2021 ballot measure media endorsements

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

The following page lists media outlets that weighed in on specific 2021 ballot measures, broken out by state and by measure.

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.

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 120, Reduce Property Tax Rates and Retain $25 Million in TABOR Surplus Revenue Initiative (2021) d

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Opposition

Colorado Proposition 119, Creation of Out-of-School Education Program and Marijuana Sales Tax Increase Initiative (2021) d

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

• Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial Board: "A modest tax on marijuana sales to fund an effort that actually helps children would be a refreshing change. It also arguably is the least we can do to make legal recreational pot pay for some of its collateral damage to Colorado’s kids, families and communities. ... LEAP promises to be a big stride for Colorado’s kids."
• Denver Gazette Editorial Board: "Who could object to such a smart solution — and why would Big Marijuana even care? Simply because a portion of the funding for LEAP will come from a modest, 5% sales tax on retail marijuana? LEAP represents an effort to make legalized pot pay for at least some of the damage it does to society, especially to our young, on a daily basis. Using a small amount of marijuana proceeds to fund an effort that actually helps children would be a refreshing turnabout."
• Denver Gazette Editorial Board: "You’d think LEAP’s huge dose of funding to bolster student achievement would make it clear that it’s a net gain, and a big one, for Colorado public education. Yet, the 'no' campaign is attempting to argue that because some of LEAP’s funding will come from state trust lands, the proposal will take money 'away from teacher salaries and classroom supplies.' That’s absurd. State trust lands are managed by the State Land Board to support public education among other state institutions. LEAP is exactly the kind of educational investment that state trust lands are intended to support."
• Grand Junction Daily Sentinel Editorial Board: "We think it’s a great idea, but the current lack of details of how the program would be created and implemented left some editorial board members concerned. ... Another concern is that LEAP is billed as using “marijuana money” when existing state funds are also being tapped. But the tax hike on marijuana is clearly providing the lion’s share of funding. We take comfort in the fact that support for LEAP is so widespread."
• Boulder Daily Camera Editorial Board: "Prop 119 will help stem a widespread educational gap made much worse by COVID-19, by taking funds from a lucrative marijuana market that experienced its best year on record with $2.2 billion in sales in 2020 (a 25% increase from the previous year) during a pandemic, and with no signs of slowing down. The money is there and will continue to be there, so let’s put it to good use."

Opposition

• Journal Advocate Editorial Board and Fort Morgan Times Editorial Board: "We’re concerned about the lack of specifics as to what the “enrichment” opportunities would look like and what exactly qualifies for funding. While a state board would be created to oversee the program (yet another state bureaucracy) it would be outside the purview of the State Board of Education. We’re not at all enthusiastic about the CBOE having no supervisory power over any educational program that would impact the public school system, as this one almost surely would. Besides, any new funds from marijuana sales should go to support the public school system. Then there is the matter of adding more taxes to retail marijuana sales. This is a double-whammy of possibly pushing legal users back to the cheaper black market, harming legal marijuana businesses and posing a risk to those users, and potentially killing the goose that lays the golden egg."
• Sentinel Editorial Board: "Prop 119 creates a shadow state education department, complete with its own competing school board. And there’s little doubt dual departments of education would create yet another place for polarizing politics at a time when those issues are already dragging education into the muck. ... Not only do public schools need greater support, the last thing they need is a competing program that would ultimately draw resources from the schools that really are the answer here. Vote no on Prop 119."
• Colorado Springs Indy Editorial Board: "Passage of this proposition will create an unfair business environment weighted against cannabis entrepreneurs and the cost will likely be passed on to the consumer, which could lead to a resurgence of black market sales. In addition, passage of Prop 119 would create the nine-member, governor-appointed Colorado Learning Authority, an unnecessary bureaucracy tied to our educational system."
• Denver Post Editorial Board: "We fear that unscrupulous online education providers will pounce on this opportunity to obtain public funds to offer extremely little in the way of educational attainment, or even child care for that matter. ... If voters do approve this “sin” tax, we hope that we are proven wrong. There is the possibility that school teachers would step up to provide this tutoring. In fact, at the outset teachers and other school employees are the only authorized individuals able to accept LEAP funds. ... It’s a gamble we encourage voters not to make."
• Steamboat Pilot & Today Editorial Board: "We believe there’s a need for tutoring and enrichment programs but not independent of existing educational structures."
• Durango Herald Editorial Board: "Taxing pot is not a bad idea — although at some point, we might risk killing the golden goose — but why not put the money straight into schools? Why create another agency? Teachers fear this is a surreptitious move to use public money for private schools, and it may be."

