2025 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

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.

In 2025, 30 statewide ballot measures were on the ballot in nine states: California, Colorado, Louisiana, Maine, New York, Ohio, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. Voters approved 25 (83%) and rejected five (17%) ballot measures.

On November 4, voters in six states decided on 24 statewide ballot measures, approving 23 and rejecting one.

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.

California

Colorado

Louisiana

Maine

Ohio

Texas

Washington

Wisconsin

California Proposition 50, Use of Legislative Congressional Redistricting Map Amendment (2025)

See also: 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."
Santa Barbara Independent Editorial Board: "President Donald Trump has called on Republican governors across the country to redraw their own congressional maps, giving him and his MAGA movement the safe buffer needed in the midterm elections of November 2026 to continue his control over Congress. Texas was the first to answer his call. ... We share many of the concerns raised by critics of Prop 50. Truly, we sympathize. But Prop 50 will expire in 2030 when the state’s nonpartisan citizens committee will be reinstated and charged once again with drawing the district lines for future elections. But with no other credible check to a government that’s currently so unhinged and unbalanced, we support a Yes vote on Proposition 50 with great enthusiasm."

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."
The Signal Editorial Board: "All of this is to say, Newsom and Co. are merely using the Texas controversy as an excuse for a nakedly partisan power grab. Texas is not the first state where gerrymandering has reared its ugly head, nor is gerrymandering a uniquely Republican technique. ... Here in California, even with the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, which was created in 2008, Republicans hold just nine of the state’s 52 congressional seats — that’s about 17%. In the 2024 election, about 39% of the state’s votes went Republican. One could argue that, even with the independent commission, California is already gerrymandered. Still, Prop. 50 would essentially toss aside the 'gold standard' for nonpartisan creation of congressional districts."

Maine Question 1, Require Voter Photo ID and Change Absentee Ballot and Drop Box Rules Initiative (2025)

See also: Maine Question 1, Require Voter Photo ID and Change Absentee Ballot and Drop Box Rules Initiative (2025)

Support

Ballotpedia did not locate media editorial boards in support of the ballot measure.

Opposition

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

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.'"
The Bangor Daily News Editorial Board: "None of these changes are necessary. Even the backers of Question 1 acknowledge that voter fraud is not a problem in Maine. They argue instead that these changes are about building a better system for the future. One that voters will trust. Maine’s current system works — and it has the public’s trust. It’s also worth noting that the narrative of voter fraud, perpetuated for years by President Donald Trump, has been widely discredited. Yet, the president and others continue to claim that election results they don’t like are the result of fraud. They’ve used this false narrative to weaken voter confidence in our elections and to push for restrictions on voting across the country, including Trump’s threat to end mail-in ballots."

Texas Proposition 1, Establish Special Funds for State Technical College System Amendment (2025)

See also: Texas Proposition 1, Establish Special Funds for State Technical College System Amendment (2025)

Support

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

Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "Voters should approve this amendment to provide more state funds for the Texas State Technical College, an unsung jewel of higher education that provides workforce training."
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "TSTC boasts a 94% job placement rate among its more than 3,600 industry partners. The combined first-year earnings of its 2024 graduates totaled more than $108 million. That means increasing Texans’ ability to afford housing, provide for their families and have a better quality of life overall. A yes vote is an investment in Texas’ bright economic future."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Proposition 1: The amendment and associated legislation would create a dedicated stream of revenue to expand the programs of the Texas State Technical College in Waco. Ask just about any business or economic leader about their concerns for the future, and they’ll mention the need for more skilled workers in infrastructure-related trades. This is a smart, affordable way to strengthen the economy long-term. Recommendation: FOR."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "This should be an easy call for Texas voters. If approved, Proposition 1 would create and fund an endowment for the Texas State Technical College System, known as TSTC, which lacks taxing authority to issue bonds. It would seed this endowment with $850 million, which would be used to update technology and expand the system’s presence across the state. For."
Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "For. The economic growth of our state requires investing in our skilled workforce, but our two-year public technical school system currently does not have consistent means for funding critical capital improvements. This funding is a commitment to support employers in need of high-demand jobs like welding, plumbing, nursing, aircraft maintenance and others."

