Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
2025 ballot measure media endorsements
 |
| 2025 ballot measures |
|---|
This page lists media editorial endorsements for measures on the ballot in 2025. A media editorial board endorsement refers to an endorsement on a ballot measure by the editorial board of a media organization.
For 2025, 30 statewide ballot measures were certified for the ballot in nine states: California, Colorado, Louisiana, Maine, New York, Ohio, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.
- On November 4, voters in six states will decide on 24 statewide ballot measures.
- Earlier in 2025, voters in three states—Louisiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin—decided on six ballot measures. Two were approved, and four were defeated.
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.
Contents
California Proposition 50, Use of Legislative Congressional Redistricting Map Amendment (2025)
Support
The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:
- St. Helena Star Editorial Board: "What surprised us was how quickly our seven-member board — spanning a wide spectrum of political labels — arrived at a unanimous “Yes, California must push back.” Such agreement shows just how high the stakes have become. … We don’t relish bypassing California’s nonpartisan redistricting committees, even temporarily. But given our extraordinary historical moment, Prop. 50 is the best option we have for countering a president whose shattering of democratic norms and disregard for the rule of law is becoming more flagrant and alarming by the day. … Unanimously, we believe California should undo Texas’ partisan power grab. The stakes could not be higher. We urge a Yes on 50."
- McClatchy California Editorial Board (The Sacramento Bee, The Modesto Bee, The Fresno Bee, and The San Luis Obispo Tribune): "Why we are endorsing Prop. 50 can be summarized in three words: President Donald Trump. … We agree with Gov. Gavin Newsom, who pushed to get Prop. 50 on the ballot because Trump’s unchecked power poses a threat to our state, nation and democracy. There wouldn’t need to be a Prop. 50 if Trump and his GOP adherents hadn’t redrawn congressional districts in Texas, in such a nakedly partisan attempt to protect the slim GOP majority in the House that shields Trump from constitutional checks and balances. But Trump did get Texas to gerrymander districts on his behalf — and without voter approval. And Trump is leaning on other red states to do the same, to effectively shield himself from voters in next year’s mid-term elections. A ‘Yes’ vote on Prop. 50 represents the most public attempt yet to combat Trump by potentially adding seats for Democrats in California."
- Santa Cruz Sentinel Editorial Board: "Consider, though: In a fair system, if voters were unhappy with Trump next year, they could vote out politicians favorable to him and support representatives who will stand up to him. But with Trump aided and abetted by cowed Republican leaders wanting to tip the electoral scales to remain in power and with Trump’s authoritarian actions, it’s not a fair system. Democrats can’t just roll over and let this keep happening. We’re seeing where that leads. We need a level playing field for the next election. Vote Yes on Prop. 50."
- San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "But the danger Trump embodies goes beyond mere policy differences. In the past month alone, the president has withheld $27 billion in approved funding in a legally questionable campaign to punish Democratic-led cities and states — and has suggested he intends to further subsume Congress’ power of the purse in service of retribution. He has already positioned federalized National Guard troops on California soil under the pretense of an emergency and has announced plans to send more — including to San Francisco. While the full sweep of his intended use for these troops remains cloudy, he has spoken of snuffing out the 'enemy from within' — apparently referring to his domestic political opposition. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller briefly suggested in a CNN interview this week that Trump enjoys 'plenary authority' in his use of the military — which means complete and total power with no limitations. This is tyranny and arguably taxation without representation. It demands a forceful reaction."
- The Press Democrat Editorial Board: "The Press Democrat supported the ballot measures that established California’s independent redistricting commission. This model ought to be the national standard. But if Republicans are going to put their thumb on the electoral scales, Democrats can’t be expected to meekly cede any opportunity to influence policy in Washington. ... Only the voters can change that. Voters will ultimately decide who controls Congress after the 2026 midterms, but there ought to be a level playing field for the election. The Press Democrat recommends a yes vote on Prop. 50."
