The following page lists media outlets that weighed in on specific 2020 ballot measures, broken out by state and by measure.

Voters in 32 states decided on 116 statewide ballot measures on November 3, 2020.

Including pre-November election dates, a total of 129 statewide ballot measures were certified for the 2020 ballot in 34 states.

Three measures were on the ballot on March 3.
One measure was on the ballot on April 7.
One measure was on the ballot for the Oklahoma election on June 30.
Two measures were on the ballot for the Maine election on July 14.
One measure was on the ballot for the Missouri election on August 4.

If there are no media editorials listed below a ballot measure link below it is because Ballotpedia has not identified any support or opposition endorsements by media editorial boards for that measure. If you know of an editorial not listed below, please contact editor@ballotpedia.org.

Alaska

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

Alaska Ballot Measure 1, North Slope Oil Production Tax Increase Initiative (2020)

Support

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Opposition

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative (2020)

Support

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Opposition

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 released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Alabama Amendment 4, Authorize Legislature to Recompile the State Constitution Measure (2020)

Alabama Amendment 1, Appointed Education Board Amendment (March 2020)

See also: 2020 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

Daily Mountain Eagle: "The amendment would take away the right of citizens of our state to vote for their own school board members in favor of allowing lawmakers, especially the governor, to have all of that power. While lawmakers may have the best of intentions with this bill, we cannot support an amendment to take that voting power away from the citizenry."^[1]

Alabama Amendment 1, Citizenship Requirement for Voting Measure (2020)

Alabama Amendment 2, Judicial System Restructuring Measure (2020)

Alabama Amendment 3, Judicial Vacancies Measure (2020)

Alabama Amendment 5, "Stand Your Ground" Rights in Franklin County Churches Measure (2020)

Alabama Amendment 6, "Stand Your Ground" Rights in Lauderdale County Churches Measure (2020)

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 released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Arizona Proposition 207, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2020)

Support

The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

The Arizona Republic Editorial Board: "The Arizona Republic recommends passage of Proposition 207 because we need to right a historic wrong — to decriminalize marijuana use and put the responsibility back on individuals to choose wisely when it comes to low-grade substances such as marijuana and alcohol. ... But consensus continues to grow in this state and nation that we were wrong to criminalize marijuana. The moment has come to correct the mistake."
Arizona Daily Star Editorial Board: "But nationally, federal prohibition has reigned supreme for decades. The results have been disastrous, especially for people of color and poor communities. Here in Arizona, a Black person is three times as likely as a white person to be arrested for marijuana possession, according to the ACLU. Arizonans can take change into their own hands and join six other Western states and 11 nationally by rejecting prohibition and its accompanying burdens. While a 2016 voter initiative failed, Proposition 207 is better, both policywise and for potential consumers."

Opposition

Ballotpedia had not identified media editorial boards that published editorials in opposition to the ballot measure.

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 released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Arkansas Issue 2, Change State Legislative Term Limits Amendment (2020)

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 released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

California Proposition 20, Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative (2020)

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the ballot initiative. 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

San Mateo Daily Journal Editorial Board: "This proposition closes unforeseen loopholes that have allowed for serial retail thefts and early release for those who have committed assault and domestic violence."
The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "The measure faces sharp criticism for undermining the momentum for criminal justice reform. But the drafters of Propositions 47 and 57 are the ones who have undercut the momentum for reform with their sloppy work then and their refusal to admit mistakes now. Vote yes on Proposition 20."

Opposition

The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: "With the coronavirus pandemic carving a massive hole in state and local budgets, sending government agencies scrambling to fund basic public services, voters should not support a proposal to once again swell prison populations and increase costs. As the nation’s attention has focused in the wake of the George Floyd death on criminal justice reform and the equal treatment of all people, now also is not the time to swing the pendulum back to a tough-on-crime era through even more “ballot box” law making. If earlier reforms need to be reversed, let a more deliberate and analytic legislative process drive the effort, rather than yet another political campaign."
The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "Fundamentally, however, Prop. 20 itself is the wrong vehicle for raising and implementing the policy changes it promotes. At a time when Californians continue to be supportive of scaling back mass incarceration, Prop. 20 offers only the preferences of police and prison guard unions. Complex issues such as the matters at hand demand a more deliberative and thoughtful approach than Prop. 20 provides. Voters should vote “no” on Prop. 20."
San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "Various studies have shown these dramatic drops in incarceration have not contributed to a significant increase in crime, which continues to stabilize at 1960s levels. It’s instructive that one of the big early funders of Proposition 20 was the prison guards, with boosts from other law enforcement unions. Voters who were fed up with the waste of money and waste of lives — and racial disparities — rejected that retrograde mindset with the passages of Props. 47 and 57. Vote no on Prop. 20."
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "Proposition 20 is built on a package of falsehoods about critical reforms that California lawmakers and voters wisely adopted over the last nine years to curb some of the most gratuitous excesses of the state’s criminal justice system. The measure deserves a resounding 'no.' This state is leading the nation away from decades of foolish and wasteful policies that prevent even low-level offenders from correcting their mistakes and getting on with productive and law-abiding lives. This is no time to reverse course."
Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "Prop. 20 also would add crimes to the list of violent felonies for which early parole is restricted. It’s a return to the “lock ’em up and throw away the key” approach that made California the national leader in recidivism rates. The state has moved toward a system that invests in rehabilitation, mental health treatment and drug addiction prevention for inmates, helping prepare them for returning to communities and being productive members of society. Restricting parole opportunities takes away inmates’ incentives for addressing their problems. California paid a heavy price for its heavy-handed 1990s approach to crime. Voters should reject any effort to return to that failed system. Vote no on Prop. 20."
The Desert Sun Editorial Board: "Like all initiatives, voters have no line-item veto here. They cannot pick and choose which aspects they accept and which they reject. It is an up-or-down proposition. As such, we recommend a “no” vote on Proposition 20. That said, it is the responsibility of our lawmakers to address faults within what has come before. Refinements that improve public safety must be made while better managing the state corrections population in a manner that ensures true justice."
The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "Should California abandon its historic criminal justice reforms and return to the bad old days of overcrowded prisons full of Black and brown people? Since those criminal justice reforms are working, we think the answer is a resounding “no.” That’s why voters should reject Prop. 20, which would undo the sensible reforms adopted under former Gov. Jerry Brown."
The Press Democrat Editorial Board: "California’s move away from long sentences hasn’t been flawless. For example, we supported legislation that would have increased the penalty for auto break-ins. Lawmakers should revisit this issue. They also ought to consider a provision of Proposition 20 that would require more people convicted of misdemeanors to submit DNA samples for the state database. But it would be unwise to abandon shorter sentences or incentives for inmates to prepare themselves to be productive citizens, especially with the coronavirus pandemic chewing up the rainy day fund and creating a deep budget deficit. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 20."

California Proposition 22, App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative (2020)

/

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the ballot initiative. 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

The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "AB5’s backers, primarily labor unions and their advocates in the Capitol, are upset that big technology companies can essentially bypass the state’s inflexible labor rules — the product of a bygone era, when the factory floor and office cubicles were the dominant workplaces. Supporters are trying to use government to hold back inexorable economic changes. … Because of the law’s deleterious effect on many industries, including our own, this editorial board has called for the total repeal of AB5. We don’t like legislating by exemption. Nevertheless, the more exemptions to this legislative monstrosity, the better. Real jobs and services are at risk."
The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: "Proposition 22 on the Nov. 3 ballot is intended to protect thousands of California’s on-demand drivers, their customers, much-needed jobs and the state’s economy. It is the latest battle in a war between independent contractors and labor union advocates over California’s “gig economy. We urge Californians to vote Yes on Proposition 22, which carves out yet another exemption in a poorly crafted state law that went into effect in January. The law reclassified many freelance workers – from translators to golf caddies to journalists – as “employees” and threatens to erase their job opportunities."
San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "Proposition 22 is a battle between two determined and equally unappealing combatants. Proponents consist of the gig economy companies — Uber, Lyft, DoorDash among them — that are pouring $180 million into a campaign to dictate how they would be regulated on workplace issues. Opponents are the labor unions and the politicians they control, who refused to come up with a reasonable compromise in Sacramento. It’s hubris versus hubris, with voters left to make a binary choice in what should be a nuanced policy that would allow the ride-hail and delivery companies to keep rolling in a way that would increase driver pay and protections while acknowledging that their business does not fit within the realm of traditional employment. As imperfect as it may be in many regards, Prop. 22 at least makes an attempt at striking that balance — and will keep the app-based, ride-hail and delivery services operating in California."
The Press Democrat Editorial Board: "Approving Proposition 22 would send a clear signal to Sacramento that Californians want ride shares and other app-based services to stay, and they want people to have the option of setting their own hours around other jobs, school or family obligations. Call it moonlighting or a side hustle or entrepreneurship, millions of Californians have found a new source of income in the gig economy. Don’t take it away from them. The Press Democrat recommends a yes vote on Proposition 22."
Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "To be sure, some of the gig companies, especially Uber, have been disrupters who have tried to run roughshod over the rules. Unfortunately, the unions are fixated on that in their campaign against Prop. 22 — and they take it to silly extremes by attacking the companies for wanting to turn profits. For the record, Uber has never made a profit. But seeking to do so is hardly a sin provided they fairly compensate their drivers. And that’s exactly what they would legally be bound to do if Prop. 22 passes. Vote yes."
The Desert Sun Editorial Board: "Voters should not be forced to play regulator in what really is a high-stakes tilt between tech firms and labor interests. We believe approval of Proposition 22 will send the strong signal that lawmakers erroneously and harmfully overreached with AB 5, hopefully sending them back to the drawing board. Vote yes on Proposition 22."
San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "A majority of the Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom still fail to grasp the fact that these jobs are of a different nature than the binary standard set in state law of regular employees and independent contractors. [...] Voters should let these workers be free to decide whether or not their jobs are good enough — not have the decision imposed on them. [...] State and federal lawmakers should respond to the gig revolution not by smothering it but by doing a better job of ensuring all workers have a decent safety net. The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board recommends a yes vote on Proposition 22."

Opposition

Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "One of the key innovations of app-based companies is their ability to match whatever workers are available to the customers seeking services, enabling individual workers to come and go on their own schedule. The challenge for the state is to preserve that innovation while guarding against the exploitation of those who rely on app platforms for their livelihoods. And it’s a balance that must be struck broadly, not just for companies that lawmakers or voters favor. Proposition 22 doesn’t meet that challenge."
San Mateo Daily Journal Editorial Board: "[AB 5] caught up a large segment of freelance workers while focusing on the large companies. This proposition could have addressed all the legislative shortfalls, but instead focused solely on one segment. While the legislation is flawed, some remedies have been made in the most recent legislative session, and this proposition is too narrowly focused."
New York Times Editorial Board: "What happens in the battle over Prop 22 will cast a long shadow. Yes, there will be financial consequences for businesses driven by gig workers, but California is not the only state considering legislation to secure benefits for app-dependent drivers and delivery people. The year’s election and the ensuing legislative sessions could mean meaningful standards put in place for gig workers around both minimum wages and benefits. They could also result in protection from the market power amassed by a few industry players. ... It seems that these companies would sooner destroy their own businesses than grant workers the dignity of comprehensive benefits, guaranteed wages or unemployment insurance. Rejecting Prop 22 is a chance finally to ensure gig workers the protections all workers deserve."
The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "AB 5 was certainly not perfect. It was an obvious play to the state’s powerful unions by a Democratic-majority Legislature. Lawmakers have already had to clean up aspects of the law that harm legitimate freelance workers. More fixes may be necessary. But Prop. 22 simply represents special-interest politics at their worst. The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board recommends a no vote."

