2019 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 2019, 28 statewide ballot measures were certified for 2019 statewide ballots. The following page lists media outlets that weighed in on specific 2019 ballot measures, broken out by state and by measure.

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

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 released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia could not complete searches of all media outlets. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Colorado Proposition DD, Legalize Sports Betting with Tax Revenue for Water Projects Measure a

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Journal-Advocate: "It’s not that we’re all that enthusiastic about sports betting in Colorado... What we are vitally interested in, however, is ensuring the future of irrigation water to support Colorado’s agriculture economy, and Prop DD will go a long way toward doing that. If passed, the new law will allow sports betting in Colorado and then tax it to the tune of more than $6 million a year to help develop water storage and conservation projects. Colorado’s Water Plan is a guidebook, a road map to preserving and building future water supplies. It’s useless, however, without funds to do the necessary studies and engineering to assure success with any water storage project. For that reason we heartily endorse Proposition DD and encourage all Coloradans to vote for it." Grand Junction Daily Sentinel: "Proposition DD wouldn't fund the state's water plan in its entirety. But it would provide an important down payment for water projects statewide that support water conservation, river health, agriculture and more. These projects are critical to begin addressing the gap between water supply and demand in the face of a growing population and climate change." The Pueblo Chieftain: "Unless you have a moral objection to gambling, this is an easy one. This would bring at least some of the sports betting that’s occurring illegally out of the shadows and provide tax revenue that would help address another of our state’s critical future needs." The Daily Camera: "States throughout the country rapidly are moving toward such legalization, and the Daily Camera Editorial Board recommends that Colorado join them. ...One can oppose new dams and support Proposition DD at the same time. The Editorial Board recommends that voters approve the ballot measure and consider the dam debate as a separate matter." The Steamboat Pilot & Today: "DD, if approved, will provide a dedicated, predictable revenue stream to help address Colorado’s future water needs. ... Sports betting is going to happen whether DD is approved or not, and we believe it’s smart for Colorado to tax it and use that revenue to fund water projects. ... DD won’t provide the $20 billion needed to meet all of Colorado’s water demands, but it does create a significant down payment that can be leveraged in a big way." The Journal: "We are not concerned with vice or the morality of sports betting, just as we do not worry about lotteries. People do more harmful and allowable things, and we believe they will wager on sports whether or not the state allows, regulates and taxes it. Some of the proceeds from taxing Colorado sports betting will go to fund the state’s Water Plan, which is another pro argument." Opposition Boulder Weekly: "We don’t care if you gamble on sports. We might have even supported this proposition if it were a stand-alone betting on sports proposition. ... All we ask is that you don’t destroy Colorado’s fragile natural environment in the process. And that is what Prop DD will do if passed. Ask yourself this: What is a water project or a water commitment? We don’t know either because that is dangerously vague language. Could be anything, right? The TV commercials would have you believe Prop DD is some kind of fundraiser for open space and saving our pristine lakes and rivers. But Prop DD is actually a plan to build more dams on our rivers and more reservoirs that can be used to support more development, more suburban sprawl and more wasteful green lawns in subdivisions. ...Or put another way, how would you feel if we told you that Mr. Fracking, the oil and gas trickster himself, Josh Penry was a consultant pushing for the passage of Prop DD? Makes you wonder why that is, doesn’t it? "

Colorado Proposition CC, Retain Revenue for Transportation and Education TABOR Measure d

