This page lists media editorial endorsements for measures on the ballot in 2024. A media editorial board endorsement refers to an endorsement on a ballot measure by the editorial board of a media organization.

For 2024, 159 statewide ballot measures were certified for the ballot in 41 states.

On November 5, voters in 41 states decided on 146 statewide ballot measures. Voters approved 93 and rejected 53.
On December 7, voters in Louisiana approved four constitutional amendments.
Earlier in 2024, voters in five states decided on nine ballot measures. Voters approved five and rejected four of these measures.

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.

Alabama[edit]

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

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

Alabama Amendment 1, Exempt Local Bills from Budget Isolation Resolution Amendment (March 2024)

Alabama Amendment 1, Allow Franklin County Board of Education to Manage, Sell, or Lease Land in the Franklin County School System Amendment (2024)

Alaska[edit]

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

Alaska Ballot Measure 1, Minimum Wage Increase and Paid Sick Leave Initiative (2024)

Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Repeal Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2024)

Arizona[edit]

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

Arizona Proposition 140, Single Primary for All Candidates and Possible RCV General Election Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

The Arizona Republic Editorial Board: "Any hesitation we may have had in the past about reforming partisan primaries is gone, too. It’s time to restore some sanity in our politics, and to do so we must begin by changing a primary system that has encouraged — and favored — the most extreme candidates. ... Partisan primaries don’t serve Arizonans anymore. Rather, they contribute to the divisive and debilitating atmosphere guiding our elected representatives. It’s time to end the status quo and pass Proposition 140."

Opposition[edit]

Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorial boards that 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

Arizona Proposition 314, Immigration and Border Law Enforcement Measure (2024)

Arizona Proposition 137, End Term Limits and Retention Elections for Supreme Court Justices and Superior Court Judges Amendment (2024)

Arizona Proposition 134, Signature Distribution Requirement for Initiatives Amendment (2024)

Arizona Proposition 311, Criminal Conviction Fee for First Responder Death Financial Benefit Measure (2024)

Arizona Proposition 138, Wages for Tipped Workers Amendment (2024)

Arizona Proposition 313, Life Imprisonment for Sex Trafficking of a Child Measure (2024)

Arizona Proposition 312, Property Tax Refund for Non-Enforcement of Public Nuisance Laws Measure (2024)

Arizona Proposition 133, Require Partisan Primaries and Prohibit Primaries Where Candidates Compete Regardless of Party Affiliation Amendment (2024)

Arizona Proposition 139, Right to Abortion Initiative (2024)

Arizona Proposition 135, Emergency Declarations Amendment (2024)

Arizona Proposition 136, Legal Challenges to Constitutionality of Initiatives Amendment (2024)

Arizona Proposition 315, Legislative Ratification of State Agency Rules that Increase Regulatory Costs Measure (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

The Las Vegas Review-Journal Editorial Board: "Unelected bureaucrats pose one of the biggest threats to personal freedom. Their weapon of choice is regulation. This November, voters in Arizona have a chance to disarm them. There is, of course, a need for regulation. But those decisions should largely be made by the legislative branch, not left to the whims of executive branch functionaries eager to expand their dominion. Arizona’s Proposition 315 finds that balance. If the cost of a regulation is small enough, it can go into effect immediately. If not, it needs legislative approval. This is an important step to restore the separation of powers. Nevada should follow suit."

Opposition[edit]

Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in opposition of Amendment 3. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Arkansas[edit]

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

Arkansas Issue 1, Lottery Proceed Funding for Vocational-Technical School Scholarships and Grants Amendment (2024)

Arkansas Issue 2, Countywide Voter Approval for New Casino Licenses and Repeal Casino Licenses in Pope County Initiative (2024)

California[edit]

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

California Proposition 1, Behavioral Health Services Program and Bond Measure (March 2024)

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[edit]