California Proposition 13, School and College Facilities Bond (March 2020)

See also: 2020 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

Chico Enterprise-Record: "But this proposition is just a $15 billion school bond, although it does have a few differences from your run of the mill school bond. We’re going to endorse it because of one of those quirks. The bulk of the money — $9 billion — goes to K-12 schools. But it’s not dumped into a single mosh pit for new construction that favors well-off districts able to hire deft grant writers. The measure steers $5.2 billion of that $9 billion toward modernization of existing schools, with things like dealing with lead in water systems and asbestos specifically mentioned in the law’s language. These are critical priorities for the state’s children, and there are many small districts that wouldn’t be able to to take those steps without support."^[2]

Los Angeles Times: "Proposition 13 on the March ballot – ignore the iconic number, it’s just a coincidence – was written to avoid the problems of previous bonds, and it deserves passage. ... California schools already are underfunded compared with other states. The minimum that voters can do is ensure that students attend schools that are safe and modern, reflecting California’s commitment to education, perhaps the state’s most important investment."^[3]

San Francisco Chronicle: "A well-educated workforce is essential to California’s future economy — and bringing the state’s many substandard school facilities is critical to creating a learning environment. This is a big investment, but it is a wise investment. We recommend a yes vote on Proposition 13.”^[4]

The Sacramento Bee: "Prop. 13 is more than new funding for school capital projects. It reforms how funding is spent and lowers fees for the dense housing development California critically needs. The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board supports Proposition 13 and encourages you to do the same."^[5]

Opposition

The Mercury News: "In other words, owners of existing homes would be called on to finance more of the school construction needed for new homes. While Prop. 13 might make some homes near transit slightly more affordable, assuming developers pass on the savings to buyers and renters, it would drive up the cost of housing for existing homeowners, especially in communities that are growing and adding more students to their schools. Many of those homeowners already pay hundreds of dollars annually in property taxes to cover the cost of past school construction measures."^[6]

The Orange County Register: "Yet this is no ordinary school-construction bond. In addition to creating state debt, it has a hidden and pernicious provision that raises the debt limit for local districts. School districts have repeatedly asked voters to approve facilities bonds – so much so that many school districts have bumped up against state-imposed caps on local indebtedness. ... We urge voters to embody the spirit of the original Prop. 13 and halt this endless spending cycle – and thereby force state and local officials to do a better job budgeting the money they already have."^[7]

The San Diego Union-Tribune: "With more bond money available, school board members who already face constant pressure to boost employee pay will keep eyeing borrowed money for day-to-day bills. That shouldn’t happen. Californians should send a message to the state Capitol and require responsible budgeting. Vote no on Proposition 13."^[8]

California Proposition 14, Stem Cell Research Institute Bond Initiative (2020)

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the ballot initiative.

Support

The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "It’s an investment of about $5 per person per year for 30 years. Proponents say that money can be used to attract $7.7 billion in matching grants, fueling 100,000 jobs — essentially, a stimulus shot in the arm at a time when our state is reeling from the effects of COVID-19. ... It makes little sense to lose the momentum of a fine stem cell agency that has relieved the suffering of millions, and promises to help millions more. The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board recommends a yes vote on Prop. 14."

Opposition

The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "For one thing, times have changed and the original rationale — California doing what the feds wouldn’t — is no longer applicable. For another, private enterprise has taken a bigger interest and stepped up research in this field. For another, Prop. 14 doesn’t resolve a longstanding lack of oversight and accountability. And finally, imposing new costs on residents is hardly merited when most are struggling."
The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: "As California continues to struggle under the catastrophic burden of the coronavirus pandemic, increasing state budget deficits loom, public service cuts are likely and economic recovery is likely to take more than a decade. In 2009, President Barack Obama lifted most of the restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and demand for the cells has been greatly reduced as other research and technologies have advanced. Adding $5.5 billion to the state debt for just stem cell research would be unwise in these economically dire times."
Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "Prop. 71 was designed to kick-start the research at a time when federal funding was blocked. The hope was to establish California as a major player in what was regarded as a promising field. Now supporters are asking voters in the Nov. 3 election to approve issuing another $5.5 billion of bonds. More bonds should be out of the question. It’s time for California’s stem-cell agency to continue its work as a self-sustaining non-profit or close down and allow federal grants and private business to push the industry forward. Vote no on Proposition 14."
San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "As The Chronicle also found, alongside the legitimate but halting progress toward effective therapies to which California has contributed, a whole industry of opportunistic quacks hawking stem cell snake oil has flourished across and beyond the state. That’s not the institute’s fault, but it is a byproduct of the aggressive promotion of theoretical medical treatments directly to the public — and another reason to vote no on Prop. 14."
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "If CIRM needs money for a basic operating budget over the next couple of years, that could be covered by the state’s general fund. The agency still needs to administer already-funded projects and could use that time to discuss a more affordable path forward. Right now, the state has other, more urgent spending priorities."
The Desert Sun Editorial Board: "The use of such public debt, especially post-COVID-19, should be on actual programs that deal with real problems California faces right now. These must be the priority for the voter dime. The medical industrial complex — already flush and which during this pandemic has been raking in billions in accelerated research funding — should be covering this type of investment in tandem with federal government funding."
The Press Democrat Editorial Board: "After 16 years, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine is well established, and its successes should allow it to secure other sources of funding, including federal funding as the Bush-era restrictions have been lifted. The state, meanwhile, is struggling to balance its books, and it wouldn’t be wise to take on more debt at this time. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 14."
San Mateo Daily Journal Editorial Board: "At the time, the Bush administration had cut funding for such research and there was a promise that the research would yield tremendous medical advances. While advances have been made, it is time for the institute to find its own funding through other means."

California Proposition 15, Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative (2020)

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the ballot initiative. 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

The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "For more than 40 years, California has endured a contorted property tax system that punishes home buyers, chills housing construction and rewards businesses who skate by when assessments are set. Proposition 15 would ease the worst of these abuses while protecting homeowners and small businesses. It sets a path that should continue in overhauling an out-of-whack tax code. … Prop. 15 offers a solution to this unfairness. It calls for splitting the rolls, with residential property staying within the present protections while it sets more timely assessments for large business holdings. The heart of the original law that protects homeowners from sharp tax boosts will be saved. Businesses won’t get an undue break."
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "The other way that one could, and we argue should, view Proposition 15 is through a lens of hope. At long last there is a tangible fix in sight for one of California’s most intractable problems: a wildly unfair and lopsided property tax system that for four decades has starved local governments of the revenue they need to provide services and that has distorted the cost of buying a house and starting a business, to the detriment of young families and entrepreneurs. ... Indeed, much of what ails California — crumbling roads, under-resourced schools and inadequate social services — can be traced to Proposition 13 and related anti-tax measures. Proposition 13 also shifted the local tax burden, as cities, counties and school districts increasingly turned to other levies, such as sales, hotel and utility taxes, to make up the lost revenue."
The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "Proposition 15 gives Californians a chance to fix one of the most glaring errors of the past four decades: a massive tax break for wealthy commercial property owners who can afford to pay their fair share of taxes. ... Prop. 15, known as “split roll,” won’t affect property taxes on residential properties, regardless of what its opponents like to claim. It will, however, remedy the historic injustice that has allowed large corporate property owners to avoid paying their fair share of property taxes. The inclusion of non-residential properties in Prop. 13’s reform has starved local governments of billions of dollars in revenue for long enough."

Opposition

The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:

The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: "But as all businesses – including Chevron – are reeling from the economic impacts of the coronavirus pandemic that are expected to drag into the next decade, making such a fundamental change in the property tax system at the ballot box during these chaotic times will have unexpected and possibly dire consequences. Proposition 15 is a far-reaching reform presented at the wrong time. The Legislature should look for ways to close loopholes – such as the corporate loophole – rather than asking voters to approve a massive change to a popular property tax law during the chaos of a pandemic."
The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "Proposition 15 does not raise residential property taxes, but if voters signal that Proposition 13 no longer is sacrosanct, it might not be long before tax-hike supporters come after those protections, too. The measure’s supporters dismiss that possibility, but the foundation of their argument is that Proposition 13 is fundamentally unfair in the way that it assesses a higher rate on newer owners than older ones. Consider yourself warned."
The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "This is a horrible idea for reasons that go beyond the insanity of imposing the largest property tax hike in state history on employers during a deep recession — and beyond the fact that the cost of the tax hikes would be largely passed on to consumers during a deep recession. Approving Proposition 15 is not about preserving essential government services, as advocates assert. It is about preserving generous government pensions that threaten to bankrupt government agencies across the state."
Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "In short, the big problem is not the disparity between residential and other types of property. It’s the disparity between the taxes paid by long-time property owners and those who purchased recently — an inequity that’s found for both residential and commercial properties. That’s the problem tax reformers should address. And they should be doing it in a way that’s revenue neutral instead of trying to use reform as a vehicle to raise more taxes. There are serious inequities in California’s property tax system that should be addressed. But Prop. 15 misses the mark. Vote no."
The Desert Sun Editorial Board: "We agree California taxation needs restructuring, and Proposition 13 most likely must be part of that rewrite — but when the time is right. A clearer vision on how 'split roll' might be phased in over a longer period of time to smooth out potential shocks would help, as would clearer language that ensures promised protections won’t magically vanish or be undone by needed additional legislative action. For now, the vote should be “no” on Proposition 15."
San Mateo Daily Journal Editorial Board: "Many suggest there should be changes to Proposition 13 but don’t have the will to replace the current system with one that works best for all. This measure ostensibly would not raise taxes on small businesses but there would be pass-through taxes and those businesses with triple net leases would be seriously affected. It is better to reform the entire system through the Legislature and have the voters decide on that."
The Press Democrat Editorial Board: "Unions have stubbornly fought efforts to control those costs, even opposing restrictions on abusive practices like pension spiking. Their solution is raising taxes. Voters should say no until the unions, and public employers, get serious about real pension reform. [...] California’s tax system is overdue for an overhaul, but these measures make piecemeal changes that are as likely to create new problems as solve old ones. The Press Democrat recommends no votes on Propositions 15 and 19."