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Steamboat Pilot & Today: "In addition to helping to fund Colorado’s crumbling transportation infrastructure, Proposition CC would also boost funding for education, which we think is crucial to the future of our state, which currently ranks in the bottom third of the nation when it comes to per-pupil funding at the K-12 level. Proposition CC also requires an annual audit of funding, which ensures transparency and allows taxpayers to know exactly how money is being spent. We realize that Proposition CC is a De-Brucing at the state level, but we believe TABOR needs to be addressed due to the unintended consequences it has had on the state’s ability to fund core services. Proposition CC provides a mechanism to address TABOR’s flaws, and that is one of the reasons why we believe it deserves voter support." The Colorado Springs Business Journal: "Colorado’s Proposition CC effectively 'de-Bruces' the state, allowing the legislature to keep excess revenue and use it for transportation and education, instead of refunding it to residents. ...TABOR prevents the General Assembly from being able to save adequately for the inevitable economic downturn, so during recessions, the state is forced to cut services. With that extra money... we could improve roads across the state... [and] we could improve educational outcomes for students. We have a growing workforce skills gap, and voting for Proposition CC will support skills development for the future that matches the needs of Colorado businesses." Grand Junction Daily Sentinel: "These are real dollars that would go to fund real projects and programs in Mesa County and across the Western Slope as opposed to "refunds" to taxpayers in the form of a slightly lower income tax rate. ...Opponents characterize CC as a tax increase. That's a stretch in our opinion. Semantics aside, tax rates aren't being raised and voters will still be asked to approve future tax increases if Prop CC passes." The Daily Camera: "If voters approve CC money for K-12 education, higher learning, and transportation, that’s where it better go. ... Approval of Proposition CC would allow the General Assembly to do a better job of representing the people of Colorado." The Pueblo Chieftain: "Colorado’s spending on higher education ranks fourth lowest in the country. How are we doing on transportation spending? Well, you don’t need to study any rankings to get an answer to that. All you have to do is take a trip to Denver’s metro area or one of the state’s ski resorts during any semi-busy time to experience the frustration of gridlocked roads. Approving Proposition CC on the November ballot would help address all of those problems. The statewide measure would dedicate excess tax money collected above the amount adjusted for inflation and population growth toward K-12 schools, colleges and universities, and transportation needs." The Journal: "CC is effectively a tax increase. If you pay more than you should in taxes and the state keeps the overage, your taxes went up even if the rate did not. ... Most taxpayers will not miss it much, while proponents say it could raise an additional several hundred millions of dollars a year in some years, to be used for education and transportation. ...To the extent this new revenue is dedicated to infrastructure and repair, it is a sound investment that should grow in value over time." Boulder Weekly: "Prop CC isn’t perfect — despite the annual audit, opponents are right to be concerned about the direction and accountability of funds collected above the TABOR cap. But we recommend a yes vote to begin addressing critical education and transportation needs, and we think foregoing a personal tax refund in boom years, and letting that money pool with the rest of the state’s taxpayers, will produce a greater good." Opposition The Colorado Springs Gazette: "If Proposition CC passes on November’s ballot, gutting the public’s right to consent, Colorado’s economy will suffer. Politicians who support the measure will deserve the blame. Politicians want more, despite the fact they are awash in more than $1 billion in surplus money annually that does not exceed the TABOR threshold. They cannot get enough to feed their insatiable appetites for more of the private sector’s hard-earned cash. [Opposing Prop CC] means saying yes to economic growth, high employment, rising wages, robust tax revenues, and generous charitable donations. Hold the governed above the governing class. Protect the right of consent by trouncing CC on November’s ballot." The Denver Post: Colorado lawmakers can do better than Proposition CC. We recommend voters mark 'no' on their ballots. ... That money could do great things for this state if voters say yes to Proposition CC. However, we only get one shot at spending these dollars, and lawmakers simply missed the mark, especially given that this is going to be the plan for these dollars for the foreseeable future. For example, a third of the funding will go to public schools, which sounds great. But the money does not go through the normal education funding formula. Instead, the money will be doled out to school districts on a per-pupil basis, equally across all districts. That may sound fair, but it isn’t. ... Creating an ever-growing fund of money that is outside the formula will only increase existing disparities. As the funds set aside through Proposition CC grow, so will the distance between school districts that have resources and those that do not. ... Money set aside for higher education also will not go through the typical funding formula for our state-owned universities and colleges. ... We fear it’ll be spent on pet projects instead of on reducing the cost of higher education for the next generation of Colorado students. ... Yes, the state does need this additional revenue. But it’s also critical that this money is spent like the limited resource it is given voters’ unwillingness to provide alternative revenue sources."

Kansas

See Kansas 2019 ballot measures for more information.

Louisiana

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

Louisiana Amendment 4, New Orleans Affordable Housing Property Tax Exemption d

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Advocate: “Most importantly, the amendment puts decision-making power under local control, where it belongs. ... This amendment is about whether New Orleans should be able to pursue policies it deems worthwhile without being hamstrung by the state. We believe it should.” Gambit: “This amendment would allow the City of New Orleans to create property tax exemptions for residential properties that provide affordable housing. New Orleans has a critical shortage of affordable housing, and this amendment effectively establishes a pilot program that, if successful, could be replicated in other towns and cities across the state. We recommend voting YES on Amendment 4.” Opposition The American Press Editorial Board: "[I]t creates a high risk for abuse and favoritism. This state does not need more incentives for public corruption. ... [G]iving this new authority only to New Orleans could cause a rush of other parishes and municipalities seeking further constitutional amendments that want the same authority. Creating inequality in government could be dangerous."

Louisiana Amendment 1, Property Tax Exemption for Stored Materials Routed for Outer Continental Shelf d

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Advocate: “Several coastal parishes are now seeking to charge the companies tax on materials destined for the OCS. This is a novel legal approach and one that is likely to be embroiled in state and federal courts unless Amendment 1, sought by the oil and gas industry, is passed by voters. ... We urge voters to approve this amendment and restore the tax law to the status quo before this novel approach is taken into the unpredictable waters of the state and federal courts.” American Press: “Amendment 1 ... is designed to protect business property stored in Louisiana that is headed offshore from being taxed by local parish tax assessors. ... The American Press believes a vote for this amendment will help continue this area's unprecedented economic boom.” Gambit: “This amendment would prohibit local property taxes on raw materials, goods, commodities and articles stored for maintenance if those items are destined for the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). It is offered to clarify the law and avoid conflicting applications of local property taxes. We recommend voting YES on Amendment 1.” Opposition Ballotpedia had not identified media editorial boards in opposition to the constitutional amendment. If you are aware of a media editorial board position, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Maine

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

Maine Allow for Alternative Initiative Signatures for Persons with Disabilities Amendment a

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the ballot measure. If you are aware of a media editorial board position that is not listed below, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org. Support Portland Press Herald: "He’s right — Question 2 solves a small problem, but an important one. Everyone should have full access to the democratic process, and any undue barrier to any voter is an affront to a free and fair electoral system. ... And in the upcoming election, Mainers should vote “yes” on Question 2 — and help the state get a step closer in making sure everyone is able to fully participate in our democracy." Opposition Ballotpedia had not identified media editorial boards in opposition to the ballot measure.

Maine Transportation Infrastructure Bond Issue a

New Jersey

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

New Jersey Veterans’ Property Tax Deduction for Veterans Extended to Continuing Care Retirement Communities Amendment a

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the ballot measure. If you are aware of a media editorial board position that is not listed below, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org. Support New Jersey Hills Media Group, which owned 14 newspapers in 2019: “Many elderly veterans live on fixed incomes, and expenses don't cease when they move into continuing care facilities. These residents continue to pay monthly fees akin to property taxes to their respective facilities. Voting 'yes' on the state ballot question would correct an oversight in the State Constitution.” Opposition Ballotpedia did not identify media editorial boards in opposition to the ballot measure.

