The following page lists media outlets that weighed in on specific 2023 ballot measures, broken out by state and by measure.

In 2023, 41 statewide ballot measures were certified for the ballot in eight states—Colorado, Louisiana, Maine, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin. That's the highest number of state ballot measures for an odd-numbered year since 2007.

Between March and August 2023, voters in three states decided on five ballot measures. Voters approved three and rejected two of these measures.

On October 14, voters in Louisiana approved four constitutional amendments, including Amendment 1, which addressed private financing of election administration, and Amendment 2, which provided state constitutional rights regarding places of worship.

On November 7, voters in five states decided on 28 ballot measures, including six citizen-initiated ballot measures (two in Ohio, and four in Maine). Voters approved 23 and rejected five ballot measures on November 7.

On November 18, the last statewide ballot measure election of 2023, voters in Louisiana decided on an additional four constitutional amendments. Voters approved three and rejected one constitutional amendment.

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

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

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 II, Tobacco and Nicotine Product Tax Revenue Measure (2023)

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel Editorial Board: "If Prop II passes, more money will be available to fund universal preschool. One could make the argument that higher tax rates help curb tobacco and nicotine use (especially among teens) and that early childhood education establishes the kind of foundation that helps students make smart choices later in life. In that regard it punches hard toward important policy outcomes."
Denver Post Editorial Board: "Preschools are not immune from the pressures of inflation, especially with the struggle to find teachers when most preschools do not pay a living wage. Allowing the state to keep the nicotine and tobacco taxes for the preschool program is part of the cost of running a new state-wide education system. ... we would be thrilled if the nicotine and tobacco taxes caused a reduction in business for Big Tobacco and helped people kick their addictions. Some of the money from the tax does fund smoking and vaping cessation programs. In a similar vein, voters can approve Proposition II and keep the funding flowing to the new preschool program."

Opposition

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

Colorado Proposition HH, Property Tax Changes and Revenue Change Measure (2023)

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Denver Post Editorial Board: "The trade-off made in Proposition HH — a small decrease in TABOR refunds for a larger break in property taxes — is not simple but it is essential. Looking at the measure holistically, we have found – without question – that the significant reduction in the pending property tax increases, which are due in March, outweighs the slight increase in taxes and fees retained by the state that will occur with the increased TABOR cap: an additional 1% of the revenue collected every year under the TABOR formula. ... The good news is that Proposition HH presents an eloquent solution to a thorny fiscal balance in this booming state with an irregular tax structure."
Grand Junction Daily Sentinel Editorial Board: "Where do renters fall in all of this? If HH doesn’t pass and property taxes increase by 40%, it’s a safe bet that landlords will pass those costs to renters in the form of higher rents, further straining housing affordability in Colorado. Prop HH isn’t perfect. It gives the state Legislature the power to extend the new revenue cap forever without asking voters — as long as the Legislature extends property tax reductions equal to or greater than those in the measure. t’s a complicated measure and we urge voters to study their Blue Books. But there are two factors that have us supporting it. If HH pulls in more money than the state needs to pay back local districts, the money goes to the State Education Fund. Assuming there will be years with no surpluses, the state will need reserves to cover the backfill. But the best argument for HH is that it averts a crisis. If it doesn’t pass, the resulting 40% increase in property taxes will be felt by everyone. But it also sets the table for something much worse. Already there’s a proposal to lock in a statewide solution in the state Constitution. HH’s failure would likely make the alternative palatable, even if it pushed Colorado back into another fiscal thicket."

Opposition

Denver Gazette Editorial Board: "If Prop. HH passes, it’ll be a windfall for the state government. It likely will be hauling in an additional $2.2 billion that otherwise would go back to taxpayers over the coming decade. For taxpayers, on the other hand, Prop. HH is a raw deal. They will lose far more over time by giving up their refunds than they’ll gain in modest property tax relief. Indeed, any tax relief won’t come close to offsetting the soaring tax bills that are expected to rise up to 50% for some homeowners when tax bills go out next spring. In short, Prop. HH wouldn’t just force taxpayers to pay for their own property-tax relief, it would overcharge them — to grow government. Unconstitutional? It’s unconscionable."
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board: "The coming tax hazard is known as Proposition HH, a referendum that Coloradans will vote on in November. It proposes two policy changes that work in opposite directions. The first would curb property-tax growth modestly by lowering the assessment rate. That would save about $4,600 for an average homeowner through 2032, according to the Common Sense Institute. The kicker is the second part. The same ballot measure would raise the amount the state can spend by about 25% a year, depriving taxpayers of refunds to which they’re currently entitled. That change would cost each household about $5,100 over nine years, swallowing the savings from the property-tax cut. The changes could cost taxpayers an estimated net $21 billion through 2040."
Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial Board: "Total state property tax revenue paid next year under Proposition HH is forecast to be $15.3 billion even under HH, with its temporary decrease in the statewide property assessment rate. That’s $1.77 billion above what it would have been had property taxes grown at their historic annual rate of 5.9%. That works out to an additional $742 per Colorado household. The overall economic impact: a loss in personal income of $425 per household and of more than 14,000 jobs, the institute concluded. To repeat, that’s even if HH’s purported property tax relief were to be in place. In other words, Prop. HH doesn’t offer much relief when it comes to Coloradans’ property taxes — even as it gouges those same taxpayers by making them give up their refunds of surplus revenue collected above the state’s constitutional spending limits. Coloradans need property-tax relief that doesn’t force them to foot the bill. Instead, they should be required to fork over less money for their homes in the first place. No subterfuge is required."