Opposition

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

Texas Proposition 2, Prohibit Capital Gains Tax on Individuals, Estates, and Trusts Amendment (2025)

See also: Texas Proposition 2, Prohibit Capital Gains Tax on Individuals, Estates, and Trusts Amendment (2025)

Support

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

Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "For. Texas doesn’t impose a capital gains tax, and we need to keep it that way. This state has made its mark by being a place that welcomes investment and the growth of capital through innovation and hard work. Taxes on unrealized gains are among the worst ideas in taxation. But even realized gains are already heavily taxed federally. Let’s keep encouraging investors to do their business in Texas by protecting their gains."

Opposition

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

Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Proposition 2: Investments are generally not taxed until they yield a gain, and this would prevent lawmakers from creating such a tax. A wealth tax would damage the economy and curtail investment, but Texas need not clutter its constitution further to prevent it. Recommendation: AGAINST."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "This is a non-issue as there is no proposal in the Texas Legislature to create a capital gains tax. But should the day come when one is under consideration or debate, we are confident that lawmakers and voters at that time can handle it. We disagree with tying the hands of future lawmakers. If the lawmakers of tomorrow want to pursue a capital gains tax to address a revenue concern, then so be it. Against."
Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "Texas doesn't have a capital gains tax and there's no need put a ban on one in the Texas Constitution."
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Tax breaks on capital gains primarily benefit wealthy households and worsen racial wealth inequality. Those at the top shouldn’t be permanently shielded if Texas ever needs new funding sources. Voters should oppose Proposition 2."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "Capital gains taxes are on profits made from selling stocks, real estate, and other such things. Basically it’s a tax on the relatively rich. There’s no need to ban these taxes because they don’t exist in Texas, but we sure would like to see the tax burden shifted more toward the rich."

Texas Proposition 3, Denial of Bail for Certain Violent or Sexual Offenses Punishable as a Felony Amendment (2025)

See also: Texas Proposition 3, Denial of Bail for Certain Violent or Sexual Offenses Punishable as a Felony Amendment (2025)

Support

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

San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Nevertheless, the proposition also would require a hearing for the state to demonstrate why bail should be denied, followed by a written order from judges. Significantly, defendants would have the right to an attorney for these hearings. Defendants should have legal representation during bail hearings, and this proposition is focused on dangerous and serious offenses. For."
Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "Voters should support this amendment, which requires judges detain defendants without bail if it is the only way to secure public safety while also upholding due process. But it is just one step in a larger process to reform the our state's criminal justice system."
Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "For. Many Texas families have seen their loved ones killed or harmed by people out on bail who shouldn’t have been. Some judges set unreasonably low bail, but it’s also true that dangerous people can get out of jail if they have money or wealthy connections. Under the Texas Constitution as it is currently written, bail can be denied only under very narrow circumstances, such as a capital murder case. This amendment expands the list of offenses to include murder, aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury or using certain weapons, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, aggravated sexual assault, indecency with a child, and trafficking."

Opposition

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

Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Jail reform advocates secured important due process safeguards during debate over the measure — including the right to counsel at bail hearings and a requirement that prosecutors present clear and convincing evidence before bail can be denied. But those protections don’t solve the deeper problems of overcrowding, inequity and over-reliance on cash bail. Texas should pursue genuine reform that upholds fairness and public safety alike. Voters should reject Proposition 3."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Proposition 3: Bail would be automatically denied for those accused of the most serious violent crimes. Judges could override the provision under certain circumstances. If there’s a problem with dangerous people getting bail, replace poor-performing judges. Otherwise, trust judges’ discretion. Recommendation: AGAINST."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "This is one of those showboat amendments Republicans love to insert into elections to look tough on crime. It would give judges more options to deny bail to people accused of murder or similar offenses. But don’t judges already have that authority?, you may ask. Yeah, they do. So why don’t we just simplify things and keep the current rules in place?"