California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020)

Support

The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "Nearly a quarter of a century ago, California voters passed the deceptively named California Civil Rights Initiative. But Proposition 209 was not about advancing civil rights. It was about prohibiting the consideration of race and gender in public education, employment and contracting. ... It was just about shutting the door on efforts to overcome those institutional barriers to the full participation of women and minorities. It was wrong in 1996, when it was passed by 55% of California voters, and it is wrong now. It should be repealed."
Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "The events of this year have highlighted the level of racial injustice that exists across the nation, including California. The disparity between Black and Latino residents and their White counterparts is readily apparent when it comes to income, health, education and the criminal justice system. Reducing those disparities will require a major effort on multiple fronts. Proposition 16 would give the state’s universities and government a valuable tool they need to fight existing structural inequalities."
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "The death of George Floyd, yet another unarmed Black man killed by police, and the COVID-19 pandemic‘s disproportionate toll on Black and Latino Americans have been a wake-up call for this country. We must act to dismantle the racism baked into our institutions, and voting yes on Proposition 16 on Nov. 3 will help. ... If we want to live in a country that better reflects our national narrative of equal opportunity, we have to build it. That means using the right tools, such as affirmative action. Vote yes on Proposition 16."
The Desert Sun Editorial Board: "Though Proposition 16 only addresses elimination of Proposition 209’s constitutional language, which specifically addresses state and local public agency conduct, greater efforts to bring underrepresented people into all ranks and levels in the already highly diverse civil workplace and government contracting universe can only help to greater diversify and strengthen the ranks of the private sector. Giving those previously disadvantaged — due in large part to life circumstances often strongly determined by their race or gender — “a leg onto the ladder” in the public education and civil sector world will help them transition to other “ladders,” if they choose, in the private sector."
San Mateo Daily Journal Editorial Board: "We can safely remove barriers to inequality and increase diversity and opportunity."
San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "It is hard to think of an initiative that fits the moment better than Proposition 16. [...] So if California joined the 42 other states allowing communities of color to have preferences in college admissions, government hiring and the awarding of contracts — where women- and minority-owned businesses are generally on shakier ground financially and struggle to compete — that would be constructive and positive. Proposition 16 is needed. Now. But if it passes, The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board hopes that all the lawmakers — and all the voters — who supported it monitor its impact on Asian American students — and heed the same arguments for its adoption when considering education reform. We recommend a yes vote on Proposition 16."
The Press Democrat Editorial Board: "The Press Democrat opposed Proposition 209, the 1996 initiative that banned affirmative action in California, arguing that 'discrimination is a continuing reality in our society.' We hope that one day that’s no longer true. For now, it still is. The Press Democrat recommends a yes vote on Proposition 16."
The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "This country has been forced to reckon with the devastating effects of systemic racism in the wake of the senseless killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police. The killing of Breonna Taylor by Louisville police created yet another national moment that forced us to reckon with how this country mistreats and disregards people of color. Affirmative action, along with other policies specifically designed to address the legacy of systemic racism, can help to reconcile our long history of injustice. California, as the nation’s most diverse state, should be leading the nation in these efforts. Our state policies should reflect a deep commitment to addressing systemic racism and ensuring that our institutions reflect our communities."

Opposition

The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board: "Now it’s up to the voters. Last November voters in Washington state narrowly defeated a similar amendment, though opponents were vastly outspent by those favoring racial preferences. California is a more liberal state and its political class and nearly all media will support repeal. But judging individuals by the color of their skin is antithetical to equal justice under the law. Let’s hope Californians hold on to this American principle of equality that goes back to the Declaration of Independence, the 14th Amendment, and the civil-rights movement."
The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "With or without Prop. 209, we can count on public institutions continuing to reflect the diversity of the state and continuing to provide opportunities to Californians of all backgrounds. California can continue to build on its reputation as a wonderfully diverse state without government judging people based on their race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. Ultimately, we don’t think the case has been made for scrapping Prop. 209 and the fundamental principle of treating all people on equal terms."
The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: "There are better ways to achieve desired educational and economic diversity than affirmative action. ... Innovative minority recruitment strategies are a more effective way to increase diversity on university campuses, in public workforces and in public contracting. Vote NO on Prop. 16."

ACA 5

The following media editorial boards took positions on whether ACA 5 should be placed on the ballot in 2020:

Los Angeles Times: "We wish race didn’t matter in hiring and college admissions. We wish that everyone had an equal opportunity to access quality education and achieve economic prosperity. But they didn’t in 1996 and still don’t in 2020. Race and gender are still automatic disadvantages that are difficult to overcome. Helping to shrink the opportunity gap with a tiny leg up doesn’t give them an unfair advantage over those born already ahead, just a slightly better chance than they have now. That’s not discrimination. That’s justice. And it’s time Californians had another debate about how to achieve it."^[9]

The Sacramento Bee: "In 1996, Prop. 209 passed with nearly 55 percent support from California voters. That year, Republicans seized on affirmative action as a wedge issue to inflame racial division and drive voter turnout in an effort to unseat incumbent President Bill Clinton. Masquerading behind civil rights language, it abolished a key tool for addressing systemic discrimination people of color and women. Then-Gov. Pete Wilson endorsed it, as did Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole. The California State Legislature should strongly support ACA 5 and let the people decide in November."^[10]

California Proposition 17, Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment (2020)

Support

The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "Prop. 17 keeps in place the impairment of this right for those still imprisoned, but recognizes the distinction between those in prison and those deemed worthy of parole. Parolees are living among us and working to reintegrate into society. As part of that process of reintegration, and reflecting the fact that they are no longer segregated from society behind bars, it is sensible to afford them the right to vote. American citizens who are no longer imprisoned should have their voting rights restored."
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "Parolees did not emerge from prison stripped of their citizenship. Parole is not simply prison on the outside. Although if it feels that way to parolees, it’s at least in part because we make it so hard for people to fully reintegrate into the community. Parole is the pathway into society, but voting is not a reward to be earned along that path. Voting is a right that should be restored to a parolee as soon as he or she leaves prison."
The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "Placed on the Nov. 3 ballot with wide support from state lawmakers, it would amend the state Constitution to allow people on parole for felony convictions to vote. As California Secretary of State Alex Padilla notes, this is an excellent way to promote civic engagement among the 50,000 such individuals in the Golden State — to get them to feel like they are constructive contributors to society. Critics of Proposition 17, who often make emotional pleas about victims’ rights, offer no evidence that restoring felons’ voting rights has led to bad consequences in the 19 states that have similar laws."
Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "It’s the right thing to do. Our goal with imprisonment should be rehabilitation. If someone has qualified for parole, we should help them normalize their return to civilian life. Voting is a key part of that process. These are people who will be holding jobs and paying taxes. They should also have the opportunity to fully participate in society. Vote yes on Prop. 17."
San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "The number isn’t great, totaling an estimated 40,000 individuals. It’s a tiny expansion of the voter turnout that totaled nearly 10 million in the last election. The proposition is all about inclusion, justice and fairness. These are citizens who’ve served their time and should be allowed to vote. Also, there’s an unmistakable racial angle since Black and Latino populations are overrepresented in this state’s prison system."
The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "Proposition 17 would restore the right of parolees to vote, thus increasing voter turnout and encouraging the convicted to embrace the highest ideals of citizenship. People who make serious mistakes and serve their time behind bars deserve the right to participate in our democratic process."
The Press Democrat Editorial Board: "Parolees work and pay taxes and, as supporters note, a Florida study concluded that parolees whose voting rights were restored were less likely to return to prison. Everyone benefits from reducing recidivism. Moreover, restoration of voting rights is consistent with voter decisions to shorten sentences for drug possession and many other nonviolent crimes and to offer a chance at early parole to inmates who work or study in prison. The Press Democrat recommends a yes vote on Proposition 17 and a no vote on Proposition 18."

Opposition

The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:

San Mateo Daily Journal Editorial Board: "Parole should be considered to be an extension of someone’s prison sentence. Only once they have completed their debt to society, should their complete rights be restored."
The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: "While parole is considered a mechanism to transition felons “back into society,” it also is a time – commonly three years – for a convicted criminal to earn their place in society. That should include earning their right to vote. ... The now approximately 40,000 Californians who have completed their prison sentences, but who are unable to vote while on parole, are transitioning back into society. They must still prove that they belong."
The Desert Sun Editorial Board: "Rather than additional punishment, we see maintaining the status quo that prevents a parolee from voting until completion of that obligation as encouragement that, added to rehabilitation and other social programs offered, will help successfully reintegrate these persons into society. The average parole period in California is about three years. This is not an undue burden. Vote "no" on Proposition 17."

California Proposition 21, Local Rent Control Initiative (2020)

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the ballot initiative. 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

Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "Ultimately, the solution to California’s housing crisis is to build more housing, especially affordable housing. That will take reforming zoning codes and regulations that make it impossible to build apartments and townhomes in many communities across the state. It will require reducing onerous fees and bureaucratic hurdles that layer on costs and push up the price of new homes. This is vital work to make California more affordable, but it will take years to construct enough homes to bring down prices. Until then, rent control can be a helpful tool to provide housing stability."

Opposition

The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "Preponderant majorities of economists across the political spectrum have repeatedly criticized rent control for reducing the quality and quantity of housing. California’s housing woes trace to our lawmakers and regulators, who over the years have imposed a licensing, permitting and construction regime that raises costs and makes home construction more difficult. Rent control would just add one more layer of complication to the process, and demoralize key market participants unnecessarily."
The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: "Proposition 21 is a watered-down version of a rent-control ballot measure Californians rejected in 2018 with a 59 percent vote. After conducting focus groups and making some modest changes to their proposal, advocates placed it on the ballot again, hoping voters would be enticed to support it. The problem is that the economics of California’s housing shortage hasn’t changed. And this seemingly “simple” solution will only aggravate it."
Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "Throughout all this, however, the economic fundamentals remain the same: High rents in California are due to a shortage in the housing supply. We simply haven’t built homes fast enough to keep up with population growth. As a result, more people are competing for limited numbers of dwellings. But the tougher the rent restrictions in the state, the less likely developers will construct desperately needed units. Rent control will only make the housing shortage worse. Which is why voters should reject Proposition 21 on the Nov. 3 ballot."
San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "While researchers have found that rent control can confer substantial benefits on affected tenants, it does so at the expense not only of property owners but also of other tenants. And those benefits are not reliably distributed to those who need them most. The greatest cost, meanwhile, will be to a housing market that can ill afford it, further restricting supply and inflating prices. Californians should vote no on Prop. 21 or risk aggravating the crisis it purports to address."
San Mateo Daily Journal Editorial Board: "Rent control was defeated at the polls and already established by the state Legislature. Any other changes should be done at the legislative level."
The Press Democrat Editorial Board: "California voters soundly rejected rent control in the November 2018 election for a good reason: It won’t alleviate the state’s housing problems. [...] The state’s 2019 law capping rent increases at inflation plus 5% for homes older than 15 years will remain in effect whether Proposition 21 passes or fails. There’s no need to pile on yet another disincentive for building badly needed rental housing. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 21."
The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "The state’s major need is for more housing. Prop. 21’s backers say their measure is not meant to address that shortage. But if approved, it would discourage builders from creating new rental housing."
The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "In 2018, state voters decisively rejected Proposition 10, another rent control measure. Then in 2019 state lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom enacted Assembly Bill 1482, a rent control bill. Apparently, Sacramento didn’t get the message. It’s time to send another one. Rent control is the wrong way to help Californians struggling with housing. Lawmakers who are juggling a lot during this pandemic need to not lose sight of that. The long-term solution is listening to experts and building new houses."
The Desert Sun Editorial Board: "As was true in 2018, this measure would only make California’s real housing problem — the dearth of affordable housing development — more difficult. It will only add the uncertainty of local rent control boards to California’s already Byzantine and costly housing development process."