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 1, Ban on Private or Foreign Funding of Election Costs Amendment (October 2023)

Louisiana Amendment 2, Constitutional Right to Worship in a Church or Place of Worship Amendment (October 2023)

Louisiana Amendment 3, State Retirement System Funding Amendment (October 2023)

Louisiana Amendment 4, Prohibit Property Tax Exemptions for Nonprofits Owning Damaged Residential Property Amendment (October 2023)

Louisiana Amendment 1, Gubernatorial Deadlines on Bills and Legislative Veto Sessions Amendment (2023)

Louisiana Amendment 4, Revenue Stabilization Trust Fund Amendment (2023)

Louisiana Amendment 2, Remove Constitutional References to Inactive State Funds Amendment (2023)

Louisiana Amendment 3, Property Tax Exemptions for First Responders Amendment (2023)

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, Prohibit Foreign Spending in Elections Initiative (2023)

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

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

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

Opposition

Bangor Daily News Editorial Board: "We are unconvinced that the proposal contained in Question 2 strikes the delicate balance needed with this issue and thus recommend a no vote. Gov. Janet Mills was right when she vetoed the underlying legislation, LD 1610, after registering constitutional concerns about previous versions of this proposal. As she alluded to, this version is actually worse than earlier legislative attempts. ... This proposal goes beyond targeting foreign governments, in a very expansive way. The words 'entities that they own, control, or influence' are very broad."
Central Maine Editorial Board: "While there’s no doubt that corporate spending on campaigns distorts and corrupts our elections, that problem can’t be solved by arbitrarily choosing which companies can participate and which can’t, and it shouldn’t be addressed in any way that threatens the operation of a free press. Question 2, in our estimation, does both. That’s why the Editorial Board supports a no vote on Question 2 on the statewide ballot."
Portland Press Herald Editorial Board: "We believe that no corporation should have that sort of influence over public policy, and that every effort should be made to get money out of politics. The Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case says otherwise, however, as does an FEC ruling on foreign spending on ballot questions. Until those are overturned or the Constitution is amended, any attempt to limit corporate contributions to elections will face an uphill battle in courts. And even if it were to be upheld, Question 2 would still be unfair. The 5% threshold for foreign-government ownership is low and would likely apply to companies whose foreign ownership has no real influence over day-to-day activities. It would exclude some Maine-based companies from contributing to ballot questions while allowing others based solely on an arbitrary number. And, of course, vast corporate spending on elections would continue unabated."

Maine Question 4, "Right to Repair Law" Vehicle Data Access Requirement Initiative (2023)

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

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

Portland Press Herald Editorial Board: "Without the right to repair the new cars and trucks coming out of the factories, independent auto shops will fade away. When Mainers a decade or two from now are trying to keep their cars on the road as long as possible, they’ll have fewer places to bring them, and those places will have less incentive to keep things affordable. Mainers have always enjoyed the ability to take their vehicle where they like for repairs – or to have a shot at repairing it themselves. They should vote yes on Question 4 to keep it that way."

Opposition

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

Maine Question 1, Voter Approval of Borrowing Above $1 Billion by State Entities and Electric Cooperatives Initiative (2023)

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

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:

BDN Editorial Board: "Question 1 is a direct response to Question 3 and, we think, a fairly cynical one. CMP quickly got the question on the ballot in case the Pine Tree Power referendum passes. Essentially, the question would require a public vote to approve the borrowing necessary to acquire CMP and Versant if Question 3 passes. This basically would give CMP a second opportunity to stop a utility takeover in case voters support it this November. We don’t have objections to a public vote on so much public borrowing – bonds to pay for transportation, water quality improvements and other large public works already require such votes. But, we do object to the reason this question is on the ballot."

Maine Question 3, Pine Tree Power Company Initiative (2023)

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

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:

BDN Editorial Board: All this uncertainty to create a new utility doesn’t make sense. We have long argued that CMP and Versant can – and should – be held to higher standards by the Public Utilities Commission. A new utility accountability law was an important move in this direction, but more can be done to require investments in customer service, reliability and improvements for renewable energy, and to try to minimize rate increases. That’s a much better way forward than an expensive utility takeover that is not likely to deliver on its many promises. That’s why we urge a no vote on Question 3.
Portland Press Herald Editorial Board: "The documented failures of the utilities are not enough by themselves to warrant a “yes” vote on Question 3. A “yes” vote demands more assurances that no unforeseen problems would take the place of the problems we want to be rid of. There’s not enough evidence that Pine Tree Power would be an improvement on what we have now."

Maine Question 6, Require Indian Treaty Obligations and Other Constitutional Provisions Included in Official Printing Amendment (2023)

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

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

Portland Press Herald Editorial Board: "When tribal representatives sat down to meet with this editorial board about Question 6, they told us that they understand that this change is seen as symbolic, but that symbolism carries pronounced significance in this case. Supporters of Question 6 believe that the restoration of the sections to the printed document goes some way toward honoring the legacy of negotiation by the tribes, making it more clear to the public that this is an important part of Maine’s collective history. We agree with them. In 2023, with tensions over tribal-state relations inflamed and sensitivity running high on both sides of the sovereignty argument, there’s all the more reason to insist on transparency – and take care to keep the tribes to the fore of the public consciousness."
BDN Editorial Board: "The historical record might not be crystal clear on why these obligations were first omitted from printing, but what is clear is the negative impact this omission has had in tribal communities since then. Addressing that impact should be enough of a reason to act now in support of Question 6, regardless of the intent in 1875."

Opposition

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

Maine Question 7, Remove Residency Requirement for Initiative Petition Circulators Amendment (2023)

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

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

Portland Press Herald Editorial Board: "The federal court ruling against residency or voter registration requirements for people circulating petitions speaks for itself. Even if this editorial board found itself at odds with the court’s ruling, and we do not, it would be prudent to amend it to reflect the legal reality. Even if it is voted down, the requirement will not be enforceable – housekeeping. As it happens, we’re with the court on this one. Placing old-fashioned limits on petitioners closes off segments of the electorate while impeding civic participation or, to borrow the court’s words, 'core political speech.'"
BDN Editorial Board: "In a nutshell, a federal court has ruled that a provision in the state Constitution that requires petition circulators to be Maine residents and registered voters in Maine violates the U.S. Constitution. As a result, that provision is unenforceable and needs to come out of the Maine Constitution."