Texas Proposition 4, Allocate Portion of Sales Tax Revenue to Water Fund Amendment (2025)

See also: Texas Proposition 4, Allocate Portion of Sales Tax Revenue to Water Fund Amendment (2025)

Support

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

Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Texas faces a $156 billion bill to address water challenges in the next 50 years, so this constitutional amendment is, yes, just a drop in the bucket. But it’s a good start. As especially thirsty industries such as data storage and servicing pour into the state, we must secure reliable funding for water to build new supplies and curb waste. Proposition 4 lays the groundwork for a more sustainable water future for Texas."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Proposition 4: The state’s long-term thirst can hardly be slaked, thanks to population growth. Water projects take years of planning, and a steady stream of funding will remove one obstacle to addressing one of Texas’ biggest priorities. This fund would get $1 billion a year without requiring new action from the Legislature. Recommendation: FOR."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "If approved, Proposition 4 creates a predictable funding source for water, which will facilitate better planning. Our main criticism is that the funding should be even greater, given the need. As for funding other priorities, this is not an either/or question. The state, flush with cash, can fund water and education. Lawmakers have chosen to not appropriately fund the latter. For."
Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "The $1 billion in annual funding for water supply, wastewater and flooding projects that this amendment would make possible is big, but not big enough. Voters should approve it and then demand that state leaders not let corporate interests overshadow the needs of everyday Texans."
Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "For. With our growing population and perennial drought conditions, Texas must update its aging water infrastructure while investing in innovative ways to manage our water supply. This includes wastewater reuse, new reservoirs and desalination of ground water or sea water projects. Ensuring permanent funding for these projects is necessary."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "This would approve $20 billion for water projects out of state tax revenue through 2047. When our state’s demand is projected to outpace how much water we actually have, Texas needs to invest in our future supply. Only, this fund should be watched toward climate responsibility – projects such as marine desalination create their own harmful waste."

Opposition

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

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

Texas Proposition 5, Property Tax Exemption on Retail Animal Feed Amendment (2025)

See also: Texas Proposition 5, Property Tax Exemption on Retail Animal Feed Amendment (2025)

Support

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

San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Proponents of the amendment and associated legislation note that animal feed retailers’ inventories are typically assessed for taxation at a time when their warehouses are fully stocked due to the agriculture industry’s seasonal requirements. As a result, their taxes are maximized, with that cost being passed to consumers. While the Legislative Budget Board reported that this exemption would not have a significant effect on overall tax revenue, it would provide a meaningful boost to feed sellers and the agricultural industry overall. For."
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Lower taxes on these small businesses help keep feed costs from rising for the farmers and ranchers who depend on them. For fairness and to support Texas agriculture, voters should approve Proposition 5."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Proposition 5: This proposal would end taxation of businesses’ inventory of animal feed intended for sale to farmers and ranchers. While it may seem obscure, it would help the state’s vital agriculture sector. Recommendation: FOR."
Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "For. Animal feed is exempt from taxation during its life cycle, from field to purchase, except for when it’s sitting in inventory. This proposal aims to address that inconsistency and benefit Texas farmers. Extending tax exemptions on animal feed would lower local property tax revenue, however. A companion bill requires the state to help school districts make up for that loss."