California Proposition 18, Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment (2020)

Support

The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "The idea isn’t a wholesale lowering of the voting age. It’s built on logic that links the sorting out of candidates in primaries with the eventual final choice in a general election. The young people envisioned in the proposition would have a crack at both votes, choosing the first cut of contenders and then taking part in the final runoff. It allows for a full cycle in the political game."
San Mateo Daily Journal Editorial Board: "This would allow someone the ability to participate in a complete election cycle. While there are limits to maturity for those of this age, this one exception makes sense."
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "In California we have an added reason to let some 17-year-olds vote — our top-two primary system. Except for presidential elections, voters in California primaries don’t select which candidates will represent the various political parties on the November ballot, but rather they select from all the candidates which two will face off in November. (In some races, there won’t even be a runoff if a candidate gets more than 50% of the vote in the primary.) It makes sense that the teens who will be eligible to vote in a general election should also help decide whose names will be on that ballot."
The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "One lamentable aspect of U.S. politics in the Donald Trump era is the disappearance of the bipartisan consensus that voting should be encouraged to give people a stake in their democracy. Vote yes on Proposition 18 to give more young people that stake."
The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: "This is the latest effort of many in recent years to reach out to young voters to encourage the development of a lifelong “habit” of voting, which is the cornerstone of self-government. ... These and other outreach efforts seem to be paying off. According to a YouGov survey of California youth conducted on behalf of the University of California, 70 percent of young people interviewed said they were registered to vote and about 55 percent said they will “definitely” or “probably” vote in November."
The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "Opponents also claim that 17-year-olds will be unduly influenced by their teachers, especially when it comes to voting on school bonds. Not only is this a cynical ploy to attempt to defeat school bonds, it’s also an insult to the intellectual capabilities of young people. Young voters have the most at stake in elections — after all, they’ll be living with the consequences far into the future — and we need to do everything we can to encourage their participation from the start. The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board urges a yes vote on Prop. 18."

Opposition

The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:

The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "There is no compelling reason to extend the right to vote to those who are 17, especially considering there are plenty of avenues for politically interested young people to be involved in the political process at a younger age, including working on campaigns, helping candidates get out the vote, speaking their minds and educating themselves."
Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "There’s no clear age of maturity, but 18 is a rational point to mark the entry into adulthood. Indeed, in some areas,18 is on the low end. When it comes to purchasing alcohol in California, the age has remained 21. And, state lawmakers in 2016 raised the age for purchasing tobacco from 18 to 21. In 2019, the federal government did the same for the nation. It doesn’t make sense to now lower the voting age to 17. Vote no on Prop. 18."
The Desert Sun Editorial Board: "Pre-registration of young people beginning at age 16 already gives those eager to join the process a tangible step toward voting, which should remain a goal they’ll attain at age 18. It is definitely worth waiting for. Vote "no" on Proposition 18."
The Press Democrat Editorial Board: "We doubt that even the most politically engaged 17-year-old is fully prepared to weigh parcel taxes and bond acts. Even fewer would be subject to the taxes they would be voting on. [...] California allows teens as young as 16 to preregister to vote, and we might be persuaded to go along with 17-year-olds voting in primaries. But Proposition 18 is a step too far. [...] The Press Democrat recommends a yes vote on Proposition 17 and a no vote on Proposition 18."

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 has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Colorado Proposition EE, Tobacco and E-Cigarette Tax Increase for Health and Education Programs Measure (2020)

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial Board: "In 2018, the National Institute for Drug Abuse associated vaping with the largest increase in any substance use in the agency’s 43-year tracking history. Nicotine addiction is a drain on this country and a threat to public health. We want less of nicotine and therefore should tax it like any dangerous product that harms our country and economy. Vote 'yes' on Prop EE. Vote yes to make nicotine a cost-prohibitive addiction."
Colorado Springs Indy Editorial Board: "Colorado teen nicotine vaping rates are among the highest in America, while the state has one of the lowest tax rates for tobacco products in the nation, and no tax on vaping products. It’s time we do something about it. ... Higher taxes on cigarettes, tobacco products and vaping products will decrease consumption — and the additional funding will go toward preschool, health care and tobacco cessation and prevention initiatives throughout Colorado." Vote Yes on Prop EE
Journal-Advocate Editorial Board and Fort Morgan Times Editorial Board: "Colorado has one of the highest rates of youth vaping in the country, while also having one of the lowest tax rates on cigarettes and tobacco products, and no special tax on vaping products. We believe that needs to change: Vaping products should be taxed just as cigarette and tobacco products are."
Durango Herald Editorial Board: "Proposition EE would tax nicotine from all sides, adding to cigarette taxes, taxing wholesalers and for the first time taxing vaping. It would set a minimum price on cigarettes, adding to tax revenue and likely discouraging use. Revenue from the added and new taxes will go to public schools, including free preschool programs, and to programs that reduce nicotine use. Yes on Prop. EE."

Opposition

Steamboat Pilot & Today Editorial Board: "We recommend a 'no' vote. We cannot endorse what would be a sizable, and inequitable, tax that picks winners and choosers when it comes to nicotine delivery. This legislation was passed without public comment with big-tobacco influence that offers the prospects of large increase in short-term funding for a variety of education, health and housing programs, in addition to anti-tobacco/vaping education. While we’re supportive of increased funding in those areas, there are no guarantees the funding would exist long term. We know teen use of tobacco and vaping deserves closer attention, but believe there are better approaches to address that challenge in ways that offer sustainable long-term funding."
Boulder Weekly Editorial Board: "It’s clear the state is in need of additional revenue streams, but this isn’t the way to do it. Nationwide tobacco tax revenue has been steadily declining, and the funds raised from this measure would be a stop gap solution, not an effective long-term fiscal strategy."

Colorado Amendment B, Gallagher Amendment Repeal and Property Tax Assessment Rates Measure (2020)

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Denver Post Editorial Board: "We understand Colorado taxpayers may feel nervous about ceding a powerful tool that has kept property taxes relatively low in Colorado compared to other states. However, the unintended double whammy on businesses at this juncture in history is untenable. We urge voters to support Amendment B. And we can all take solace and comfort in the fact that lawmakers cannot ever increase the state property tax assessment rate without a vote of the people because the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights is very much still intact."
Durango Herald Editorial Board: "Gallagher has turned state and local funding upside down. The state has had to give up some funding for transportation and higher education, for example, while local entities, where citizen confidence is highest, have had to mount special mill levy increase requests. Fire departments should fight fires and libraries loan books, not mount repeated funding campaigns."
Cortzez Journal Editorial Board: "Vote Yes on Amendment B for the levels of government Colorado can provide for its residents."
Vail Daily Editorial Board: "The state’s Gallagher Amendment was a good idea when passed by Colorado voters in 1982. The measure has outlived its usefulness, particularly in rural Colorado."
Grand Junction Daily Sentinel Editorial Board: "This cannot be what Gallagher supporters originally had in mind. The state’s tax policy should consist of three reasonable components: sales tax, income tax and property tax. One of the legs of this three-legged stool is broken. The only way to fix it is to repeal Gallagher. And the repeal does no harm. It just keeps things from getting worse. ... It is a win for schools, a win for small businesses, and a win for property owners whose property tax rates are frozen where they are, never to be raised without a vote of the people."
Steamboat Pilot & Today Editorial Board: "Amendment B freezes tax assessment rates at the current rate — 7.15% for residential property and 29% for non-residential property — a solution that we believe helps create economic stability during a time of extreme uncertainty for business owners and residents alike."
Boulder Daily Camera Editorial Board: "In essence, a 'yes' vote on Amendment B would stop the bleeding caused by Gallagher, but it wouldn’t help the patient recover. We’re nervous about what type of treatment the Legislature would prescribe. And it’s odd timing that legislators waited to recommend this change in the middle of a pandemic-driven economic crisis after decades of living with the status quo. That said, we do see a need to fix problems created by Gallagher and think our legislators should have an opportunity to address them. We’re cautiously recommending that residents vote 'yes' on Amendment B on the Nov. 3 ballot."
Journal-Advocate Editorial Board and Fort Morgan Times Editorial Board: "...in rural areas like ours with a smaller commercial property base, the decreases to residential property tax revenue means fewer dollars for essential services, like emergency responders and education."
Colorado Springs Indy Editorial Board: "If Gallagher is repealed, property tax assessment rates will remain exactly the same as they are now. State and local governments can only increase assessment rates with voter approval. The Gallagher Amendment is outdated and causes unintended and often unfortunate consequences. ... Today, due to Gallagher, small businesses are taxed at a rate four times higher than residential property owners. Gallagher also penalizes rural and low-income communities that lack significant commercial tax bases. Vote Yes on Amendment B."
BizWest Editorial Board: "Simply put, Gallagher caps the amount of residential property taxes that the state collects to 45% of the total, with the balance assessed on commercial properties. The result over four decades is that residential property-tax rates have declined, even as commercial properties bear an unfair burden"
Greeley Tribune Editorial Board: "Amendment B unlocks the Gallagher padlock and allows taxing entities to have a reliable revenue source upon which they can reasonably plan and budget accordingly."
Boulder Weekly Editorial Board: " Repealing the Gallagher Amendment will allow local communities to better fund their local school and fire districts, taking some of that burden off the state’s general fund, freeing up resources to address other education and transportation funding constrained by TABOR."

Opposition

Sentinel Colorado Editorial Board: "Passing this measure will only create different problems for Colorado. It won’t fix old ones. To do that, state lawmakers must ask voters to removed Gallagher, TABOR and Amendment 23 from the state Constitution and return control of state finances to elected representatives. Too many far-right lawmakers are unwilling. Too many moderate and liberal lawmakers are too timorous — so far. The mistaken perception created by passing Amendment B only prolongs real, needed changed: going to voters to end TABOR and other deleterious tax problems chiseled into the state Constitution."
Denver Gazette Editorial Board: "[Amendment B would] shift the residential-business paradigm and ease some of the business community’s property tax pain. Unfortunately, the well-intended proposal overcorrects. It risks channeling too much of that pain back to homeowners in the long run as it sooner or later will result in higher property tax bills for them. That’s why we have to urge a “no” vote on B — even as we appreciate how the amendment, placed on the ballot by the legislature last spring, addresses a very real and serious problem confronting all Coloradans."

Colorado Proposition 118, Paid Medical and Family Leave Initiative (2020)

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Journal-Advocate Editorial Board and Fort Morgan Times Editorial Board: "While this proposal is not perfect, it does provide some exemptions such as for small businesses with less than nine employees, and for those that already offer qualifying paid leave programs."
Colorado Springs Indy Editorial Board: "Most employees will need to take leave for personal reasons at some point in their careers, and Proposition 118 allows them to do so with financial support and job protection. It also protects employers who will no longer need to pay the wages of an employee who needs to take time off due to a major surgery or to bond with their newborn child. Vote Yes on Prop 118."
Boulder Weekly Editorial Board: "Approving such an insurance program, especially one that casts such a wide net for personal needs, will benefit Colorado workers and businesses alike."

Opposition

Steamboat Pilot & Today Editorial Board: "We recommend a 'no' vote. While we support the concept of expanding family and medical leave, we believe this initiative has too many loopholes. The measure stipulates employees and employers would share in the costs of the program, but local governments can opt out and many small businesses would be exempt. And while the employee and employer shares of the program may seem small, those payments would be especially painful for low-wage earners and companies that would pass the costs along to consumers. We would prefer an initiative of such scope and far-reaching implications be driven federally instead of through a state-level, citizen-driven initiative."
Durango Herald Editorial Board: "Proposition 118 ... would create an enterprise in the state’s Department of Labor. Given what is certain to be a sizable administrative office, and its cost to employers and employees, this is the wrong plan at the wrong time. No on Proposition 118."