San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "California is short thousands of mental health beds at all levels of care, according to a 2021 study from the nonprofit think tank Rand Corp. Furthermore, even when beds are available, many facilities are unwilling or unable to accept patients with complex co-occurring conditions, criminal records and a history of violence. Other times, beds sit empty because there aren’t enough workers to staff them. As of late last year, some behavioral health nonprofits that contract with San Francisco had vacancy rates reaching 40%. Enter Proposition 1, a state ballot measure that Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration describes as the 'linchpin' of its strategy to overhaul California’s behavioral health system. ... The status quo is not an option — and that means voting 'yes' for Prop. 1 on March 5."
The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: "This tug of war over California’s mental health dollars will not solve California’s mental health crisis. Proposition 1 promises real solutions."
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "When compared with the cost of doing nothing, Proposition 1 is an important step forward in meeting California’s responsibility to the most vulnerable homeless people and those housed Californians with behavioral health problems most at risk of ending up on the street. It is a worthy addition to other state, local and private investments, and it warrants support. The Times urges voters to approve Proposition 1."
The Mercury News Editorial Board: "The state has limited resources, the current distribution of money is not getting the job done and the problem requires a statewide approach. To provide a clearer picture of federal, state and county efforts in California to address mental health issues, Prop. 1 would also require counties to report how they spend all the money from those sources. Newsom wants to try something new. Voters should give him that chance. But they should also hold him accountable to ensure that Proposition 1 delivers promised improvements."

Opposition[edit]

The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "In addition to adding $6.38 billion to the state’s $80 billion bond debt, Proposition 1 permanently raids the funding for mental health services that voters approved in 2004 with Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act. That measure put a 1% tax on incomes over $1 million, and it typically generates between $2 billion and $3.5 billion per year. By law, 95% of the money goes to the counties for mental health services and the state takes 5% for mental health programs. ... Vote no on Proposition 1. It’s no solution."

California Proposition 36, Drug and Theft Crime Penalties and Treatment-Mandated Felonies Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Santa Cruz Sentinel Editorial Board: "Proposition 36 provides a tempered answer that voters should back on the Nov. 5 ballot. It’s a much-needed adjustment of Proposition 47, the well-intentioned criminal justice reform measure state voters passed in 2014. ... The state’s retail theft rate has surged since 2021 and is now higher than when Prop. 47 passed, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. Shoplifting is at its highest level since 2000. These parallel trends are not surprising given that homelessness is highly correlated to mental health problems and drug addiction, often leading to theft to support a habit. Unfortunately, Prop. 47 made it harder to force addicts to seek treatment."
The Mercury News/East Bay Times Editorial Boards: "Yes: This measure is a smart response to crime, addiction and homelessness, and provides a much-needed adjustment to the criminal justice reform measure state voters passed in 2014."

Opposition[edit]

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

Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "The problems the measure claims to address—retail theft, drug abuse and homelessness—are to some degree intertwined. But despite proponents’ claims, they are unrelated to Proposition 47, a smart 2014 criminal justice reform measure that brought California's theft law in line with other states and made drug possession for personal use a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail. ... It’s more illusion than solution. Vote no."
Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board: "We believe Prop 36 is unnecessary, as lawmakers have addressed and continue to work on this problem. We do not think locking up drug users in prison is helpful; more harm reduction and drug treatment programs are needed. Opponents argue in the voter guide that Prop 36 brings back the 'drug war' type of tactics from the 1980s, which the state has abandoned since it was a failure. Making simple drug possession a felony will just fill up the state's prisons and negatively affect families. Vote NO on Prop 36."
The Sun Editorial Board: "Many of the provisions of this measure are sure to be popular or hard to vote against, including stiffer penalties for organized thieves or people who sell drugs that contribute to the death of someone. But a vote for the measure is also a vote for very antiquated ideas: packing our prisons with people for simple drug possession and dealing with homelessness by locking up those with drug problems or who commit low-level theft. It is on these grounds that we oppose Proposition 36, which is dubbed 'The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act.'"

California Proposition 5, Lower Supermajority Requirement to 55% for Local Bond Measures to Fund Housing and Public Infrastructure Amendment (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "In California, most elections are decided by a simple majority, including governor, mayor and statewide ballot measures. But the state Constitution requires a supermajority—two-thirds of the vote—to pass a local tax or bond to fund a specific program, such as building a water treatment plant or homeless housing, if that tax was put on the ballot by a city council or other elected body. That gives too much power to a minority of voters, who are able to block what a majority, or more, of their fellow voters support. It’s undemocratic."
Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board: "Recent local election results suggest that an additional 20% to 50% of local bond measures would have passed under Prop 5's lower voter requirement. Given the state's massive shortage of affordable housing for low- and middle-income Californians, Prop 5 is one way to help alleviate that. Prop 5 does not raise taxes. Vote YES on Prop 5."