Opposition

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

Maine Question 5, Change Time Period of Judicial Review of Initiative Petitions Amendment (2023)

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

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

BDN Editorial Board: "Like many of the questions on the Nov. 7 ballot, Question 5 seems complex and bureaucratic, but it has a simple goal. The intent of this question is to give the secretary of state’s office more time to analyze and verify the signatures collected on petitions to get citizen’s initiatives and people’s vetoes on the ballot. It does not change the signature requirements or shorten the amount of time that petitioners have to collect them. Instead, the change would give the secretary of state’s office more time to review tens of thousands of signatures, if they are submitted close to a general election. The process is labor intensive, with people reviewing individual signatures to make sure they are valid."
Portland Press Herald Editorial Board: "This sensible change comes at no cost to Maine. In fact, it may save our state money by enabling election staffers to work on reviews at a reasonable pace and not be forced into overtime. Staffing is a headache everywhere, and this is a labor-intensive process (and, as every Mainer has by now noticed, increasingly popular one – for better or worse)."

Opposition

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

Maine Question 8, Repeal Constitutional Provision Prohibiting Voting for Individuals Under Guardianship Due to Mental Illness Amendment (2023)

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

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

Portland Press Herald Editorial Board: "People under guardianship for mental illness should be able to cast votes in our elections. Mercifully, these voters do; the state stopped enforcing the provision after the court handed down its judgment. As in the case of Question 6, however, neglecting to remove this outdated and unfair language from our founding document sends a message that is dead wrong. It’s housekeeping, sure; it’s also a question of respect."
BDN Editorial Board: "A person under guardianship for reasons of mental illness can already (and rightly) vote in Maine today. They have been able to for more than two decades, since a federal judge ruled that the restriction disenfranchised these Mainers and violated both the U.S. Constitution and federal law. Since then, this outdated, imprecise and frankly discriminatory language has remained in the Maine Constitution but has not been enforced. The question before voters now is whether this inactive, unconstitutional and potentially confusing language should be formally removed from the Maine Constitution. The answer from us is a resounding yes, and we hope it will be from voters across Maine."

Opposition

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

New Jersey

See New Jersey 2023 ballot measures for more information.

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, Exclude Indebtedness for Sewage Facilities Amendment (2023)

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

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

Buffalo News Editorial Board: Specifically, the amendment would renew for 10 years the authority of counties, cities, towns and villages to remove debt for the construction of sewage facilities from their constitutional debt limits. The state has allowed that practice since 1963, but must be reauthorized every 10 years. It’s worth doing again.
Newsday Editorial Board: "The New York Constitution limits the debt that various counties, cities, towns and villages can incur. Fortunately, that limit does not include debt for sewage treatment and disposal facilities, which is a crucial matter for both Long Island counties. But the exception would end on Jan. 1 if the amendment does not pass, potentially throwing a wrench into key financing plans. If the measure passes, as we’d recommend, the necessary debt exception will apply until Jan. 1, 2034."

Opposition

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

New York Proposal 1, Remove Debt Limit on Small City School Districts Amendment (2023)

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

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

Newsday Editorial Board: "In small-city districts, the debt cannot exceed 5% of the value of taxable real estate. Other school districts, however, have a different deal. Their limits can be modified by simple legislation. More importantly, these other districts can issue debt as high as 10% of property value. Having one debt limit for some districts and another for the rest defies common sense; Proposal One would correct that."
Buffalo News Editorial Board: "Since the 1950s, though, small-city districts have been limited to 5% of the value of the district’s property tax base. In other districts, the limit is 10%. That creates an unnecessary and unhelpful financial disadvantage for the smaller districts. It’s a quirk in the constitution that state voters need to rectify."

Opposition

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

Ohio

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Ohio 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.

Ohio Issue 1, 60% Vote Requirement to Approve Constitutional Amendments Measure (2023)

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

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

Opposition

Akron Beacon Journal Editorial Board: "We oppose the 60% proposal regardless of the issue and can't imagine 59% supporting an issue and losing. ... But those are not the only reasons Ohioans should think twice about giving away their right to direct democracy, a right they've held since 1912. ... Why would citizens want to cede more power to their already powerful government? Do Republicans realize the pendulum of political power will swing back some day, especially if they continue to abuse power?"
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "But before they even get to vote on reproductive rights, Ohioans need to go to the polls in August to make sure Issue 1 doesn’t pass. Its only reason for being on the ballot is to make it harder for people to protect the abortion rights that lawmakers would like to take away. The Supreme Court returned decision-making on abortion rights to the states. But that doesn’t mean making it inordinately hard for voters to protect the rights they value. Ohio voters need to make sure their legislators get that message on Aug. 8."
The Plain Dealer Editorial Board: "Issue 1 is a solution in search of a problem cooked up by Statehouse insiders to defang the citizen initiative powers Ohioans have had for 111 years to check a corrupt legislature. It also would extend to proposed constitutional amendment ballot issues the same curse extreme gerrymandering imposes in the legislature: rule by a political minority."
The Columbus Dispatch Editorial Board: "Far too many Ohio elected officials have forgotten there is a difference between serving Ohioans and ruling us. We do not need dictators in the Statehouse. Remind them that you and your voice matter and that Ohioans cannot be rolled over on their way to victory. Reject Issue 1. The defeat of this issue is the only way to elevate Ohio."
The Toledo Blade Editorial Board: "Issue 1 contains provisions expressly designed to ward off citizen-initiated amendments to the constitution. Those provisions reveal its ill intent. Ohio is better than this. This proposal stinks, and any policies that take root in Ohio because of it will be tainted by the malodorous way in which it was pushed on the voters. On Tuesday, let’s take it out to the garbage and cover the can tightly."
The Cincinnati Enquirer Editorial Board: "Issue 1 won't keep big-money special interests and their lobbyists out of our constitution, either. In fact, the very measure is being bankrolled by an out-of-state, Illinois billionaire. Deep pockets and dark money will continue to hold sway and push their agendas at the Statehouse. Issue 1 also wouldn’t stop lawmakers from offering up a billion amendments if they wanted. However, Issue 1 could shut out grassroots, citizen-led initiatives, which typically have much less money and resources to work with. Issue 1 is the most cynical of politics and the wrong path for Ohio. It would blunt a tool citizens have for holding lawmakers accountable should they ignore the will of the people. Right now, voters still have that power. We urge them to use it by voting no on Issue 1."