Colorado Amendment 76, Citizenship Requirement for Voting Initiative (2020)

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Opposition

Journal-Advocate Editorial Board and Fort Morgan Times Editorial Board: "It is our belief that this amendment seeks to correct a problem that does not exist, thereby running the risk of creating a problem where there is none. There is currently no issue with the language in the Constitution, so we see no need to change it."
Colorado Springs Indy Editorial Board: "This measure seeks to amend the Colorado Constitution to specify that “only a citizen” of the United States rather than “every citizen” of the United States can vote in Colorado elections. While such a change might seem trivial, the unintended consequences of Amendment 76 are not. It dissuades immigrant-turned-naturalized citizens from voting because the amendment’s language is both exclusive and confusing. In addition, this measure would likely overturn a House of Representatives bill enacted last year that allows 17-year-olds to vote in primaries as long as they turn 18 before the general election. Vote No on Amendment 76."
Durango Herald Editorial Board: "Amendment 76 would replace the word 'every' with the word 'only' to describe citizens who can vote. We see no reason to apply this apparent limitation. There has been no abuse of 'every' through the years. Leave the constitution alone. No on Amendment 76."
Vail Daily Editorial Board: "Amendment 76 was not crafted in Colorado, but by a Florida-based 501(c)(4) organization that has supported similar measures to amend state constitutions nationwide. Do we really want this out-of-state organization meddling in the Colorado Constitution? The current system works just fine. Young Republicans vote in their Republican primary, young Democrats vote in their primary, and young Independents choose which party’s primary they want to join. Wanting more eligible people to be politically involved, no matter their party, should be a bipartisan stance, which is why we are saying vote no on Amendment 76."
Boulder Weekly Editorial Board: "Data clearly shows that voter fraud is rare in the U.S., and noncitizen voting rarer still. Colorado has one of the most secure and accessible election systems in the country under the current constitutional language and we see no reason to change that. Vote no."

Colorado Proposition 114, Gray Wolf Reintroduction Initiative (2020)

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Durango Herald Editorial Board: "The anxiety and delirium around returning wolves are misplaced. Wolves are good for a restored ecosystem and even essential but their reintroduction is not by itself going to work miracles. And when we talk about putting apex predators back in an ecosystem, back to when? Before wild lands were replaced with pasture, where a wolf today will find its enemy as well as an easy meal? That is what it means to do this over the objections of people with livestock. If you want to return wolves, get them on board. There are people who work to minimize human-predator conflicts, like the group People and Carnivores. They can help. It will be tricky – but humans are good with stuff like that."
Colorado Springs Indy Editorial Board: "Gray wolves are large predatory canines that live in packs. Up until four decades ago, such wolves were found throughout the Rocky Mountain West. Because of human activities, including widespread hunting and trapping, these wolves are no longer in our state. This carefully written measure would allow Colorado to join other states in helping bring back the gray wolf, once an apex species in our state. Vote Yes on Prop 114."
Boulder Weekly Editorial Board: "A ballot measure may not be the best way to achieve reintroduction, but given the historic reluctance of both the CPW commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to undertake such a plan, it may be the only way forward."
Denver Post Editorial Board: "Colorado voters are fully capable of parsing complicated information to determine if wolves would be a net benefit or a net cost to the state, and whether ranchers would be so adversely impacted that state and federal restitution efforts cannot make them whole. ... After mulling the healthier ecosystems in states with wolf populations against the fairly limited (although not insignificant) livestock kills in those states, The Denver Post editorial board, lands on the side of supporting the gradual reintroduction of wolves called for by Proposition 114 beginning by Dec. 31, 2023."

Opposition

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel Editorial Board: "We urge voters to decline to support the petition. Wolf reintroduction may or may not be a good Colorado. But we think that's for the experts to decide. Other states have made that determination based on the judgment of federal and state wildlife managers. Why should Colorado be any different?"
Journal-Advocate Editorial Board and Fort Morgan Times Editorial Board: "We are not convinced reintroduction can be accomplished without damage to the ecosystem, and prefer to have nature take its course as the means of whether or not reintroduction occurs."

Colorado Proposition 115, 22-Week Abortion Ban Initiative (2020)

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Denver Gazette Editorial Board: "Another chance to find common ground on abortion policy appears on this fall’s statewide ballot as Proposition 115. It would end late-terms abortions — pregnancies terminated after 22 weeks — when unborn babies are regarded as substantially formed and biologically viable. The proposal allows an exception if the birth mother’s life is in danger. We urge a 'yes' vote on this sensible and needed reform. Babies can be born and survive after 22 weeks. It’s simple science. Yet, Colorado is one of a handful of states with no cutoff for abortions performed on adults."

.

Opposition

Denver Post Editorial Board: "In an ideal world, abortions would never occur. But in an ideal world, there wouldn’t be 24,000 stillbirths a year, or 4,700 infants who die from congenital malformations, deformations, or chromosomal abnormalities. ... Please spare the hundreds of other women in this state who have faced these impossible decisions from having to make their tragedy part of a political fight. Decline to sign the 22-week abortion ban. Let women and medical professionals make these decisions based on science and their own moral compasses, rather than imposing the fear of prosecution on doctors and the stigma of illegality on expecting mothers."
Sentinel Colorado Editorial Board: "This measure is especially sinister. By leveraging falsehoods about so-called “infanticide” and other baseless myths, proponents will seek to make this request seem reasonable. ... The matters of reproduction, women’s medical treatment and abortion are all issues for a woman and her physician. They are never appropriate for political intervention. The Constitution and decency demand that women have the same right to privacy as do men, who do not permit political whim to dictate their healthcare."
Colorado Springs Indy Editorial Board: "Restricting access to abortion limits a person’s right to autonomy and interferes with the patient-doctor relationship. The choice to end a pregnancy is a serious and difficult decision, and people who are pregnant should be the ones making that choice — no one else. The measure does NOT include exceptions for risks to the parent’s health or for those who have been victims of rape or incest. It also provides no exceptions for the detection of serious fetal abnormalities, forcing a person to carry a nonviable pregnancy to term. Everyone is capable of making decisions regarding their life, future and health. No interference from state government is required, needed or appreciated. Vote No on Prop 115."
Steamboat Pilot & Today Editorial Board: "We recommend a 'no' vote. We believe abortion is a women’s right to choose, in consultation with her doctor and in accordance with her beliefs."
Durango Herald Editorial Board: "Proposition 115 ... would penalize doctors for performing an abortion after that time. But the government has no judgment or skills in the reproductive arena, and should stay out. No on Proposition 115."
Boulder Weekly Editorial Board: "Women should dictate the course of their pregnancies, not the government — it’s their right. And in a time when Roe v. Wade may be threatened, we must fight for women’s reproductive rights every chance we get."

Colorado Proposition 116, Decrease Income Tax Rate from 4.63% to 4.55% Initiative (2020)

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

If you are aware of any media editorials that should be included here, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Opposition

Steamboat Pilot & Today Editorial Board: "We recommend a 'no' vote. We don’t believe a pandemic is the right time for what is an immaterial tax cut — $40 a year for someone making $50,000 per year — and believe that a thoughtful, comprehensive reform package that offers reasonable taxpayer benefits without gutting government revenue is the better path."
Colorado Springs Indy Editorial Board: "Proposition 116 would permanently lower Colorado’s income tax rate to 4.55 percent from 4.63 percent. That’s not trivial; it would compound the impact of significant budget cuts the Legislature has already made to education, transportation, health care and other state services as a result of the current COVID-caused economic crisis. Additional loss of state revenue will lead to layoffs and reduce critical state services, further hurting Colorado’s economy and quality of life. Now is not the time to reduce state revenue further. ... Vote No on Prop 116."
Durango Herald Editorial Board: "Proposition 116 would decrease the state income tax rate from 4.63% to 4.55%. But now is when the state, with its growing population and commitments to education, Medicare, and transportation, needs the full tax revenue. No on Proposition 116."
Boulder Weekly Editorial Board: " ... it’s clear that this measure will only further hamper the state’s budget and its ability to provide essential public services, with minimal savings for the average Coloradan. Vote no."

Colorado Proposition 117, Require Voter Approval of Certain New Enterprises Exempt from TABOR Initiative (2020)

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial Board: "... many [enterprises] can and do provide vital services. They also encourage more functions of government to support themselves through their activities, which encourages efficiency. Yet, if left unchecked, the fees that fund them can become a source of easy money for elected leaders, a sort of back-door budget that never has to pass muster with a public that may or may not support a given spending stream. And the money isn’t subject to the taxing and spending limits voters approved in the first place."
Durango Herald Editorial Board: "Proposition 117 ... will require voters to approve any new state enterprise that is expected to be supported by more than $100 million in revenue from fees over five years. Colorado is a leader in involving voters in setting taxation levels. That can apply to new initiatives supported by fees. Yes on Proposition 117."

Opposition

Colorado Springs Indy Editorial Board: "If this measure passes, formation of all new statewide enterprise funds expected to exceed a profit average of just $20 million a year during their first five years of operation must be approved by voters in an even-year election. This would mean that in the future, self-supporting enterprises such as the Colorado Lottery, Colorado Parks & Wildlife’s hunting and fishing permits and user fees, and the Petroleum Storage Tank Fund, would have needed to go on the ballot in an even-number year before the state could launch them, greatly slowing the process and increasing the cost and difficulty of establishing future enterprises. ... Vote No on Prop 117."
Journal-Advocate Editorial Board and Fort Morgan Times Editorial Board: "Enterprises are intended to be self-sustaining funds that operate on user-generated fees. While it’s possible that If fewer enterprises are created as a result of this proposition, the state may be forced to choose between using tax revenue to pay for critical services that would otherwise be funded through user fees or, not providing these services."
Steamboat Pilot & Today Editorial Board: "We recommend a 'no' vote. We see this measure as a major increase of voter control over Colorado fiscal policy. In turn, we believe this initiative would unduly restrict the Legislature’s ability to effectively operate government."
Boulder Weekly Editorial Board: "Supporters argue that voters want more control over the state’s fiscal policy, but it’s clear that, if passed, this will further restrict the state budget even when we’re already seeing deep cuts due to the coronavirus pandemic. Plus, this measure was put on the ballot with more than $1 million support from Unite for Colorado, an issues committee with deep ties to the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity. No thanks."

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 released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Florida Amendment 2, $15 Minimum Wage Initiative (2020)

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Sun Sentinel Editorial Board: "Florida’s present minimum wage yields $17,800 a year for a full-time worker, which doesn’t come close to a living wage for a family of four. ... The heart of the issue, it seems to us, is less about economics than morality. It simply isn’t right that some people earn less than they need to live no matter how hard they work. Bear in mind that it’s often the lowest-paid people who are deemed essential in the face of the coronavirus."
Miami Herald Editorial Board: "The people who change diapers in daycare centers and nursing homes; wash dishes at five-star resorts; and stock shelves at grocery stores already know what life is like on the poverty wages that so many Florida jobs pay. ... Amendment 2 would bring the minimum wage up to $15 by 2026. Vote YES on Amendment 2."
Palm Beach Post Editorial Board: "Opponents say raising the wage would suffocate small businesses. That’s misleading. The wage would rise in stages: to $10 next Sept. 30, then by a dollar each year until reaching $15 an hour in 2026, then be adjusted according to inflation. During the pandemic, Americans deemed low-skill workers who stayed on the job as 'essential.' Simply saying 'thank you' rings hollow if we can’t ensure they earn a living wage."