Colorado Amendment 78, Custodial Fund Appropriations Initiative (2021) d

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

• Denver Gazette Editorial Board: "This should be the easiest question on the ballot. Voters who want their money used for its intended purpose, with accountability and budgeting, should approve Amendment 78. Vote “yes” to end big sleazy slush funds."
• Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial Board: "Amendment 78 would put a stop to the misuse of “free” money to the state from the Federal Reserve. The law would subject federal money to checks and balances that involves the scrutiny of 100 members of the Colorado General Assembly. This means the money would more likely benefit the public, rather than going for one man’s “personal services,” ethics violations, or other expenses incurred unilaterally by the governor, attorney general, and other ranking state officials. They would have to justify expenditures to people of all backgrounds representing every square inch of Colorado. This should be the easiest question on the ballot. Voters who want their money used for its intended purpose, with accountability and budgeting, should approve Amendment 78. Vote “yes” to end big sleazy slush funds."

Opposition

• Boulder Daily Camera Editorial Board: "...Future emergency funding — for public health, severe flooding, wildfires — should be handled quickly and efficiently at the hands of our governor, not the General Assembly, which would be a terrible consequence we’d prefer to avoid."
• Journal Advocate Editorial Board and Fort Morgan Times Editorial Board: "Amendment 78 is known by the title Legislative Authority for Spending State Money. While it seems to be motivated by the federal relief funds given in response to the pandemic, this one has three strikes against it. Strike one: It’s an amendment to an already-over-amended state constitution. Because of the ease with which Colorado’s constitution could be amended in the past, the document is no longer a simple road map to good governance, but a complex maze of detailed, often contradictory instructions on how to account for every last dime of tax revenue. The last thing the constitution needs is one more fiscal amendment. Strike two: It ties up money that is received by state agencies for a specific and directed purpose. ... Strike three: The measure would add another level of bureaucracy to state government. The accounting requirements of this constitutional amendment could result in additional man-hours for state staff, which results in bigger government and more cost to taxpayers."
• Sentinel Editorial Board: "Colorado’s state government is already choked with noxious and unwieldy laws and constitutional amendments, chief among them the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights, adding Amendment 78 to the mix would only further slow the grinding wheels of government and needlessly chew up more public time and attention. Vote no on Amendment 78."
• Colorado Springs Indy Editorial Board: "Proponents say the measure would bring more accountability and transparency in how funds from federal relief and legal settlements are spent. But the problem lies in the custodial account. These funds are often needed to address emergent issues and creating a new layer of government would slow that process. The unintended consequences of passing this amendment aren’t entirely clear. We feel more time is needed to determine the impacts of a change such as this."
• Grand Junction Daily Sentinel Editorial Board: "There are several downsides to changing how custodial funds are spent. It would cost at least $1 million annually for the bureaucratic oversight of bringing custodial funds under the purview of the Legislature and it could delay disbursement of certain funds when the Legislature isn’t in session. But as a practical matter, lawmakers could simply undo the amendment with a simple bill in the Legislature to revert back to the old way of dealing with custodial funds, rendering Amendment 78 moot. We say skip the headache and reject Amendment 78."
• Steamboat Pilot & Today Editorial Board: "...We think the amendment would create unintended consequences, disrupt state government and make budgeting more difficult overall."
• Durango Herald Editorial Board: "Better yet, think of how federal transportation money might be distributed if that were decided by lawmakers — most of whom are from the Front Range. Colorado’s highway spending involves an elaborate system designed, in large part, to ensure that every part of the state gets its fair share. Amendment 78 could be seen as an attempt to scuttle that."
• Denver Post Editorial Board: "Colorado voters are being given an unenviable option – lock down federal funds to prevent potential abuse and risk tying Colorado’s hands in an emergency slowing critical spending with the legislative process. We urge Colorado voters to keep custodial funds how they are for now and vote 'no' on Amendment 78."