Ohio Issue 1, Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative (2023)

See also: 2023 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 following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

Opposition

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

National Review Editorial Board: "The average Ohioan would get the wrong impression by reading the text of the ballot measure that the amendment would allow meaningful limits on late-term abortion. The text of the amendment explicitly states that 'abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability.' But — and these are two very big buts — it also says (1) that physicians may determine viability on a 'case-by-case basis,' and (2) that there is a right to abortion after viability until birth to protect 'health' that is not limited to physical health. When a baby is clearly viable, threats to a mother’s physical health can be treated in minutes or hours by delivering a live baby, while a late-term abortion procedure takes days. So that provision is surely designed to enshrine a right to abortion until birth to protect mental health."
The Toledo Blade Editorial Board: "Ohio needs a reasonable abortion law that respects the life of a fetus that is viable, and is also reasonably respectful of the lives of fetuses that aren’t yet viable. It needs a law that the great majority of Ohioans, pro-life and pro-choice, can accept. That’s a judgment that should be made through the legislative process, not through the unsubtle and permanent impact of amending the state constitution. ... The Blade has always supported women’s right to an abortion. This amendment to the state constitution goes too far and should be defeated."

Ohio Issue 2, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2023)

See also: 2023 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 following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

Cleveland.com Editorial Board: "Our editorial board, too, is divided on the implication of the current unknowns about how legalization will impact use and abuse. But there is no getting around the fact that many Ohioans illegally use recreational cannabis now, burdening the justice system, enriching drug dealers, and leaving unsuspecting users vulnerable to tainted weed laced with potentially lethal levels of fentanyl. Legalizing recreational marijuana will make this market safer, better studied and with revenues benefiting oversight and research, not criminal enterprises."

Opposition

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

Toledo Blade Editorial Board: "Recreational marijuana will make Ohio less attractive to industry, make our jobs and highways more dangerous, and perpetuate contracting rules enabling state government to enrich the political elite. Ohio will reap pennies compared to the windfall passage of Issue 2 will provide to “potpreneurs” when they sell their businesses to the liquor barons awaiting the opportunity to add marijuana to their portfolio. State Issue 2 is a bad law and should be defeated."

Oklahoma

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Oklahoma with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets released editorials concerning that measure, or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Oklahoma State Question 820, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (March 2023)

See also: 2023 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

Tulsa World Editorial Board: "... We do not believe that prohibition is the way to stop teenagers — or adults — from using intoxicating substances. If anything, through its drug laws, our country has criminalized brain health disorders. ... Compared to the medical marijuana law, SQ 820 is stricter and more comprehensive. ... We support SQ 820 to bring better scrutiny and safety to the users, growers and community. This is a more honest way of having legal marijuana than the weed-by-the-wink system Oklahoma has now."

Opposition

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

Pennsylvania

See Pennsylvania 2023 ballot measures for more information.

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 5, Reorganization of University Funds Amendment (May 1919)

Texas Proposition 6, Creation of the Water Fund Amendment (2023)

See also: 2023 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

Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "Prop 6, Texas Water Fund: For. Though the proposal includes money for sources of water that could harm the environment, including desalination, most of the $1 billion dedicated to this fund would go to needed projects in the state water plan."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Proposition 6: Water is a precious resource, and this proposition would create a new special Texas water fund outside of the general revenue fund, to help finance projects. The fund would be endowed with a $1 billion down payment. Administered by the Texas Water Development Board, this fund would help acquire more water sources and mitigate water loss. Our view: For."
The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "RECOMMENDATION: Yes. Due to a need to improve Texas’ crumbling water infrastructure amid explosive growth, we supported this constitutional amendment earlier this year. The Texas Water Fund would be a $1 billion bucket used for water infrastructure projects across the state."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "This amendment would allow for $1 billion from the state budget surplus to create a lasting fund for water development projects. In a growing state with longer, deeper droughts, this is a must. Recommendation: For."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "State Water Fund: Yes. A $1 billion investment in Texas' broken water infrastructure is needed, and will address the roughly 50 gallons of water a day lost per home through leaky pipes. Part of the fund is also appropriated toward new supply projects, including marine desalination and treated fracking wastewater, as well as education programs about water loss."
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Proposition 6 would address urgent needs. Aging water pipes leak billions of gallons of water each year, according to the state, and water and wastewater plants in many communities need repairs or replacement. Vote 'Yes.'"

Opposition

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

Texas Proposition 1, Right to Farming, Ranching, Timber Production, Horticulture, and Wildlife Management Amendment (2023)

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

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

San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Proposition 1: This would enshrine farming rights in the state's constitution, offering protection from state and local regulations for generally accepted farming and ranching practices. It would require state and local governments to provide evidence that a regulation is necessary to protect public health from imminent danger. ... Our view: For."
The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "This constitutional amendment would protect the “right to farm” for Texas landowners by raising the bar for state and local regulation of generally accepted farming and ranching practices. It would require municipalities to provide evidence that the regulation is needed to protect the public from danger. RECOMMENDATION: Yes."