Opposition

Naples Daily News Editorial Board: "Businesses, especially restaurants, operate on thin margins. Raising the cost of operating might not just cause some to hire fewer people. It can be expected to drive some out of business completely. ... Let’s get as many Floridians back to work as soon as possible and support a robust economic recovery that will allow workers to command higher wages under market conditions."
Herald-Tribune Editorial Board: "Income disparity, particularly in Florida's punishing housing market, is a social inequity that falls disproportionately on children and thus threatens our future. [...] The idea is that this entry-level wage 'floor' would, in rising, lift the earnings of other workers as well, and when the effort to sponsor this amendment got underway it looked like an enlightened, reasonable endeavor in a thriving economy. But the COVID-19 pandemic has changed that math. We recommend voting no."
Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board: "Raising the base wage by so much so quickly will increase costs for businesses. In turn, prices will rise, shifting some burden onto regular Floridians. The ones struggling to make ends meet — even with a $15 minimum wage — will feel more of the pinch. So will unskilled workers who lose their jobs when businesses cut expenses to make up for the higher cost of wages. ... On Amendment 2, the Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board recommends voting No."

Florida Amendment 4, Require Constitutional Amendments to be Passed Twice Initiative (2020)

Support

Ballotpedia did not identify media editorials supporting Amendment 4. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Opposition

Sun Sentinel Editorial Board: "Amendment 4 is as bad as bad gets. It takes massive effort and money to get a constitutional amendment ratified, particularly with the 60 percent approval threshold. One election is enough. There is no good reason to make it twice as hard. ... Talk about keeping our Constitution clean, this initiative is unnecessary. It is political clickbait offered up by wealthy friends of President Donald Trump to echo his anti-immigrant agenda and lure like-minded voters to the polls."
Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board: "If No. 4 passes, back-to-back campaigns would become far too expensive for grass-roots organizations that want to change the constitution, while the opponents would get an automatic do-over. Citizens would be thrown out of the amendment ballgame, and the backers of No. 4 know that. ... No. 4 is nothing more than the latest attack in a long, relentless war — waged by the Florida Chamber of Commerce and their pals in the state Legislature — to cut regular Floridians out of the amendment process."
Herald-Tribune Editorial Board: "[T]his is an attempt at major mischief. Political operatives who dislike voters' ability to send direct orders to their Legislature through the amendment process would prefer to make the process more cumbersome and expensive and, above all, protracted. They want you to have to vote on every amendment proposal not once, but twice, so you can second-guess yourself in their favor. We recommend voting no."
Miami Herald Editorial Board: "The odious goal of this proposal is to require constitutional amendments to be approved by the voters in two — two! — general elections in order to become effective. ... Its well-heeled backers want Floridians to have to vote twice, cynically betting on the real possibility that an amendment won’t get that supermajority the second time around. As bad faith goes, this is voter suppression at its finest. Vote NO on Amendment 4."
Gainesville Sun Editorial Board: "Amendment No. 4 on the ballot this fall would be the death knell for direct democracy in Florida. Voters should keep our state constitution free of this attempt by big-money interests to subvert the power of the people."
Florida Today Editorial Board: "Getting a proposal on the ballot is already a difficult and expensive task that requires the gathering of at least 766,200 petition signatures. Not to mention the Legislature has steadily made it harder to get initiatives on the ballot by, for example, limiting the amount of time a group has to collect signatures. If Amendment 4 passes, it's likely that only groups with a lot of money and backing from powerful interests would be able to amend the Florida Constitution."
Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board: "[T]here already are high hurdles for placing an amendment on the ballot; proposals by the Legislature need support by three-fifths of the membership, revision commissions meet only every 20 years and citizens' initiatives face a host of financial and logistical barriers. Lawmakers also routinely ignore amendments that Florida voters approve (see: Conservation Lands, Felons' Voting Rights). This is just another tool for the ruling class to remain unanswerable and out-of-touch. The Times Editorial Board recommends a No vote on Amendment 4."
Palm Beach Post Editorial Board: "State lawmakers have already made it more expensive and time-consuming for citizens to get initiatives on the ballot. This amendment would further deter grassroots groups from even trying."

Florida Amendment 3, Top-Two Open Primaries for State Offices Initiative (2020)

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

If you are aware of a media editorial board endorsements not listed below, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board: "...today, close to 30 percent of Florida’s 14 million voters are registered as No Party Affiliation or as members of a minor political party. And they are the fastest-growing bloc of registered voters. It is possible, as Amendment 3 opponents argue, that on the November ballot, both winners of a top-two primary will be from the same party. But in that event, they would have had to appeal to all voters. And to stand any chance of re-election, they would have to retain such appeal.Meanwhile, all those other voters will be given a say that often eludes them now."
Miami Herald Editorial Board: "If the top dogs at both the Florida Democratic Party and the Republican Party of Florida are violently opposed to an idea, it’s probably an idea that benefits people who don’t make their living in politics. That’s the case with Amendment 3, which would boost voter participation in primary elections for governor, as well as those for attorney general, agriculture commissioner, chief financial officer and state legislators. ... Vote YES on Amendment 3."
Herald-Tribune Editorial Board: "The two established political parties, which currently hold primary elections at taxpayer expense that are effectively closed to all but registered members, oppose this measure. They have made an argument that electing state officials, including legislators, by means of an open primary where the top two candidates compete in the general election would lead to fewer office holders who belong to racial or ethnic minorities. We are not convinced that a majority of voters would necessarily reject a minority candidate; history does not uphold such a claim. We recommend voting yes."

Opposition

Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board: "There are better ways to open the electoral process to voters disaffected by the status quo. Allowing voters to choose in which party primary to participate, or holding primary runoff elections, could expand the voter pool and create a more favorable environment for centrist candidates. And these changes should begin in state law, not the constitution. The Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board recommends a No vote on Amendment 3."
Palm Beach Post Editorial Board: "If the two people who make it to the general election are from the same party (two Republicans or two Democrats), that would disenfranchise voters from the other party. There's no guarantee that open primaries would increase primary turnout, so, again, a few voters might still make the decision of who runs in the general election while possibly leaving voters from a party without an option in the general. ... We recommend voting 'no' on Amendment 3."
Palm Beach Post Editorial Board: "Democrats and Republicans would lose the ability to choose their own party’s nominee without the interference of political adversaries. Black and minority voters, in particular, would be losers. The group, People Over Profits, calculates that Black representation would drop from 17 Black majority state House districts to nine, and four Black majority Senate districts to none."

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 released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Georgia Referendum A, Property Tax Exemption for Certain Charities Measure (2020)

Idaho

See Idaho 2020 ballot measures for more information.

Illinois

See Illinois 2020 ballot measures for more information.

Iowa

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Iowa 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 has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Iowa Constitutional Convention Question (2020)

Kentucky

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Kentucky 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 has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1, Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2020)

See also: 2020 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

Opposition

Herald Leader Editorial Board: "The last time Marsy’s Law was on the ballot, it was rejected by the state Supreme Court for being insufficiently detailed and descriptive. That means Kentucky got a redo, and we should not lose this chance to send this bad idea packing. Marsy’s Law is a confusing hodgepodge of ideas that upholds many victims rights already in law but could also make court proceedings much more complicated. ... Vote no on both constitutional amendments found on the back of your ballots."

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 has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Louisiana Amendment 4, Expenditures Limit Growth Formula Amendment (2020)

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 has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Maine Question 1, Religious and Philosophical Vaccination Exemptions Referendum (March 2020)

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Ballotpedia did not identify media editorial board endorsements in support of a "Yes" vote on Question 1.

Opposition

Mount Desert Islander Editorial Board: "At 5.6 percent, Maine’s non-medical vaccination opt-out rate is nearly triple the national average for kindergartners. High school seniors here in Hancock County have some of the highest exemption rates. These children have been left vulnerable to preventable diseases. They also pose a risk to other children, individuals with weakened immune systems, pregnant women, infants, people with cancer and the small percentage of the population for whom vaccines don’t work well."
Portland Press Herald Editorial Board: "The real question that voters will have to decide next month is this: Despite a medical and scientific consensus in favor of using vaccines to limit the spread of disease, should some people be allowed to opt out, putting the most vulnerable members of their community at risk? When you ask it that way, the only right answer is 'no.'"
Bangor Daily News Editorial Board: "We encourage voters to listen to the Mainers who were disabled by or lost family members to diseases that are now nearly eradicated because of vaccines. Hear the anguish from parents who fear for the safety of their children who have illnesses or are receiving treatments that diminish their immunity to vaccine-preventable diseases. They count on others to be vaccinated. It is part of the social compact that is the foundation of our communities."

Maine Question 1, High-Speed Internet Infrastructure Bond Issue (July 2020)

See also: 2020 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

Bangor Daily News Editorial Board: "This would be the first-ever bond investment of its kind in Maine, and given the long standing and increasing need for better internet connectivity — particularly in rural areas of the state, and as the coronavirus pandemic has underscored the importance of remote services — it is both overdue and timely. ... Question 1 won’t solve Maine’s connectivity issues overnight, or even years from now. But it will marshall resources from all three of those sources Schaeffer mentioned, and hopefully be an initial step to more consistent, significant broadband investment in the state."
Portland Press Herald Editorial Board: "The internet is integrated into everything we do. It’s no longer something you log onto here and there, but a constant feature — a portal through which nearly every part of our lives is organized and operated. As such, it’s not a luxury — in fact, it’s hard to see it as anything but a necessity anymore. For doing business. For staying in touch with friends and family. For receiving health care and an education. For participating in democracy. That’s why we support a 'yes' vote on Question 1 on the July 14 statewide ballot, which sets aside $15 million to invest in high-speed internet in areas of the state where it is unavailable."

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not identify media editorial boards that oppose Question 1.

Maine Question 2, Transportation Infrastructure Bond Issue (July 2020)

See also: 2020 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

Opposition

Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that oppose Question 2.

Maryland

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Maryland 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 has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Maryland Question 1, Legislative Authority over State Budget Amendment (2020)

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on Question 1. 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

The Baltimore Sun Editorial Board: "This proposed amendment to the state Constitution would alter that balance of power to give lawmakers a bigger say — but with an important check: The governor would, in return, have the power of a line-item veto so that spending the executive saw as wasteful or unnecessary could advance only with a three-fifths override vote from the state legislature. Nor could legislators increase overall spending; they’d still have to approve a balanced budget. ... For these reasons, we urge a vote 'for' the proposed constitutional amendment that would go into full effect in the next gubernatorial term beginning in Fiscal 2024 and put Maryland in line with budget practices in the 49 other states."
The Washington Post Editorial Board: "Marylanders should vote yes on Questions 1 and 2, both of which, if approved, could redound to the benefit of taxpayers. ... Question 1 would grant state lawmakers the same budgetary powers enjoyed by their counterparts elsewhere — namely, to shift and target spending priorities. That would end a system, devised in 1916 by reformers who imagined governors were nobly above the partisan fray while legislators were irredeemable spendthrifts. Today, Maryland is the only state in which lawmakers are powerless to transfer funds or add items to the governor’s annual budget, though they may cut money from one program and plead that it be moved elsewhere."

