initially supported Amendment 74 before urging a "no" vote in a second editorial. The Estes Park Trail Gazette said: Amendment 74 seems reasonable at first glance, with property owners allowed to pursue compensation for a decrease in "fair market value" if it is caused by government regulation or limitation. Yet if Amendment 74 is passed, it could have far reaching implications that could ruin towns and bankrupt governments." The Aurora Sentinel said: "Amendment 74 is a misleading and dangerous takings bill that would wreak havoc on land use and development across the state and cost taxpayers millions, or even billions. Amendment 74 is a big lie. All landowners already have a takings remedy with the courts to keep local governments in check. Amendment 74 is nothing more than a sneaky end run around the tried-and-true Colorado land-use system. It only allows some landowners to hedge their bets against a loss at the expense of taxpayers." The Aspen Times wrote: "It sounds good on the surface, but there are deeper issues here. It likely would bring a flurry of lawsuits and court battles, essentially crippling local governments."

Colorado Proposition 110, "Let's Go Colorado" Transportation Bond and Sales Tax Increase Initiative d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Aurora Sentinel wrote: "Prop 110, Let’s Go Colorado, asks for a small sales tax increase in exchange for $6 billion worth of desperately needed transportation improvements near your home and across the state. [...] Prop 110 was created by a consortium of businesses and consumer organizations to raise badly needed cash for roads without bankrupting public schools or forcing college students and their parents to fund roads through massive tuition hikes. It enjoys widespread support of chambers of commerce and elected officials across the state." The Craig Daily Press wrote: "The way we see it, Proposition 110 is the clear winner. Proposition 109 asks us to commit ourselves to $5.2 billion in bonded indebtedness with no specific revenue stream to service that debt. And, while the notion of repairing the state's crumbling highways without increasing taxes or fees might, at a glance, seem appealing, the fact remains: If you take a loan, you have to pay it back. This leaves us with Proposition 110. It, too, creates new debt, but it also creates new revenue dedicated to paying that debt, and while we are hesitant to advocate another new tax, the modest increase proposed by 110 is, in our opinion, the most sensible path." The Aspen Times wrote: "These are two transportation funding questions getting lumped together. Prop 109 is the wrong way to address the funding for transportation improvements. Called "Fix Our Damn Roads," adding $3.5 billion in bonds and contributing to the state's debt is not the right road. We are for Proposition 110, which would add a 0.62 percent sales tax for 20 years and is earmarked for transportation fixes. We'll all share in the burden without messing with the state debt. In 20 years, it would raise about $21.7 billion and essentially pay as we go." Opposition The Gazette wrote: "Hear this loud and clear. Passage of the secret society’s Prop 110 means high taxes and fewer road improvements in southern Colorado. [Proposition 109] issues bonds immediately, pays for them with existing revenues, and generates more transportation money without raising taxes. Supporters pitch [Proposition 110] as a resolution to our crisis of dangerously bad highway infrastructure. Yet less than half the money would go to fix highways. No wonder they met in secret. Don’t be fooled by a tax increase so bad a cabal of special interests concocted it behind closed doors. Vote against a secret scheme to benefit a few and for a measure created in public to benefit all with better roads. Vote 'no' on 110 and 'yes' on 109."

Colorado Amendment 73, Establish Income Tax Brackets and Raise Taxes for Education Initiative d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Coloradoan said: "We support Amendment 73 in the hopes that it will provide a workable framework for meeting the needs of students and communities. But we do so guardedly. The board is not unanimous in supporting the amendment. We all like kids and we all like teachers, but some members believe this measure is not likely to make a difference in terms of academic achievement. We hope Amendment 73 is an investment is quality education. If voters pass this measure, the public should be prepared to carefully watch their local school boards and the state for years to ensure that investment is used appropriately." Craig Press said: "So, while it is prudent to relentlessly question and vet any new tax proposal, it is equally prudent to enact taxes that work to elevate us all. Amendment 73, in our opinion, is such a measure." The Aurora Sentinel said: "Colorado’s tax system is complicated, but this measure isn’t. It ends the state’s flat income tax and modestly raises taxes for those who make $150,000 or more. If the measure is approved, that person would pay an additional $6.75 a month in income tax. For those who make less, there would be no increase. As income rises past $200,000, the tax rate does, too, just like it does at the federal level. Colorado is one of only eight states with a flat tax. Amendment 73 seeks to modify it to be more like that in 34 other states, because it’s more equitable. What the measure does is raise $1.6 billion a year in desperately needed cash, and it allows local school boards to decide how best to serve their own students. Vote yes on this critical measure that offers a realistic and equitable way to raise the expectations and the results from Colorado’s public schools." Opposition The Colorado Springs Gazette said: "In the unlikely event voters approve these big new taxes, they won’t hold up in court. Plaintiffs will easily prove they voted under false and deceptive pretenses. The ballot measure’s two most egregious misstatements pose material harm, because they make large tax increases seem small. This ill-conceived tax increase also tries to deceive voters by proposing the mirage of a reduction in residential property taxes. It neglects to explain that freezing property taxes at 7 percent negates a greater tax reduction anticipated under reappraisal in 2019. Secretary of State Wayne Williams should initiate legal action to correct blatant misstatements in the proposal. Even better, voters should quash this bad idea by voting “no” on deception." The Denver Post said: "It’s with a heavy heart that we urge Coloradans to vote no on Amendment 73. Colorado schools are underfunded and there was a time, not-so-long ago, that we supported a similar income tax increase to help rescue our lagging K-12 education system. But times have changed. Colorado’s economy is booming. And the Trump tax cuts will actually mean an increase in Colorado income tax revenue. Between 2017 and 2020, general fund revenue is expected to grow by more than $1.7 billion (even accounting for the money that will be given back to taxpayers under TABOR revenue caps). We’re not so naïve as to expect that all of that money will go to better fund our schools, but we would hope that Colorado lawmakers would do the right thing and dedicate the lion’s share to increasing K-12 education funding." The Pueblo Chieftain said: "And Amendment 73 wouldn’t do anything to adjust an inequitable school funding formula that should be fixed by the Legislature. Passing the amendment might give legislators political cover to continue to avoid that critical issue. For all of those reasons and more, The Pueblo Chieftain recommends ‘no’ votes on both Ballot Issue 4A and Amendment 73." The Aspen Times said: "It is always hard to vote against any kind of education funding, and we usually promote helping out the schools at all levels. But we don't see that this will solve the problem. We know the local votes are traditionally in favor of helping education, and we feel there should be more local control of the spending. This question won't help in that endeavor."

Colorado Proposition 111: Limits on Payday Loan Charges Initiative a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Gazette wrote: "A yes vote favors capping interest on so-called “payday loans” at 36 percent annually. Without this measure, payday lenders can charge up to 200 percent interest on a $500 loan. We know, “buyer beware.” But predatory lending exploits human trauma in a way a civilized society should not allow. At 36 percent, loan sharks will remain an option for people with sudden financial needs. And at 36 percent, the borrower has some chance of getting out of debt. Vote yes for reasonable constraints on predatory lending." The Aurora Sentinel wrote: "The proposed reforms are fair to the lending industry and helps to protect borrowers from financial ruin and misery. It limits loan interest rates to 36 percent and eliminates the gravy-train fees lenders are allowed to impose on borrowers. Vote yes on Proposition 111." The Aspen Times wrote: "Payday lending is not a thing in Aspen, but it is in the valley. Currently, payday loans can charge an average of more than 125 percent, while the state has limits on banks for predatory lending. We need to pull in the payday industry." Opposition Ballotpedia had not identified any editorials opposing Proposition 111. If you are aware of one, please send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Colorado Amendment Z, Independent Commission for State Legislative Redistricting Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Gazette wrote: "[Amendments Y and Z] ensure more fair competition among candidates for public office. They eliminate political gerrymandering....Amendments Y and Z would establish one commission to draw congressional boundaries and another for legislative redistricting. Four Republicans, four Democrats and four unaffiliated voters would comprise each commission... These measures will improve our process. Vote yes on Y and Z." The Aspen Times wrote: "It is time for an overhaul of how the state's districts are drawn every 10 years based off the census. Amendment Y would look at congressional redistricting and Amendment Z at legislative. It would mean a 12-person commission that is composed of Republicans, Democrats and now independents making the decision. We believe it would be a more balanced and public decision. There are more checks and balances, and considering Colorado lawmakers all agreed to send the question to voters it shows that even the electeds see there is a time for a change. It's time to take the politics out of redistricting." The Aurora Sentinel endorsed a yes vote on the measure. Opposition Boulder Weekly said: "Additionally, there is a question about the software and data sets that will be used to draw potential maps that will then be presented to the committee. As we’ve seen with the economic modeling software the oil and gas industry uses under the auspices of unbiased data research, it’s hard to know how much influence these moneyed interests will have in the redistricting process. Although leaving redistricting up to the courts, as has happened the last several cycles, is less than ideal, these financial ties cause us too much skepticism to endorse either Amendment Y or Z. Vote no."

Colorado Amendment A, Removal of Exception to Slavery Prohibition for Criminals a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Gazette wrote: "Can anyone believe we condone slavery in 2018? At least two-thirds of the Legislature finally decided we should remove from the Colorado Constitution a provision that allows slavery as punishment for convicted criminals. We imprison criminals, give them work and try to reform them. We should never treat them as slaves. Vote yes to clean this up." The Aurora Sentinel endorsed a yes vote on the measure. The Aspen Times wrote: "This is merely a symbolic move since slavery and involuntary servitude are illegal, but it's time we remove this kind of language from our state Constitution, gesture or not." Opposition Ballotpedia had not identified any editorials opposing Amendment A. If you are aware of one, please send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Colorado Amendment Y, Independent Commission for Congressional Redistricting Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Gazette wrote: "[Amendments Y and Z] ensure more fair competition among candidates for public office. They eliminate political gerrymandering....Amendments Y and Z would establish one commission to draw congressional boundaries and another for legislative redistricting. Four Republicans, four Democrats and four unaffiliated voters would comprise each commission... These measures will improve our process. Vote yes on Y and Z." The Aspen Times wrote: "It is time for an overhaul of how the state's districts are drawn every 10 years based off the census. Amendment Y would look at congressional redistricting and Amendment Z at legislative. It would mean a 12-person commission that is composed of Republicans, Democrats and now independents making the decision. We believe it would be a more balanced and public decision. There are more checks and balances, and considering Colorado lawmakers all agreed to send the question to voters it shows that even the electeds see there is a time for a change. It's time to take the politics out of redistricting." The Aurora Sentinel endorsed a yes vote on the measure. Opposition Boulder Weekly said: "Additionally, there is a question about the software and data sets that will be used to draw potential maps that will then be presented to the committee. As we’ve seen with the economic modeling software the oil and gas industry uses under the auspices of unbiased data research, it’s hard to know how much influence these moneyed interests will have in the redistricting process. Although leaving redistricting up to the courts, as has happened the last several cycles, is less than ideal, these financial ties cause us too much skepticism to endorse either Amendment Y or Z. Vote no."

Connecticut

See Connecticut 2018 ballot measures for more information.