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 2, Reduction of the Maximum Individual Income Tax Rate Measure (2021) a

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

• The Advocate Editorial Board: "Just as with sales taxes, income taxes — corporate and personal — are too complex a system in Louisiana. The many changes caused by adoption of this amendment would lower the top rate of personal income tax and should make Louisiana more competitive for new businesses."

Opposition

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

Louisiana Amendment 4, Increase Limit on Funding Reductions and Redirections During Budget Deficits Measure (2021) d

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

• The Advocate Editorial Board: "Given Louisiana’s history of revenues fluctuating wildly from year to year — part of what Amendment 2 seeks to remedy — this amendment allows for reasonable adjustments in cases of threatened deficits."

Opposition

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

Louisiana Amendment 1, Creation of the State and Local Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Commission Measure (2021) d

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

• The Advocate Editorial Board: "Today’s complex local system of more than 50 tax collectors, often with differing definitions of what is taxable, is a huge burden for local businesses — especially compared to online retailers, who have a simplified system already. Louisiana is almost alone among the states in not taking this obvious pro-business step."

Opposition

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

Maine

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Maine with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia 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 2, Transportation Infrastructure Bond Issue (2021) a

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• Bangor Daily News Editorial Board: "Voters should approve this bond, but they should also expect their elected leaders to agree on additional and better ways of paying for the big backlog of construction projects instead of turning to them to approve a $100 million bond every year."

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not identify media editorial board endorsements in support of a "No" vote on Question 2.

Maine Question 3, Right to Produce, Harvest, and Consume Food Amendment (2021) a

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Ballotpedia did not identify media editorial board endorsements in support of a "Yes" vote on Question 3.

Opposition

• Portland Press Herald Editorial Board: "Question 3 raises a lot of legitimate concerns, but it won’t necessarily fix them. Without that certainty, and without a clear and present danger to anyone’s right to the food they want, Maine shouldn’t take the drastic step of amending its constitution."
• Bangor Daily News Editorial Board: "Even with the understanding that no right is absolute, we have a hard time seeing how creating this new, ambiguous constitutional right won’t lead to court challenges where judges, rather than the Legislature, will decide what this language really means. ... In legislative testimony earlier this year, a supporter of this right to food amendment called it “pure poetry.” Perhaps we lack imagination, but we believe constitutional amendments need more than poetry. They also need precision and clear definitions. We are unconvinced and unsure of the ramifications, and that is enough for us to oppose Question 3."

Maine Question 1, Electric Transmission Line Restrictions and Legislative Approval Initiative (2021) a

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

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

Opposition

• Bangor Daily News Editorial Board: "We fear that passage of Question 1 would send a worrying message to those who may want to invest in and develop major projects in Maine that the state’s regulatory environment is too uncertain. The corridor has received approval from seven federal and state agencies and more than a dozen municipal approvals, which in most instances, included opportunities for public comment or hearings."
• The Sun Journal Editorial Board: "Even so, the reduction in emissions and the sustained tax revenue for Maine are enough to support completion. The alarm over timber cutting in what is existing working forests has been overwrought, and the disputed lease in the Upper Kennebec Valley was the state’s failing. ... The politics of this project must not override the positives, and the promises and concessions made by NECEC must not wither. Vote “No” and hold NECEC accountable for every word and deed."
• Portland Press Herald Editorial Board: "Despite still-unresolved questions and strong objections to the conduct of the campaign, especially on the vote “no” side, we see this project as part of the fight against climate change. A “yes” vote on Question 1 is a vote to do nothing about the greatest challenge of our time and at this point in history, we don’t have time to do nothing."