Opposition

Capital Gazette Editorial Board: "Statewide Question 1 would expand legislative authority over the state budget. If approved, it would authorize the General Assembly to increase, decrease, or add items to the budget as long as they do not exceed the total proposed budget submitted by the governor. This is an overreach by Democrats who control the General Assembly. Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, has used his powers to limit spending, wisely sometimes and sometimes in a way that seemed vindictive. But the current balance provides a bulwark against overspending by a legislature controlled by a single party for decades. Vote no on Question 1."

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 released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Massachusetts Question 1, "Right to Repair Law" Vehicle Data Access Requirement Initiative (2020)

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Boston Globe Editorial Board: "It is inherently unfair for car manufacturers to have sole access to a vehicle’s mechanical data, because it gives their dealerships an advantage over independent auto-repair shops. That ultimately hurts consumers, because with limited options come higher prices. Giving car owners and lessees the ability to choose who has access to their vehicle data allows them to repair their cars wherever they please, whether that be at the car dealership, the closest Jiffy Lube, or their local independent auto-repair shop. ... [I]f the ballot measure is passed, the Legislature must follow up to better regulate telematics and ensure that all connections to vehicles are as safe and secure as possible. ... [F]or the sake of fairer competition, people should vote yes on Question 1 — and proceed to demand that their elected representatives do their jobs to keep everyone safe."
The Harvard Crimson Editorial Board: "Advocates of Question 1’s proposed modification to the 2013 'Right to Repair' law claim it will allow auto service companies to compete fairly against auto dealerships when offering repair services in an increasingly cordless age. The law seeks to protect against a future in which auto manufacturers have an oligopoly on accessing wirelessly transmitted mechanical data and can consequently upcharge for superior service informed by data only they can access. ... We encourage voters to put the brakes on the unfair advantage auto manufacturers will increasingly have by voting 'Yes' on Ballot Question 1, guaranteeing the 'right to repair' in Massachusetts."
Boston Business Journal Editorial Board: "Without the ability to repair cars equipped with wireless electronics, repair shops will see declines in business in coming years as car owners are forced to get repairs done at more expensive dealerships. In the end, more of the millions of dollars that Bay State residents spend every year to fix their cars would go to out-of-state manufacturers. More neighborhood car-repair shops will go out of business. In the end, the course of action that most benefits consumers is also the one that is best for local businesses. Clearly, more competition is better when it comes to auto repairs. A 'yes' on question one is best for consumers and local businesses."
The Berkshire Eagle Editorial Board: "Right to Repair proponents, however, say that there is a loophole in the existing law that allows car manufacturers to withhold access to telematics — systems data retrieved wirelessly and not via a physical port on the vehicle. On this year’s ballot, Question 1 gives voters a chance to close this loophole, and The Eagle’s editorial board believes they should."

Opposition

Ballotpedia had not identified media editorial boards in opposition to the ballot measure.

Massachusetts Question 2, Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2020)

Support

The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

Boston Globe Editorial Board: "The process would encourage a broader field of qualified candidates — including independent and third-party candidates — to run for office without fear of a 'spoiler' effect. And it would mean voters could cast ballots for candidates they truly favor rather than voting for a candidate they don’t much like in order to thwart an undesired outcome. [...] Ranked-choice voting could also change the nature of campaigning for the better. [...] Ranked-choice voting is not a cure-all for our ailing democracy — plenty needs to be done to rein in the influence of unlimited corporate spending, stop voter suppression, and boost election security. But with Question 2, Bay State voters can make our government far more representative of the will of the people."

Opposition

The Eagle-Tribune and Gloucester Daily Times Editorial Boards: "Question 2 on the Massachusetts ballot, which proposes ranked choice voting, is confusing and unnecessary. ... When a voter puts an 'X' next to a candidate's name on a ballot, they're saying they believe that's the right person for the job – not that it might be the second, third or fourth best person. The top choice. There's no mystery and no confusion to that system, and it has worked for a long time. We believe residents should vote 'no' on Question 2 on Nov. 3."

Michigan

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Michigan 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 has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Michigan Proposal 2, Search Warrant for Electronic Data Amendment (2020)

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

The Detroit News Editorial Board: "Information stored in your cellphone or personal computer is no different than the paper document stashed in your home file cabinets and desk drawers. It's private, and it belongs to you. Government should have a very sound reason to peek at that information, and should have to explain the reason to a judge."
The Toledo Blade Editorial Board: "Michigan voters can strike a blow for liberty by approving an amendment to the state constitution that will protect personal data stored in electronic and digital form. ... It’s a rare opportunity to extend state constitutional protections for citizens. Voters shouldn’t miss an opportunity to decide Michigan’s law directly. ... While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a warrant is needed to search cell phone data, the reality is that courts change their opinions, and police departments change their practices, so the most effective way to protect electronic data is to make it clear by passing a law, in this case an amendment to the state constitution."

Opposition

Ballotpedia had not identified media editorial boards in opposition to the ballot measure.

Michigan Proposal 1, Use of State and Local Park Funds Amendment (2020)

Mississippi

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Mississippi 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 has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Mississippi Ballot Measure 3, State Flag Referendum (2020)

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Opposition

If you are aware of an editorial opposing Ballot Measure 3, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Mississippi Ballot Measure 1, Initiative 65 and Alternative 65A, Medical Marijuana Amendment (2020)

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 released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Missouri Amendment 3, Redistricting Process and Criteria, Lobbying, and Campaign Finance Amendment (2020)

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on Amendment 3. If you are aware of a media editorial board position that is not listed below, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

Ballotpedia had not identified media editorial boards in support of the ballot measure.

Opposition

St. Louis American Editorial Board: "The November 2018 initiative, popularly known as Clean Missouri, was a lobbying, campaign finance and redistricting initiative that was designed to provide major reform and oversight to Missouri politics. The most important element of the initiative was redistricting reform. It changed the process for how Missouri legislative districts are to be redrawn after every census. It created a less partisan process, using more objective criteria that reduces the ability of right-wing Republicans to gerrymander the legislature to their advantage. ... The American strongly recommends a vote of NO ON AMENDMENT 3."
St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial Board: "Legislators hated the 2018 amendment because, unless reversed, it will impose an independent state demographer on them to redraw their districts in ways to ensure more equal partisan representation. The Clean Missouri measure would take away their ability to draw districts to protect a given party’s control, thus keeping representation lopsided and unrepresentative of the voters who live there. Democrats get to keep their districts, and Republicans get to keep theirs, almost in perpetuity. ... Don’t let lawmakers reverse this already-decided matter. Vote no on Amendment 3."
The Joplin Globe Editorial Board: "Amendment 3 would kill the demographer system, restore bipartisan commissions appointed by the governor for legislative redistricting and de-emphasize competitiveness and partisan fairness in favor of compactness, equivalent voter populations and existing boundaries. ... We voters knew what we were doing when we passed Clean Missouri in 2018, but lawmakers think they know better. It is time to remind legislators that the ultimate authority lies with the people they are supposed to represent. We can do that by voting no on Amendment 3."

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 released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Montana C-47, Initiated Statute and Referendum Distribution Requirements Amendment (2020)

Montana LR-130, Limit Local Government Authority to Regulate Firearms Measure (2020)

Montana CI-118, Allow for a Legal Age for Marijuana Amendment (2020)

Montana I-190, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2020)

Nebraska

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Nebraska 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 has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Nebraska Amendment 1, Remove Slavery as Punishment for Crime from Constitution Amendment (2020)

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Omaha World-Herald Editorial Board: "[W]hile the Nebraska Constitution of 1875 prohibits slavery, it provides a strange exception, allowing involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime. Authorities in Nebraska used that provision for decades to allow convict leasing, in which prisoners were leased out to provide labor for farms, roads and other projects. ... Voter approval next year is needed. Convict leasing was a much-abused action. Let’s sever Nebraska’s constitutional connection to it."

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not locate media editorial boards opposing the Amendment 1. If you are aware of an editorial, please email the article to editor@ballotpedia.org.

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 released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Nevada Question 2, Marriage Regardless of Gender Amendment (2020)

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 has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

New Jersey Public Question 1, Marijuana Legalization Amendment (2020)

Support

The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

The Star-Ledger Editorial Board: “They’ve seen that like the prohibition on alcohol in the 1920s, our war on weed is nonsensical and destructive. Black people are arrested disproportionately, deepening inequality; it’s an extraordinary waste of law enforcement resources, and a boon to the criminal black market. We are long past the tipping point on this, with two-thirds of voters now backing legalization, and it’s on the ballot only because of a failure of political courage. … Legislators have made a circus out of this issue for far too long. Get out and vote, and end the reefer madness.”
The Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board: We support marijuana legalization and tax breaks for veterans. Vote Yes on Questions 1 and 2.

Opposition

The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:

The Press of Atlantic City Editorial Board: "State leaders greedy for new revenue have asked voters to legalize an addictive mind-altering drug, marijuana, so they can tax it and oversee a lucrative commercial industry selling it. Gov. Phil Murphy and legislative leaders won’t even acknowledge that medical science considers marijuana harmful and addictive, especially the younger a person starts using it. So much for listening to the experts. ... Don’t do it. Just say no to legalizing marijuana (promoted under its more marketable name, “cannabis”) on the ballots arriving in the mail now and at polling places on Nov. 3."

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 released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

New Mexico Bond Question C, Public Education Bond Issue (2020)

New Mexico Bond Question A, Senior Citizens Facilities Bond Issue (2020)

New Mexico Bond Question B, Public Libraries Bond Issue (2020)

North Dakota

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in North Dakota 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 has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1, Board of Higher Education Membership Amendment (2020)

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 released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Oklahoma State Question 802, Medicaid Expansion Initiative (June 2020)

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

The Muskogee Phoenix: "The reason why Oklahoma has passed up billions in federal health care dollars and allowed an estimated 200,000 of the state's low-income adults go without adequate access to care is because of their disdain for the Affordable Care Act. The [ACA] was a popular target for years by Republicans who vowed to oppose anything the two-term president supported. Those in states that accepted the additional Medicaid funds reaped even more benefits, while states where expansion was rejected saw rural hospitals close and health outcomes stagnate. ... At the very least SQ 802 should be placed on the ballot and presented for a vote. Because voters know what they would get with SQ 802, which is more than what they can get from those who say they plan to offer some alternative, SQ 802 also deserves voters' support."^[11]

Tulsa World: "Oklahoma’s health care outcomes are among the worst in the nation. Diabetes, addictions, cancer and heart disease kill a disproportionate share of the state’s population. It’s a solvable problem, and a big part of that solution is taking advantage of available federal funding to make sure Oklahomans have access to health care. The petition goes around lawmakers. Medicaid expansion would come to the state as described in the Affordable Care Act. The federal government would pay for 90% of the coverage costs of citizens who earn up to 133% of the federal poverty level. No work requirement. No private carriers."^[12]

Opposition

Tulsa Beacon: "Health care is not a right, regardless of what Joe Biden mumbles. You can’t find that in the U.S. Constitution. If it were a right, that would mean that those who work were somehow obligated to pay the medical bills for the able-bodied who chose to not work. Americans are compassionate. If you are sick and can’t pay, you can go to an emergency room and they are compelled by law to treat you and perhaps save your life. ... Oklahoma is facing a critical revenue shortage due to the coronavirus and the slumping energy industry. This is especially not the time to saddle the state budget with federally controlled socialism."^[13]

Oklahoma State Question 805, Criminal History in Sentencing and Sentence Modification Initiative (2020)

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Tulsa World Editorial Board: "Once again, the voters of Oklahoma are being asked to take a prudent step to reduce the state’s unsustainable prison population. Only Louisiana incarcerates a higher portion of its population than Oklahoma, but all those people warehoused in public and private prisons around the state aren’t making us any safer. ... We’re putting too many people in prison for the wrong reasons and keeping them there too long. It damages our economy and leads to generational poverty and dependence. ... When the issues are explained to them, we think the voters of Oklahoma will embrace SQ 805, too."