Pennsylvania

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

Pennsylvania Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment ot

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements Support York Dispatch: "If that happens, in less than a year, the victims of crimes will have their rights cemented into our state constitution. For folks who have been the unfortunate victims of crime, it will be a long-overdue change for the better." Opposition The Citizen's Voice: "The opponents of Marsy’s Law make valid points that most of the protections included in the measure are already law in Pennsylvania and that the expanded victims’ rights it contains could conflict with those granted to defendants. Defendants’ rights are not in place to coddle criminals. They are rights possessed by all citizens to defend themselves against the power of the state."

Texas

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

Texas Proposition 10: Transfer of Law Enforcement Animals Amendment a

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements Support Austin American-Statesman: “YES to let law enforcement officers adopt their police dog when the animal retires, cutting through red tape that currently requires a third party to facilitate such adoptions.” The Austin Chronicle: “This is also a ridiculous thing to put to voters, but so much more heartwarming! This measure would allow police dogs (or any "law enforcement animals") to be transferred to their handlers or others, for example, upon their retirement, without having to be sold as surplus public property. Who's a good boy?” Corpus Christi Caller-Times: “The humane purpose is to allow a retired service animal to live out its life with its handler. Seriously, who's against that?” The Dallas Morning News: “Police dogs generally live with their handlers while they’re in service. Voters should allow them to retire with them, too. Currently, they are prohibited from doing so because of a state law that prohibits the transfer of public property for private purposes. This amendment would change that.” The Eagle: “These animals serve us so well. When they do get to step aside, their remaining years should be with the people they know best.” Fort Worth Star-Telegram: “A police dog might put in years of service with one handler, faithfully helping protect Texans. When the time comes for retirement, the best thing for any service animal is to live out its days with its human. This amendment would ensure that they can do so without the handler paying a fee, overriding rules that require excess government property to be sold or auctioned.” Houston Chronicle: “To allow law enforcement agencies to transfer a retired police dog or other animal to a caretaker or handler without charge. That sounds smart, and kind, too.” Longview News-Journal: “We’re surprised this sensible policy requires a constitutional amendment. However, since it obviously does, it should be soundly approved by voters.” San Antonio Express-News: "The bond between these animals and their handlers is deep." Waco Tribune-Herald: “We’ve heard or read absolutely no arguments against this constitutional amendment other than utter astonishment voters even have to approve such a common-sense policy to the bloated, amendment-entangled Texas Constitution.” Opposition Ballotpedia had not identified media editorial boards in opposition to the ballot measure. If you are aware of a media editorial board position that is not listed below, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org. Overview of media editorials The following table provides an overview of the positions that media editorial boards had taken on the Texas 2019 ballot measures: Media Prop. 1 Prop. 2 Prop. 3 Prop. 4 Prop. 5 Prop. 6 Prop. 7 Prop. 8 Prop. 9 Prop. 10 Austin American-Statesman a a a d a a a a a a The Austin Chronicle a a d d a tc a a d a Corpus Christi Caller-Times a a a d a a a a a a The Dallas Morning News a a a d d a a a d a The Eagle a a a d a a a a a a Fort Worth Star-Telegram a a a a a a a a d a Houston Chronicle d a a d a a a a a a Longview News-Journal a a a d a a a a a a San Antonio Express-News d a a d a a a a a a Waco Tribune-Herald a a a d a a a a d a

Texas Proposition 4: Prohibit State Income Tax on Individuals Amendment a

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements Support Fort Worth Star-Telegram: “This amendment would boost the needed vote in each house of the Legislature to two-thirds. The bar to a major new tax should be high.” Opposition Austin American-Statesman: “NO to a measure that would make it even harder to impose a state income tax, something that is already very unlikely. This measure’s flawed wording could allow courts to kill the business franchise tax, which raises billions of dollars for public education and other programs.” The Austin Chronicle: “This would prohibit the state from imposing an individual income tax, which it of course has never done, and which has been a third-rail issue for generations, and which would already require statewide voter approval thanks to previous GOP tub-thumping on this issue, despite it being a more efficient and equitable way to fund public services. This is pure base-scratching bullshit to "send a message," by its supporters' own admission.” Corpus Christi Caller-Times: “At best, this is an unnecessary feel-good measure whose main purpose is for its sponsors to be able to take political credit for it. At worst, it's a yoke on future generations of Texans whose challenges maybe different and better-served by an income tax. We Texans pay a huge price in property tax to be able to say we don't have an income tax.” The Dallas Morning News: “This newspaper opposes a state income tax. Its absence is one of the big reasons people move here and companies do business here. The state constitution already requires the approval of a majority of lawmakers and then a majority of voters to change that. But Proposition 4 would unnecessarily require a supermajority (two-thirds). There’s no need to clutter the constitution with unnecessary amendments like this.” The Eagle: “The same stiff requirements to enact an income tax that have been in place since 1993 will remain in force. But, if Texas and Texans ever decide in the future to overhaul our antiquated tax system and put in an income tax, we shouldn’t make it harder to do so.” Houston Chronicle: “In the end, though, it’s unclear why a change is needed. What’s more, some argue Prop 4’s wording of “individual income tax” is vague enough to draw a court challenge that could extend the ban to businesses, which could cost the state billions in revenue. Why take that risk? We say vote “Against” and leave dead enough alone.” Longview News-Journal: “We oppose a state income tax but Texas already has an amendment prohibiting the Legislature from imposing one without a statewide referendum. This proposition has the feel of showboating with no practical purpose. Beyond that, we have no way of knowing how future Texans might want to fund government.” San Antonio Express-News: "It’s unnecessary and ties the hands of future Texans." Waco Tribune-Herald: “This is political pandering of the worst sort, given it’s already nearly impossible to create a state income tax without voter approval. Plus, given legislative discussions about eliminating the much-hated property tax on daily school operations, approving this amendment could have the unintended consequence of eliminating viable options. Think twice, fellow taxpayer!” Overview of media editorials The following table provides an overview of the positions that media editorial boards had taken on the Texas 2019 ballot measures: Media Prop. 1 Prop. 2 Prop. 3 Prop. 4 Prop. 5 Prop. 6 Prop. 7 Prop. 8 Prop. 9 Prop. 10 Austin American-Statesman a a a d a a a a a a The Austin Chronicle a a d d a tc a a d a Corpus Christi Caller-Times a a a d a a a a a a The Dallas Morning News a a a d d a a a d a The Eagle a a a d a a a a a a Fort Worth Star-Telegram a a a a a a a a d a Houston Chronicle d a a d a a a a a a Longview News-Journal a a a d a a a a a a San Antonio Express-News d a a d a a a a a a Waco Tribune-Herald a a a d a a a a d a