Opposition

Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "The new language would protect a broad array of operations, including timber, horticulture and wildlife management as well as ranching and farming. The amendment still ensures the state can protect animals and crops from danger. But while the amendment doesn't preclude regulation, it does specify that those regulations have to meet a relatively high legal threshold: 'clear and convincing evidence' that they protect the public from 'imminent danger.' We think that's a step too far. ... Vote 'no' on Proposition 1."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "This would enshrine Texans’ rights to farm, ranch and otherwise productively use land they own. Private property rights are sacred here, but elevating this to the constitution could make it harder to adjudicate disputes around urban growth or protect wildlife. The Legislature and local governments can regulate as needed while still protecting landowners’ rights. Recommendation: Vote against."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "Protecting Bad Neighbor Farmers: No. Texas already has a broad Right to Farm statute, which was further broadened in the last legislative session anyway. Adding a constitutional amendment on top of that is not only unnecessary, it also gives an unprecedented level of protection for agricultural businesses that are bad neighbors, creating unreasonably high standards for cities to sue over threats to public health like overuse of pesticides."
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Where is the need for Proposition 1 to effectively deregulate these industries? We see no reason to change the current regulatory landscape that balances the interests of farmers as well as their neighbors and the environment. Vote 'No.'"

Texas Proposition 14, Creation of the Centennial Parks Conservation Fund Amendment (2023)

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

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

Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "Prop 14, State parks fund: For. We don’t have enough state parks in this vast state to accommodate our growing population. This $1 billion fund would allow for much needed new acquisitions."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Proposition 14: This would create the Texas Centennial Parks Conservation Fund to create and maintain state parks. The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department would administer this fund. Preserving open spaces so people can enjoy them is important to preserving the state’s cultural legacy and an appreciation of its history and natural landscape. Our view: For."
The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "RECOMMENDATION: Yes. Texas needs more open spaces. Less than 5% of Texas land is publicly owned, and just 0.37% is state parks. We rank 35th in the nation for state park acreage per capita. And every year, Texas loses nearly 250,000 acres to development."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Texas would create a $1 billion fund to build or improve state parks. The debacle over Fairfield Lake State Park revealed an urgent need to plan for more preservation of nature and recreational space for a booming population. Recommendation: For."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "Historic Investment in State Parks: Yes. This $1 billion fund coming out of the surplus would support the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department in buying land to establish and develop new state parks, something sorely needed to conserve natural areas and to keep up with the demand of 10 million (and counting) Texans a year trying to access our current parks."
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Most land in the state is privately owned. Not only is it scarce, it's getting more expensive. Proposition 14 can be a game-changer for those who cherish the immense beauty and value of state parks and the safeguards they provide for our natural resources and for preserving cultural and historic sites. ... Vote 'Yes.'"

Opposition

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

Texas Proposition 8, Creation of Broadband Infrastructure Fund Amendment (2023)

See also: 2023 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

Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "Prop 8, Broadband Infrastructure Fund: For. Without fast internet in parts of Texas, students can’t complete classes, seniors can’t see doctors online and businesses struggle. This $1.5 billion fund will help bridge the digital divide."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Proposition 8: Broadband is essential, and this proposition would create a $1.5 billion to expand internet access across Texas where millions of households lack quality connections. Our view: For."
The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "RECOMMENDATION: Yes. Establishing an infrastructure funding mechanism for state-backed expansion of high-speed Internet and telecommunications services is an important step toward closing digital chasms across Texas."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Texas would take up to $1.5 billion to finance broadband internet access. Too many rural communities have no reliable way to connect, an important concern for remote work and education. Recommendation: For."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "Expanding Broadband: Yes. Broadband access is not equitable in Texas, and Prop 8 would create a broadband infrastructure fund to expand high-speed internet to Texans statewide, including where private companies don't operate. This has broad bipartisan support, and the Legislature has already appropriated $1.5 billion to the proposed fund, contingent on voters approving this amendment."
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Internet access connects us not only to education, but to healthcare and jobs. Especially at election time, the Editorial Board hears about the hardships of rural and other communities without high-speed internet. Some students travel miles to fast-food restaurant parking lots to get a signal to do their homework. Proposition 8 can help alleviate some of those hardships. Vote 'Yes.'"

Opposition

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

Texas Proposition 7, Creation of State Energy Fund Amendment (2023)

See also: 2023 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

Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "Proposition 7 would create the Texas Energy Fund to subsidize low-interest loans for the 'construction, maintenance, modernization and operation' of new power plants. ... Proposition 7 is hardly perfect, but as a sum of its parts it could be an effective bridge solution for keeping our lights on and ACs running. We urge a 'for' vote on Proposition 7."
The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "RECOMMENDATION: Yes. The deadly power outages caused by the February 2021 winter storm made many Texans aware of the unreliability of the state’s electric grid. A record-setting heat wave which broke demand records 10 times this summer added worry."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Another ongoing fund, this time $5 billion to finance electricity development, would be created. The state needs more energy capacity fueled by natural gas. Ideally, the market would account for it. But we can’t risk another grid shutdown. Recommendation: For."

Opposition

San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Proposition 7: This would create a Texas energy fund to support the construction, maintenance, modernization and operation of electric generating facilities. The Legislature would allocate $5 billion to create the fund, which would distribute 3% interest loans and grants to companies to build natural gas-fueled power plants on the state’s main electric grid. Texas' energy needs are clear, but excluding renewable energy sources, so instrumental in keeping the lights on this summer, is frustrating and myopic. Our view: Against."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "Incentives for New Gas Plants: No. Though the ballot language is vague enough to seem positive, Prop 7 would actually just give low-interest loans and grants to encourage the construction of new gas plants – benefits that they already get from the private market – and literally stipulates that new battery construction projects need not apply. Yes, we need more energy sources, but this would essentially create a taxpayer-backed subsidy for gas plants alone, creating an unfair disadvantage for renewables and their backups."
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "With this amendment, the state shows its hand that it is wiling to help one player only — natural gas-powered electric plants, which can harm the environment and be more expensive to operate than cleaner solutions. If natural gas-powered plants are needed, they should be able to get their own financing to build. Vote 'No.'"