Opposition

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

Texas Proposition 6, Prohibit Taxes on Certain Securities Transactions Amendment (2025)

See also: Texas Proposition 6, Prohibit Taxes on Certain Securities Transactions Amendment (2025)

Support

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

Opposition

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

San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Proposition 6 would primarily benefit the wealthy, relieving them of paying a fairer share in Texas and putting the burden on the state’s working families. But our main opposition is having one generation of legislators limit what another generation of legislators can consider when it comes to revenue. Against."
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Texans value fiscal responsibility. That means planning for the next downturn, not ruling out sensible revenue options before we know what challenges lie ahead. Voters should vote against Proposition 6."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Proposition 6: The amendment would prohibit taxation of certain financial transactions, an effort to bolster the new Texas Stock Exchange. Surely the Legislature can handle this without amending the Constitution. Recommendation: AGAINST."
Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "Texas doesn't have a tax on securities transactions and there's no need put a ban on one in the Texas Constitution."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "This is unnecessary at best. It seems safe to surmise this proposition is in response to the Texas Stock Exchange set to launch in 2026. The state wants to signal to investors in TXSE that it won’t have those pesky fees and regulations like its New York counterpart. Financial institutions, brokers, et al. don’t need our help making money."

Texas Proposition 7, Establish Homestead Exemption for Surviving Spouses of Veterans Killed by a Service-Connected Disease Amendment (2025)

See also: Texas Proposition 7, Establish Homestead Exemption for Surviving Spouses of Veterans Killed by a Service-Connected Disease Amendment (2025)

Support

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

Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "An estimated 3,000 spouses in Texas could qualify for this tax break. For them, Proposition 7 reflects the same compassion behind the PACT Act, ensuring fairness for families who bore the costs of toxic exposure long after the battle ended. For a state with more veterans than any other, this is a small but meaningful act of gratitude. Voters should support Proposition 7."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "This proposed amendment would provide a property tax exemption to surviving and not remarried spouses of veterans who died from conditions or diseases presumed to have been related to exposure to toxins — such as Agent Orange, fumes from burn pits and radiation — during their military service. The intent is for this exemption to be in keeping with the federal Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act, which puts such veterans in the same status of those with service-related disabilities. For."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Proposition 7: Surviving spouses of military veterans who die from conditions that the federal government determines to be service-related would be exempt from some or all property taxes on their homes. It would affect a small number of people but help them tremendously, and it’s a good way to compensate veterans’ families for their sacrifices. Recommendation: FOR."
Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "This amendment will close a loophole that denied property tax breaks to spouses of veterans who died from exposure to toxic chemicals."
Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "For. Passage of this amendment would create an exemption from ad valorem taxes of some part of the market value of a homestead of the surviving spouse. The amount of the exemption will be determined later by the Legislature. This would bring Texas into alignment with federal law, which recently expanded benefits for spouses of service personnel who died as a result of exposure to burn pits, Agent Orange and other toxins."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "Spouses of deceased veterans killed in the line of duty already receive a property tax exemption; this expands eligibility to cover conditions like exposure to toxic substances."

Opposition

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

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

Texas Proposition 8, Prohibit Estate Taxes and New Taxes on Estate Transfers, Inheritances, and Gifts Amendment (2025)

See also: Texas Proposition 8, Prohibit Estate Taxes and New Taxes on Estate Transfers, Inheritances, and Gifts Amendment (2025)

Support

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

Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "For. Texas abolished its inheritance tax in 2015, and lawmakers want to ensure it cannot be reinstated. There is an estate tax at the federal level, and about a dozen states have additional estate taxes. Six states also have inheritance taxes, which are collected from the beneficiaries who receive assets, according to the Washington-based nonprofit Tax Foundation. Death taxes take another bite out of money or assets that have already been taxed through other means. Most states do not collect this additional levy, and Texas would do well to remain among that group."