Texas Proposition 9: Precious Metals in Depositories Exempt from Property Tax Amendment a

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements Support Austin American-Statesman: “YES to ensure precious metals stored at a bullion depository will be exempt from property taxes. No jurisdiction charges such taxes now; keeping it that way will prevent these investments from going out of state.” Corpus Christi Caller-Times: “Before you decide, answer this for yourself: How is property-taxing the gold and silver you bought for investment purposes different from property-taxing your 401k?” The Eagle: “Many other states do not tax precious metal purchases and the amendment would enhance the chances the Texas depository could join COMEX, the leading marketplace for precious metal exchanges.” Houston Chronicle: “In one way, the amendment is superfluous, in that counties already don’t enforce property tax on precious metals. But by putting that exemption in law, it could boost the chance of the Texas depository joining COMEX, the leading marketplace for precious metals exchange. That’s a good thing and we urge voters to support this proposition.” Longview News-Journal: “Most states now do not tax precious metals and even in Texas such metals are rarely taxed by counties. This would standardize treatment, which is proper.” San Antonio Express-News: "It would level the playing field with out-of-state depositories and treat precious metals like cash." Opposition The Austin Chronicle: “You can put your own stash in the state's hands, and this measure would exempt it from property taxes! It's a pretty naked marketing ploy to get out-of-state goldbugs to deposit their hoards in Texas and a ridiculous thing to put to voters.” The Dallas Morning News: “But there are three problems. First, there is not currently a property tax on gold. Second, Texans need no special incentive to invest in gold or other commodities outside of the free market. And third, while all ad valorem taxation changes require a constitutional amendment, our legislators need to [find] ways to govern precious metals without asking voters to change the constitution.” Fort Worth Star-Telegram: “Proponents argue that taxes would put the depository at a competitive disadvantage, but no Texas government currently taxes them or seems poised to start. If regulation actually becomes necessary, lawmakers should handle it without altering the constitution.” Waco Tribune-Herald: “We question the timing of this given that, as we noted with Proposition 4, conservative legislators contemplate overhauling property taxes. Additionally, this strikes us as a case of the state’s picking winners and losers in that it shows bias for precious metals over other investments and economic choices. Is there even a property tax on gold?” Overview of media editorials The following table provides an overview of the positions that media editorial boards had taken on the Texas 2019 ballot measures: Media Prop. 1 Prop. 2 Prop. 3 Prop. 4 Prop. 5 Prop. 6 Prop. 7 Prop. 8 Prop. 9 Prop. 10 Austin American-Statesman a a a d a a a a a a The Austin Chronicle a a d d a tc a a d a Corpus Christi Caller-Times a a a d a a a a a a The Dallas Morning News a a a d d a a a d a The Eagle a a a d a a a a a a Fort Worth Star-Telegram a a a a a a a a d a Houston Chronicle d a a d a a a a a a Longview News-Journal a a a d a a a a a a San Antonio Express-News d a a d a a a a a a Waco Tribune-Herald a a a d a a a a d a