Texas Proposition 11, Authorize Bond Issues in Conservation and Reclamation Districts in El Paso County Amendment (2023)

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

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

Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "Prop 11, El Paso conservation: For. We see no reason why El Paso shouldn’t have the same tools as Harris, Fort Bend, Travis County and others to manage public resources such as water. This bond authority is one of those tools."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Proposition 11: El Paso County was not among the 11 counties (including Bexar, Harris and Travis) permitted by a 2003 constitutional amendment to give conservation and reclamation districts the ability to issue bonds for the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities. Proposition 11 would bring El Paso County into the fold. Our view: For."
The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "RECOMMENDATION: Yes. In 2003, Texans voted to amend the state’s Constitution to allow certain conservation and reclamation districts across the state to fund parks and recreational space development and improvements with bonds backed by property taxes. This amendment would add El Paso County to a list of 11 other regions that are allowed to do this, including Bexar and Galveston counties and the Tarrant Regional Water District."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "El Paso County could have special districts to fund parks and recreation. It’s a pity they have to ask the rest of us for permission. Recommendation: For."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "Adding El Paso Parks: Yes. Currently, most large counties in Texas are allowed to issue bonds to create parks and improve those they already have. El Paso County is not one of these, however, which has hampered its ability to develop a network of recreational facilities. Prop 11 would allow it to join the other counties. We support El Paso in voting to invest more in their parks."
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Parks and recreational facilities enhance quality of life and benefit health and well-being. Bonds for these projects could only be authorized if voters of the district approve them, ensuring local control. Vote 'Yes.'"

Opposition

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

Texas Proposition 5, Rename State University Research Fund and Establish Ongoing Revenue Source Amendment (2023)

See also: 2023 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

Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "Prop 5, Texas University Fund: For. The fund would split $4 billion across the endowments of four universities including the University of Houston. The investment would be transformational for UH and our city."
The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "RECOMMENDATION: Yes. At the core of this constitutional change is a commitment by the state to invest in research and technology, as well as workforce development."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Proposition 5: We strongly support this proposition, which would create a nearly $4 billion endowment for Texas Tech University, Texas State University, University of North Texas and the University of Houston. It would rename the National Research University Fund as the Texas University Fund. Notably, the University of Texas and Texas A&M systems, which receive support from the Permanent University Fund, would be excluded. This proposition will elevate Texas' other university systems. Our view: For."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Texas would tap interest and other income from its robust rainy day savings account to fund research and other development at universities beyond Texas A&M and UT Austin. It’s a great deal for North Texas and Texas Tech. Recommendation: For."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "Adding University Funding: Yes. In the past, the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University have received most of the state's available research grants. Proposition 5 would create two new funds that would provide money for research grants to some of Texas' other large universities, including Texas State University, Texas Tech University, the University of Houston, and the University of North Texas. This will strengthen these universities, benefiting regional and state economic development."
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "The University of Texas and Texas A&M University are the only nationally recognized research universities in the state and already receive substantial funding for research. The amendment would allow more public universities in Texas to become eligible for research grants, which promote innovation, provide economic opportunities and help attract the brightest minds. Vote 'Yes.'"

Opposition

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

Texas Proposition 9, Cost-of-Living Adjustments for Teacher Retirement System Amendment (2023)

See also: 2023 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

Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "Prop 9, Teacher retirement adjustment: For. Gov. Greg Abbott’s voucher push derailed teacher raises, but at least this amendment would give retired education employees a one-time cost of living bump to their pensions."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Proposition 9: It has been 10 years since retired teachers received a cost-of-living adjustment and even that increase only applied to teachers who retired before 2005. Proposition 9 doesn’t fully rectify this, but it would provide much-needed annuity increases ranging from 2 to 6 percent and bring additional fiscal stability to the Teacher Retirement System with an infusion of new general-revenue funding. Our view: For."
The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "RECOMMENDATION: Yes. Retired teachers and their dependents who rely on state pensions haven’t gotten a cost-of-living adjustment in nearly 20 years. In the face of inflation, these retirees have struggled to pay their bills."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Retired Texas teachers haven’t had a cost-of-living increase in two decades. Have you seen inflation lately? They need a raise. Recommendation: For."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "Raising Teacher Retirement: Yes. Retired teachers in Texas do not have a cost of living adjustment built into their retirement plans, so some retirees have trouble keeping up with their bills. This year, legislators approved such an adjustment, proposing to transfer $5 billion from the current budget surplus to the Teacher Retirement System in order to keep it solvent."
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "half of retired school workers in the Texas system receive $2,000 per month or less, and 30 percent receive $1,000 or less. That doesn't even cover rent in Austin. Making a difficult situation worse, more than 90% of retired school workers don't get Social Security benefits because most Texas districts don't allow teachers to contribute to the federal program. Add soaring inflation and it’s easy to understand why so many retired Texas educators say they struggle to cover groceries, medicine and other essentials. Proposition 9 helps these retirees in a way that is long overdue. Vote 'Yes.'"