Opposition

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

Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Proposition 8: The state would be barred from creating a “death tax,” a levy on estates or inheritances. Once again, this is something the Legislature can handle if stopping it ever becomes necessary. Recommendation: AGAINST."
Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "Texas doesn't have a tax on inheritances and there's no need put a ban on one in the Texas Constitution."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "In essence, this proposition would amend the Texas Constitution to stop a tax that no longer exists and for which there is no effort to revive. If passed, it won’t affect most of the people casting ballots, but it could impact future generations because it would preempt future lawmakers from considering a revenue source. Again, it is shortsighted to prevent future lawmakers from considering the policies they think are best for whatever the political moment needs. Against."
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Texas doesn’t have an estate or inheritance tax now, and this amendment would only make it harder to consider one in the future — even in times of economic stress. Like Propositions 2 and 6, it would shield the wealthy while limiting the state’s options and deepening the property tax burden on everyone else. Voters should vote against Proposition 8."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "We see no problem in reasonably taxing folks who are inheriting multiple millions of dollars, but that’s not on the ballot – protecting multimillionaires’ beneficiaries from possible future taxation is. Beyond it being a moot point – repeat: There is no death tax in Texas – why preemptively and permanently cut off a possible future revenue stream?"

Texas Proposition 9, Authorize $125,000 Tax Exemption for Tangible Property Used for Income Production Amendment (2025)

See also: Texas Proposition 9, Authorize $125,000 Tax Exemption for Tangible Property Used for Income Production Amendment (2025)

Support

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

Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "For. This amendment would deliver tax relief to businesses by raising the amount of inventory and equipment exempt from city, county and school district taxes."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Proposition 9: This amendment would prohibit value-based taxation of personal items used for business purposes. It’s a worthy protection for small businesses. Recommendation: FOR."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "While this exemption would be available to all businesses, it would be most beneficial for small businesses. ... That being said, this turns on being equitable, as it’s notable that Texas is one of only 11 states that tax businesses’ inventories. For."

Opposition

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

Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Texas already ranks near the bottom in per-student funding, and the state has repeatedly failed to cover its share of education costs. Until lawmakers fix that imbalance, the state shouldn’t pursue tax breaks that exacerbate the problem. We recommend voting against Proposition 9."
Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "The benefits of this tax break on business inventory and equipment isn't worth the lost tax revenue."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "We’re reluctant to vote against anything bringing relief to small businesses, but we fear this simply shifts the tax burden elsewhere."

Texas Proposition 10, Property Tax Exemption for Improvements to Homestead Destroyed by Fire Amendment (2025)

See also: Texas Proposition 10, Property Tax Exemption for Improvements to Homestead Destroyed by Fire Amendment (2025)

Support

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

Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Texans rebuilding after a disaster deserve a little grace, not another bill. Proposition 10 ensures our tax system recognizes hardship as well as prosperity. Voters should say yes."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Proposition 10: Those who lose their homes to fire could temporarily be exempted from paying property taxes on the destroyed house. The devastation of such a loss is tremendous, and helping victims of it is a worthy goal. Recommendation: FOR."
Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "The editorial board supports this amendment, which provides property tax relief to victims of fires."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "While fires that completely destroy homes are tragic, they are also rare. So the financial impact from approving Proposition 10 would be negligible to any taxing authority — but huge to any devastated homeowner who would benefit from its passage. For."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "If a home is completely destroyed by a fire (or really, any natural disaster), it makes sense that they should pay less property tax for that year."

Opposition

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

Texas Proposition 11, Increase Homestead Tax Exemption for Elderly and Disabled Amendment (2025)

See also: Texas Proposition 11, Increase Homestead Tax Exemption for Elderly and Disabled Amendment (2025)

Support

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

Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "If both measures pass, more than 65% of Texas seniors and disabled homeowners would owe no school property taxes at all, and the rest would see lower bills. That breathing room for older Texans deserves voters’ support for Proposition 11."
Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "The editorial board supports this amendment, which will help the homestead exemption for the elderly or disabled needs to keep up with inflation and rising home prices."