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, Sports Betting on State College Athletics Amendment (2021) d

New Jersey Public Question 2, Raffle Money for Organizations Amendment (2021) a

New York

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in New York with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, 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 York Proposal 2, Environmental Rights Amendment (2021) a

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• The Buffalo News Editorial Board: "Pennsylvania, our neighboring state whose political map features more shades of red and purple than New York, has had its Environmental Rights Amendment for 50 years. Critics of the New York proposal worry that it would provide an opening for lawyers to unleash a flood of litigation, but that has not been the case in Pennsylvania."

Opposition

• Advance Media NY (The Post-Standard) Editorial Board: "We’re not comforted by the experiences of other states with similar constitutional amendments. Most at least spell out who can sue whom. Proposal 2 is just too vague. Voters should look beneath Proposal 2′s feel-good language and consider its broader consequences for the state’s economy and the costs it could impose on local governments and taxpayers."

New York Proposal 5, NYC Civil Court Jurisdiction Amendment (2021) a

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• The Buffalo News Editorial Board: "This is a New York City proposal to increase the City Civil Court’s jurisdiction over claims from $25,000 to $50,000, basically an adjustment for inflation. Vote yes."

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not identify media editorial board endorsements in support of a "No" vote on Proposal 5.

New York Proposal 3, Remove 10-Day-Advance Voter Registration Requirement Amendment (2021) d

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• The Buffalo News Editorial Board: "New Yorkers are fortunate to live in a state that promotes democratic participation rather than trying to restrict it. There is no democratic downside to a carefully implemented policy. Vote yes."

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not identify media editorial board endorsements in support of a "No" vote on Proposal 3.

New York Proposal 4, Allow for No-Excuse Absentee Voting Amendment (2021) d

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• The Buffalo News Editorial Board: "Absentee ballots make voting more convenient. There is little evidence that they produce any more election fraud or errors than other ways of voting. As we’ve noted before, we’re fans of the way Colorado sends absentee ballots to every voter, encouraging participation. This proposal is a step in that direction. Vote yes."

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not identify media editorial board endorsements in support of a "No" vote on Proposal 4.

New York Proposal 1, Redistricting Changes Amendment (2021) d

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• The Buffalo News Editorial Board: "The proposal would also strike down the requirement that the redistricting commission be headed by co-directors from opposing parties. The dueling maps produced by the commission this year show the bipartisan arrangement is not all it’s cracked up to be."

Opposition

• The Post-Journal Editorial Board: "In our view, the 2014 compromise between Assembly Democrats and Senate Republicans struck a balance between the two parties that resulted in a modicum of fairness when drawing legislative districts. The 2014 compromise, if allowed to stand, provides a momentary speed bump before a plan is imposed on Republicans. Democrats want to remove that speed bump. Our system of checks and balances exists for a reason, and in our view voters should uphold them here. Vote no on Proposition 1."
• Advance Media NY (The Post-Standard) Editorial Board: "Proposal 1 also would establish new deadlines for adopting redistricting maps to accommodate a June primary; count non-citizens and prisoners in their home communities for the purposes of redistricting; freeze the number of state senate districts at 63; and remove outdated language from the constitution. Each of those proposals should have stood alone on the ballot so voters could decide them on their merits. Instead, it’s all or nothing. Vote down the whole mess."

Pennsylvania

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Pennsylvania with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia 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.

Pennsylvania Question 4, Municipal Fire and EMS Services Loans Measure (May 2021) a

Support

• The Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board: "The last question that Pennsylvania voters outside Philadelphia will see is a statewide referendum and not a constitutional amendment. If approved, the state loan program currently only available to volunteer fire departments and EMS companies will open to those with paid employees. The funds could help municipalities improve facilities and equipment to improve the response of their emergency services providers."
• The Observer–Reporter Editorial Board: "It makes perfect sense to allow municipal companies to access the same loan fund, which is frequently raided to cover other state expenses. It will not prevent volunteer services from getting loans, and fire companies in neither Pittsburgh nor Philadelphia access the fund, because they pay for fire department improvements through municipal bonds."