Opposition

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

Texas Proposition 2, Property Tax Exemption for Child-Care Facilities Amendment (2023)

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

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

Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "Prop 2, Child care center tax cut: For. Child care deserts increased during the pandemic. We hope this property tax break, while imperfect, will trickle down to providers and families."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Proposition 2: This proposition would allow city and county governments to create property tax exemptions for child care facilities. The hope is property tax relief would translate into reduced tuition, making child care more affordable. It also allows the Legislature to define a child care facility. Our view: For."
The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "RECOMMENDATION: Yes. Child care is essential to keep growing the workforce and economy of Texas, but it is an expensive and labor-intensive business. Providers struggle to pay their employees more than $12 an hour on average. Child care is expensive for parents too — the average family in Dallas County spends around $11,000 or 14.6% of their income on child care every year."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Cities and counties could exempt significant parts of the property value of child-care facilities from taxation. Taxpayers should be weary of the mounting number of such targeted breaks — every dime exempted must be paid by someone else. But this would give communities an optional tool to tackle an increasing problem, the lack of adequate child care. Recommendation: For."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "Property Tax Exemption for Child Care Centers: Yes. Part of the reason younger generations are not having kids is because child care is too damn expensive. We should do everything we can to reduce that cost – allowing owners of child care centers to access tax exemptions for properties used to operate those facilities could help do that."
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "As any working parent knows, having a trusted place to care for your children while you work is a necessity in today's economy, particularly in low- to moderate-income households that struggle to make ends meet. But the well-chronicled economics of day care centers are brutal. Easing their strain can result in more childcare centers, potentially lowering costs for parents, allowing them to keep working and contribute to the economy. Vote 'Yes.'"

Opposition

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

Texas Proposition 4, Property Tax Changes and State Education Funding Amendment (2023)

See also: 2023 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

Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "Prop 4, Homestead exemption: For. After two legislative sessions, Republicans finally agreed on a property tax relief package. The homestead exemption is the fairest way to distribute tax relief to ordinary homeowners."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Proposition 4: This proposition would increase the homestead exemption from $40,000 to $100,000, providing much-needed property tax relief. To make up for lost school revenue, the state would provide about $7 billion to public education from its surplus. This proposition also places limits on taxes levied on elderly and disabled homeowners. Our view: For."
The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "RECOMMENDATION: Yes. Texas homeowners have experienced unprecedented increases in the value of their homes and that has translated into unsustainable taxes. It’s intolerable to live in a place where people could be driven from their homes by their annual tax bill."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Homeowners have waited years for real property tax relief, and this is it. The amendment would raise the homestead exemption to $100,000 and make up the difference for schools with state funding. It’s not enough, but it’s a strong start. Recommendation: For."
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Who doesn't welcome a break on their skyrocketing tax bills, especially when Texas property taxes are among the highest in the country? But while we endorse relief for Texans who have been taking it on the chin with soaring school taxes for too long, we also note that this is merely a temporary bandage on a school finance system in Texas that is broken and ill-suited for the state's size and needs. Homeowners bear the brunt of that outdated state system, which increasingly asks local districts to pay more for education. Vote 'Yes.'"

Opposition

The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "Big Three Property Tax Compromise: No. Texas voters are now being asked to amend the state constitution to allow the package to take effect. This proposal devised by the state's Top Three Republicans would not add any new funding into the state's beleaguered public school system, but it would temporarily reduce the amount of revenue districts need to generate through property taxes by giving schools a one-time injection of funds from the state's budget surplus."

Texas Proposition 3, Prohibit Taxes on Wealth or Net Worth Amendment (2023)

See also: 2023 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

Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Texas could not impose a wealth tax if this proposition passes. For economic and logistical reasons, such a tax is a terrible idea that should never be contemplated. Recommendation: For."
The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "RECOMMENDATION: Yes. This constitutional change amounts to an affirmation of the state’s long-standing support of economic self-determination. A similar amendment to the Texas Constitution prohibited an individual state income tax, and voter approval of Proposition 3 this year would constitutionally prohibit a tax based on the wealth of an individual or family."

Opposition

Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "It seems Texas' proposed amendment is mostly just an opportunity for voters to signal to the state’s wealthy elite – Musk among them – that your money is safe here and will be for generations to come. The amendment also doubles as a welcome mat for any other wealthy tycoons who want to shift their assets or business interests to greener pastures in the Lone Star State. Indeed, Texas already is a haven for the rich, with the fourth-highest population of billionaires in the nation, with a combined net worth of roughly $661 billion. Yet enshrining a tax policy ban in the Constitution strikes us as shortsighted. Who’s to say what Texas’ economic outlook will be 30 years from now? It would be foolish to take it off the table entirely as new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, could further concentrate wealth in the hands of a tiny few."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Proposition 3: Voters should reject this proposition, which would serve the ultra-rich. It would prohibit the Legislature from instituting a wealth tax. No such tax is on the table. Plus, this would limit a possible revenue option in the future. Our view: Against."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "Blocking a Net Worth Tax: No. Republican legislators would like to amend the Texas Constitution to prohibit a hypothetical wealth tax, or "net worth" tax, which shifts tax burden to wealthier Texans; they argue that it penalizes business owners and people who may have significant assets but low cash flow. The Legislature isn't currently considering a net worth tax, but this would eliminate the option of ever doing so."
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Why we need an amendment to take a tax that doesn't exist off the table is unexplained. Keeping the option of a wealth tax open is a necessity, should state lawmakers need to explore such a tax to fund needs in the future. Vote 'No.'"

Texas Proposition 13, Increase Mandatory Retirement Age for State Judges Amendment (2023)

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

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

Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "Prop 13, Raise judges’ retirement age: For. Raising the mandatory retirement age from 75 to 79 will allow respected judges to help reduce court backlogs. Age shouldn’t be the sole determining factor of a senior judge’s competence."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Proposition 13: This would raise the mandatory retirement window of state judges from 70-75 to 75-79. Elections will still give voters the power to remove judges and the Judicial Conduct Commission exists to address the competency of judges. Our view: For."
The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "RECOMMENDATION: Yes. By 2030, the number of people 75 and older in the labor force is expected to rise 96.5%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Under current law, Texas judges and justices are required to retire at that age."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "Older Judges Allowed: Yes. Proposition 13 would raise the age at which state judges are required to retire from 75 to 79. As 84-year-old federal Judge David Hittner recently demonstrated in placing a temporary restraining order on the state's anti-drag bill, older judges can do a lot of good."