Opposition

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

San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "[W]hile the Legislature is eager to commit its revenue to provide this excessive and preferential benefit, it continues to show disdain for adequately funding public schools. Against."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Proposition 11: Elderly and disabled Texans could be exempted from property taxes on a certain share of their homes’ values. We appreciate the need to help vulnerable populations maintain housing, but this is far too broad. Recommendation: AGAINST."
Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "Against. The measure uses existing definitions of elderly (65 and over), and disabled (determined by Social Security Administration criteria). The age threshold is what gives us pause. Sixty-five is not old anymore. According to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, the average retirement age in the U.S. has risen steadily for the past 30 years. This amendment is intended to help those on fixed incomes — a worthy goal. But the age limit needs to be adjusted. Better yet, the law could tie this relief to average retirement ages in Texas assessed each biennium."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "While lower-income individuals would certainly benefit from this, so would higher-income individuals. And though the Lege plans to reimburse school districts for those lost funds, that presumes a healthy economy and a budget surplus."

Texas Proposition 12, Change Membership and Authority of State Commission on Judicial Conduct Amendment (2025)

See also: Texas Proposition 12, Change Membership and Authority of State Commission on Judicial Conduct Amendment (2025)

Support

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

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

Opposition

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

Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "There is room for improvement in the commission, to be sure — especially in how it handles judicial misconduct. Supporters of Proposition 12 argue that victims of judicial abuse deserve faster responses. But the amendment’s approach is misguided. Instead of changing how the Supreme Court selects review tribunals, a former commission member told us, the better fix would be to empower the commission itself to remove judges. The threat to judicial independence has grown nationwide.Texans can help stem the tide here by voting against Proposition 12."
Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "The editorial board opposes this amendment because it makes unnecessary changes to a funcitoning judicial oversight system and gives the governor too much control over a coequal branch of government."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Proposition 12: The composition of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct would change, with more appointments made by the governor than the Texas Supreme Court. It’s best if most members are chosen by judges who best understand their skills and the panel’s needs. Recommendation: AGAINST."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "The State Commission on Judicial Conduct handles misconduct complaints, and its process can often be slow and opaque. We don’t see how Proposition 12 will change this for the better. By increasing the number of nonlawyers on the commission, this proposition would give the governor political control over a system that should be as insulated from politics as possible. Against."
Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "Against. The commission is currently composed of six judges appointed by the Supreme Court of Texas, two nonjudge lawyers appointed by the State Bar of Texas, and five members of the public who are not attorneys who are appointed by the governor. Proposition 12 erodes judicial independence by giving the governor seven appointees — a majority — and removing the State Bar from the process. It also deletes the requirement that Supreme Court nominees represent a variety of levels of the judiciary, which ensures a broad range of experience among commissioners."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "This is meant to be an independent tribunal; the last thing we want is Abbott hand-picking seven of its 13 members and eliminating Texas Bar representation."

Texas Proposition 13, Change Membership and Authority of State Commission on Judicial Conduct Amendment (2025)

See also: Texas Proposition 13, Increase Homestead Property Tax Exemption Amendment (2025)

Support

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

Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Proposition 13: This is the Legislature’s latest property tax cut, achieved by raising the homestead exemption from $100,000 to $140,000. As long as lawmakers can afford to keep cutting, they should. Recommendation: FOR."
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "With school taxes accounting for the largest piece of homeowners’ tax bills — and Austin alone supplying 20% of the recapture dollars raised statewide — voters should support Proposition 13 as a welcome financial break for local taxpayers."
Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "We hope state lawmakers will be more cautious with property tax relief in the future. Raising the exemption puts Texas in a potentially precarious financial position. Even though the state has to reimburse school districts for revenue lost through this exemption, the funds might not always be there to do so. Nobody likes high property tax bills, but those dollars are a primary revenue source. There is a cost to public services when we continue to chip away at that."
Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "For. While we support this measure, we are concerned that repeatedly increasing property tax exemptions is permanently removing more and more value from local property tax rolls. When state budgets are tight, it will be challenging for lawmakers to offset that lost local revenue."