Texas Proposition 8: Flood Infrastructure Fund Amendment a

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements Support Austin American-Statesman: “As Hurricane Harvey and wide-scale flooding events here in Central Texas showed, disasters don’t heed political or geographical boundaries. Their massive destruction cuts far and wide and across city and county limits, showing the critical need to be ready for future damage. Prop 8 is a wise investment. We urge voters to pass it.” The Austin Chronicle: “[This] measure would create a Flood Infrastructure Fund along the same lines, with $793 million in rainy day money already included in the 2020-21 budget. This is probably the most sensible of this year's amendments.” Corpus Christi Caller-Times: “The state has no mechanism for helping local communities protect themselves against flooding. This would create one. Hurricane Harvey in 2017 served notice of the need. The Houston area got another reminder recently — Harvey-like flooding in a much shorter time.” The Dallas Morning News: “No statewide funding mechanism exists to help cities and counties prepare for flooding. Proposition 8 would authorize $793 million from the state's rainy day fund to finance drainage, flood mitigation and flood control projects. The costs of recovering from a major flood are far greater than the dollars required to take preventative steps. This fund would especially help small communities.” The Eagle: “Anything we can do to help avoid the damage we saw in recent years in the Houston area is a good thing.” Fort Worth Star-Telegram: “Voters should approve a new flood control fund, to be created with money taken from the state’s amply supplied rainy day fund. It will allow for important regional planning of projects.” Houston Chronicle: “The flood infrastructure fund would boost efforts to implement flood-mitigation plans. If passed, the Texas Water Development Board would be able to use the money for flood mitigation, drainage or flood-control projects. Houstonians need no convincing about the need for additional resources for flood control and mitigation.” Longview News-Journal: “The fund would provide loans to local entities to improve flood control. There is little risk with this program and zero cost unless a government defaults on its loan.” San Antonio Express-News: "This could expedite funding for crucial flood control projects." Waco Tribune-Herald: “Given that climate-change evidence suggests we’ll see more flooding (whatever the cause), it’s far smarter to make a stab at preventing or reducing flooding than simply assuming steep recovery costs and much heartbreak.” Opposition Ballotpedia had not identified media editorial boards in opposition to the ballot measure. If you are aware of a media editorial board position that is not listed below, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org. Overview of media editorials The following table provides an overview of the positions that media editorial boards had taken on the Texas 2019 ballot measures: Media Prop. 1 Prop. 2 Prop. 3 Prop. 4 Prop. 5 Prop. 6 Prop. 7 Prop. 8 Prop. 9 Prop. 10 Austin American-Statesman a a a d a a a a a a The Austin Chronicle a a d d a tc a a d a Corpus Christi Caller-Times a a a d a a a a a a The Dallas Morning News a a a d d a a a d a The Eagle a a a d a a a a a a Fort Worth Star-Telegram a a a a a a a a d a Houston Chronicle d a a d a a a a a a Longview News-Journal a a a d a a a a a a San Antonio Express-News d a a d a a a a a a Waco Tribune-Herald a a a d a a a a d a

Texas Proposition 2: Water Development Board Bonds Amendment a

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements Support Austin American-Statesman: “YES to allow the Texas Water Development Board to issue up to $200 million in general obligation bonds to help local governments build and improve water supply and sewer services.” The Austin Chronicle: “This is the third time the state (this time led by Rep. Mary Gonzál­ez, D-El Paso) has had to beg voters for funds to provide safe water to poor people (prior measures passed in 1989 and 2007).” Corpus Christi Caller-Times: “You could argue that providing a clean, safe water supply is a local responsibility, and technically you wouldn't be wrong. But do you want to leave economically distressed communities at risk of bad or unreliable water? Or their neighbors (that's you)?” The Dallas Morning News: “These dollars would allow the state to improve public health and provide for economic development. Approving this amendment is fiscally prudent and morally right.” The Eagle: “It is clear, though, that poor areas of Texas need state help to provide clean water and sewage removal they cannot afford on their own. After all, we are all Texans and we are all in this together.” Fort Worth Star-Telegram: “The Texas Water Development Board would be able to issue up to $200 million in bonds to pay for water and sewer projects in economically disadvantaged areas. Many are along the border with Mexico and badly need improved service.” Houston Chronicle: “Vote yes on Proposition 2. ... This approval will allow the board to raise funds needed to develop water and sewer service projects for areas designated by state law as distressed.” Longview News-Journal: “ Obviously, those in poverty areas deserve a ready, clean supply of water just like everyone else. This would improve the lives of about 400,000 Texans.” San Antonio Express-News: "This has been a successful program to ensure access to clean drinking water." Waco Tribune-Herald: “ With continued population growth, increasing industry demands and aging infrastructure, water remains a key challenge for Texas.” Opposition Ballotpedia had not identified media editorial boards in opposition to the ballot measure. If you are aware of a media editorial board position that is not listed below, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org. Overview of media editorials The following table provides an overview of the positions that media editorial boards had taken on the Texas 2019 ballot measures: Media Prop. 1 Prop. 2 Prop. 3 Prop. 4 Prop. 5 Prop. 6 Prop. 7 Prop. 8 Prop. 9 Prop. 10 Austin American-Statesman a a a d a a a a a a The Austin Chronicle a a d d a tc a a d a Corpus Christi Caller-Times a a a d a a a a a a The Dallas Morning News a a a d d a a a d a The Eagle a a a d a a a a a a Fort Worth Star-Telegram a a a a a a a a d a Houston Chronicle d a a d a a a a a a Longview News-Journal a a a d a a a a a a San Antonio Express-News d a a d a a a a a a Waco Tribune-Herald a a a d a a a a d a