Opposition[edit]

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

Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "But local bonds require property tax increases to cover the debt. So, when voters approve local bond measures, they are also approving property tax increases. Which is why there’s logic behind a higher threshold for approval. But, as we’ve seen repeatedly in the Bay Area, the carveout for school bonds has been an electoral disaster. Proposition 5 would magnify the abuse. We have witnessed local school officials, sometimes with questionable relationships with companies that stand to benefit, engage in deceitful political tactics and campaigns at taxpayer expense to pass their measures."

California Proposition 35, Managed Care Organization Tax Authorization Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Opposition[edit]

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

San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "Furthermore, because Prop 35 would prevent legislators from using MCO tax money to replace existing Medi-Cal funding, it could actually widen the state’s deficit. The federal government also recently warned California — rightfully — that it may be exploiting the system and likely won’t get as much federal funding in future years. We agree with Prop 35’s supporters that MCO tax revenue should be reinvested whenever possible in the state’s health care system and that provider rates should be increased to ensure they can see more Medi-Cal patients. ... Budgeting at this level of complexity and uncertainty shouldn’t happen at the ballot box — it should happen through a fair, transparent and public process before the Legislature. Voters should reject Prop 35."
The Mercury News/East Bay Times Editorial Boards: "No: The winners in this special-interest funding measure would include the doctors, hospitals and emergency ambulance providers bankrolling the initiative."
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "But it’s also worth rejecting Proposition 35 because of what it would do. It would make permanent a temporary tax on managed healthcare insurance plans starting in 2027, and require that all of the proceeds be used on Medi-Cal services and higher reimbursement rates to specified healthcare providers. Currently, lawmakers use some of the revenue from the tax to lessen the burden of Medi-Cal program costs on the general fund. Asking voters to dictate how the state spends its revenue is ballot-box budgeting. It’s bad policy because it strips lawmakers of the ability to change state spending from year to year depending on current needs."

California Proposition 4, Parks, Environment, Energy, and Water Bond Measure (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board: "Prop 4 prioritizes projects benefiting disadvantaged communities. It appropriates money from the state general fund to repay the bonds. This measure is a sensible attempt to mitigate climate effects and protect communities. Vote YES on Prop 4."
The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: "Two large bond measures will appear on California’s Nov. 5 statewide ballot. One proposes to fund long-delayed school improvements and the other responds to the consequences—such as massive wildfires, floods and droughts—of our changing climate. Both deserve voters’ support."
San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "We can’t allow bureaucracy and infighting to derail urgently needed solutions to the climate crisis. Voters should approve Prop 4 — and state and local officials should take pains to demonstrate that they’ve learned their lesson from the Los Vaqueros fiasco."

Opposition[edit]

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

Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "Proposition 4 on California’s November ballot calls for borrowing $10 billion to fund scores of environmental proposals that unfortunately are more the product of politics than good policy. Voters should reject the measure. After this year’s state budget debacle, elected leaders should not be eyeing new bonds and more debt for an unfocused spending plan."
The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "The rule of thumb is that such borrowing normally doubles the long-term cost to taxpayers. So a vote for Proposition 4 is a vote to commit the state to spending about $20 billion at a time when the state faces massive deficits for years to come due to the spending binge that Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature went on before revenue cratered. ... An argument can be made that passing a deeply flawed measure responding to the climate crisis is better than rejecting it. But buying that argument requires a degree of trust in state leaders that they have shown they no longer deserve. It is a close call, but we recommend a 'no' vote on Proposition 4."

California Proposition 3, Right to Marry and Repeal Proposition 8 Amendment (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

The Mercury News/East Bay Times Editorial Boards: "Yes: Voters should protect same-sex marriage from U.S. Supreme Court assault by updating the state Constitution."
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "California has changed since 2008 when it comes to attitudes about same-sex marriage, and that’s all to the good. Despite voting overwhelmingly for Barack Obama for president that year, the state’s electorate also passed Proposition 8, a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Of course, those were different times. Even Obama said at the time that marriage was between a man and a woman. It didn’t take long for him and the California electorate to acknowledge that marriage is a right that is fundamental to all people."
Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board: "We know that attitudes toward same-sex marriage in the Golden State have only improved in the 16 years since Prop 8 was narrowly approved by voters. Still, we can't take anything for granted. California voters must approve Prop 3 to protect all of our rights. Vote YES on Prop 3."