Opposition

Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards in opposition to Question 4.

Pennsylvania Question 3, Equal Rights Regardless of Race or Ethnicity Amendment (May 2021) a

Support

• The Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board: "There are protections against discrimination in the Pennsylvania constitution, but this amendment aims to make it as clear as possible by adding to article I of the Commonwealth’s constitution that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of an individual’s race or ethnicity.” This codifies an existing and important protection."
• The Observer–Reporter Editorial Board: "This amendment would spell out clearly that Pennsylvania does not countenance bigotry and intolerance based on race or ethnicity. Who, in the 21st century, could object to that?"

Opposition

Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards in opposition to Question 3.

Pennsylvania Question 1, Legislative Resolution to Extend or Terminate Emergency Declaration Amendment (May 2021) a

Support

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

• The Observer–Reporter Editorial Board: "And while the constitutional amendments have been placed on the ballot in the wake of Gov. Tom Wolf’s actions during the pandemic over the last year, they would restore a balance of power between both co-equal branches of government in the decades ahead. One day, there could well be a Republican governor facing a Democratic Legislature, and these constitutional amendments will be applicable in that scenario, too."

Opposition

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

• The Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board: "The purpose of disaster declarations is to provide a mechanism for government to respond quickly to emergent issues, recognizing that the legislative process is lengthy by design. In an ideal situation, disaster declarations would be rare and short. But that would require a responsive legislature that is willing to enact laws to ameliorate crises. For example, throughout spring and summer of 2020, when Pennsylvanians were suffering both from COVID-19 and the pandemic’s recession, Republican lawmakers were busy picking a fight with Gov. Wolf about school sports events instead of addressing the pressing needs of their constituents. ... If Republicans want to limit emergency powers from the governor, let them first prove that they are capable of responding to a crisis from the legislature."
• USA Today Network Pennsylvania Editorial Board: "Disaster declarations give the governor the power to waive laws and regulations to enable swift, nimble response and recovery. The declarations are a prerequisite to release the flow of state and federal aid. Imagine amid a crisis having to seek the consent of the Legislature every three weeks, a Legislature that is not often in session and not prone to comity. If consensus could not be reached, what would happen to Pennsylvanians confronting disaster? Decision-making by committee during an emergency is a reckless proposition and simply not practical or necessary since a mechanism to rein in overreach already exists. Common sense should prevail. Disaster management is the purview of the executive branch for a reason. It should stay that way."
• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Editorial Board: "The proposed amendments are more reflective of the acrimonious relationship between Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf and the Republican-controlled Legislature and do not serve the best interests of the commonwealth in the long term. Voters should reject them. ... Still, these proposals would take much of the decision making in an emergency out of the hands of the governor and public health officials, and place it with legislators. Politics would take priority, and that’s a frightening thought."
• PennLive Editorial Board: "These two amendments are not only important, they’re dangerous. If COVID-19 has taught us anything, it’s that we need strong, decisive leadership in a crisis. And we’ve learned a crisis can last longer than 21 days. ... The last thing Pennsylvanians need is to face an emergency with a governor unable to act to protect lives while lawmakers bicker among themselves in the General Assembly."
• York Dispatch Editorial Board: "Officials who don’t take public-health threats seriously enough to protect themselves, their families and their staffs can hardly be trusted to safeguard the general public. Of course, protecting the public is not what’s driving next month’s amendments; political predominance is. ... Removing emergency responsibilities from the governor’s office in favor of the General Assembly would, at best, muddle and delay action when it’s most needed. At worst, it would reward a power grab and infuse partisan considerations into public-safety decision-making."