Texas Proposition 6: Cancer Prevention and Research Institute Bonds Amendment a

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements Support Austin American-Statesman: “YES to allow the Legislature to issue another $3 billion in general obligation bonds to fund cancer research and prevention, an effort that is saving lives and generating economic activity for Texas.” Corpus Christi Caller-Times: “Cancer is our No. 1 killer. Take that into consideration. This entity known by the acronym CPRIT had some shady mismanagement history, but take into consideration that it's old history. Finally, take into consideration that the current fund is expected to run out in 2021.” The Dallas Morning News: “CPRIT funding has supported more than 100 clinical trials, lured about a dozen companies to the state, and laid the groundwork for billions of dollars in follow-on investing. CPRIT is the reason about 170 cancer researchers and their labs are in the state, including James Allison at MD Anderson Cancer Center who won the 2018 Nobel Prize. Such accomplishments must be nurtured to keep Texas a national leader in cancer research.” The Eagle: “All this research is bound to move us ever closer to eradicating the devastating scourge of cancer.” Fort Worth Star-Telegram: “After some initial stumbles in governance, the initiative has found its footing. It’s a good investment for Texas, but after this, the Legislature needs to find a way to ensure long-term funding without further debt.” Houston Chronicle: “After allegations of mismanagement in 2012, the institute has tightened financial controls and continued its pioneering work saving lives. The new authorization would allow the institute to plan its future beyond 2021, when current funding would run out. We strongly support the amendment.” Longview News-Journal: “Cancer is not just going to go away and CPRIT has, after some glitches, proved to be a vital force in this fight. Beyond saving lives, this generates economic activity.” San Antonio Express-News: "Texas is a leader in cancer research and this will keep that momentum going." Waco Tribune-Herald: “Some argue the state has no business involved in cancer research, but given the huge cost of health care to taxpayers and the economic benefit such scientific research can yield in creating high-tech jobs across Texas, we see it as an investment with many dividends. The Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas is the second largest public source of cancer funding in the United States after the federal government.” No endorsement The Austin Chronicle: “We of course do not oppose curing, treating, and preventing cancer. Why the state should have a stand-alone agency investing in that outcome by awarding grants instead of simply adequately funding the Texas medical schools, research hospitals, public health agencies, et al. that now compete for those grants is a philosophical question we leave to the voter.” Overview of media editorials The following table provides an overview of the positions that media editorial boards had taken on the Texas 2019 ballot measures: Media Prop. 1 Prop. 2 Prop. 3 Prop. 4 Prop. 5 Prop. 6 Prop. 7 Prop. 8 Prop. 9 Prop. 10 Austin American-Statesman a a a d a a a a a a The Austin Chronicle a a d d a tc a a d a Corpus Christi Caller-Times a a a d a a a a a a The Dallas Morning News a a a d d a a a d a The Eagle a a a d a a a a a a Fort Worth Star-Telegram a a a a a a a a d a Houston Chronicle d a a d a a a a a a Longview News-Journal a a a d a a a a a a San Antonio Express-News d a a d a a a a a a Waco Tribune-Herald a a a d a a a a d a

Texas Proposition 3: Temporary Property Tax Exemption for Disaster Areas Amendment a

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements Support Austin American-Statesman: “Proposition 3 offers a simpler and cheaper alternative for disaster relief than the current practice in which local governments reappraise every damaged property to adjust values, a time-consuming process.” Corpus Christi Caller-Times: “Hurricane Harvey and other events have taught Texas a hard lesson. Currently a property stays on the tax rolls at pre-disaster valuation until the next valuation cycle. Imagine having your house wiped out and still having to pay its full value in property tax. This fixes that.” The Dallas Morning News: “Disasters can destroy property value, and the last thing owners need is to wrestle with new valuations. This proposition would authorize the legislature to provide temporary relief for ad valorem taxes on properties after a disaster. Approving it is the fair thing to do.” The Eagle: “Hopefully, none of The Eagle’s readers will be affected by a natural disaster, but too many of our fellow Texans are devastated by floods or fires or other natural disasters and we must do what we can to help them in their time of loss.” Fort Worth Star-Telegram: “This amendment would allow temporary property tax exemptions in areas hit by disasters. This is a compassionate idea for helping Texans at a time of crisis, but the Legislature should take care to ensure that local governments aren’t deprived of funding at a time that they need to foster recovery from storms and other tragedies.” Houston Chronicle: “This is a good idea, as it will get tangible relief to affected property owners more quickly than waiting for the government to reappraise the damaged property.” Longview News-Journal: “This amendment is not as good as it could be because, while the governor declares the disaster area, it is up to the local government to choose the percentage of exemption — 15%, 30%, 60% or 100% — and the length of time the exemption would last. Better would have been to set percentage and time with a process to renew in extreme cases. However, the problems are not severe enough to reject the amendment.” San Antonio Express-News: "This would provide taxpayers with important relief after a disaster." Waco Tribune-Herald: “With the increasing devastation of droughts and storms in Texas, this is a step in the right direction.” Opposition The Austin Chronicle: “This post-Harvey disaster relief measure sounds wholesome but is messier than need be. The law it's tied to requires localities to grant tax exemptions (regardless of their post-disaster fiscal needs) to impacted properties until they next set their tax rates, after which the exemptions are optional. Is that better than the current law, under which ravaged properties are reappraised and adjusted in value? Only if you pretend that increasingly frequent and severe disaster is an unforeseeable act of fate.” Overview of media editorials The following table provides an overview of the positions that media editorial boards had taken on the Texas 2019 ballot measures: Media Prop. 1 Prop. 2 Prop. 3 Prop. 4 Prop. 5 Prop. 6 Prop. 7 Prop. 8 Prop. 9 Prop. 10 Austin American-Statesman a a a d a a a a a a The Austin Chronicle a a d d a tc a a d a Corpus Christi Caller-Times a a a d a a a a a a The Dallas Morning News a a a d d a a a d a The Eagle a a a d a a a a a a Fort Worth Star-Telegram a a a a a a a a d a Houston Chronicle d a a d a a a a a a Longview News-Journal a a a d a a a a a a San Antonio Express-News d a a d a a a a a a Waco Tribune-Herald a a a d a a a a d a

Texas Proposition 5: Sales Tax on Sporting Goods Dedicated to Parks, Wildlife, and Historical Agencies Amendment a