Florida

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Florida with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Florida Amendment 3: Voter Approval of Casino Gambling Initiative a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Herald-Tribune said: "The proposal seeks, in essence, to re-establish and codify the role of voters in the approval and expansion of gambling — long a hot topic in Florida. In recent decades, the Legislature and governor have asserted more influence over casino gambling. This amendment is intended, in part, to reverse that trend. The Seminole Tribe of Florida, which operates casinos and offers various forms of gambling, and Disney, which has opposed expansion of gaming, have contributed heavily — in their self-interest — to the committee behind this initiative. Those contributions are enough to give voters pause but not enough to warrant opposition; after all, the tribe and Disney approach the issue from opposite sides. Preserving voter control of gambling is important. We recommend voting YES, for Amendment 3. The Florida Times-Union said: "After study and interviews, we are inclined to support the amendment for three reasons: (1) We’re not confident in the Legislature’s ability to tackle this issue, especially given all the money being thrown at it from all sides. (2) Both the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters support it, a rarity. (3) The proposal isn’t automatically anti-gambling or anti-casino. Between 1978 and 2004, voters approved two gambling initiatives and turned down three. The Daily Commercial said, "YES. This amendment ensures that only voters – not the Legislature – can decide if Florida should have gambling. Preserving voter control of gambling is important. It also important to protect the Florida brand, and as we have seen in other states that have legalized widespread casino gambling, it rarely leads to the positive things that are promised up front." The Independent Florida Alligator said, "Vote YES - Amendment 3 would grant voters sole discretion to authorize expansions of casino gambling in Florida. The proposal would empower corporations with the resources to gather lots of signatures on petitions. Although it allows for a monopoly of the industry, it would eliminate the incentive casino owners would have to contribute to political candidates." Orlando Sentinel said, "But the Legislature has made a complete, confusing hash of gambling policy in Florida. And gambling interests have vast sums of money to influence individual legislators. This at least would place such a consequential decision in the hands of voters, which is why we recommend voting yes on Amendment 3." The Miami Herald said, "In effect, this would prevent the Legislature from passing laws to expand gambling or put an amendment on the ballot to do so, putting the power of bringing more casino gambling on residents." Opposition The Sun-Sentinel said: "We recommend NO. Entitled “voter control of gambling,” this is an initiative bankrolled by Disney and the Seminole Tribe of Florida that would require any extension of casino gambling to be approved by voters statewide. This amendment would protect the Tribe’s near-monopoly on casino-type games in Florida. It would prevent South Florida racinos from consolidating licenses to create a destination casino, as proposed two years ago. It would prohibit slot machines in eight counties — Palm Beach, Lee, Brevard, Duval, Gadsden, Hamilton, St. Lucie and Washington — whose voters have approved local referendums to allow slots. It would eliminate the industry’s incentive to contribute to political candidates, but that would be done better by a straightforward amendment barring campaign money from any regulated industry." The News-Press said: "No on Amendment 3: This amendment is literally a gamble. A "yes" vote means the voters decide who gets a a new gaming facility in Florida, not the Legislature. On the surface that seems like a great idea, allowing voters to decide who gets new gambling establishments in their communities. But it's complicated. In order to get a new casino, complete with card games, casino games and slot machines, a business would need to get hundreds of thousands of signatures to get it on the ballot and then hope for voter approval. This would make it more difficult for any parimutuel facility, like the Naples-Fort Myers Greyhound Racing and Poker facility, or horse track wishing to expand its gaming, to do so. This amendment would not keep the Bonita track from getting slot machines based on a referendum approved by voters in 2012. That issue remains tied up in the courts." The Tampa Bay Times said: "While it would be good to make it harder to expand gambling in Florida, this amendment is unfair. It would allow casino gambling in Florida only if voters — and only voters — proposed a constitutional amendment, which would then, of course, have to pass. That cuts out the other two means of placing amendments on the ballot, through the Legislature or the Constitution Revision Commission. On Amendment 3, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No." The Naples Daily News said: "Two important principles we embrace seemingly come into conflict in this amendment: home rule and the right of residents to decide their destiny by voting. A deeper look at the amendment, however, shows the tenets of home rule and voters’ rights are in alignment, so we urge a “no” vote on this amendment heavily lobbied by Disney and the Seminole Tribe of Florida. Disney certainly has reasons to want to rein in where visitors’ entertainment dollars will go, and the tribe that operates a half-dozen Florida casinos, including one in Immokalee, has reasons to want to limit competition. To us, home rule means it’s a local decision. Where this amendment fails is that it doesn’t give local control over whether there are casinos to local voters." The Tallahassee Democrat said: "Amendment 3 purports to put citizens in charge of any expansion of gambling, but it’s mainly a sop to Disney, which opposes all casino gambling, and the Seminole Tribe, which doesn’t want any competition for its gambling operations." Your Observer said: "While this measure sounds like it will limit government power, which it will, and increase individual freedom (the freedom to approve casinos), in reality, it will restrict Floridians’ access and freedom to gamble. Follow the money. We recommend: Vote no." The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "On the surface, Amendment 3 empowers voters. But because the amendment would be statewide, voters in one part of the state would decide whether a gaming facility could open somewhere else. This would benefit larger companies that have the resources to gather hundreds of thousands of signatures needed for a referendum."

Florida Amendment 4: Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative a

Support Florida Today said: "We expect convicted felons to fulfill their sentences, pay their dues to society and live law-abiding lives. Yet, we deprive them of a fundamental right in reintegrating them into society: voting." The New York Times said: "One hundred and fifty years after Florida enshrined this awful law, there’s only one clear way to get rid of it. Legal challenges have fallen short, the governor is no friend to voting rights, and lawmakers have limited power when it comes to constitutional amendments. It’s time for Florida’s voters to step up and restore the most fundamental constitutional right to more than a million of their neighbors." The Washington Post said: "Permanent disenfranchisement is a retrograde, racist and anti-American project. Here’s hoping Floridians heave it onto the scrap heap of history." The Tampa Bay Times said: "More than 1.5 million Floridians are prohibited from voting because of a constitutional anachronism that wastes money and deprives people of a second chance. Amendment 4, which reached the ballot after more than 800,000 Floridians signed a citizen petition, would correct Florida’s status as an outlier of disenfranchisement. The measure needs 60 percent approval to pass. Voters should have no qualms about supporting the automatic restoration of voting rights for people who have served their time and who deserve to be treated as full participants in society. On Amendment 4, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting Yes." The Sun-Sentinel said: "We recommend YES — emphatically. This is the public’s heartwarming response to the politically motivated abuse of power by Gov. Rick Scott, Attorney General Pam Bondi and their colleagues on the Cabinet. Only 992 people won clemency in 2016 and 2017, according to the web journal Florida Phoenix. Some 10,000 applications are pending. Many thousands of people seem to have simply given up. Florida’s lifetime disenfranchisement is deeply rooted in post-slavery racism — some 21 percent are African-American — and serves no purpose except voter suppression. Florida is the largest of just four states with such a harsh policy. This amendment would restore voting rights automatically upon completion of all terms of a sentence, including parole or probation, but does not apply to those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, who would still need to apply individually. The Naples Daily News said: "By approving Amendment 4, voters can tell state leaders that nonviolent felons deserve another chance once they’ve finished their sentences, including time on probation or parole. While the state appeals Walker’s ruling, voters can — by approving Amendment 4 — let Florida leaders know the state’s clemency process isn’t acceptable." The Tallahassee Democrat said: "We see no public benefit in forever forbidding felons to vote, and Florida is one of only four states that doesn't automatically restore voting rights to those who fulfilled their sentences. If we want ex-offenders to turn their lives around, we should do our best to let them fully return to society. If they re-offend and go back inside, they won’t be voting — but as long as they’re rebuilding their lives, why not let them have full citizenship? We’ll be voting 'yes' on Amendment 4." The Herald-Tribune said: "Despite having paid their debts to society, more than 1.5 million ex-felons in Florida — the largest number of any state — are denied voting rights. This is morally wrong. It is also unnecessarily punitive: Denying voting rights does nothing to protect public safety or advance the common good; it erects yet another barrier that makes it more difficult for former inmates to reintegrate into society. We recommend voting YES, for Amendment 4. Your Observer said: "Florida’s system for restoring felons’ rights is outdated and unreasonable. This amendment would expand liberty for more than 1.5 million Floridians who have paid their debt to society. We recommend: Vote yes." The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "Florida is an outlier in this realm. It's one of four states that doesn't automatically restore voting rights to those who have completed their sentences. Our state as a whole benefit when citizens who have completed their sentences can become productive members of society — and that includes voting. Moreover, Florida's current clemency system, which gives full power to the governor and Cabinet, is broken and arbitrary." Additional editorial endorsements In addition to the above editorial endorsements, the following outlets have also endorsed a yes vote on the measure: The Florida Times-Union The Palm Beach Post The Daily Commercial The Independent Florida Alligator Orlando Sentinel The Miami Herald Opposition The News-Press said, "No on Amendment 4: This isn't a vote against ex-felons who have served their sentence for certain crimes, including parole and probation, and want their voting rights restored. We believe the Legislature should be addressing this issue and giving those rights back to felons who have earned their way back and deserve to vote. Currently, former felons must wait at least 5 years after completing their sentences to ask the Florida Clemency Board, made up by the governor and the Cabinet, to restore their rights. If passed, Amendment 4 impacts 1.5 million Floridians. Florida is one of four states that disenfranchises former felons permanently." If you are aware of any more editorials opposing Amendment 4, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Florida Amendment 13, Ban on Wagering on Dog Races Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Sun Sentinel said: "YES. This effectively bans greyhound racing in Florida by prohibiting wagering on the dogs, although not on races conducted out of state. Although the sport’s popularity has been sagging along with the state’s revenue from it, state law requires Florida’s 11 dog tracks to continue racing in order to keep their card rooms and slot machines. The chief objection to Amendment 13 is that such an issue doesn’t belong in the Constitution. Trouble is, the potent lobby for breeders and handlers persistently blocks the Legislature from outlawing this brutal “sport,” in which dogs are often injured and die and are tightly caged when not racing. Amendment 13 deserves to be ratified." The Naples Daily News said: "We recommend approval of the amendment based on two principles: the state shouldn’t force a business to operate in ways that have proven unprofitable, and animals should be treated humanely. Forty states ban dog racing. Florida is one of just six states where dog racing is legal and operational. A 2004 Florida Senate report says the Legislature first authorized wagering on dog races nearly 90 years ago. Times have changed dramatically. It’s way past time to end dog racing." The Palm Beach Post said: "Two more CRC-sponsored amendments also have merit. Amendment 12 would expand ethics rules on lobbying. Amendment 13 would ban the outdated and inhumane activity of greyhound racing." The Florida Times-Union said: "This amendment would ban dog racing as of Dec. 31, 2020 while continuing to allow dog tracks to offer other types of gambling such as poker rooms. State law mandates that in order to operate certain other forms of gambling, a certain number of greyhound races must be held. The Legislature has refused to “decouple” dog racing from the other forms of gambling, thus interfering in the free market. Because the Legislature refuses to act, amending the Constitution is the only method left." The Herald-Tribune said: "This prohibition is long overdue. It should have been imposed by the Legislature but various efforts failed. There will be no significant loss, except to the owners and trainers of racing dogs, if the amendment is approved. We recommend voting YES, for Amendment 13." The Daily Commercial said: "YES. It’s time to end the archaic sport of dog racing in Florida." The Independent Florida Alligator said: "Vote YES - Ends Dog Racing would put an end to greyhound racing involving betting over the next two years. We agree with animal rights activists — the inhumane way in which the dogs are raced and treated must come to an end." The Orlando Sentinel said: "Dog racing is an anachronism with far too much baggage when it comes to the potential for mistreating animals. Reason enough for Floridians to vote yes on Amendment 13." The Miami Herald said: "But dog-racing has become a loss leader, a sideshow to slots and card rooms. Amendment 13 allows them a graceful exit from this anachronistic form of entertainment." Opposition The News-Press said: "No on Amendment 13: The proposal ends commercial dog racing by 2020, but those who bet could still wager on races occurring in other states. Forty states already ban the activity and we support animal rights groups who want to protect the dogs where accidents, death and drugging are a part of the sport. Dog racing is dying in the state and soon, because of pressure from groups, other laws will be changed to discontinue it and allow tracks, like the one in Bonita Springs, to be profitable through card games, slots and other gaming." The Tampa Bay Times said: "The proposal would outlaw betting on greyhound racing by the end of 2020, though it would allow tracks to continue some other pari-mutuel offerings. Whatever your view on dog racing, its disposition doesn’t belong in the Constitution. On Amendment 13, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No." The Tallahassee Democrat said: "[Amendments 5, 7, 10, 12, and 13] are the detritus of the Constitution Revision Commission, with little or no impact on the lives of average Floridians, the kind of multi-tasking snowballing the CRC littered its amendments with — unrelated topics cobbled together in take-it-or-leave-it propositions. For most of them, we say leave it." Your Observer said: "Dog racing is waning. Rather than clutter Florida’s constitution with provisions on dogs and pigs, let the marketplace determine the future of the sport. Its declining economics most likely will bring it to an end. We recommend: Vote no" The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "This issue should be addressed by the Legislature, not in the state's primary governing document."