Opposition[edit]

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

California Proposition 2, Public Education Facilities Bond Measure (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board: "There are approximately 10,000 public schools statewide (including 1,300 charter schools) and 151 community colleges, according to the voter guide. Needless to say, many of the facilities are outdated and need repairs to meet basic health and safety standards, prepare students for college and 21st century careers, and retain and attract quality teachers, as proponents stated in the voter guide. This is a common sense measure that should be approved. Public schools and community colleges will benefit from this funding. Prop 2 also ensures that funding only be used for projects approved by local school and community college districts. Vote YES on Prop 2."
The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: "Two large bond measures will appear on California’s Nov. 5 statewide ballot. One proposes to fund long-delayed school improvements and the other responds to the consequences — such as massive wildfires, floods and droughts — of our changing climate. Both deserve voters’ support."
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "Thousands of California schools are in disrepair, waiting on critical upgrades to classrooms, roofs, plumbing and air-conditioning systems. But the state’s school repair fund is running out of money. ... Voters should support this well-crafted measure to invest in California schools. It would modernize classrooms and campuses, many of which have gone for so long without upgrades and repairs that they could charitably be called neglected, if not run-down."

Opposition[edit]

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

Bay Area News Group Editorial Board: "California’s program for funding school construction is broken, favoring local districts that already have access to money over those that don’t. A statewide $10 billion bond measure on the Nov. 5 ballot would perpetuate the inequity and continue to leave the state vulnerable to litigation. Voters should reject Proposition 2."
The Mercury News/East Bay Times Editorial Boards: "No: Prop. 2 fails to fix broken California school bond program. The measure’s funding for construction favors local districts that already have access to money over those that don’t."

California Proposition 33, Prohibit State Limitations on Local Rent Control Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board: "According to the voter guide, Costa-Hawkins generally prevents cities and counties from limiting the initial rental rate that landlords may charge to new tenants in all types of housing, and from limiting rent increases for existing tenants in (1) residential properties that were first occupied after February 1, 1995; (2) single-family homes; and (3) condominiums. This is the third time AHF has taken this measure to the ballot — it lost in 2018 and 2020. We think local government should be able to determine if rent control is right for a jurisdiction, and to work out details so that mom-and-pop landlords aren't adversely affected. Vote YES on Prop 33."

Opposition[edit]

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

Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "To address California’s housing crisis and hold down rents, the state needs to add supply by incentivizing more construction. But rent control discourages investment in new housing, constraining supply and driving up overall housing costs. Which is why voters should reject Proposition 33 on the Nov. 5 statewide ballot."
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "Proposition 33 on the Nov. 5 ballot would repeal Costa-Hawkins, allowing cities and counties to enact or expand local rent control laws — or not. We support rent control, and endorsed two previous initiatives that would have repealed or amended Costa-Hawkins. Both of those measures and this one were put on the ballot by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit. But Proposition 33 goes too far. It includes sweeping language that could make California’s housing shortage even worse by prohibiting the state from imposing any limits on rent controls set by cities and counties in the future. Voters should reject Proposition 33."

California Proposition 6, Remove Involuntary Servitude as Punishment for Crime Amendment (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "While the California Constitution explicitly bans slavery, it also says that involuntary servitude—forcing people to work against their will—is permitted as punishment for a crime. A 'yes' vote on Proposition 6 would end the inhumane practice of forcing California inmates to work against their will."
Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board: "Currently, those who refuse to work or do other activities can face consequences such as losing the ability to make regular phone calls. Proponents state that Prop 6 removes all forms of slavery from the state's carceral system. It ends forced labor, which constitutes slavery and violates human rights, they state in the voter guide. And they argue that Prop 6 enhances public safety by prioritizing rehabilitation. Vote YES on Prop 6."