Opposition

Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "This would increase the mandatory retirement age for state judges from 75 to 79. That would probably help with staffing issues, but in the era of decrepit senators and octogenarian presidential candidates, let’s chip away at the gerontocracy. Recommendation: Against."
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Retired state judges already have the ability to keep working at any age — as visiting judges. At the same time, maintaining a retirement age of 75 helps ensure opportunities for the next generation to join the bench, cultivating a continually strong judiciary. We see no reason to change the status quo. Vote 'No.'"

Texas Proposition 10, Tax Exemption on Medical Equipment and Inventory Amendment (2023)

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

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

Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "Prop 10, Medical manufacturing tax break: For. While corporate tax breaks shift the tax burden onto others, we recommend this one in hopes that it will boost the Texas Medical Center and support an industry that will benefit Houston."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Proposition 10: Texas is an outlier in the United States when it comes to how it levies property taxes on medical and biomedical companies. Proposition 10 would put Texas in line with much of the country by granting property tax exemptions to manufacturers of medical or biomedical production property tax exemptions for their medical equipment and inventory. This exemption could bolster the state’s medical supply chain and serve as an incentive for medical companies interested in relocating to Texas. Our view: For."
The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "RECOMMENDATION: Yes. Biotech is quickly becoming a big industry in Texas, and eliminating this tax on medical or biomedical equipment will keep that momentum going."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "Corporate Tax Break on Medical Devices: Yes. We're generally against tax breaks for corporations, but at least this one would go to manufacturers of medical devices and biomedical products. Let's just hope that the executives at those manufacturing companies will pass their tax savings on to hospitals and patients who need those devices."

Opposition

Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "If this amendment passes, the Legislature could exempt some medical product inventory from property taxes. As we hinted earlier, enough is enough on such tax carve-outs. Recommendation: Against."
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Much of the support for Proposition 10 is based on the idea that it will provide incentive for manufacturers to invest in Texas. That's an argument based on conjecture. In reality, in a state without an income tax, getting rid of property taxes on biomedical equipment and manufacturers will hurt local school districts and local government services. And why single out one industry for tax breaks if it puts a heavier burden on other businesses and residents to pay for local schools and services? Vote 'No.'"

Texas Proposition 12, Abolish Galveston County Treasurer Amendment (2023)

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

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

Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: "Prop 12: Abolish Galveston County treasurer: For. This proposal, which has precedent in other counties, requires a majority of statewide and Galveston County voters to approve it in the same election. If statewide voters say yes, local voters will be the deciding factor."
San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Proposition 12: This would abolish the office of county treasurer of Galveston County and assign its duties to other departments. In 2022, Galveston voters elected Hank Dugie as county treasurer knowing his platform was to abolish that office. We assume this is what the voters there want. An aside, Bexar County established this precedent in 1983. Our view: For."
The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "RECOMMENDATION: Yes. County treasurers are responsible for investing county funds and reconciling checking accounts. If voters pass this amendment, the duties of the county treasurer would be reassigned to a contractor or another county employee."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "Galveston County wants to eliminate its elected treasurer position. Again, who are we to say no on such a local concern? Recommendation: For."
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Supporters says there simply isn't enough for the county treasurer to do to keep the office open, and that eliminating it would save Galveston County $450,000. Texas voters should give Galveston County voters the opportunity to decide for themselves. Vote 'Yes.'"

Opposition

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

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 Initiative 134, Campaign Contribution Limit Measure (1992)

Washington Initiative 573, Term Limits Measure (1992)

Wisconsin

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Wisconsin with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets released editorials concerning that measure, or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Wisconsin Question 1, Conditions of Release Before Conviction Amendment (April 2023)

See also: 2023 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 following media editorial board published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

Wisconsin State Journal Editorial Board: "One of the ballot questions is a proposed state constitutional amendment, which sounds serious. It will ask voters to allow judges more leeway when setting bail. Assuming the public votes “yes,” judges will explicitly be able to consider the criminal histories and potential risk to public safety of defendants accused of violent crimes. ... Nonetheless, we recommend voting yes.' Support the merits of the words, even if they’re redundant."

Opposition

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

Wisconsin Question 2, Conditions for Cash Bail Amendment (April 2023)

See also: 2023 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 following media editorial board published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

Wisconsin State Journal Editorial Board: "One of the ballot questions is a proposed state constitutional amendment, which sounds serious. It will ask voters to allow judges more leeway when setting bail. Assuming the public votes “yes,” judges will explicitly be able to consider the criminal histories and potential risk to public safety of defendants accused of violent crimes. ... Nonetheless, we recommend voting yes.' Support the merits of the words, even if they’re redundant."

Opposition

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

Wisconsin Question 3, Work Requirement for Welfare Benefits Advisory Question (April 2023)

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

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

Wisconsin State Journal Editorial Board: "The second statewide ballot question this spring is only advisory. It asks: 'Shall able-bodied child-less adults be required to look for work in order to receive taxpayer-funded welfare benefits?' Of course they should. And that’s why they already have to do so if they want to collect unemployment benefits and food stamps. The question is too cute by half in seeking to manufacture outrage. Nonetheless, we recommend voting 'yes.' Support the merits of the words, even if they’re redundant."

Opposition

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

Footnotes

2023 ballot measure media endorsements

Colorado

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Louisiana

Maine

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

New Jersey

New York

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Ohio

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Oklahoma

Support

Opposition

Pennsylvania

Texas

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Washington

Wisconsin

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Support

Opposition

Footnotes

Information about voting