Florida Amendment 10, State and Local Government Structure Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia has not identified any media editorials in support of Amendment 10. If you are aware of one, please email editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition The Sun-Sentinel said: "This piece of dirty work would prohibit any county’s voters from adopting a charter that changes the duties of certain constitutional officers or allows them to be appointed, rather than elected. It’s clearly intended to overturn parts of eight charters, including that of Miami-Dade, which has an appointed public safety director instead of an elected sheriff. It also would require Broward to begin electing a tax collector and build a separate bureaucracy. The commission tacked on irrelevant provisions to change the Legislature’s session dates, which the legislature has already changed, and create an office of counter-terrorism in the Department of Law Enforcement, which already has one. For all of this, Amendment 10 merits a resounding 'no.'" The News-Press said: "No on Amendment 10: Don't be deceived by this crowded amendment. It calls for all 67 counties to elect their sheriff, tax collector, elections supervisor and clerk of courts. Only one county, Miami-Dade, does not elect its sheriff, and only a handful do not elect the other constitutional officers. This is strictly a battle for those counties that don't elect those officers, not most of the state. The other two bundled items in this amendment are also weak attempts to muddy the system. It requires the Legislature to start its annual session in January instead of March during even-numbered election years. This is only an attempt to allow lawmakers to get out and campaign sooner. That's not good government. It also creates a counter-terrorism and security office within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Most law enforcement agencies already have versions of this. It also requires the state to have a Department of Veterans Affairs, which already exists." The Tampa Bay Times said: "This amendment would subvert local control by forcing every county to elect rather than appoint its sheriff, tax collector, property appraiser, supervisor of elections and clerk of courts — whether it wanted to or not. Those already are elected offices in most counties, but the choice should be theirs, not the state’s. Other parts of the amendment are uncontroversial but also unnecessary. It would establish a counterterrorism office within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and add to the Constitution a state Department of Veterans’ Affairs. It would make permanent the Legislature’s recent practice of beginning sessions in even-numbered years in January, rather than March. All of those elements either already are or can be handled by state law and don’t need to be enshrined in the Constitution. On Amendment 10, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No." The Tallahassee Democrat said: "[Amendments 5, 7, 10, 12, and 13] are the detritus of the Constitution Revision Commission, with little or no impact on the lives of average Floridians, the kind of multi-tasking snowballing the CRC littered its amendments with — unrelated topics cobbled together in take-it-or-leave-it propositions. For most of them, we say leave it." Your Observer said: "While uniformity in the elected offices of Florida’s 67 counties makes sense, most people also know that government is best when decisions are made locally and not dictated by the state. The crux of this amendment would reduce voters’ freedom to govern themselves. We recommend: Vote no." The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "The bundling of these unrelated proposals is ridiculous. Additionally, Amendment 10 infringes on the home rule of counties that choose to appoint their officials." Additional editorial endorsements In addition to the above editorial endorsements, the following outlets have also endorsed a no vote on the measure: The Florida Times-Union The Herald-Tribune The Daily Commercial Ocala Star-Banner The Independent Florida Alligator The Orlando Sentinel The Miami Herald

Florida Amendment 11, Repeal Prohibition on Aliens’ Property Ownership, Delete Obsolete Provision on High-Speed Rail, and Repeal of Criminal Statutes Effect on Prosecution Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Tallahassee Democrat said: "Amendment 11 is a good clean-up proposal, repealing some unnecessary or unenforceable facets of existing law. It is one of those mash-ups the Constitution Revision Commission threw against the wall, but all three pieces are worthy of approval. The first two — repealing the state’s ability to stop non-citizens from buying, owning or selling property and deleting obsolete language about high-speed rail in the Constitution – are, at worst, harmless... It’s the third part of Amendment 11 we care about. It deletes the existing 'Savings Clause,' which forbids making changes to criminal sentencing laws retroactive. Repealing the Savings Clause – something else almost all states have done — ensures that people who committed the same crime at different times serve equal sentences if the laws change." Your Observer said: "It’s not as if there will be wholesale releases of felons. This provision will give the Legislature the flexibility to change sentences retroactively. We oppose bundled amendments. But this one leans in the direction of expanding freedom. We recommend: Vote yes." The Palm Beach Post said: "Another bundle to support: Amendment 11, which deletes three outmoded clauses clogging up the Constitution." The Florida Times-Union said: "This involves two housekeeping issues and one smart justice reform that would save Floridians money and help reform lives. This smart justice reform would reduce the prison population, save the state money and provide incentives for rehabilitation." The Herald-Tribune said: "Amendment 11 would remove an old provision in the constitution that discriminates against non-citizens seeking to purchase property in Florida. It includes unrelated proposals that would add consistency to the constitution. We recommend voting YES, for Amendment 11." Ocala Star-Banner said: "Amendment 11 would remove an old provision in the constitution that discriminates against non-citizens seeking to purchase property in Florida — a law that is largely ignored. It also includes a provision that deletes language that requires criminal suspects to be prosecuted under the provisions of the law they’re accused of breaking, even if that law is changed by the Legislature. And it repeals an old amendment — the bullet train — that voters repealed. We recommend voting YES on Amendment 11." Orlando Sentinel said: "Amendment 11 basically cleans up some outdated parts of the constitution, including a particularly ugly, century-old provision that allows that Legislature to prevent noncitizens from owning property. The constitution is no place for xenophobia, which is reason enough to vote yes on Amendment 11." Opposition The Sun-Sentinel said: "NO. From the revision commission. The major effect would be to allow the Legislature to reduce penalties for crimes committed before the repeal of a criminal law. The practical effects are unclear and the NRA’s reported interest in this provision is of serious concern. It’s combined with the repeal of two obsolete and harmless provisions that could await another day. Again, if the language and intent of an amendment aren’t perfectly clear, vote no." The News-Press said: "This is another amendment that will confuse voters because of its many moving parts on deletions and repeals of constitutional items. Most of what is in this bundled amendment should not be constitutional issues in the first place." The Tampa Bay Times said: "This amendment, among other things, would allow lawmakers to make some changes to criminal laws retroactive. Some gun-rights groups see this as a way to ensure that the revised Stand Your Ground law, which requires prosecutors, not defendants, to meet the burden of proof in pretrial hearings, could be applied retroactively. Other elements of the amendment would repeal a nearly century-old provision in the Constitution barring immigrants who aren’t eligible for citizenship from owning property in Florida. It also would erase a constitutional amendment ordering the construction of a high-speed train that voters already voted to repeal. Those final two elements are house-keeping measures, but the proposed retroactivity of criminal law changes makes this a non-starter for the Constitution. On Amendment 11, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No." The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "While these three proposals are reasonable on their own — each represents a sensible "cleaning up" of constitutional language — we are opposed to the Constitution Revision Commission's practice of bundling them into one amendment." The Daily Commercial said, "NO. This would revise the Constitution to remove some language, including a provision that stops “aliens ineligible for citizenship” from owning property and wording approving a high-speed rail system. It would also remove the state’s Savings Clause, which prohibits retroactively applying the amendment of a criminal statute to sentencing for a crime committed before the change, and clarify that repealing a criminal statute would not necessarily affect the prosecution of that crime committed previously." The Independent Florida Alligator said, "Vote NO - Amendment 11 prevents “aliens inevitable for citizenship” from owning property. It allows applying an updated version of a criminal statute to sentencing a crime committed before the update. Put simply, it allows for a judge to apply a harsher sentence to a crime that has already been committed, and continue a prosecution under a statute that has already been repealed." The Miami Herald said, "Yes, making the Constitution’s language less archaic would be welcomed, but this amendment represents too much messing with the state document. Sounds more like mischief, and we don’t know what problem is being solved. Give this the thumbs-down."

Florida Amendment 9, Ban Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling and Ban Vaping in Enclosed Indoor Workplaces Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Sun-Sentinel said: "We recommend YES. More logrolling by the Constitution Revision Commission, but with no apparent harmful effects. It bars offshore oil and gas drilling in Florida waters — but not pipelines or surface transport through those waters — and extends the existing ban on smoking in workplaces to vaping devices." The Palm Beach Post said: "Amendment 9 is one bundle that deserves support. It prohibits oil drilling in state waters off the Florida coast, which would protect waters about nine miles out, but not federally controlled waters beyond the state boundaries. For some reason, it’s coupled with a ban on vaping similar to that on smoking tobacco in indoor workplaces." The Herald-Tribune said: "The bundling of two unrelated provisions in this amendment has drawn criticism. Nevertheless, both components are important and worthy of approval. The vaping proposal is consistent with a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2002, banning tobacco smoking in public workplaces, restaurants and indoor areas. Extending that prohibition to vaping, in light of the deleterious health effects of secondhand inhalation, is justified. The proposed ban on oil and gas drilling in state waters, 10 miles off Florida’s Gulf coast and three miles off the Atlantic coast, offers crucial protections to the state’s environment and economy. Florida has had longstanding, bipartisan opposition to drilling in both state and federal waters, especially off the Gulf Coast. Don’t let concerns about bundling prevent passage of this measure. We vigorously recommend voting YES, for Amendment 9." Ocala.com said: "Amendment 9 would ban oil and gas drilling beneath state waters and prohibit electronic vaping devices in indoor workplaces. The bundling of two unrelated provisions in this amendment has drawn criticism... both components are important and worthy of approval.The vaping proposal is consistent with a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2002, banning tobacco smoking in public workplaces, restaurants and indoor areas. Extending that prohibition to vaping, in light of the deleterious health effects of secondhand inhalation, is justified. The proposed ban on oil and gas drilling in state waters, 10 miles off Florida’s Gulf coast and three miles off the Atlantic coast, offers crucial protections to the state’s environment and economy." Miami Herald said: "This is an easy one for most Floridians, especially those in South Florida. The amendment prohibits oil drilling beneath waters controlled by Florida, and in another example of amendment bundling, it also bans the use of e-cigarettes, also known as vaping, at indoor workplaces. That works, too." Florida Today said: "While we disagree with bundling different proposals together, Florida's economy relies on keeping our coastal waters healthy. Smoking indoors is already banned, so it makes sense ban to e-cigarettes as well." The Independent Florida Alligator said: "Vote YES - Amendment 9 bans offshore drilling that poses an environmental hazard for Florida. It is bundled with a ban on vaping inside workplaces, which is a benign side effect to increased environmental protection." The Orlando Sentinel said: "The proposal would ban drilling and exploration about nine miles off the western and southern coastlines and at least three miles off the eastern coastline. It includes bays, estuaries and other waterways. Good. Florida’s been fighting this battle for too long. Make it part of the constitution and be done with it. The ban on e-cigarettes inside restaurants and other workplaces just updates an existing ban on smoking that was passed before vaping came along." The Miami Herald said: "This is an easy one for most Floridians, especially those in South Florida. The amendment prohibits oil drilling beneath waters controlled by Florida, and in another example of amendment bundling, it also bans the use of e-cigarettes, also known as vaping, at indoor workplaces. That works, too." Opposition The News-Press said: "No on Amendment 9: This CRC amendment has a tremendous environmental component, banning oil and gas drilling in state-controlled, offshore waters. It doesn’t block transport of oil or gas from federal territorial waters through state waters to Florida’s ports. Then the amendment turns to absurd, prohibiting the indoor use of e-cigarettes and vaping devices. Vaping should not be part of this amendment and should be regulated by the Legislature. Because of vaping, this amendment should not pass." The Tampa Bay Times said: "This is the oddest combination of issues. It would prohibit vaping (the use of e-cigarettes) at indoor workplaces and ban oil drilling beneath waters controlled by Florida. Offshore drilling should be banned, but this strange juxtaposition of issues has no place in Florida’s Constitution. On Amendment 9, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No." The Tallahassee Democrat said: "The panel connected the prohibition of vaping in the workplace to offshore drilling in Amendment 9, a strained effort to connect clean air and clean water. Does a vaping ban belong in Florida’s Constitution? We say no." Your Observer said: "To put a constitutional ban on smoking and vaping in the workplace is discrimination and government intrusion into individual freedom... A constitutional ban would prevent any drilling. Both of these measures should be addressed legislatively, not in the constitution. We recommend: Vote no." The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "While our editorial board opposes offshore drilling in state waters, we also are philosophically opposed to the Constitution Revision Commission's "bundling" of these unrelated issues into a single amendment." Additional editorial endorsements In addition to the above editorial endorsements, the following outlets have also endorsed a no vote on the measure: The Florida Times-Union The Daily Commercial

Florida Amendment 5: Two-Thirds Vote of Legislature to Increase Taxes or Fees Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Your Observer said: "This amendment passes both of our tests: It will limit government power, which means it also will increase individual liberty. Nothing more needs to be said. Except …You’re likely to hear opponents to this measure say state lawmakers should be afforded flexibility — especially in times of financial crises, such as economic recessions. Don’t buy it. This measure won’t prohibit the Legislature from spending. Indeed, over the past five years, while the Legislature cut taxes, it also increased spending 31%, almost twice the national state average of 18%. Here’s a proven fact: States with falling tax burdens always show faster economic growth and higher per-capita income growth than states with rising tax burdens. As long as Florida remains a low-tax state, the economy will continue to grow, generating more and more revenue for the government, negating the need for tax increases. We recommend: Vote yes." Opposition The Sun-Sentinel said: "We recommend NO — emphatically. It requires two-thirds supermajorities in the Florida House and Senate to raise state taxes or fees, adopt new ones or reduce or eliminate any tax exemption. House Speaker Richard Corcoran muscled this through the Legislature when he was planning to run for governor. It would give a minority of the Legislature a permanent stranglehold on Florida’s future, condemn the schools and colleges to eternal mediocrity, and thrust ever-increasing burdens on local governments. This is the worst amendment to come from the Legislature in the 51 years since the court-ordered end of malapportionment, which allowed rural counties with fewer than 18 percent of the people to elect majorities of both houses. South Florida needs the state to invest in big-ticket items to address sea-level rise and traffic congestion. If this amendment passes, inland or small counties could dictate what happens in coastal or urban counties, the drivers of our state’s economy." The News-Press said: "No on Amendment 5: This amendment would require a two-thirds vote in the Florida House and Senate to raise taxes, but the amendment does not have enough teeth. The reason: your counties and cities, as well as school districts and other special districts, control most of your tax dollars. The amendment also stops a typical legislative technique of adding tax and fee increases onto other legislative bills, but the House and Senate are usually creative enough to find ways to add those fees." The Tampa Bay Times said: "This measure would make it harder for future legislatures to raise or impose taxes by requiring a two-thirds vote rather than a simple majority. The likely effect would be to make it nearly impossible to raise taxes even in times of crisis. On Amendment 5, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No." The Naples Daily News said: "Amendment 5 would require a two-thirds vote in both the Florida House and Senate to raise taxes or fees, not just a majority. This historically hasn’t been an issue so arguably it’s an amendment put on a crowded ballot by state lawmakers in an election year. More important than this amendment is for state leaders to adhere to the land acquisition funding formula voters passed, adequately fund traditional public schools, stop raiding affordable housing trust funds and fix Florida’s embarrassing No. 50 ranking in per capita mental health funding." The Tallahassee Democrat said: "[Amendments 5, 7, 10, 12, and 13] are the detritus of the Constitution Revision Commission, with little or no impact on the lives of average Floridians, the kind of multi-tasking snowballing the CRC littered its amendments with — unrelated topics cobbled together in take-it-or-leave-it propositions. For most of them, we say leave it." The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "It would allow the minority to kill a proposal, awarding a relatively small number of lawmakers power over the entire 160-member Legislature." Additional editorial endorsements In addition to the above editorial endorsements, the following outlets have also endorsed a no vote on the measure: The Florida Times-Union The Herald-Tribune The Daily Commercial The Independent Florida Alligator Orlando Sentinel The Miami Herald