Opposition[edit]

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

Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "California’s prisoners should not be subjected to abuse by their jailers. But inmates should not be legally empowered to dictate what chores they’re willing to do while behind bars. That’s why voters should reject Proposition 6, a measure cloaked in language about slavery and involuntary servitude that’s really about prisoners being able to turn down work assignments."
Bay Area News Group Editorial Board: "Requiring inmates to sweep the floors, clean the bathrooms or cook in the kitchen is reasonable. If we expect the same of ourselves and our children, if we can insist members of the military conduct those chores, certainly we can ask incarcerated convicted criminals to do the same. Voters should reject Proposition 6."

California Proposition 32, $18 Minimum Wage Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board: "Proponents state that there are about 2 million Californians who are working full-time or more and making less than $18 per hour. Prop 32 would help them, and in turn, reduce the burden on taxpayers, who often make up the difference that some corporations aren't honoring. We've recently seen the $20 per hour minimum wage go into effect for fast-food workers. An $18 minimum wage for those who are eligible is a tangible benefit that will help a lot of people. Vote YES on Prop 32."
The Mercury News/East Bay Times Editorial Boards: "Yes: Measure would raise lowest pay by 2026 to $18 an hour, about $1 more than it would be otherwise. This modest hike would benefit the neediest workers."
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "Proposition 32 on the Nov. 5 ballot would help by giving the state’s lowest-paid workers a modest raise. The measure would increase the state’s $16-an-hour minimum wage—which is set to rise to $16.50 on Jan. 1 under current law — to $18 on Jan. 1 for companies with 26 or more workers, and $17 for companies with 25 or fewer workers, which would have until 2026 to start paying $18. Under current law, the minimum wage, which rises with inflation, would reach $18.20 in 2029; Proposition 32 would increase it to an estimated $19.30 that year. This is a reasonable and narrow measure focused on the workers who are most in need of a boost, and California voters should support it."

Opposition[edit]

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

California Proposition 34, Require Certain Participants in Medi-Cal Rx Program to Spend 98% of Revenues on Patient Care Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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[edit]

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

Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: " At the same time, voters should also reject Proposition 34, a measure that can best be described as 'Revenge of the Landlords.' ... Proposition 34 is an abusive use of the state’s initiative system to silence a political opponent. It would set a horrible precedent if it passes and survives legal challenges."
San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "Prop 34 could also set a dangerous precedent of interest groups using the initiative process to limit other groups from doing the same. Addressing this issue will require comprehensive, nonpartisan ballot measure reform, not a slew of slanted measures targeting individual political players. Voters should reject Prop 34."
Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board: "[W]e believe writing a state ballot proposition that affects a single agency sets a bad precedent. Some other groups could try the same tactics against other nonprofits if they don't like what those agencies are doing. ... Vote NO on Prop 34."
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "There are other reasons to reject this ballot initiative. Complicated healthcare policy ought to be made by the Legislature, not foisted on the electorate. One of Proposition 34‘s purported benefits is to permanently authorize the state to negotiate Medi-Cal drug prices. But the state has done that for years thanks to an executive action by Gov. Gavin Newsom. So California’s taxpayers aren’t being squeezed by higher Medi-Cal payments to the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. ... Voters should emphatically reject Proposition 34 and send the message that they will not tolerate such a weaponization of the state’s citizen initiative process."

Colorado[edit]

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 Amendment 79, Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

The Denver Post Editorial Board: "Only 1% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks of gestation according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, and there’s no data to show how many of those are performed absent a fetal anomaly or concerns for the mother’s health. Doctors do talk about a small number of abortions later in pregnancy in instances of rape, incest, and sex trafficking. We know that the No. 1 way to prevent abortions from being needed in the second trimester is to make access to care faster. Fewer Colorado women will need to find a clinic at 12 weeks gestation if their own OBGYN can treat them using Medicaid dollars at nine weeks gestation. Coloradans have a chance to undo years of harmful public policy and make abortions a part of regular health care."

Opposition[edit]

Colorado Springs Gazette and Denver Gazette Editorial Board: "The amendment embeds the unfettered right to an abortion in the state constitution for no apparent reason — other than to require taxpayers to fund the procedure. Colorado is one of the easiest places in the country to get an abortion. And especially in the wake of the Reproductive Health Equity Act, adopted just two years ago by the state’s overwhelmingly Democratic Legislature and signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis, there’s practically no chance that access to abortion services in this state will be curtailed by policymakers in the foreseeable future. Regardless of your views on abortion, the deluge of dollars flooding in from out of state in support of the 79 campaign gives reason enough to vote NO."