Pennsylvania Question 2, Emergency Declarations Amendment (May 2021) a

Support

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

• The Observer–Reporter Editorial Board: "And while the constitutional amendments have been placed on the ballot in the wake of Gov. Tom Wolf’s actions during the pandemic over the last year, they would restore a balance of power between both co-equal branches of government in the decades ahead. One day, there could well be a Republican governor facing a Democratic Legislature, and these constitutional amendments will be applicable in that scenario, too."

Opposition

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

• The Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board: "The purpose of disaster declarations is to provide a mechanism for government to respond quickly to emergent issues, recognizing that the legislative process is lengthy by design. In an ideal situation, disaster declarations would be rare and short. But that would require a responsive legislature that is willing to enact laws to ameliorate crises. For example, throughout spring and summer of 2020, when Pennsylvanians were suffering both from COVID-19 and the pandemic’s recession, Republican lawmakers were busy picking a fight with Gov. Wolf about school sports events instead of addressing the pressing needs of their constituents. ... If Republicans want to limit emergency powers from the governor, let them first prove that they are capable of responding to a crisis from the legislature."
• USA Today Network Pennsylvania Editorial Board: "Disaster declarations give the governor the power to waive laws and regulations to enable swift, nimble response and recovery. The declarations are a prerequisite to release the flow of state and federal aid. Imagine amid a crisis having to seek the consent of the Legislature every three weeks, a Legislature that is not often in session and not prone to comity. If consensus could not be reached, what would happen to Pennsylvanians confronting disaster? Decision-making by committee during an emergency is a reckless proposition and simply not practical or necessary since a mechanism to rein in overreach already exists. Common sense should prevail. Disaster management is the purview of the executive branch for a reason. It should stay that way."
• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Editorial Board: "The proposed amendments are more reflective of the acrimonious relationship between Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf and the Republican-controlled Legislature and do not serve the best interests of the commonwealth in the long term. Voters should reject them. ... Still, these proposals would take much of the decision making in an emergency out of the hands of the governor and public health officials, and place it with legislators. Politics would take priority, and that’s a frightening thought."
• PennLive Editorial Board: "These two amendments are not only important, they’re dangerous. If COVID-19 has taught us anything, it’s that we need strong, decisive leadership in a crisis. And we’ve learned a crisis can last longer than 21 days. ... The last thing Pennsylvanians need is to face an emergency with a governor unable to act to protect lives while lawmakers bicker among themselves in the General Assembly."
• York Dispatch Editorial Board: "Officials who don’t take public-health threats seriously enough to protect themselves, their families and their staffs can hardly be trusted to safeguard the general public. Of course, protecting the public is not what’s driving next month’s amendments; political predominance is. ... Removing emergency responsibilities from the governor’s office in favor of the General Assembly would, at best, muddle and delay action when it’s most needed. At worst, it would reward a power grab and infuse partisan considerations into public-safety decision-making."

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, Higher Education Bond Measure (March 2021) a

Rhode Island Question 4, Transportation Bond Measure (March 2021) a

Rhode Island Question 5, Early Childhood Care and Education Capital Fund Bond Measure (March 2021) a

Rhode Island Question 6, Cultural Arts and State Preservation Grant Programs Bond Measure (March 2021) a

Rhode Island Question 7, Improvements to Industrial Facilities Infrastructure Bond Measure (March 2021) a

Texas

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Texas with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia 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.

Texas Proposition 7, Homestead Tax Limit for Surviving Spouses of Disabled Individuals Amendment (2021) a

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on Proposition 7. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