Florida Amendment 12, Lobbying Restrictions Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Sun-Sentinel said: "This amendment from the commission bars state officials — including agency heads, judges and local elected officials — from becoming paid lobbyists before local, state or federal agencies. (They could still lobby in connection with their official duties.) It would prohibit them from lobbying their former agencies until six years after they have left office. Presently, legislators, governors and Cabinet members must sit out two years before lobbying their former colleagues, but that hasn’t stopped lobbying firms from hiring former lawmakers to give “advice” while the two-year clock runs. The main objection to Amendment 12 is that six years is too drastic and would discourage qualified people from running for office. But if your motive for running is to become a lobbyist, perhaps “public service” isn’t your proper calling. We recommend a yes vote." The Naples Daily News said: "This amendment alone won’t clean up all that can be addressed to improve government ethics in the state. Campaign finance reform to control the influence of money on political campaigns and the meting out of harsher, quicker and more frequent penalties by the Florida Ethics Commission also would help. Amendment 12 is an improvement, however, and deserves a 'yes' vote." The Palm Beach Post said: "Two more CRC-sponsored amendments also have merit. Amendment 12 would expand ethics rules on lobbying. Amendment 13 would ban the outdated and inhumane activity of greyhound racing." The Herald-Tribune said: "The lobby industry has grown exponentially in recent years, providing greater and more lucrative opportunities for state officials to leverage their influence and public office for personal financial gain. ... Legislators and other elected officials are not going to advance the cause of ethics reform; it’s up to voters to assert their will. We strongly recommend voting YES, for Amendment 12." Ocala Star-Banner said: "The lobby industry has grown exponentially in recent years, providing greater and more lucrative opportunities for state officials to leverage their influence and public office for personal financial gain. As Gaetz noted, legislators and other elected officials are not going to advance the cause of ethics reform; it’s up to voters to assert their will. We recommend voting YES on Amendment 12." The Independent Florida Alligator said: "Vote YES - The Lobbying and Abuse of Office by Public Officers Amendment would bar public officials from lobbying while in office and six years afterward and prevent current officeholders from profiting from their position." The Orlando Sentinel said: "Considering the lack of trust in government today, it’s hard to imagine what the downside to this amendment is. This largely stops the revolving door that leads from public service to private profit. To increase public trust in government, vote yes on Amendment 12." The Miami Herald said: "However, we’ve seen too many lawmakers skirt even that rule by acting as, say, paid consultants before the time is up. Plus, there’s the perception, to say nothing of the reality, that some legislators are auditioning for their next job when they should be serving their constituents. Many government-watchdog groups support this amendment. We do, too." Opposition The News-Press said: "No on Amendment 12: It expands ethics rules for public officials, banning those who are officials/employees from lobbying the state and federal government during their terms of office and for six years after they leave office. The current rule is two years. Officials are not allowed to use their office for private gain and the Legislature should be cracking down on those who do through laws it already has." The Tampa Bay Times said: "This amendment would prevent the governor, Cabinet members, agency heads, state lawmakers and local elected officials from getting paid to lobby their former colleagues for six years after leaving office. Judges would also be banned from lobbying the Legislature or executive branch for six years. Although this amendment would move toward stopping the revolving door from elected office to paid lobbyist, it puts an unfair six-year burden on those who might otherwise consider public office and would be good candidates. It doesn’t belong in the Constitution. On Amendment 12, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No." The Tallahassee Democrat said: "[Amendments 5, 7, 10, 12, and 13] are the detritus of the Constitution Revision Commission, with little or no impact on the lives of average Floridians, the kind of multi-tasking snowballing the CRC littered its amendments with — unrelated topics cobbled together in take-it-or-leave-it propositions. For most of them, we say leave it." Your Observer said: "Few things irritate voters more than former elected and public officials becoming rich, fat-cat lobbyists. Amendment 12 would triple the amount of time former public officials would be barred from lobbying their former colleagues. But this proposed six-year ban can also be construed as government overreach into individuals’ free speech and pursuit of happiness. It would limit individual freedom. Six years is too long. We recommend: Vote no." The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "While we support enhanced ethics rules for public officials, we have concerns about enshrining such specific limits in the state's governing document. That would make them more difficult to adjust in the future. These rules should be addressed transparently by the state Legislature." Additional editorial endorsements In addition to the above editorial endorsements, the following outlets have also endorsed a no vote on the measure: The Florida Times-Union The Daily Commercial

Florida Amendment 7, First Responder and Military Member Survivor Benefits, Supermajority Board Votes for College Fees, and State College System Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Herald-Tribune said: "Amendment 7 would heighten the criteria for increasing student fees at universities, enhance the constitution’s recognition of state colleges and mandate certain benefits for first responders who die in the line of duty. Limits on university fees would be better addressed in law; the first-responder benefits are already covered by state laws. Although it is thus tempting to recommend against this bundle of provisions, the value of the amendment to the Florida College System warrants approval. State College of Florida, which effectively serves Manatee and Sarasota counties, strongly supports the amendment because the state colleges are the only education system not recognized in the constitution. We defer to SCF’s position and recommend voting YES, for Amendment 7." Orlando Sentinel said: "In this case, the supermajority requirement is less burdensome than the one found in Amendment 5 because boards of trustees often are on the same page and have fewer political motivations than legislators. The proposals to expand death benefits to families of all first responders bring more fairness to the system, while enshrining the State College System in the constitution strikes us as a good housekeeping measure." Opposition The Sun-Sentinel said: "A hearty NO. Another example of logrolling, it mixes restraints on college and university fees — governing boards would need supermajorities to raise them — with entirely unrelated death benefits to families of first responders and military personnel killed in action (the law already provides for some), and gives constitutional status to the boards that govern higher education. With state support lagging, the colleges need fee flexibility. The commission had no business meddling with them." The News-Press said: "No on Amendment 7: This amendment runs the gamut of the absurd. A part of it expands the protection of benefits and educational expenses for survivors of certain first responders and military members who die performing official duties. Then the amendment goes off the rails. It also includes requiring supermajority votes by university trustees and state university system board of governors to raise or impose legislatively authorized fees if law requires approval by those bodies. It also calls for a minor change in the Constitution, recognizing colleges in the state college system, which are no referred to as community colleges in the Constitution." The Tampa Bay Times said: "This is another amendment that jumbles together three issues. The fee issue is the major stumbling block here, as universities are already strapped for cash, and this would make it far harder — requiring much more than a majority — to raise them. On Amendment 7, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No." The Tallahassee Democrat said: "[Amendments 5, 7, 10, 12, and 13] are the detritus of the Constitution Revision Commission, with little or no impact on the lives of average Floridians, the kind of multi-tasking snowballing the CRC littered its amendments with — unrelated topics cobbled together in take-it-or-leave-it propositions. For most of them, we say leave it." Your Observer said: "What if one day it makes sense for all of Florida’s public universities and colleges to be governed by one set of trustees and a board of governors? If this amendment passes, that option is virtually eliminated. The governance of state colleges can be addressed through statutes; it doesn’t need to be in the constitution. This amendment is a mish-mash of good intentions, vaguely worded. We recommend: Vote no." The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "Our recommendation: NO. Again, the Constitution Revision Commission bundled three different proposals. We are philosophically opposed to asking voters to cast a single vote for multiple changes to the state constitution. " The Palm Beach Post said: "Amendment 7 is ... flawed. While it ensures death benefits for survivors of first-responders or military members, it also mandates a two-thirds vote by university overseers to raise student fees. Not smart. Who knows what schools’ needs will be?" Additional editorial endorsements In addition to the above editorial endorsements, the following outlets have also endorsed a no vote on the measure: The Florida Times-Union Ocala.com The Daily Commercial The Independent Florida Alligator The Miami Herald

Florida Amendment 6, Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights, Judicial Retirement Age, and Judicial Interpretation of Laws and Rules Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Amendment 6. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition The Sun-Sentinel said: "We recommend NO. Florida’s Constitution and laws already assure essential victims’ rights, including the right to be informed and heard at every stage. Except for occasional failures of enforcement, there is no problem that needs solving here. We don’t need this elaborate (and expensively advertised and lobbied) import from California, which erases a provision to respect the civil rights of defendants and poses a threat to Florida’s public records laws. Those best suited to judge it, the executive council of the Criminal Law Section of the nonpartisan Florida Bar, recommended against this amendment by a vote of 29 to 3. Amendment 5 also includes two separate and entirely unrelated issues, fixing judicial retirement firmly at 75 (it’s now 70, but flexible) and barring judges from relying on administrative agency interpretations of law. Bundling disparate items into a single amendment is called logrolling, and it’s a fraud on the voters." The News-Press said: "This is the first of the bundled amendments by the Constitution Revision Commission. The best part of this amendment is how it expands victims rights to due process, protections from intimidation and abuse by the accused, Modeled after Marcy's Law in California, it expands those rights, including access to sentencing reports. But as with all the bundled amendments, there is a catch. In order to approve that you must also agree to raising the mandatory retirement age for Florida judges from 70 to 75 and agree to prohibit state courts from accepting a certain agency's interpretation of a state statue or rule. Without the age change and courts ability to act on certain interpretations, the bill could make sense. With them, it does not." The Tampa Bay Times said: "This measure includes three separate issues — raising the retirement age for judges from 70 to 75, banning courts from deferring to a state agency’s expertise on interpreting a law or rule, and a series of rights for crime victims. These are each big issues that should be considered on their own merits, not jumbled into one proposal. On Amendment 6, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No." The Tallahassee Democrat said: "There are some worthwhile proposals that deserved individual consideration, such as improving victims’ rights as part of Amendment 6... If only the Constitution Revision Commission had stopped there. Instead, it linked a mandatory retirement age for judges and a legal procedural process with victims’ rights into the three-subject Amendment 6." Your Observer said: "This ballot measure addresses three disparate, unconnected items. And while all three issues appear logical and sensible, they should not be contained in the same ballot question. Regardless of the merits of the proposals, we oppose allowing one group (the Constitutional Revision Commission) to have special privileges that individuals and others groups do not have. We recommend: Vote no." The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "Our recommendation: NO. Our editorial board is philosophically opposed to the Constitution Revision Commission's practice of "bundling" unrelated amendments on the ballot. These proposals are vastly different and have far-reaching consequences that voters should be allowed to consider separately." The Palm Beach Post said: "Victims’ rights are already protected in the constitution and this measure eliminates an existing provision that ensures victims’ rights don’t infringe on the rights of accused criminals. Also, the ACLU points out that 'victims' would include corporations, which now would have the right to appear in court hearings when they accuse people of even minor crimes like shoplifting." Additional editorial endorsements In addition to the above editorial endorsements, the following outlets have also endorsed a no vote on the measure: The Florida Times-Union The Herald-Tribune Ocala.com The Daily Commercial The Independent Florida Alligator Orlando Sentinel The Miami Herald