Colorado Proposition KK, Excise Tax on Firearms Dealers, Manufacturers, and Ammunition Vendors Measure (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

The Daily Camera Editorial Board: "The $36 million the tax is estimated to raise annually would go primarily to the Colorado Crime Victim Services Fund — an exceptionally worthy cause — with the remainder going to a mental and behavioral health fund for veterans and children. Guns are the leading cause of death for children and teens in the U.S. — more than car wrecks and illness — and someone kills themself with a firearm roughly every 20 minutes. We can and must do more to contain the harm guns are doing to our society. An excise tax to help fund services to mitigate the destruction of firearms is a good step. Vote “yes” on Proposition KK."

Opposition[edit]

Colorado Proposition JJ, Retain Sports Betting Tax Revenue for Water Projects Measure (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Opposition[edit]

Colorado Springs Gazette and Denver Gazette Editorial Board: "JJ removes constitutional taxing and spending limits on revenue collected from the state’s 10% tax on sports betting proceeds. The measure would allow the state to retain and spend all it collects from the tax. While the proposal would require the excess revenue to be used on water projects — a worthy policy priority — it’s hard to justify lifting the limits of Colorado’s prudent Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights for any cause, and entrusting the money to the state."

Colorado Proposition 130, Law Enforcement Funding Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

Colorado Springs Gazette and Denver Gazette Editorial Board: "It establishes the Peace Officer Training and Support Fund to provide funding for law enforcement training, retention, and hiring across the state. The fund also will pay a death benefit of $1 million to the surviving spouse, children or estate of any peace officer killed in the line of duty. Now more than ever, Colorado’s law enforcement agencies need this boost in their crime fight — in a state battered by a crime wave."

Opposition[edit]

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

Colorado Proposition 128, Parole Eligibility Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

Colorado Springs Gazette and Denver Gazette Editorial Board: "Much of the public might be unaware that most felons sent to prison only serve a fraction of their sentence before being paroled back to the streets — often enough, to commit more crimes. Proposition 128, aptly nicknamed “Truth in Sentencing,” would require the state’s most violent criminals to serve at least 85% of their sentences before becoming eligible for parole. Upon a third trip to prison for violent crimes — a list of offenses is specified in the proposal — inmates would be required to serve out their full sentences before becoming parole eligible. That’s long overdue. It’s not just about making criminals pay their debt to society — a worthy goal in its own right — but also about making our streets safer."

Opposition[edit]

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

Colorado Amendment I, Remove Right to Bail in First Degree Murder Cases Amendment (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

Colorado Springs Gazette and Denver Gazette Editorial Board: "Amendment I amends the state constitution to restore judges’ ability to deny bail to suspects charged with first-degree murder. That option was stripped from judges recently on a legal technicality. The state Supreme Court had ruled that the Legislature’s repeal of capital punishment in Colorado meant first-degree murder no longer was a “capital” crime, strictly speaking, and thus policies like denying bail for capital crimes were moot. Let’s plug that loophole."
The Daily Camera Editorial Board: "It is not an easy choice to advocate for removing bail for anyone, but Amendment I is nonetheless worthy of approving. To start, there already exist certain crimes that are not eligible for bond, yet those charged with first-degree murder were. This incongruity is worth fixing. And second, bond in and of itself is inherently classist. Providing wealthy defendants the opportunity to access bail while others must await their trial in jail is absurd. There are many issues with our bond system that are worth addressing. Fixing incongruities and inequities in that system as it relates to first-degree murder charges is as good a place to start as any. Vote 'yes' on Amendment I. "

Opposition[edit]

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

Colorado Amendment H, Independent Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board Amendment (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

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

Colorado Proposition 129, Veterinary Professional Associate Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

The Denver Post Editorial Board: "For many Coloradans today the status quo is prohibitively expensive and the choice often is not seeking any medical care for their animals. The risk of poorly trained VPAs or large chain veterinary hospitals abusing the intent of the law is worth the potential outcome of more Colorado pets receiving medical care when needed because it is readily available and more affordable. Just as humans seek care from PAs who received master’s degrees, so too pets should be able to get care from VPAs with master’s degrees."