Opposition
The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:
- The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "Supporters of Prop. 50 say California must do it because Texas did it. But do two wrongs make a right? Since when is the answer to political corruption to become politically corrupt yourself? To be clear, this editorial board has consistently opposed gerrymandering. Yes, even when Texas was doing it. ... Recall that in 2018, the 'blue wave' saw the Democrats flip over 40 seats. They did that through persuasion and activism, not rigging elections like Prop. 50 will do. If you value fair elections, political competition, and true representation, vote no on Proposition 50."
- The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "Proposition 50 thus could go a long way toward helping Democrats take back control of the House, putting limits on Trump’s sway over national politics. Given his transgressive and reckless use of power, this argument will appeal to many moderates and independents. But the counterarguments are also hefty. Copying Trump’s bullying to gain power is unhealthy for a democracy because it normalizes such behavior even more. ... None of this will matter — or should matter — to those who believe Trump is a primal threat to American values. But it will to those who think Newsom’s measure reflects a 'burn down the village to save it' mindset."
Maine Question 1, Require Voter Photo ID and Change Absentee Ballot and Drop Box Rules Initiative (2025)
Support
Ballotpedia has not located media editorial boards in support of the ballot measure. You can share media editorial endorsements, along with source links for this information, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
Opposition
The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:
- The Bangor Daily News Editorial Board: "The U.S. Constitution clearly invests states and Congress, not a president or the federal government in general, with the power to run elections. States have wide latitude in determining when, where and how elections are held. The Trump administration, with help from Republican allies, are chipping away at that authority. Trump’s fact-challenged declaration comes as Republicans across the country are working to limit who can vote and to change other election rules and systems. In Maine, a group led by far-right state Rep. Laurel Libby, R-Auburn, succeeded in getting a measure on the November ballot that purports to be about requiring a photo ID to vote. While Question 1 would require such identification, the ballot question goes much further, restricting access to and availability of absentee ballots and limiting the number of ballot drop boxes, in addition to requiring new, cumbersome oversight of elections. Trump’s screed makes it clear that restricting who votes in hopes of bolstering Republicans, not election integrity, is the goal of such measures."
- Portland Press Herald Editorial Board: "At best, Question 1 seeks to crack down harshly on a range of shady dealings that are either imaginary or anxiously anticipated. At worst, Question 1 itself can be regarded as a bit of shady dealing. While we do not have anything like proof that our democratic process in Maine is under siege or otherwise being compromised by bad actors, people are sensitive to risk nowadays — real or perceived — and fear can be a powerful motivator. ... The process Question 1 is supposed to protect is the same process it would, if implemented, saddle with hassles and limitations. Let’s not do that. We hope you will join us in voting 'No.'"
- Central Maine Editorial Board: At best, Question 1 seeks to crack down harshly on a range of shady dealings that are either imaginary or anxiously anticipated. At worst, Question 1 itself can be regarded as a bit of shady dealing. While we do not have anything like proof that our democratic process in Maine is under siege or otherwise being compromised by bad actors, people are sensitive to risk nowadays — real or perceived — and fear can be a powerful motivator. We must all keep in mind that this very muscular bid for increased election security comes at an easily appraised and steep cost to voters’ access to their votes; older, rural and voters with disabilities in particular.
Footnotes
Topics: Absentee and mail voting • Administrative organization • Agriculture policy • Athletics and sports • Bail policy • Bond issues • Budget stabilization funds • Business taxes • Citizenship voting requirements • Civil trials • Constitutional rights • Criminal sentencing • Drinking water systems • Election administration and governance • Family-related policy • Firearms policy • Food policy • Healthcare governance • Higher education funding • Highways and bridges • Homestead tax exemptions • Income taxes • Juvenile criminal justice • Local government finance and taxes • Parks, land, and natural area conservation • Pollution, waste, and recycling policy • Property tax exemptions • Property taxes • Public assistance programs • Public education funding • Public employee retirement funds • Public school teachers and staff • Redistricting policy • Restricted-use funds • Revenue allocation • Revenue and spending limits • Sales taxes • Severance taxes • Sewage and stormwater • State judicial authority • State judicial selection • State judiciary oversight • State judiciary structure • State legislative authority • State legislative vote requirements • Vaccinations and disease policy • Veterans policy • Voter ID policy • Water storage