Florida Amendment 2: Permanent Cap on Nonhomestead Parcel Assessment Increases Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Sun Sentinel said: "We recommend YES. Proposed by the Legislature, it makes permanent a provision that limits property tax increases to 10 percent, other than for school taxes, on non-homesteaded properties. The ceiling was adopted in 2008 to moderate the tax disparity with owner-occupied homes, which are assessed at about half the tax rate. This proposal passed the 2017 legislature with only three “no” votes in the House. It would not apply when property is sold or when improvements boost the value by more than 25 percent. Some local governments have been hoping for a windfall when the cap expires next year, but the text of the 2008 amendment instructed the present Legislature to propose making it permanent. Should voters disagree, commercial and other non-homesteaded properties could be reassessed at their current value next year, yielding an estimated $688 million in additional revenue from the same millage rates. That strikes us as unfair to small businesses, snowbirds and renters whose landlords would pass on the increase. A committee backing the amendment points out, accurately, that 'Amendment 2 is the only protection for renters in Florida.'" The News-Press said: "Yes on Amendment 2: This amendment doesn't change current law, but it places a 10-percent cap on the annual increase of non-homestead property tax assessments. That helps renters, business owners and consumers because a no vote means owners of these properties could see taxes on the full value of properties. That translates into higher costs for renters, business owners and their consumers, and hurts those on fixed incomes." The Naples Daily News said: "Florida has a 10 percent maximum on how much the property tax assessment can go up every year for any property that doesn’t have a homestead exemption, such as businesses or rental units. That cap is about to expire. Amendment 2 makes the 10 percent cap permanent. We hope any voter predisposed to reject the amendments pauses to vote “yes” on this. Homesteaded properties benefit from a maximum 3 percent year-to-year assessment increase, which can be even lower if the change in the Consumer Price Index is less." Your Observer said: "It will permanently limit government taxing power, which concurrently increases individuals’ liberty. We recommend: Vote yes." The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "While our board has misgivings about the permanent nature of this extension, we recognize the burden it would impose on renters and small-business owners if the 10-percent cap is allowed to expire." Additional editorial endorsements In addition to the above editorial endorsements, the following outlets have also endorsed a yes vote on the measure: The Florida Times-Union The Herald-Tribune The Independent Florida Alligator Orlando Sentinel The Miami Herald Opposition The Tampa Bay Times said: "The taxable value of non-homestead properties currently cannot rise by more than 10 percent a year, a constitutional cap that is set to expire on Jan. 1. This measure would make that cap permanent. Although it’s an easy crowd-pleaser for the Legislature to put on the ballot, the measure would deny local governments the full effect of rising property values, once again, hamstringing them. It is estimated that amendments 1 and 2 together would cost local governments $1.3 billion a year. If voters think their local taxes are too high, they can turn their local leaders out of office. On Amendment 2, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No." The Tallahassee Democrat said: "Amendments 1 and 2 are a couple of tax proposals sponsored by the Legislature, because who doesn’t like tax cuts? The latter is preferable to the former, but neither rise to constitutional amendment worthiness." The Daily Commercial said, "NO. This would permanently ensure that the taxable value of rental and commercial property doesn’t increase more than 10 percent a year. Florida should be working to make its tax rolls more realistic, not less. This would force property appraisers to pretend land isn’t gaining significant value, even when it is."

Georgia

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Georgia with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Georgia Amendment 3, Forest Land Conservation and Timberland Properties Amendment a

Georgia Amendment 4: Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights Amendment a

Georgia Referendum A: Homestead Municipal Property Tax Exemption a

Georgia Amendment 2: Business Court Amendment a

Georgia Referendum B: Include Business-Financed Properties in Existing Non-Profit Mentally Disabled Housing Tax Exemption a

Georgia Amendment 1: Portion of Revenue from Outdoor Recreation Equipment Sales Tax Dedicated to Land Conservation Fund Amendment a

Hawaii

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Hawaii with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Hawaii Constitutional Convention Question d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Honolulu Civil Beat said: "The last time Hawaii had a con-con was in 1978, and it was a watershed moment. It led to the establishment of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and other far-reaching changes in state governance. If lawmakers continue to ignore the popular will on key issues, the people can take matters into their own hands in November. A recent Civil Beat Poll found two-thirds of registered Hawaii voters want another con-con. They also want citizen initiative, referendum and recall; term limits for legislators; a statewide lottery; all-mail voting; and medical aid in dying. Frankly, it may be time for another constitutional convention even if legislators finally act on the aforementioned issues next session. An argument can be made that the state government is in need of a good shakeup after inadequately addressing massive problems such as the housing shortage and homelessness. But if lawmakers again fail to do the public’s bidding, that just might seal the deal." West Hawaii Today said: "Hawaii voters have a rare opportunity this election to take control of their government. Not by selecting the lawmaker a voter thinks will best represent him or her — though there’s always that option, too — but by sidestepping the establishment and diving directly into legislating. Chad Blair, Ph.D., a politics and opinion editor for Civil Beat on Oahu, said, 'It’s putting the power back in your hands. Because you’re not satisfied with what the Legislature is doing.' Agreed. Which is why we urge voters to vote yes on holding a constitutional convention." Opposition Ballotpedia did not find any media editorial boards opposing the constitutional convention. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Indiana

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Indiana with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Indiana Public Question 1: Balanced Budget Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Indiana Public Question 1. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition The Journal Gazette wrote: "The General Assembly has acted responsibly in approving balanced budgets for 167 years, so Pence's amendment amounts to troublesome and unnecessary tinkering with our state constitution. Vote no."

Massachusetts

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Massachusetts with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Massachusetts Question 3: Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Veto Referendum (2018) a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Daily Free Press said: "Repealing the existing law would only make everyday life more dangerous for people who already face more than their fair share of discrimination. If our state doesn’t stand by minority groups, it reflects poorly on all of us." The Telegram & Gazette said: "Transgender rights that lift the fear of discrimination from a group of people have not been an issue since being adopted in Massachusetts two years ago. Opponents who play up fears of men using a pretext to harass and attack women in restrooms or locker rooms ignore that such behavior is already against the law." Opposition The New Boston Post wrote: "Voting No on 3 simply means that only women and girls who are biologically female should be allowed to use women’s public facilities. We want to avoid the possibility that our loved ones might be exposed to a biological man who exploits this radical law, especially a man who is a convicted sex offender, which is currently allowed by the law. The safety threat is real. This law sets up a look-but-don’t-touch scenario, making it impossible for women and girls to speak up effectively for themselves until after they have been assaulted or otherwise harmed."

Massachusetts Question 2: Advisory Commission for Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Regarding Corporate Personhood and Political Spending Initiative a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Daily Free Press said: "It’s high time that political spending is no longer considered a freedom of speech. Allowing corporations and unions with billions of dollars to spend as much as they want limits the political process, drowns out the voices of everyday Americans and is to the detriment of democracy." The Telegram & Gazette said: "What motivates us in supporting the measure is the opportunity to develop a solution in which we all would have an equal say, one in which the wealthiest couldn’t drown out everyone else. It’s an opportunity to work on a solution bringing greater transparency and equality to the system. Plus the fact that, in a manner of the Electoral College, whatever emerges will require both red states and blue states as equals to agree." Opposition Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials opposed to Question 2. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Massachusetts Question 1, Nurse-Patient Assignment Limits Initiative d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Question 1. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition The Boston Globe wrote: "The Globe endorses the no side on Question 1 — and not because of the dire warnings from hospital executives who predict it will cause patients to die, force pregnant women to trek to Connecticut to deliver babies, or provoke an immediate staffing crisis." MassLive wrote: "What the ballot approach ignores is that most voters will not have the time or resources to review an extremely complex subject that affects not just medical care but medical cost and hospital efficiency. Nurse staffing is a vital issue, but it's not one the voters of Massachusetts are equipped to determine in a fact-based, informed fashion. Not every important decision should be tossed onto the laps of the voters, even in a democratic republic such as ours. This is one such example that demands time and study by people who were elected to serve us, and who have staff members to help with the research. In fact, when it comes to referendum questions, this might be the best example yet of when not to use it." The Wall Street Journal wrote: "To meet the new mandate, Massachusetts hospitals would have to add up to 3,101 additional full-time nurses, according to the Health Policy Commission. The ratios would create an artificial scarcity of nurses, driving up wages and overtime. Higher medical bills would be one outcome, though another way to meet the ratios would be to limit patients. Voters—future patients nearly all—have every reason to reject Question 1." The Bay State Banner wrote: "This proposal, if enacted, would ultimately shift the cost to patients and health insurance customers. This proposal seems to be a union ploy to frighten the public into paying more for health care. The purpose of Question 1 is to enable nurses to get a bigger piece of the spiraling cost of health care. VOTE NO ON QUESTION 1!!!" The Crimson wrote: "The effects of this ballot measure could be large and numerous, so are its complexities. Healthcare is one of this country’s most complex and controversial issues. Although we are calling for voters to vote no on this ballot measure, we are not calling for the dismissal of this issue, but rather that it be given more careful consideration by legislators — who can improve and amend it. Because of the complexity of healthcare issues, the general public is not able to make a well-informed decision." The New Bedford Standard-Times (South Coast Today) wrote: "Nursing staff levels is a complicated issue that deserves continued examination for beneficial medical outcomes, patient safety, and the well-being of nurses. Adequate nursing levels deserve input from all involved — hospital administrators, nurses, and union leaders — and should be negotiated with support from the Legislature, the way mandated ratios for intensive care units were in 2014. It is not one that voters should be deciding." The Falmouth Enterprise wrote: "Managing hospitals and health care requires specific expertise, and voters overwhelmingly do not have it. Massachusetts hospitals are required by the state to have a patient care assessment program and that program must be approved by the state Board of Registration in Medicine. Further, there is the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission, an independent board that, in addition to monitoring healthcare costs, provides policy recommendations for healthcare delivery If the entities that oversee hospitals and patient care are not doing their job, then they should be the target of reform. And that is something voters can address by sending a message to their elected representatives." The Cape Cod Times wrote: "Depending on whom you believe, the measure will either provide a desperately needed enhanced level of nursing care, or it will create a cataclysmic situation that will force hospitals to lay off hundreds of employees or, in some cases, to close altogether. However, after weighing all of the factors, we recommend a no vote on Question 1. Although the intent behind the question has merit – who does not want a more personalized level of care when getting medical treatment? – the one-size-fits-all approach to this measure seems roughly akin to using a chainsaw to trim hedges; it will get the job done, but you could easily end up doing more harm than good." Note: This editorial was republished as an opinion piece in the MetroWest Daily News, Newburyport Wicked Local, and the NewsChamber of Massachusetts. Other opposing media editorials The following editorial boards have also endorsed a no vote on Question 1: The Berskhire Eagle The Republican The Daily Hampshire Gazette The Daily Free Press The Telegram & Gazette

Missouri

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Missouri with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Missouri Proposition B: $12 Minimum Wage Initiative a

Missouri Amendment 2: Medical Marijuana and Veteran Healthcare Services Initiative a

Support Joplin Globe: "Having three measures on the ballot at the same time is confusing, but for a number of reasons, Amendment 2 clearly stands out as the best option for our state. ... Voters in Missouri who support legalizing medical marijuana should vote yes on Amendment 2, no on Amendment 3 and no on Proposition C." St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "Having dissected the three measures — Constitutional Amendments 2 and 3, and Proposition C — we recommend Amendment 2. ... So why is Amendment 2 superior? The first issue isn’t about marijuana, but our Legislature — which has a history of arrogantly reversing ballot propositions voters pass but that legislators don’t like. If voters legalize medical marijuana via Prop C, lawmakers could reverse it because it’s a mere statutory change. ... Between Amendment 2 and Amendment 3, we prefer the earmarked use of the money in Amendment 2, which will go for veteran health services, a tangible benefit to the state. Amendment 3 would use its proceeds to create and fund a cancer research institute — a goal no one would denigrate, but one that shouldn’t take precedence over Missourians’ more immediate needs." Opposition Ballotpedia did not find any media editorial boards opposing Amendment 2. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Missouri Amendment 4: Management and Advertisement of Bingo Games Amendment a

Missouri Amendment 3: Medical Marijuana and Biomedical Research and Drug Development Institute Initiative d

Support Ballotpedia did not find any media editorial boards supporting Amendment 3. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition Joplin Globe: "Having three measures on the ballot at the same time is confusing, but for a number of reasons, Amendment 2 clearly stands out as the best option for our state. ... Voters in Missouri who support legalizing medical marijuana should vote yes on Amendment 2, no on Amendment 3 and no on Proposition C."

Missouri Proposition D: Gas Tax Increase, Olympic Prize Tax Exemption, and Traffic Reduction Fund Measure d

Missouri Proposition C: Medical Marijuana and Veterans Healthcare Services, Education, Drug Treatment, and Public Safety Initiative d

Support Ballotpedia did not find any media editorial boards supporting Proposition C. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition Joplin Globe: "Having three measures on the ballot at the same time is confusing, but for a number of reasons, Amendment 2 clearly stands out as the best option for our state. ... Voters in Missouri who support legalizing medical marijuana should vote yes on Amendment 2, no on Amendment 3 and no on Proposition C."