Opposition[edit]

Colorado Proposition 127, Prohibit Hunting of Mountain Lion, Bobcat, and Lynx Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Colorado Springs Gazette and Denver Gazette Editorial Board: "The disingenuous measure promises to ban the “trophy hunting” of mountain lions and other wildcat species; it is in fact illegal in Colorado to hunt game merely as trophies. The proposal’s deception doesn’t end there. It implies mountain lions are endangered when they are abundant. It preys upon most voters’ unfamiliarity with hunting — with how it is strictly regulated as a key tool of wildlife management. Its true motive? The proposal — bankrolled by out-of-state interests — appears to be another incremental step in the national animal-rights movement’s campaign to ban all hunting."

Colorado Amendment G, Property Tax Exemption for Veterans with Individual Unemployability Status Amendment (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

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

Colorado Amendment J, Remove Constitutional Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

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

Colorado Amendment 80, Constitutional Right to School Choice Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial Board: "Colorado’s innovative charter schools have been raising the bar for public education in our state — and setting the pace nationwide — for over three decades. They also have been winning parents’ hearts and minds along the way. The wildly popular charter school movement now serves some 137,000 K-12 public school students at 268 public charter schools across Colorado. Charter students in fact account for over 15% of total public school enrollment in our state. Charter schools haven’t been the only game changers in public education, of course. There also are all-online programs and homeschooling. Both work well for some students and further complement Colorado’s public education landscape. What all such choices have in common is they give a meaningful option to families stymied by failing neighborhood schools. Amendment 80 on this fall’s statewide mail ballot would ensure the right to such educational options, placing that right in the state’s constitution. It would do so not merely to celebrate the obvious strides of school choice — but to protect them."
Colorado Springs Gazette and Denver Gazette Editorial Board: "While there is public enthusiasm for charter schools and other school choice among Coloradans — regardless of race or ethnicity, socioeconomic status or political allegiance — there remains narrow but influential opposition. And those special interests — like teachers unions, which don’t like the competition — have clout. Their powerful lobby at the state Capitol attempted yet again just last spring to push through legislation that would have undermined charter schools. Amendment 80 would protect such important school-choice options by safeguarding them in the state constitution."

Opposition[edit]

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

Colorado Proposition 131, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Opposition[edit]

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

Glendale Cherry Creek Chronicle Editorial Board: "Alaska was so disgusted by Thiry’s system that voters have placed a proposition to get rid of nonpartisan jungle primaries and rank choice voting on the ballot this year. It is hoped that the latest fool’s gold proposition by Kent Thiry is decisively voted down by the Colorado voters. If not, it may be one of the last votes by Colorado voters that matters."
The Denver Post Editorial Board: "Colorado isn’t ready for major changes to our election system, even if adopting an all-party primary and ranked-choice general election could mean more and perhaps better choices for voters in future years. ... This system requires faith in the election administrator not to monkey around with the totals. The complicated reallocation of votes is done by computer, sometimes in real time, meaning a candidate might be 'out' with the first batch of ballots but 'back in' with the second batch. We were reassured that hand counts of Colorado’s secure paper ballot system — as required by law in close elections or if a candidate is willing to pay for it — would still be possible. The recounts would be expensive and time-consuming."
Colorado Springs Gazette and Denver Gazette Editorial Board: 'This well-intended attempt at making Coloradans’ votes more meaningful in primary and general elections has some compelling features but could wind up backfiring in some scenarios. Add to that mischievous and complicated legislation passed last spring in an attempt to sabotage 131 in advance, and the upshot is to turn the proposal into a minefield. Reform of Colorado’s problematic primary elections is likely warranted, but through a more straightforward and perhaps less ambitious solution."
The Daily Camera Editorial Board: "Prop 131 would also likely result in an even greater infusion of dark money into our state politics. Crowded primaries and general elections would require more money to make a candidate stand out. With Colorado’s campaign finance limits restricting transparent spending, Prop 131 would be an invitation for an infusion of dark money. Finally, Prop 131’s open primaries would also likely result in attempts to game the system, like those that have been seen in Alaska, where candidates have — counterintuitively — dropped out of races to give an edge to their party. Ranked choice voting might seem like a promising alternative to our traditional election system, but Proposition 131 is not the remedy we need. Vote 'no' on Prop 131."