Opposition

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

San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Continually increasing the statewide homestead exemption eventually threatens the ability of local governments to appropriately and adequately fund their essential operations. The reality is that in the two years since voters approved the previous exemption hike, property values in Texas have been nearly flat, with slight increases — on the order of about 1.5% — in most regions and decreases in some metro areas. We understand that increasing the homestead exemption is always popular, but it’s not always prudent. Against."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "According to its wording, Prop 13 would require the state to reimburse school districts for the revenue that will inevitably be lost if this amendment passes. But Texas Republicans have not proven to be trustworthy stewards of our public schools in recent years (see: vouchers; see: STAAR test). They’ve already cut school funding past the fat, past the muscle, deep into the bone. How about a little respect for our public schools?"

Texas Proposition 14, Establish Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas Amendment (2025)

See also: Texas Proposition 14, Establish Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas Amendment (2025)

Support

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

Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Modeled after the successful Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT), which voters twice endorsed, DPRIT could similarly draw scores of leading scientists and companies to Texas, fueling not only innovation but also significant economic growth. Most importantly, this research could deliver meaningful progress for the hundreds of thousands of Texans living with dementia, as well as the loved ones who care for them. Voters should support this crucial work by voting for Proposition 14."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Proposition 14: Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick made creating a Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas a legislative priority, and this amendment would establish and fund the new entity. We are generally leery of the state getting into such business, but this is a public-health priority as our population ages. Recommendation: FOR."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "There is an immense need for this type of voter-approved project. The Alzheimer’s Association has estimated that about 460,000 people live with Alzheimer’s and 1 million more are unpaid caregivers. Funding potential treatments for Alzheimer’s and dementia could be life-changing, just as it could spawn innovation and business development. Locally, the UT Health San Antonio Center for Brain Health would certainly benefit from such state funding. For."
Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "Building on the success of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute, the editorial board strongly recommends voting for this $3 billion down payment for a demential research and prevention fund."
Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "For. The creation of DPRIT continues a tradition of the Legislature founding and funding critical medical research and builds on the successful model of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. This amendment would transfer $3 billion to the institute and ensure it receives $300 million annually. Dementia steals the latter years of too many of our elders. Texas can lead the fight for a cure."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "$3 billion is a good chunk of change to devote to the establishment of the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, but we believe this is money well spent – not just for the half a million Texans suffering from some form of dementia (a number certain to grow with the state’s expanding senior population) but for its potential to make Texas a leader in the field."

Opposition

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

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

Texas Proposition 15, Parental Rights Amendment (2025)

See also: Texas Proposition 15, Parental Rights Amendment (2025)

Support

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

Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Proposition 15: This would enshrine in the Constitution that parents have the right to make decisions that affect the care and upbringing of their children. It hardly seems necessary, but it’s probably not harmful, either. Recommendation: FOR."
Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "For. The proposal drew no organized opposition and would not provide parents with a new justification to abuse or neglect their children."

Opposition

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

Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Proposition 15 is less about strengthening parental rights than about advancing culture-war agendas under the guise of protecting families. At worst, it could serve as a constitutional tool for families to impose their beliefs on others — banning books, censoring lessons or undermining vaccination policies that protect public health. Lawmakers already enacted a parental rights law that took effect Sept. 1, making Proposition 15 not only unnecessary but redundant. Voters should reject it."
Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "In Texas, parents already have case law, statutes, generous education code and a Parents’ Bill of Rights protecting their role in their child’s upbringing. The editorial board thinks a constitutional amendment is unnecessary overkill."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Its wording is so vague that it could mean that in suspected cases of abuse or neglect, the parent’s rights would supersede the state’s right to intervene to protect the child. This proposition is unnecessary and written in language that lacks clarity, fails to make exceptions and has the potential for unintended consequences that could be harmful to children. Against."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "This language was wielded this legislative session to push learning and conversations around gender, race, and sexuality out of Texas public school classrooms and take books with diverse perspectives off of school library shelves. The Christian push for “parental rights” shouldn’t be given a constitutional foundation."