Missouri Proposition A: Right to Work Referendum d

"Yes" vote Southeast Missourian: "Ultimately, the idea of being forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment seems to violate basic principles of freedom. If someone is opposed to things being pushed by the union, they should not be forced to support those ideas with their pocketbooks in order to remain employed. ... there are more reasons to vote “yes” on Prop A than against it." The St. Joseph News-Press: "Union membership has declined markedly over the last 50 years and today stands at less than 11 percent of the workforce, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unions may not like it, but it hardly makes sense they should be able to continue to dictate terms of employment — through mandatory payment of dues — to workers who choose not to belong. Defenders of workers’ freedom to choose will vote “yes” on Prop A and allow the legislature’s 2017 approval of right-to-work to take effect." "No" vote Columbia Daily Tribune: "Everything about Proposition A, better known as “Right to Work,” is misleading, from it’s name to its objective and funding sources. Right to work, if passed, would prohibit mandatory union participation and payment of fees for union representation. A “yes” vote on Proposition A won’t mean more freedom or rights for employees, however. It will mean lower pay and less workplace safety. That’s not what Missouri workers need or want." St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "Missouri voters should vote no and reject this blatant attempt to weaken labor bargaining rights. ... Prop A asks workers to give up too many collective bargaining rights in a Hail Mary attempt to improve Missouri’s business climate. Don’t buy proponents’ assertions. Vote no." The Kansas City Star: "Pro-labor organizations counter that right to work undermines collective bargaining and lowers wages while effectively hastening the decline of organized labor. We strongly agree. ... Making Missouri a right-to-work state isn’t the way to address what ails unions. Give workers in the state a fighting chance by voting no on Proposition A." The St. Louis American: "The passage of Prop A would make it more difficult for unions to bargain for better wages and benefits and to protect workers against workplace harassment and unfair termination. ... But passage of Prop A, over time, will weaken unions and diminish the wages for all workers, whether or not a union bargains for their wages and benefits. Only the wealthy will benefit from the passage of Prop A. Our advocacy, however, is for workers and the poor. We strongly and eagerly endorse a vote of NO on Proposition A."

Missouri Amendment 1: Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting a

Support Kansas City Star: "Corruption and ethics issues have plagued Missouri government for too long. And lawmakers have been unwilling to address obvious problems. It’s up to voters to approve Amendment 1 for needed ethics reforms in Jefferson City." St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "There is ample voting evidence that Missourians want these reforms. The tightening of campaign contribution limits in particular has been approved via statewide referendum before, only to have the Legislature reverse it. Because Amendment 1 changes the state constitution, and not just statutes, lawmakers wouldn’t be able to reverse it if it passes." Opposition Ballotpedia did not find any media editorial boards opposing Amendment 1. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Montana

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Montana with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Montana I-186, Requirements for Permits and Reclamation Plans of New Hard Rock Mines Initiative d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Missoulian wrote, "Montanans have already paid tens of millions to reclaim and treat polluted water from just a handful of mines. The Zortman Landusky mine’s acid drainage alone cost more than $27 million, and will continue to cost taxpayers $1 million or more a year, every year, forever. It closed in 1998, but Montanans are still paying and will continue to pay the costs of treating its contaminated water. Instead of waiting for another environmental disaster to occur and then passing a law to prevent it from happening again, let’s recognize that perpetual water pollution is one thing that Montana can get out in front of. We can pass I-186 and make sure Montana isn’t left with any more perpetually polluted water and perpetual public costs than the mining industry has already created here with certain short-sighted practices. Vote 'yes' on the Requirements for Permits and Reclamation Plans of New Hard Rock Mines Initiative, I-186." Opposition The Billings Gazette said: "In one hand, I-186 is redundant because Montana law already requires clean water protection plans before it issues or amends mining permits. So is there a downside to doubling down on protecting our water? Well, yes, for the future of mining in Montana. The language of I-186 creates reasonable uncertainty about how the proposed law would be applied and conflicts with the standard of proof currently in the law. I-186 won’t fix any of the historic mining water pollution that has plagued our state. It may stop new well-regulated mines from opening. We encourage voters to say no to I-186 on their Nov. 6 ballots." The Montana Standard said: "Bottom line: We believe this initiative is redundant and unneeded. Further, we believe there's an excellent chance it will turn into a litigation factory, and we certainly don't need another one of those. We also don't need to spend time arguing about whether or not this initiative will harm current mining operations. If there is even the slightest chance that it will, it must be rejected by Montana voters. We urge you to vote no on Initiative 186."

Montana LR-128: Property Tax for State University System Measure a

Montana I-185, Extend Medicaid Expansion and Increase Tobacco Taxes Initiative d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Independent Record said: "Like many of the initiative's opponents, we do not want Medicaid expansion to expire and believe the Legislature should be responsible for figuring out how to fund it. But we have also seen what happens when our Legislature is tasked with finding funding for important programs. If past behavior is any indicator of future performance, it’s unlikely that our legislators will be able to find a solution before thousands of Montanans lose their health care coverage next year. That’s simply not a chance we are willing to take. Despite its many problems, we believe I-185 is a workable, bipartisan solution to a serious problem facing nearly one in 10 Montanans." The Missoulian said: "I-185 will save lives. It will encourage more tobacco users to quit, prevent more young people from starting in the first place, and fund important health care for those whose tobacco use is wrecking their health. Vote for I-185, the Extend Medicaid Expansion and Increase Tobacco Taxes Initiative." The Billings Gazette said: "If you want health care to be available to you and your neighbors when needed, vote for I-185. Don’t buy Big Tobacco’s misleading claims." Opposition The Wall Street Journal: "Montana’s expansion has come in 70% over budget, according to the Foundation for Government Accountability. The state is now proposing to fund its expansion with a tobacco tax, which is impressive cynicism even for politics. [...] Medicaid expansion is a bad fiscal and health-care bargain that looks worse as time passes. States like Kentucky are already looking for reforms like work requirements before the “free” money drowns their state fisc. Voters would be wise to reject the phony compassion and focus scarce resources on the poor and disabled."

Nevada

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Nevada with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Nevada Question 4: Medical Equipment Sales Tax Exemption Amendment a

Nevada Question 1: Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment a

Nevada Question 5: Automatic Voter Registration via DMV Initiative a

Nevada Question 6: Renewable Energy Standards Initiative a

Nevada Question 3: Changes to Energy Market and Prohibit State-Sanctioned Electric-Generation Monopolies d

New Mexico

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in New Mexico with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 2: Independent Ethics Commission a

New Mexico Bond Question D: Higher Education, Special Schools, and Tribal Schools a

New Mexico Bond Question B: Public Libraries a

New Mexico Bond Question C: School Buses Bond a

New Mexico Bond Question A: Senior Citizen Facilities a

Oklahoma

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Oklahoma with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Oklahoma State Question 793, Right of Optometrists and Opticians to Practice in Retail Establishments Initiative d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Oklahoman wrote, "Even if SQ 793 becomes law, optometrists will still be subject to state licensure, and health and safety standards will remain in place. This undermines claims that SQ 793 will lower overall quality. [...] SQ 793's main impact will be to increase market competition, increase consumer access and lower prices for eyewear. Those reasons alone justify voting “yes” on SQ 793." Opposition Tulsa World said: "State Question 793 is a short-sighted effort to change the way Oklahomans care for their eyes. Currently, optometrists are regulated by a licensing board and given broad statutory protections against competition from major retailers. The proposed constitutional amendment would shift the balance of power to the big boys, who would be able to employ optometrists more freely, limit their practices and essentially capture their customers when they buy frames, lenses and anything else that might be on their shopping lists. We urge voters to reject SQ 793 and the Oklahoma Legislature to look at more limited statutory efforts to broaden Oklahoma’s eye care marketplace." The Muskogee Phoenix said: "Currently, if you have concerns about your eyesight, you go to an optometrist who will check your eyes and prescribe glasses if you need them. Then, you go somewhere of your choice to get those glasses. SQ 793 would allow retailers to have control of the process under one roof. The optometrist would work for the retailer. He or she would not be independent. We have a problem with that part of the constitutional amendment. SQ 793 also takes control away from the Oklahoma Board of Optometry, which is the licensing agency for optometrists. We don’t need to mess with the outstanding quality of care we have. Amending the Oklahoma Constitution with SQ 793 is the wrong thing to do." The Enid News & Eagle said: "We don’t need to mess with the outstanding quality of care we have. Amending the Oklahoma Constitution with SQ 793 is the wrong thing to do."

Oklahoma State Question 801: Allow Certain Voter-Approved Property Taxes to Fund School District Operations Amendment d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Tulsa World said: "We endorse State Question 801, which would allow school districts to use property tax money dedicated to a building fund for other uses. We favor local control and greater freedom with school funding, but hasten to point out that the proposal won’t add a penny to the amount of money available to schools and certainly isn’t the solution to inadequate state funding of public schools." Opposition The Muskogee Phoenix said: "Even with recent spending increases, per student spending in Oklahoma remains below 2009 levels. This is inexcusable and must be addressed during the next legislative session. State Question 801 is not part of the solution. We recommend you vote No on SQ 801." The Enid News & Eagle said: "Opponents argue SQ 801 does nothing to improve overall funding for education, but it potentially shifts a small portion of that burden from state to local resources. Most education organizations oppose this proposed constitutional amendment because they feel it gives property-rich districts an unfair advantage and misleads taxpayers into thinking local schools and teachers are getting more money. It’s hard to support for that reason."

Oklahoma State Question 788: Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative a

Support Tulsa World wrote, "To be honest, the Tulsa World editorial board is not of one mind on State Question 788. We are troubled by determining pharmaceutical issues by democratic vote. Safety and efficacy, judged as we have other medical treatments for decades through the FDA, are a better system. At the same time, we recognize that marijuana’s medical potential has been artificially ignored by the federal process for a variety of inappropriate reasons. We are convinced that marijuana may offer some relief to some suffering people. SQ 788 isn’t the ideal solution, but it’s the only alternative before voters on June 26. On balance, we recommend that voters approve the question, but we urge legislators to act quickly to fix some of its more troubling defects." Opposition The Oklahoman wrote, "State Question 788 seeks to make 'medical' marijuana legal in Oklahoma. The use of quote marks here is apt because the question is so broad that if it's approved by voters, marijuana would be medical in name only — ours would be the most liberal medical marijuana law in the nation. [...] We look to our neighbor, Colorado, and see the many issues that have resulted from legalization of recreational marijuana — additional tax revenue, yes, but also more youngsters using pot, more law enforcement costs, more illegal marijuana operations springing up — and don't want to see them replicated here in any way. Oklahomans should reject SQ 788." Other The Journal Record wrote, "Because it would create a statute rather than amend the state’s constitution, legislators would have an opportunity to change the law should portions of it prove unmanageable. As worded, it might, but even for recreational purposes, marijuana has proven substantially less harmful than its more socially acceptable counterparts. Pro or con, we hope voters will read SQ 788 and give it serious consideration."

Oklahoma State Question 788: Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative a

Support Tulsa World wrote, "To be honest, the Tulsa World editorial board is not of one mind on State Question 788. We are troubled by determining pharmaceutical issues by democratic vote. Safety and efficacy, judged as we have other medical treatments for decades through the FDA, are a better system. At the same time, we recognize that marijuana’s medical potential has been artificially ignored by the federal process for a variety of inappropriate reasons. We are convinced that marijuana may offer some relief to some suffering people. SQ 788 isn’t the ideal solution, but it’s the only alternative before voters on June 26. On balance, we recommend that voters approve the question, but we urge legislators to act quickly to fix some of its more troubling defects." Opposition The Oklahoman wrote, "State Question 788 seeks to make 'medical' marijuana legal in Oklahoma. The use of quote marks here is apt because the question is so broad that if it's approved by voters, marijuana would be medical in name only — ours would be the most liberal medical marijuana law in the nation. [...] We look to our neighbor, Colorado, and see the many issues that have resulted from legalization of recreational marijuana — additional tax revenue, yes, but also more youngsters using pot, more law enforcement costs, more illegal marijuana operations springing up — and don't want to see them replicated here in any way. Oklahomans should reject SQ 788." Other The Journal Record wrote, "Because it would create a statute rather than amend the state’s constitution, legislators would have an opportunity to change the law should portions of it prove unmanageable. As worded, it might, but even for recreational purposes, marijuana has proven substantially less harmful than its more socially acceptable counterparts. Pro or con, we hope voters will read SQ 788 and give it serious consideration."

Oklahoma State Question 794: Crime Victim Rights Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Oklahoman said: "The opportunity for crime victims to voice their opinion regarding plea bargains is also significant. SQ 794 would require that judges have an opportunity to consider the views of victims when weighing whether to approve a plea agreement. There have been reported instances in which crime victims weren't notified of a plea deal and would have voiced opposition. The provisions of SQ 794 appear sensible, and there is no glaring downside to mandating consideration and respect for victims of crime. The Oklahoman encourages citizens to vote “yes” on State Question 794." Tulsa World said: "We endorse State Questions 794, also known as Marsy’s Law. The measure assures limited and reasonable victims’ rights within the state Constitution." The Muskogee Phoenix said: "We view SQ 794 as not being overly burdensome but as improving laws for victims’ rights already protected within state law." Opposition Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials opposing State Question 794. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Oklahoma State Question 798, Governor and Lieutenant Governor Joint Ticket Amendment d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Tulsa World said: "We endorse State Question 798, which would provide for the governor and lieutenant governor to run on a single ticket starting in 2026. Oklahoma’s current system of independently electing lieutenant governors hasn’t produced a stellar list of leaders; but it has, at times, produced needless and counterproductive friction between the state’s two top executives. A single, unified leadership seems reasonable." The Enid News & Eagle said: "We realize merging two tickets eliminates an option for voters, but we believe 798 would help more than it could hurt. This concept works at the federal level. The practical measure requires the Legislature to establish procedures for the joint nomination and election by the 2026 election cycle, so we figure lawmakers should have plenty of time to iron that out." Opposition Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials opposing State Question 798.