Opposition

Oklahoma State Question 814, Decrease Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund Deposits and Fund Medicaid Program Amendment (2020)

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Tulsa World Editorial Board: "SQ 814 offers the state a reasonable way to help fund Medicaid programs for a broad population of uninsured Oklahomans in poverty, and it deserves the voters’ close consideration as a way to fund a healthy future for the state."
Tulsa Beacon Editorial Board: "TSET doesn’t need a billion dollars (plus millions and millions more each year) to run commercials telling people not to smoke, to drink more water, to eat healthy and get exercise. While those are noble messages, they don’t require that much money. This state question would divert much-needed money to Oklahoma’s Medicaid program."

Opposition

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at editor@ballotpedia.org.

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 released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Oregon Measure 110, Drug Decriminalization and Addiction Treatment Initiative (2020)

See also: 2020 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

The Oregonian Editorial Board: "[T]his state must confront the addictions crisis we face. While some opponents credit the criminal justice system for helping force those with addictions into treatment, it’s not showing the widespread success that this state needs. Broadening access to services so that adults – and juveniles – can easily get assistance is a public health solution more closely tied with what is ultimately a public health problem. Oregonians should make clear this is a priority for the state and vote 'yes' on Measure 110."
Willamette Week Editorial Board: "For decades, Oregon and every other state have treated users who snort, inject or smoke hard drugs—such as heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine and various opioids—as criminals. Measure 110 decriminalizes possession of those drugs for personal use. No other state or even U.S. city has gone this far: The model is Portugal, which decriminalized drugs in 2001. ... A broad coalition of Oregon medical, psychological and treatment professionals say it's a risk worth taking. We hear the objections of cops and prosecutors who oppose the measure, but their way of dealing with substance abuse is a revolving door that brands sufferers for life. Let's try something new."
Portland Mercury Editorial Board: "To be clear, this measure does not get rid of the criminal justice system’s drug diversion programs. If the measure passes, people convicted with a higher-level possession charge are given the option to enter free treatment. We believe that Measure 110 is a critical form of harm reduction in an imperfect system. ... We believe the trauma and lifelong impact of an arrest isn’t an acceptable form of collateral for someone seeking addiction treatment in Oregon. Vote yes on Measure 110."
Eugene Weekly Editorial Board: "On the one hand, Oregon ballot measures put decisions in front of the voters. On the other hand, the measures lack a certain amount of nuance on complicated issues. Measure 110 is the measure we struggled with the most, but in the end, treatment over incarceration is the direction Oregon needs to go."
The Corvallis Advocate Editorial Board: "We think making criminals of people that need treatment is just plain wrong, but we also see that drug courts have often used eventual dismissal as a powerful lever to get people to reconsider their lives and sincerely embrace help. This bill lacks clarity on what’s to be funded, leaving much of that up to a commission yet to be established by the Oregon Health Authority. ... In the end, our Endorsement Board wished the particulars were better fleshed out, but we could not overcome our initial moral objection to criminalizing a health problem. Most especially, when a disproportionate number of the incarcerated in Oregon are of color. This measure isn’t perfect, but we hope it will point lawmakers in the right direction."

Opposition

EO Media Group Editorial Board (East Oregonian and The Bulletin): "Measure 110 is opposed by the Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police and 26 out of 36 district attorneys in the state. They believe that law enforcement plays an important role in getting people the help they need — and we agree. ... Oregon desperately needs more treatment options and supports for ongoing recovery. While we appreciate all efforts to provide treatment for those whose lives are controlled by their addiction and to keep them out of the criminal justice system, we don’t think this ballot measure is the way to do it. We recommend a “no” vote on Measure 110."
Mail Tribune Editorial Board: "There is a widely held perception that the criminal justice system routinely locks up drug users just for using. The reality is much different — especially in Jackson County, where the jail is so overcrowded that nonviolent offenders are rarely lodged for more than a few hours. And treatment is already offered to drug offenders. Jackson County’s Drug Court has been a leader in diverting people with drug addictions away from jail and toward recovery programs. More drug treatment is definitely needed, especially for those who cannot afford it. But Measure 110, no matter how well-intentioned, won’t deliver that. We recommend a no vote on Ballot Measure 110."

Oregon Measure 109, Psilocybin Mushroom Services Program Initiative (2020)

See also: 2020 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

Willamette Week Editorial Board: "Users of psilocybin describe the drug as psychologically healing. Therapists who've supervised trips say that just one to three sessions, which last roughly four to eight hours each, can help people resolve grief and trauma by escaping in an altered state, and break out of various patterns of thought that have kept them stuck. In other words, patients get outside of their mental habits and find relief from them. Clinical studies conducted at institutions like Johns Hopkins, Harvard and New York University determined that psilocybin helped patients cope with addiction, anxiety, depression and impending death from a terminal illness. In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted psilocybin a "breakthrough therapy designation" for treating major depressive disorder. ... Psilocybin won't cure all that ails Oregon, but it might help a few Oregonians. That's sufficient grounds to vote yes."
Portland Mercury Editorial Board: "In short, this measure won’t be 'legalizing' psilocybin in the same way cannabis was legalized in Oregon in the 2014 election. The goal is to strictly regulate the drug, and make it available only to those who have been trained by the state to treat people who could benefit from it. In addition, patients will be screened for any potential risk factors before being administered psilocybin. As it’s the first program of its kind in the country, there will certainly be questions that need to be answered—such as the wisdom of tossing a brand new drug onto the very full regulatory plate of the OHA. However, the benefits that will be gained for those suffering from depression, anxiety, and substance abuse clearly outweigh the majority of concerns. Vote yes on Measure 109."
The Corvallis Advocate Editorial Board: "Yes on Measure 109 – legalizes psilocybin therapy: We first acknowledge bad trips happen, and that the science isn’t complete yet. That all said, this measure requires patients be supervised at approved clinics while the psilocybin is active, and that they be screened beforehand. Proponents point to initially promising results using psilocybin to treat anxiety, depression and addiction. The Oregon Psychiatric Physicians Association and the American Psychiatric Association are against this measure. But, the current system for providing mental health care in Oregon has failed thousands. And, for something that’s been used in meditation by so many for so long, this seems like a fairly modest measure, most especially given the safeguards."
Mail Tribune Editorial Board: "The measure would not decriminalize psilocybin, allow it to be used recreationally or permit sales to the general public. Instead, it would set up a system of licensed facilitators who would administer the drug therapeutically in a controlled setting. Patients would ingest the drug only at a licensed facility, and would not leave until the effects were gone. No one would be allowed to take the drug home or ingest it anywhere else. Participants would have to be 21 or older. Cities and counties would be permitted to impose regulations on the operation of licensed therapy establishments, and local governments could ask voters to prohibit facilities in their communities. ... We recommend a yes vote on Ballot Measure 109."

Opposition

The Oregonian Editorial Board: "Measure 109 seeks to jump ahead of the science too quickly by making Oregon the first state in the country where adults can take the drug for any number of ailments at specially licensed centers under the guidance of a facilitator. Oregonians should follow the Oregon Psychiatric Physicians Association’s advice and vote 'no.'"
The Bulletin Editorial Board: "Psilocybin is a Schedule I narcotic, and it has been decriminalized in a few places, but remains illegal except for medical research. While it’s very possible that psilocybin will become a valuable therapeutic tool in the future, we don’t see the advantage to Oregon being out in front of the rest of the nation. We hope the research continues, and that we see a similar measure on the ballot in a few years, but for now, we recommend a 'No' vote on Measure 109."

Rhode Island

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Rhode Island 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 has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Rhode Island Question 1, Name Change Amendment (2020)

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 released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment B, Deadwood Sports Betting Legalization Amendment (2020)

South Dakota Initiated Measure 26, Medical Marijuana Initiative (2020)

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment A, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2020)

/

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 released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Utah Constitutional Amendment B, Legislator Qualifications Amendment (2020)

Utah Constitutional Amendment F, Legislative Session Start Date Amendment (2020)

Utah Constitutional Amendment E, Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment (2020)

Utah Constitutional Amendment C, Remove Slavery as Punishment for a Crime from Constitution Amendment (2020)

Utah Constitutional Amendment D, Municipal Water Resources Amendment (2020)

Utah Constitutional Amendment A, Gender-Neutral Constitutional Language Amendment (2020)

Utah Constitutional Amendment G, Use Income and Property Tax Revenue to Support Children and Individuals with Disabilities Amendment (2020)

Virginia

See Virginia 2020 ballot measures for more information.

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 has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Washington Advisory Vote 32, Nonbinding Question on Carryout Bag Tax (2020)

Washington Advisory Vote 33, Nonbinding Question on Heavy Equipment Rental Tax (2020)

Washington Advisory Vote 35, Nonbinding Question on Business and Occupation Tax Rate Increase on Commercial Airplane Manufacturers (2020)

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 released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Wisconsin Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (April 2020)

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

If you are aware of a media editorial board position in support of the ballot measure, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Opposition

Wyoming

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Wyoming 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 has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Wyoming Constitutional Amendment A, Municipal Debt for Sewage Systems Measure (2020)

Footnotes

[1] Daily Mountain Eagle, "Amendment 1 needs to be a ‘no’ vote," accessed March 2, 2020

[2] Chico Enterprise-Record, "This version of Proposition 13 warrants a ‘yes’," January 29, 2020

[3] Los Angeles Times, "Endorsement: Yes on Proposition 13 for school upgrades," February 11, 2020

[4] San Francisco Chronicle, “Editorial: Yes on California Prop. 13,” January 26, 2020

[5] The Sacramento Bee, "California ballot measure brings fairness to school bonds. It deserves your vote in March," February 5, 2020

[6] The Mercury News, "Editorial: Reject Prop. 13, California’s $15 billion school bond plan," February 9, 2020

[7] The Orange County Register, "The latest Prop. 13 is bad for taxpayers. Vote No on March 3," February 2, 2020

[8] The San Diego Union-Tribune, "Endorsement: Vote no on Proposition 13 school bond measure," February 19, 2020

[9] Los Angeles Times, "Editorial: Of course race matters. Put affirmative action back on California’s ballot," June 12, 2020

[10] The Sacramento Bee, "To dismantle systemic racism, California Legislature must let voters consider Prop. 209," June 10, 2020

[11] The Muskogee Phoenix, "OUR VIEW: Yes on 802 efforts show how wrong state leaders have been," October 2, 2019

[12] Tulsa World, "Tulsa World editorial: Oklahomans tired of waiting for a state Capitol solution can join the movement for Medicaid expansion starting Wednesday," accessed April 23, 2020

[13] Tulsa Beacon, "Editorial: No, no, no on State Question 802," accessed June 23, 2020

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]