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements Support Austin American-Statesman: “YES to guarantee all sales tax revenue from sporting goods purchases would go toward maintaining state parks and historic sites — something lawmakers have long promised and largely failed to do.” The Austin Chronicle: “This would appropriate state sales taxes on sporting goods to fund parks and preservation efforts. That's been state law since 1993, but that hasn't stopped the Lege, particularly in the past decade, from raiding the kitty to plug other holes in its budgets; this measure is supposed to tie their thievin' hands.” Corpus Christi Caller-Times: “This is dedicated funding that the Legislature nevertheless makes a habit of raiding. This amendment would put an end to the raiding.” The Eagle: “If passed, this proposition would force lawmakers to spend these funds as voters intended — and only as voters originally intended.” Fort Worth Star-Telegram: “Lawmakers love accounting tricks that help the state balance the books. One is to keep sales taxes on sporting goods, meant to be dedicated to state parks and historical preservation, in general revenue accounts. This amendment would help parks get the boost they’re meant to have and strike a blow for truth in taxation.” Houston Chronicle: “These funds would be used to care for Texas’ wild areas, its water sources and its state parks. Our state parks need help, as current facilities ages and as our population grows. This amendment would help focus lawmakers’ attention on giving them that help.” Longview News-Journal: “This closes a loophole that should have been stitched shut years ago, but the revenue has been coveted by lawmakers to help balance the budget. This has harmed parks and curtailed growth.” San Antonio Express-News: "This is not a new tax. It would ensure sales taxes on sporting goods would go to state parks as intended." Waco Tribune-Herald: “It’s important to note the key role state parks play not only in wildlife habitat and conservation but the state economy through hunting, fishing and tourism. Voting for Proposition 5 doesn’t mean new taxes, only ensuring existing taxes touted to the public as benefiting state parks and historical sites actually do so. We urge its passage.” Opposition The Dallas Morning News: “Our parks are in need of constant upkeep as we attract more Texans. So it’s good to fund a robust parks system and historical commission to protect our architectural treasures. Proposition 5 would dedicate revenue from taxes on sporting goods to this purpose. That is a perfectly fine thing for our legislature to do, but this would bind future Texans to a taxing structure that might not make sense later.” Overview of media editorials The following table provides an overview of the positions that media editorial boards had taken on the Texas 2019 ballot measures: Media Prop. 1 Prop. 2 Prop. 3 Prop. 4 Prop. 5 Prop. 6 Prop. 7 Prop. 8 Prop. 9 Prop. 10 Austin American-Statesman a a a d a a a a a a The Austin Chronicle a a d d a tc a a d a Corpus Christi Caller-Times a a a d a a a a a a The Dallas Morning News a a a d d a a a d a The Eagle a a a d a a a a a a Fort Worth Star-Telegram a a a a a a a a d a Houston Chronicle d a a d a a a a a a Longview News-Journal a a a d a a a a a a San Antonio Express-News d a a d a a a a a a Waco Tribune-Herald a a a d a a a a d a

Washington

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

Washington Referendum 88, Vote on I-1000 Affirmative Action Measure d

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements Support for an approve vote The Columbian: "Historically, in Washington and elsewhere, it does not take much effort to find examples of exclusion based on race or gender — be it in housing, education, employment or simply the ability to procure a loan. Much progress has been made to abolish such discrimination, but it would be naive to suggest that no more is necessary. Initiative 1000 would allow Washington to continue its progress toward becoming a more inclusive state that truly provides equal opportunity for all." The Seattle Times: "Diversity makes institutions stronger, but good intentions are not enough to lift the unfair burden of societal inequality. Our public institutions must actively work to reflect the communities they serve. A vote to approve Referendum 88 would allow public employers and colleges to do so, by taking diversity into account as one factor in public employment, government contracts, and public education. ... Referendum 88 gives voters the power to eliminate that competitive disadvantage, enabling our state’s public colleges and universities to recruit a diverse pool of excellent students and faculty, enriching the educational experience of all." The Tacoma News Tribune: "The measure would give public employers and state universities more latitude when selecting candidates for jobs, government contracts, and academic admission. They’d be free to consider a person’s race, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability or military experience — as long as it’s not the deciding factor. ... Why would an Asian lobby want to derail I-1000? To defend the many Asian students who have top grades and test scores, which could be devalued under a more holistic approach to university admissions. What they want is pure meritocracy. But that’s not the world we know, nor the one we want to live in. Test scores and grades measure intelligence; they don’t always reflect the grit, curiosity, independent thinking or life experience that make public institutions richer. ... There’s a reason why 42 states have chosen not to ban affirmative action. It’s time for Washington to rejoin the ranks by approving R-88." The Yakima Herald-Republic: "This state has made many strides forward in the past 20 years, but Latinos, Native Americans and African Americans still lag in educational and economic attainment. The state’s touted tech sector sees many gender inequalities. Supporters made a strong case that ethnic and gender diversity in the education and business fields inspires younger generations to believe that they can succeed, too. ... With no quotas or preferences resulting from this measure, Referendum 88 warrants a yes vote." The Olympian: "Voting yes on the statewide Referendum 88 will help level the playing field for people it’s been tilted against. It’s a very limited affirmative action measure targeted on the goal of fairness in K-12 and higher education, government jobs, and government contracts." The Union-Bulletin: "Approval of I-88, and thus I-1000, won’t create a massive shift in state hiring and college admissions. It will, however, offer reasonable steps to allow the state to seek out minority and female candidates, which should ultimately make Washington stronger." Support for a reject vote Wall Street Journal: Those supporting Referendum 88 adopt the defense that Harvard’s admissions department has been giving: Yes, we want to discriminate, but it’s not 'preferential treatment' because race or gender or sexual orientation isn’t the 'sole qualifying factor.' ... We’d all be spared this back and forth on racial preferences if the Supreme Court would come down definitively against them instead of giving hazy guidelines. Meantime, the people of Washington have an opportunity to reinforce America’s constitutional guarantee against government prejudice based on skin color. Diversity and inclusion have been advancing in the state under current law."