• The Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "The first of two amendments expanding property-tax exemptions, this would allow the surviving spouses of elderly disabled Texans to continue to benefit from a property-tax freeze and an additional homestead exemption of up to $10,000. ... Our recommendation: Yes."
• The San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "We recommend voters cast a ballot FOR Proposition 7. This amendment protects an important benefit for the surviving spouses of disabled people. It validates a Texas law passed in 2019 but not included in the state constitution because the legislative session ended before lawmakers approved the required joint resolution. Because of this, some counties enforced the law and others did not."
• The Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Homestead exemptions are a valuable tool to help longtime residents stay in their homes, and the additional protections are especially important for seniors and disabled residents on limited incomes. Disabled Texans who work full-time earn nearly $15,000 less, on average, than those without disabilities. Preventing them — and their families — from being taxed out of their homes is the right thing to do. Prop 7 delivers sensible protections that voters should support."
• The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "Recommendation: Yes. Currently, a person gets a homestead tax limitation if they are either disabled or older than 64. After they die, the benefit only passes to their spouse if the spouse qualifies under the age category. This amendment extends the benefit to widowed spouses of disabled Texans. This is a common-sense update."
• El Paso Times Editorial Board: "Proposition 7 is about consistency. It’s about ensuring disabled homeowners receive the same support as seniors, and their spouses aren’t hit with a surprise tax bill after their partner dies. Voters should wholeheartedly support Prop 7 on the Nov. 2 ballot."

Opposition

• The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "Propositions 7 and 8: AGAINST. These are both tweaks to existing state law regarding what property tax homestead exemptions can continue to be claimed by the surviving spouse of a deceased owner. Prop 7 applies when the owner was disabled (lowering the surviving spouse's age of eligibility to 55), Prop 8 to service members killed in the line of duty (as opposed to "in combat" as current law reads). To support them in good faith, one must support the exemptions themselves, which we do not. We are all for making it easier for taxing entities in Texas to account for personal hardship; we do not think that linking favorable tax treatment to moralistic virtue signaling is the way to go. Our democracy is in crisis precisely because the people who run this place want to preserve the benefits of good government for whom they deem the right kind of people; this is more of that, and it should be rejected."

Texas Proposition 4, Changes to Eligibility for Certain Judicial Offices Amendment (2021) a

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on Proposition 4. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

• The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "Recommendation: Yes. The proper function of our courts relies on knowledgeable judges with deep legal experience. The current requirements are insufficient to ensure that our judges have that experience. Attorneys commonly complain that they are before courts where judges lack a strong enough understanding of the law."
• Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "The prongs of Prop 4 are prudent and worthy of voters’ support. But they merely tinker with a judicial selection process that, for decades, has cried out for overhaul. ... Requiring more experience of judicial candidates, while nice, is not the solution to that problem. Passing Prop 4 is fine, but lawmakers need to focus on more fundamental reforms to ensure judges are picked for their qualifications, not their party affiliation."
• The Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "It’s admirable to try to ensure only qualified judges get elected. But the real problem is that we elect judges at all. Our recommendation: Yes."
• The San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "For: Put simply, Proposition 4 raises the bar for judicial candidates."
• El Paso Times Editorial Board: "Unable to agree on any substantive reforms, however, the Texas Commission on Judicial Selection gave us a piece of low-hanging fruit for the Nov. 2 ballot: Proposition 4, which requires more years of Texas legal experience from judicial candidates, and blocks candidates who have been disciplined by the Texas Bar in recent years."

Opposition

• The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "Proposition 4: AGAINST. When people in power are unhappy with the choices made by voters, they do stuff like this, which would make it substantially harder for younger, more diverse, and dare we say more progressive lawyers to become judges in Texas. The need for more stringent qualifications wasn't evident to the state's GOP elites (which include many wack jobs who were nonetheless elevated to judicial benches) until they started losing court elections en masse to Democratic slates in the urban counties. Now it's a crisis. You get the picture."

Texas Proposition 5, State Commission on Judicial Conduct Authority Over Candidates for Judicial Office Amendment (2021) a

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on Proposition 5. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