Oklahoma State Question 800: Oil and Gas Development Tax Revenue Investment Fund Amendment d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Oklahoman said: "The idea behind the fund is valid, and the state clearly cannot continue down the path it has traveled in recent years when it comes to budgets and spending. SQ 800 represents a slight improvement, which is better than none. Oklahomans should vote “yes” on SQ 800." The Enid News & Eagle said: "While there is no way to control deposits in years where revenue is down, the measure is a forward-thinking approach to deal with Oklahoma’s boom-and-bust economy. It’s not a panacea, but SQ 800 makes sense from a long-term funding standpoint if the state can stand the short-term sacrifice." Opposition Tulsa World said: "We oppose State Question 800. The constitutional amendment would create a state stabilization fund to invest 5 percent of state gross production tax revenue. Four percent of the earnings and principle would be returned annually to the general fund. The idea is sound — a more stable, predictable source of revenue that is less reliant on a diminishing resource and, somewhere around the 15th year, producing more money — but the ballot language is arcane and needed follow-up legislation was vetoed by Gov. Mary Fallin. A stabalization fund may be a good idea, but this stabalization fund is ill-timed and requires voters to simply trust the Legislature to work out its shortcomings later." The Muskogee Phoenix said: "Once in the Constitution, a vote of the people will be required to fix any unintended consequences. This issue should be addressed legislatively, not by amending the constitution."

Oregon

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Oregon with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Oregon Measure 105: Repeal Sanctuary State Law Initiative d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Baker City Herald said: "We think Oregon voters should repeal the state’s 31-year-old 'sanctuary' statute by approving Ballot Measure 105 on the Nov. 6 ballot. We agree with Knute Buehler, the Republican candidate for governor, who said he will vote for Measure 105 because he believes repealing the sanctuary law will eliminate confusion and potential discrepancies in how individual counties deal with illegal immigration issues. Opponents of the measure contend its passage would encourage police to engage in the noxious tactic of racial profiling. But the 1987 “sanctuary” law is not the only bulwark against profiling. In 2015 Gov. Kate Brown signed a law — one we support — that creates a database of profiling complaints against police, and an independent task force to review those complaints." Opposition The Portland Tribune said: "Federal agents for Immigration and Customs Enforcement are supposed to handle immigration concerns, while police officers and sheriff's deputies focus on criminal matters. As far as crime rates go, statistics show immigrants in general are less likely than native-born Americans to commit criminal offenses. We agree with local law enforcement officials that they should concentrate on preventing and solving criminal violations and communicate with ICE when it is appropriate on immigration cases. Voters should reject Measure 105." The Oregonian said: "Voters should reject Measure 105, too, knowing that a no vote will help to guarantee our ever-dwindling public safety dollars will be spent on policing local laws - not those that federal agents are paid to enforce. Measure 105 supporters have relied on fear tactics, telling voters that illegal entry is a "precursor" to other crimes. In fact, simply being in the country without authorization -- for instance if someone overstays a visa - isn't a crime but a civil offense. Also, numerous studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than American citizens. As lawmakers did in 1987, Oregonians should stand together against racial profiling and reject changes to a law that keeps us all safe." The Bend Bulletin said: "Measure 105 isn’t about public safety. Rather, it’s an unfortunate product of our political moment, and it encourages people to vote mad according to their views of Donald Trump, Kate Brown, the wall, the “resistance,” the nation’s incoherent immigration policy, the proliferation of sanctuary cities, you name it. While voting mad can feel pretty good, it often doesn’t produce thoughtful policy, which is what Oregonians ought to want. For that reason, voters should defeat Measure 105." The Register-Guard said: "Oregon has been a sanctuary state for three decades. We don’t spend state or local law enforcement resources assisting federal immigration enforcement when the only violation is immigration status. If an undocumented immigrant commits another crime, that’s another matter. Measure 105 asks voters to repeal the sanctuary law. They should not." The Salem Weekly said: "Repealing the Sanctuary Law is not a constructive way to deal with complex problems. Please vote no on Measure 105." Willamette Week said: "Yes, people living in Oregon without legal authorization have broken a law. But it is a federal law, and there is an entire federal agency dedicated to enforcing it: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Oregon police shouldn't be enlisted to do ICE agents' jobs. Proponents' fear-mongering claims about criminal immigrants are so overblown they're essentially fiction. Data shows immigrants are far less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens. Reject this bad idea." The Herald and News wrote, "We still think it’s a good idea, though the board was split on it. On one hand, people who are in the country illegally are subject to our laws and when they break them, should be punished just like a regular citizen. But there should be a strict dividing line between state and federal authority. Many county sheriff’s want to see this law repealed. Yet, this is a “feel good” law, politically motivated, and the change is cosmetic. Keep the separation of law enforcement powers, Vote 'No.'" Additional editorials opposing Measure 105 In addition to the above media endorsements, the following editorial boards have endorsed a no vote on the measure: The Corvallis Gazette-Times

Oregon Measure 101: Healthcare Insurance Premiums Tax for Medicaid Referendum a

Support for "yes" vote Pamplin Media Group, owner of the Portland Tribune said, "A 'yes' vote on Measure 101 allows the democratic process to work, gives lawmakers a year to monitor the new financing package they passed last summer, avoids another divisive distraction from other pressing issues, and ensures that our state's most vulnerable residents get quality health care." The Daily Astorian said, "Forty-eight other states and the District of Columbia levy tax assessments against health care providers to fund care for low-income patients. The strategy is popular because it generates matching federal dollars. In this case, Oregon health care providers agreed to tax themselves, and insurers may not raise rates more than 1.5 percent to cover the assessment. An impressive list of more than 160 organizations in Oregon have endorsed the plan, including the medical and education communities. Given that groundswell of support, both statewide and locally, we urge you to vote “yes” on Measure 101." Mail Tribune said, "Oregon has been a national leader in expanding health insurance coverage to more people through innovative funding mechanisms and cost-containment measures. The plan adopted in July to keep that system going for two more years may not be perfect, but it is better than the alternative — putting as many as 350,000 Oregonians at risk of losing health coverage while the Legislature does battle over funding all over again. Without the tax proceeds, lawmakers would have to make painful cuts to the Oregon Health Plan or other parts of the state budget. The system of taxing providers a little to generate a lot of federal matching funds has been working well for more than 10 years. It would be a mistake to end it now." The Register-Guard said, "It’s likely that if Measure 101 is defeated, the Legislature would find a way to preserve at least part of the expanded Medicaid program and the federal money that comes with it. There’s no guarantee that those funding mechanisms would be better than the ones Measure 101 would preserve. And there’s a danger that many Oregonians would lose their health insurance, or that other important public services would be cut to save it. Oregonians should not take that risk. They should vote yes on Measure 101." East Oregonian said, "We sent our legislators to Salem to do a job and this is the job they did. If we don’t like it (and we don’t), then we should vote them out. Until such time, voters should approve Measure 101. In recent years, we’ve seen the number of insured Oregonians increase dramatically in the state. And with the help of coordinated care organizations, we’ve seen health outcomes improve, too. The opioid epidemic is lapping at these gains, however, and we cannot be complacent. Assessing that situation, a Band-Aid is better than pushing a still recovering patient back into the street." Street Roots News said, "Street Roots has endorsed Measure 101 because we know the people hanging in the balance. Hundreds of other organizations, including hospitals and labor unions, have endorsed it as well. To do no harm, Measure 101 needs to pass. Still, we support future efforts in Salem to do better, to eliminate careless spending and to find that interconnectivity on issues, challenges, opportunities and solutions that are critical to so many vulnerable Oregonians." The Statesman Journal said, "We encourage you to vote 'yes' on Measure 101, which basically asks voters to approve a plan the 2017 Legislature passed to provide health-insurance coverage for those who otherwise could not afford it. Let's avoid undoing coverage for Oregon's low-income children, seniors, people with disabilities, and other needy families across the state." The Source Weekly said, "Let's not get caught up again waiting for absolute perfection in the realm of politics. This bill will help the people who need health care the most in our state. [...] Vote against making perfect the enemy of good, and vote YES on Measure 101 this week." The Corvallis Gazette-Times said, "The Gazette-Times reluctantly recommends a "yes" vote on the measure [...] With all that said, we need to hold elected state officials to their promise that Measure 101 is a temporary measure. We've seen plenty of "temporary" taxes become permanent." The Portland Mercury said, "But we simply can’t look at what’s happening outside of our Old Town office doors and in Washington DC and think that rolling back coverage on hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Oregonians is an acceptable option. And—other than saying they “believe” they can come up with a solution—Parrish and Hayden give us absolutely no confidence that legislators will be able to plug the massive budget hole that results from a “no” vote in the short legislative session that begins in February. For these reasons, we say “yes” on Measure 101. You should, too." Support for "no" vote The Bulletin said, "Virtually all Oregonians will pay this tax if Measure 101 passes, and lawmakers will get the message: Disguise a new tax by levying it on, not the user of the service but the supplier, and Oregonians will swallow it whole. Vote “no” on Measure 101." The Oregonian said, "Oregonians should stand against the inequity of this tax, demand that lawmakers find a fairer way to meet the Medicaid obligation and vote no on Measure 101." Baker City Herald said, "Measure 101 proponents contend the taxes in House Bill 2391 are necessary to prevent major cuts in the Oregon Health Plan. But the financial data show otherwise. Voters should reject those taxes and demand that lawmakers take advantage of their other options rather than increasing the burden on Oregonians already struggling to afford health insurance." Other Albany Democrat-Herald said, "Opponents of Measure 101 say they have no desire to see any Oregon resident lose access to health care; instead, they say, legislators can find the money elsewhere. We're not so sure we want to take that risk. Legislators would have to find that money with little more than a year remaining in the state's two-year budget cycle. And there's considerable uncertainty surrounding the budget proposals floated as substitutes by Measure 101 opponents."

Oregon Measure 102: Removes Restriction that Affordable Housing Projects Funded by Municipal Bonds be Government Owned a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Corvallis Gazette-Times said: "The measure also would encourage the sort of innovative collaboration that could, over the long run, make a big difference in creating affordable housing options throughout the state. The measure comes with a little bit of risk, but the payoff for Oregon residents struggling to find a place to live could be huge. We recommend a "yes" vote on Measure 102." The Oregonian said: "Unlike the other statewide measures on the November ballot, Measure 102 is well-constructed, targeted, noncontroversial and aims to solve a pressing problem: how to stretch tax dollars earmarked for affordable housing to serve as many Oregonians as possible. Voters should endorse this common-sense fix to the constitution and vote 'yes' on Measure 102." Willamette Week said: "Just about everybody believes it's a good idea: Lawmakers in both parties voted unanimously to refer the matter to voters, and there's no organized opposition to the measure. We are typically wary of amending the constitution, but in this instance, it's warranted." The Herald and News wrote, "We vote “Yes.” Anything that will create more affordable housing and help clear up some red tape to that goal is a good thing. Auditing is important." Opposition The Register-Guard said: "The idea behind Measure 102 is a good one: Oregon should allow cities to pursue public-private partnerships for desperately needed affordable housing. Unfortunately, the Legislature wrote a flawed constitutional amendment to accomplish that end. Oregonians should reject it so that lawmakers can come back with a better version next year. The authors of the Constitution recognized the risks of entangling local government with private industry. If taxpayers are footing the bill, taxpayers should retain ownership of the final product or receive a substantial public good, not just pad private sector profits with public subsidies. The constitutional clause also is a barrier to corruption that prevents public officials from diverting tax dollars to their cronies in the private sector. Those were very real dangers in 1857, and they remain dangers today. If Oregon is to create an exception for affordable housing, it must provide adequate safeguards to ensure it is not abused. Measure 102 failed to include those safeguards."