Texas Proposition 16, Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment (2025)

See also: Texas Proposition 16, Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment (2025)

Support

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

Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "If spelling out in the Constitution the obvious prohibition on noncitizen voting quiets the noise and removes a pretext for deeper, more damaging crackdowns, we’ll hold our noses and vote for Prop. 16."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Proposition 16: Like Prop 15, this amendment to state that only citizens can vote in Texas elections seems like a solution in search of a problem. However, if it will silence even some unfounded complaints about people who are here illegally voting, it’s probably worth it. Recommendation: FOR."
Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "For. The state’s Election Code already requires Texas voters to be U.S. citizens. State lawmakers want to clarify further by adding a provision to the Texas Constitution that makes it clear noncitizens are ineligible to vote. Redundant, certainly, but we agree that the power of citizenship shouldn’t be diluted by granting noncitizens the right to vote, as certain local governments have done in other parts of the country, like in California and Washington, D.C."

Opposition

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

Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "We’ve seen how such a scenario can play out. After Kansas enacted a proof-of-citizenship law for voters in 2011, more than 31,000 otherwise eligible people were blocked from registering to vote; the courts struck down the measure in 2018. Texans should learn from that mistake and reject Proposition 16 — a solution in search of a problem that could silence legitimate voters."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "That lack of specificity insinuates that noncitizens might be voting in Texas elections, potentially fueling xenophobia and conspiracies. We believe voters must be U.S. citizens. Because that’s already the case, and we doubt this proposition is offered in good faith, we oppose it. Against."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "U.S. citizenship is already required to register to vote in Texas; the very existence of this amendment is meant to legitimize conservatives’ bogus claim that there’s rampant voter fraud in Texas. This utterly unnecessary language only seeks to spell out that certain individuals are excluded from the elections that affect their own children, schools, and local community."

Texas Proposition 17, Property Tax Exemption for Border Security Infrastructure Amendment (2025)

See also: Texas Proposition 17, Property Tax Exemption for Border Security Infrastructure Amendment (2025)

Support

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

Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Proposition 17: This would allow for property-tax exemptions for border-county residents whose land becomes more valuable because of a border-security project, such as a fence or wall. It’s a fair deal in a small number of cases. Recommendation: FOR."
Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "For. Texas can obtain easements from private property owners to build walls or fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. The state government pays for those easements. However, that infrastructure can raise property values and increase the property owner’s tax bill, which is how this amendment came about. The installation of border walls is commonsense border management, and this measure is a reasonable way to get more private property owners to partner with the government on building this infrastructure."

Opposition

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

San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "The state should not be further incentivizing private property owners to erect such infrastructure. Of course, if the state wishes to exercise its power of eminent domain to take such property, then the owners should be compensated accordingly. But property owners who volunteer to make their land tools of the state should be satisfied with that outcome. Against."
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "This board does not endorse "open borders" or unmitigated immigration, but neither does it approve of anti-immigrant political stunts disguised as taxpayer benefits. Voters should reject Proposition 17."
Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "The editorial board opposes this property tax incentive for private landowners to build border security infrastructure because it unfairly shifts the tax burden to other landowners."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "If you live on the U.S/Mexico border and the wall is erected on your property you might not pay taxes on any increased value the wall adds to your home. We imagine a massive wall would have the opposite effect, but either way, we’re not about incentivizing the border wall."

Footnotes

2025 ballot measure media endorsements

California Proposition 50, Use of Legislative Congressional Redistricting Map Amendment (2025)

Support

Opposition

Footnotes

Information about voting

2026 Elections

2025 Elections

Election analysis

Trending

Public Policy

Information for candidates

Get Engaged

Services

Additional analysis

SITE NAVIGATION