• The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "Recommendation: Yes. This amendment would expand the authority of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to receive complaints, investigate and sanction candidates for state judicial offices. Currently, the Texas Constitution limits the commission’s authority to current holders of judicial office. This change would hold challengers and incumbents to the same standards and help preserve the impartiality and integrity of the courts."
• Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Prop 5 would bring uniformity to a system designed to keep judicial campaigns honest. We recommend voters support it. ... Public confidence in the judiciary grows from the perception that judges are honest, unbiased actors. Having judicial campaign standards — and applying them evenly — helps ensure that a campaign does not undermine the integrity of the courts. Prop 5 provides that level playing field by ensuring the same entity handles all judicial campaign complaints. Texas voters should support this common-sense reform."
• The Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "This would give the State Commission on Judicial Conduct power to investigate complaints against candidates for office, not just sitting judges. It would make for even-handed treatment, though it could have unintended consequences, including a flood of complaints that the commission is not adequately staffed to handle. Our recommendation: Yes."
• The San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Proposition 5 expands the State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s power to accept and investigate complaints, and takes actions concerning, alleged misconduct by judicial candidates. Currently, the commission accepts and investigates complaints against judges in office. We recommend voters cast a ballot FOR Proposition 5."
• El Paso Times Editorial Board: "Prop 5 would bring uniformity to a system designed to keep judicial campaigns honest. We recommend voters support it."

Opposition

• The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "Proposition 5: AGAINST. This is another attempt to game judicial elections. In the abstract, it would be good if the state's legal institutions, such as the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, had a more useful and visible role to play in helping local voters decide these very low-information races. In practice, this is a recipe for chaos and mischief designed to give rival campaigns a chance to go negative without real consequence, much the same way that complaints to the Texas Ethics Commission are filed now. We can live without it."

Texas Proposition 2, Authorize Counties to Issue Infrastructure Bonds in Blighted Areas Amendment (2021) a

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on Proposition 2. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

• The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "Recommendation: Yes. This provision would allow counties to issue debt to fund roads or other infrastructure and to use the resulting property tax revenue growth in the area to pay for the project. It’s a method of financing infrastructure without raising the property tax rate. Cities already have this authority. For Texas to continue to grow, counties need additional tools to fund infrastructure."
• Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "We urge voters to give Prop 2 the green light. The measure would give counties a valuable financing tool to pay for roads and infrastructure in blighted or under-developed areas. Importantly, this would be done without raising taxes countywide. As the county builds roads or other amenities, the properties nearby typically become more useful and desirable. Empty buildings are renovated; empty lots draw new construction. As the appraised value of those properties goes up, so does their tax bill. Under Prop 2, counties could channel some of that increased tax revenue — only from the nearby properties benefitting from the project — to repay the debt on that project."
• The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "Proposition 2: FOR. We generally believe in giving more power to Texas counties, allowing them to do what cities can, and that they and their voters can decide whether and how to use it. This is a perfect example; in many places in Texas the county is the only local government that should or could be in the infrastructure business, and this measure eliminates barriers that keep counties from using debt financing to build infrastructure in the same ways cities do routinely."
• The Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "It’s not a tax increase. Toll-road projects are excluded. And the proposition would allow targeted improvements that could spur economic development and eventually more tax revenue. We have some concern about layering more complications onto property taxes. But this is a good tool for counties to have. Our recommendation: Yes."
• The Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "We urge voters to give Texas counties another tool, already long used by cities, to keep investing in their infrastructure. There may be no county in Texas that has better need for just that option than Harris County."
• The San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "For: Since 1981, the Texas Constitution has allowed cities and towns to finance transportation and infrastructure projects with bonds and notes. It’s only reasonable for that right to be expanded to counties to address their infrastructure needs. But the proposition, should it pass, would also place reasonable restrictions on counties."
• El Paso Times Editorial Board: "We urge voters to give Prop 2 the green light. The measure would give counties a valuable financing tool to pay for roads and infrastructure in blighted or under-developed areas. Importantly, this would be done without raising taxes countywide."

Opposition

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

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 36, Nonbinding Question on Telephone Tax to Fund Behavioral Health Crisis Response and Suicide Prevention (2021) d

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support (maintain)

• The Seattle Times Editorial Board: "Maintain. Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1477 imposes a tax on telephone lines to fund a behavioral health crisis response and suicide prevention network. The tax is expected to generate $432 million over 10 years. Revenues will be used to create call-center hubs connecting people with lifesaving crisis-intervention services."

Opposition (repeal)

If you are aware of a media editorial supporting a repeal vote, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.