Oregon Measure 104: Definition of Raising Revenue for Three-Fifths Vote Requirement Initiative d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Herald and News wrote, "Again, changing the Constitution makes us a bit flinchy. But government gets away with raising its fees all the time, while taxes may be kept in check. This raises the bar to take more money out of taxpayers’ pockets. We’re in agreement." The Bulletin wrote, "Needless to say, lawmakers don’t like Measure 104. Had they not played fast and loose with the original supermajority requirement, it never would have gotten off the ground. Now that it has, Oregonians should vote yes." Opposition The Pamplin Media Group said: "We agree with proponents that legislators are starting to abuse their definition of "revenue," but Measure 104, which would become part of the state constitution, has too much risk of creating its own unintended consequences. If Measure 104 were simply a technical fix to the problems created by the 1996 law, we would be inclined to support it. However, Measure 104 vastly expands the requirement for a 60 percent majority to every fee that needs legislative approval. In our view, a more precisely worded measure could close the loophole from 1996, but until then, voters should say no to further constitutional changes." The Oregonian said: "Measure 104, which seeks to make it harder for lawmakers to raise revenue, is yet another effort to write state tax policy via constitutional amendment. And like Measure 103, Oregonians should reject the measure and the flawed logic behind it. he measure, heavily backed by the Oregon Association of Realtors, seeks to enshrine the requirement that three-fifths of the legislators in each chamber approve not only tax bills, as they do now, but any proposals that result in increased revenue to the state. That includes mundane bills that increase license fees and legislation seeking to repeal tax credits or deductions. But approval of the measure would give a small minority of legislators outsized power to thwart the will of the majority of lawmakers and, by extension, of Oregonians." Additional editorial endorsements In addition to the above editorial endorsements, the following news editorial boards oppose Measure 104: Willamette Week Mail Tribune The Register-Guard East Oregonian Ashland Daily Tidings Corvallis Gazette-Times Albany Democrat-Herald

Oregon Measure 106: Ban Public Funds for Abortions Initiative d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Measure 106. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition Oregon Live said: "It's understandable that some Oregonians do not want their tax dollars used to pay for a medical procedure they find abhorrent. Yet decisions about medical care are complicated and deeply personal. They should not be determined at the ballot box. It's also possible the measure would affect whether abortions would be covered on medical plans provided to public employees, whose salary and benefits are paid through tax dollars. This would mean that the suite of health plans available to public employees could not mirror those available to employees in the private sector. Measure 106 supporters' logic also falls short with their argument that when abortions are free, more women will seek them out. In fact, abortion rates in Oregon and nationwide have been on a downward trend for years, across all age and income groups. Voters here have swatted down six past attempts to alter abortion access, making it clear they believe this a personal medical decision that Oregonians can be trusted to make. This initiative, too, should be rejected." The Gazette Times said: "This measure isn't really about saving taxpayers' dollars. Assume for a moment that Measure 106 passes, and most of those low-income women, with no other options, decide to carry their pregnancies to term. The costs of adding those those additional children on the Oregon Health Plan soon would dwarf the amount of taxpayer money paying for abortions. Oregon voters should, once again, make it clear that the state has no business interfering with these personal medical decisions. We recommend a "No" vote on Measure 106." The Register-Guard said: "An analysis by the secretary of state’s fiscal office found that the state will spend $19.3 million more on health care and other support programs if Measure 106 passes because of the increased births, pregnancy and child health care, nutrition assistance and more. Health decisions should be made by women in consultation with their doctor and, usually, their family. For some women an abortion is the right response to an unplanned pregnancy given their current financial status and life situation. It’s their choice. Oregonians have repeatedly stood up for women’s reproductive health at the ballot. They must do so again. Vote no on Measure 106." Willamette Week said: "Abortion is already safe, legal and rare in Oregon. It's also accessible to women of all income levels and circumstances. We should keep it that way." Other The Herald and News wrote, "We leave that up to your voting conscience, but don’t believe government should be making decisions on women’s health issues."

Oregon Measure 103: Ban Tax on Groceries Initiative d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Bulletin said: "Grocery companies have spent more than $2 million to get enough signatures for Initiative Petition 37, according to The Oregonian. The proposal would block the Legislature from putting taxes or fees on sales of 'groceries.' Food is a necessity and taxes on food can be among the most regressive of taxes. People with lower incomes don’t have much room to cut spending on food. And if they do, what’s cheaper is not always healthier. Of course there are likely Oregon politicians who would like to shape food choices for Oregonians. They may want to tax soda or even anything with added sugar. Don’t let them. Taxes should be used to raise revenue, not to control the population. Sign the petition if you get a chance. And next up in Oregon should be a proposal for a ban on tax and fees on medicine." If you are aware of any other supporting editorials, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition The Pamplin Media Group said: "This initiative is a direct reaction to Measure 97, which would have imposed a gross receipts tax on large companies, including most major grocers. We agree with Measure 103's proponents that there should never, ever be a tax on basic needs such as groceries (or medicine). Oregon doesn't have such a tax now, and it's hard to envision it ever would. But embedding tax policy in the state constitution is unnecessary and unwise. Conversely, the measure's definition of groceries doesn't include other basic needs, such as medicine, which leaves the opportunity for those items to be taxed by a 'Son of 97' type of measure. And that brings us to our final objection to Measure 103: It divides the business coalition that defeated Measure 97 and opens the door for public employee unions to come back in 2020 with a new measure that taxes everything but groceries." The Oregonian said: "Voters should steer clear of Measure 103 and its many unintended consequences and vote no. The initiative goes far beyond just food purchased at a local grocery store - it bars taxes on the sales, distribution or transfer of raw and processed food at all stages 'from farm to fork.' It's overly vague, leaving open to legal interpretation just how broadly a ban could apply. It would bar local communities from enacting a targeted food or beverage tax of their own, even if their community members enthusiastically support one." The Daily Tidings said: "The grocery industry wants to enact a permanent ban on any new taxes on groceries, including food and soda, and would freeze the state corporate minimum tax for supermarkets. Bad enough that a single industry should get special tax protection enshrined in the state Constitution, but this measure’s language is so confusing that it’s difficult to know what else it might do. For instance, the state Department of Justice says Measure 103 would ban new taxes on restaurant meals (Ashland’s meals tax would not be affected). The measure’s supporters insist new restaurant meals taxes still would be allowed. That confusion is reason enough to keep it out of the state Constitution. We recommend a no vote." The Herald and News wrote, "We say 'No.' Anytime you push through a law for a special interest group, no matter how well intentioned, it has consequences no one thought of. Excluding an industry from taxes, while others must pay up, does not pass muster with us." Additional editorial endorsements In addition to the above editorial endorsements, the following news editorial boards oppose Measure 103: Willamette Week Mail Tribune The Register-Guard Street Roots News East Oregonian Corvallis Gazette-Times Albany Democrat-Herald

South Dakota

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in South Dakota with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment Z, Single-Subject Rule for Constitutional Amendments a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Amendment Z. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition The Rapid City Journal wrote: "Vote no on Amendment Z. It would place an undue burden on citizens when petitioning the government for a redress of grievances." The Argus Leader wrote: "While we advocate for streamlined, well-thought-out language in state law, this measure meant to constrain proposed amendments to a single subject also unnecessarily hamstrings voters’ ability to effect change."

South Dakota Initiated Measure 25, Tobacco Tax Increase Initiative d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Measure 25. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition The Rapid City Journal wrote: "We also know smoking disproportionately involves the poor. While smoking may start as a choice, it quickly becomes an addiction. A pack-a-day smoker would need to dole out another $360 a year if this becomes law. The burden could push many to need government assistance or even prevent them from seeking technical education." The Argus Leader wrote: "Although increased price has proven to be the top deterrent to teens starting to use tobacco, this measure arbitrarily gifts what would hopefully be a diminishing source of revenue to tech schools alone, rather than to broader educational needs or toward beefing up tobacco-use cessation and prevention efforts."

South Dakota Initiated Measure 24, Ban Out-of-State Contributions to Ballot Question Committees Initiative a/ot

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Measure 24. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition The Rapid City Journal wrote: "If the U.S. Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision rejects limits on political action committees as an infringement on free speech, then IM 24 either cannot stand or cannot function. Voters should save themselves the money and the courts the trouble. Reject IM 24." The Argus Leader wrote: "Championed by House Speaker Mark Mickelson, it has already been flagged as likely to be challenged on constitutional grounds. It is concerning as a limit on free speech expression and as a move by lawmakers to limit inconvenient voter-initiated measures."

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment Y, Changes to Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights Amendment a

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment W, State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws, Government Accountability Board, and Initiative Process d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Amendment W. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition The Argus Leader wrote: "Questions regarding the presumed transparency of the new board concern us, and the proposed amendment seems more effective as a strong rebuke to state legislators than as a thoughtfully crafted permanent change to the state’s constitution."

Utah

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Utah with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Utah Proposition 2: Medical Marijuana Initiative 

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Salt Lake Tribune said: "The agreement on medical cannabis announced [on October 4, 2018] is a welcome compromise in a political climate that too often can’t find middle ground. It’s a good first step in a state that has resisted the first step. The next step is for voters to pass Proposition 2." Opposition The Deseret News said: "Getting to good legislation by passing a bad proposition rarely turns out well. The best path is for Utahns to vote against Proposition 2 and then show the nation how real compromise and commonsense solutions can be achieved. We continue to affirm being for medical marijuana and against Proposition 2 is a congruent and compassionate position. Voting no on Proposition 2, while holding the Legislature and governor accountable for passing the compromise legislation, will be Utah at its best."

Utah Constitutional Amendment C: Changes Related to Special Legislative Sessions and State Revenue a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials supporting Amendment C. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition The Salt Lake Tribune said: "Amendment C is a pernicious idea that is designed to upset a constitutional balance of power that has been working rather well in Utah for more than a century. But the question here is not about some Platonic ideal of a Constitution and Legislature, but about the known proclivities of the Utah Legislature. This is a body that already has a nasty habit of cooking up, rushing through and adopting major policy decisions, effectively in secret due to the inability of the press and public to keep up. This is a habit that would only be made more troublesome and more common if lawmakers had the power to call snap special sessions for purposes that would likely become clear only after the dirty work was done. The part of the Utah Constitution that Amendment C would fix is not broken. It should be rejected by the ultimate authority of the state, the voters."

Utah Constitutional Amendment B: Tax Exemption for Property Leased by a Government Entity d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials supporting Amendment B. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition The Salt Lake Tribune said: "Amendment B is another property tax break idea that was offered to the voters — and rejected by them — once before. It deserves to be rejected again. The idea is that property owned by those governments is automatically tax-exempt, and so the properties they rent should be, too. The claim is that it would actually save those governments some money because private owners, knowing there will be no property taxes to pay, can charge lower rents. The problem with that idea is that landlords are unlikely to cut local governments break in their rent if they get a break in their taxes. They’ll just pocket the savings. Savings that will have to be made up by raising property tax rates on everyone else. Rates charged not only by the, say, city that is leasing the property, but also by the county, school district, library and every other taxing district affected. The proposal is an unneeded boost for the landowning few."

Utah Nonbinding Opinion Question 1, 10 Cents per Gallon Gas Tax Increase for Education and Local Roads d

Utah Proposition 4: Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative 

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Salt Lake Tribune said: "After the 2020 federal census, Utah will draw new districts for its state Senate, state House and our four (or maybe more) members of the U.S House of Representatives. In past years, the process has been less a serious consideration of numbers and communities and fairness and mostly a partisan political, and sometimes just personal, act by which state legislators draw maps to advantage their party generally and some of their colleagues specifically. That’s not democracy. That’s gerrymandering... [Utah Propositions 2, 3, and 4] individually and collectively, stand to improve both our quality of life and our democratic institutions. The voters should give them their resounding assent." Opposition Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in opposition to Proposition 4. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Utah Constitutional Amendment A: Active Military Property Tax Exemption a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Salt Lake Tribune said: "Amendment A would tweak the part of the state Constitution that offers a property tax exemption to state residents who are also members of the U.S. armed forces when they are called upon to serve overseas — or just out of the state. Under the current provisions, the tax exemption is only available to those who are on duty out of state for 200 or more days in any calendar year. If the voters approve, the provision would be changed to offer the exemption to those called out of state for 200 or more days in any 365-day stretch. It would make a small difference to most taxpayers, even though they would have to absorb the taxes not paid by their military-serving neighbors. It is an idea that deserves to be approved." Opposition Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials opposing Amendment A. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Wisconsin

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Wisconsin with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Wisconsin Question 1: Elimination of State Treasurer Amendment d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Racine Journal Times said, "The ship has sailed, as the responsibilities of the office have been stripped away. All that’s left to do is let taxpayers pocket the remaining couple of hundred thousand dollars, and turn the Capitol office into storage space or give it to other staff." Republican Eagle said, "Established under the Wisconsin Constitution in 1848, the Treasurer's Office originally did hold a variety of key duties administratively, but legislation has transferred most of them to other agencies as a result of technology, specialization and, so lawmakers claim, streamlined government. Modern-day auditors, revenue officers and more have made the state treasurer obsolete, so paying the annual $69,936 salary is a waste of taxpayers' money." Wisconsin State Journal said, "So rest assured, Wisconsin voters: Eliminating the do-nothing and wasteful state treasurer’s office in Tuesday’s spring election won’t compromise good government or harm your right to know what state government is up to. Instead, it will save a little money and further the noble efforts launched a half-century ago to professionalize the main functions of state government." Opposition The Cap Times said, "This would make Walker and future governors ever more powerful. The cronies they appoint would manage state business as extensions of the governor’s office, rather than as extensions of the electorate. Accountability would be further eroded." Channel 3000 said, "This is an accountability and checks and balances issue at its heart. ... We don’t take amending the constitution lightly. This doesn’t rise to that level." The Shepherd Express said, "Eliminating the state treasurer would make it easier for politicians to play fast and loose with our state tax dollars. ... This amendment is an invitation to corruption and will cost the state taxpayers millions and millions of dollars if we shoot the watchdog."