Washington Advisory Vote 28, Nonbinding Question on Limiting Sales Tax Exemptions for Nonresidents a

Washington Government Continuation Legislation for Catastrophic Incidents Amendment a

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Union-Bulletin: "Voters are being asked to approve Senate Joint Resolution 8200, which updates the state Constitution to include 'catastrophic incidents' as a reason to take actions to ensure continuity of state and local governmental operations. The Cascadia Subduction Zone, a geologic fault line off the Pacific Coast that stretches from Canada to Northern California, has the potential for creating a massive earthquake that could decimate Western Washington and generate a tsunami that would inundate coastal communities, according to reporting done by the Spokesman-Review newspaper. Such quakes occur on average every 300 to 500 years, with the last one record in 1700, the newspaper reported. Again, nobody wants [a big earthquake] to occur, but if it does the state will have a plan in place to ensure state and local governments continue to function. We urge voters to approve SJR 8200." The Seattle Times: "Critics warn that the language is too broad, leaving open the possibility for abuse. They argue that more specifics are needed to understand exactly what might constitutes a 'catastrophic incident' and how government might use its emergency powers. But these definitions are clearly laid out in state emergency management statutes, which define a catastrophic incident as 'any natural or human-caused incident, including terrorism and enemy attack, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.' State law specifically excludes from the definition of catastrophic incidents events resulting from people exercising their rights to freedom of speech and peaceable assembly, which should assuage critics’ fears. While it is always advisable to be cautious when amending the constitution, in this case the rationale is clear. Vote 'approved' on SJR 8200." The Columbian: "Possible threats to a functioning state government have changed since the Cold War, and the state constitution should reflect those changes. The Columbian Editorial Board recommends a 'yes' vote on Senate Joint Resolution 8200 for the Nov. 5 election. ...We hope that never is necessary; but, as they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Modern threats are different than they were nearly six decades ago, with the prospect of terrorism or natural disaster supplanting a Cold War nuclear attack in the public consciousness. The state constitution should reflect that." Opposition Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials opposing SJR-8200.

Washington Advisory Vote 23, Nonbinding Question on E-Cigarette and Vapor Product Tax a

Washington Advisory Vote 24, Nonbinding Question on Business Activities Tax to Fund Higher Education Programs d

Washington Advisory Vote 25, Nonbinding Question Concerning a Tax on Certain Financial Institutions d

Washington Advisory Vote 20, Nonbinding Question on Tax to Fund Long-Term Healthcare Services d

Washington Advisory Vote 27, Nonbinding Question on Petroleum Product Tax d

Washington Advisory Vote 26, Nonbinding Question on Online Retail Sales Tax d

Washington Advisory Vote 31, Nonbinding Question on an International Investment Management Services Tax Increase a

Washington Advisory Vote 22, Nonbinding Question on Paint Tax to Fund Paint Waste Management Programs d

Washington Advisory Vote 29, Nonbinding Question Concerning an Excise Tax on Real Property d

Washington Initiative 976, Limits on Motor Vehicle Taxes and Fees Measure a/ot

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of I-976. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org. Opposition The Seattle Times: "The real-life Initiative 976 is a direct threat to Washington’s well-being. It would cut repairs to streets and bridges of 62 districts across the state, delay voter-approved mass transit in mid-construction and cost taxpayers more money in the long run. The statewide transportation budget, including highway construction and the State Patrol, would be shorted $4 billion over the next decade. Nothing about I-976 is a good idea, in terms of responsible governance or prudent money management. Eyman asks voters to buy a falsity that there’s some miraculous way to fund our state’s backlog of bridge, road and transit needs. Because the courts cannot end this toxic nonsense quickly enough, voters must reject I-976 themselves." The Columbian: "Initiative 976 on the Nov. 5 statewide ballot imagines a fantasy world in which Washington’s highways, roads and bridges either come without cost or are already and forevermore complete. ... Like any tax-reduction proposal, the measure has populist appeal; who wouldn’t like lower taxes? But it ignores the reality that a robust economy requires money to maintain and upgrade infrastructure. ...Passage of I-976 would put a damper on economic development and would have far-reaching negative impacts. Yes, everybody who owns a vehicle would save a little money; in truth, we can’t afford to save that much." The Herald: "Yes, approval of I-976 would save most vehicle owners some money each year when they renew their tabs. But that savings would quickly be eaten up by the cost of longer commutes, greater wear and tear from bad roads, lost jobs from delayed or canceled construction projects and lost economic opportunities from businesses unwilling to expose employees or their goods and services to more congestion. I-976 is not worth it. Vote no." The Union-Bulletin: "Initiative 976 will harm state’s roads and highways. The initiative reduces car tab fees that fund transportation projects and road repairs. Initiatives are generally a lousy way to make law. They are written in a vacuum by those with a narrow agenda." The Tacoma News Tribune: "There’s no question that reliable roads, bridges, and public transit are essential to Washington’s economy and quality of life. So there’s no question that voters should reject I-976 in the Nov. 5 election. ... Owners of newer cars are disgruntled that Sound Transit uses an inflated valuation formula to calculate tabs. Legislators have dithered for three years on plans to provide some relief; they need to get it done in 2020. ... Voters should resist Tim Eyman’s recycling of a simplistic slogan. They should reject his latest effort to break Washington’s transportation backbone."