Colorado Amendment K, Initiative and Referendum Filing and Judicial Retention Filing Deadlines Amendment (2024)

Connecticut[edit]

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

Connecticut No-Excuse Absentee Voting Amendment (2024)

Delaware[edit]

See Delaware 2024 ballot measures for more information.

Florida[edit]

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

Florida Amendment 1, Partisan School Board Elections Amendment (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Opposition[edit]

Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board: "This measure does nothing to help students or public education. Rather, it’s aimed at increasing the electoral power of party bosses to pick and choose who runs for school board. That leverage would include withholding fundraising to ensure a candidate’s pliancy in promoting a partisan agenda. In practical terms, that means school campuses would become ever-more useful fronts for waging culture wars over books, gender, race, instructional materials and teachers. Beyond the negative impact on schools, this amendment also is a tool for the party establishments to disenfranchise millions of Florida voters. Since Florida is a 'closed' primary state, only voters registered with a designated party can vote in that party’s primary. Independent voters would lose the ability they have now to shape the future of their local school systems. Aside from being undemocratic, that change is out-of-sync with an electorate in Florida (and nationwide) that increasingly identifies as independent of either major political party."
The Palm Beach Post Editorial Board: "But the last thing Florida's 67 school boards need is an extra dose of partisanship, which left unchecked could wreak havoc in both school board campaigns and educational policies. The Post urges voters reject Amendment 1 by voting 'no.' Florida's public schools have enough challenges. Whether it's aging infrastructure, declining enrollment, underpaid staff or undue state interference, the pressure on local school board members is intense and is growing. Political hacks hostile to public education need not apply."
Palm Beach Post Editorial Board: "Florida's public schools have enough challenges. Whether it's aging infrastructure, declining enrollment, underpaid staff or undue state interference, the pressure on local school board members is intense and is growing. Political hacks hostile to public education need not apply. By requiring candidates to disclose their party affiliations, the amendment opens the process in a way that would reduce the influence of the voter and the local community."
Miami Herald Editorial Board: "Florida and the country need less partisan divide — not more of it — especially when it comes to public education. That's why Florida voters should reject constitutional Amendment 1 … (It) would 'require members of a district school board to be elected in a partisan election rather than a nonpartisan election,' as they are now. If at least 60% of voters approve Amendment 1, candidates will have to run as Democrats or Republicans starting in 2026 and parties will nominate their own candidates for these elections. As the U.S. becomes more polarized, so have nonpartisan school boards."
TCPalm Editorial Board: "School board elections should be grassroots affairs, with the needs of parents, teachers, school administrators, taxpayers and, most importantly, students taking priority. We don't need one more type of election overrun with dark money spending, attack ads and agendas that have little to do with what's best for our children. Partisan school board elections would become even more nasty and divisive, pitting neighbors against one another."
Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board: "Few things have torn Florida apart in recent years as the politicization of local schools. But the warfare over book bans, gender identity and lessons about race would go into overdrive if Floridians approved this measure to make school board races partisan elections. School board elections in Florida are currently nonpartisan. That means all registered voters, regardless of party affiliation, have a say in who controls their local schools."
Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board: "Amendment 1 would shut voters out of school board races. It always seems strange when lawmakers turn to voters and ask 'Are you sure?' about something they settled a quarter-century ago. Amendment 1 would turn back the clock and make all school board elections partisan, reversing a decision by voters in 1998, when they voted to make school board elections nonpartisan."
South Florida Sun Sentinel Editorial Board: "Save our schools: Floridians voted to make school board elections nonpartisan in 1998. Going back to the bad old days would disenfranchise millions of voters, make school board races more expensive, increase the power of special interests and further polarize our politics."

Florida Amendment 3, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

Palm Beach Post Editorial Board: "Legalize pot and deal with its ills: This is not an easy call, but Amendment 3 would be a start for the state to finally address the ongoing health and legal issues surrounding cannabis. Despite the psychological concerns and punitive laws against it, weed has long enjoyed widespread use. The Post recommends voters face this reality, with a ‘yes’ on Amendment 3."
The Miami Herald Editorial Board: "... And state law already makes smoking medicinal marijuana in public illegal. But even though it’s illegal to smoke marijuana in public, no doubt you have smelled it while walking outside. If this is approved, the Legislature must clarify that the smoking ban in public places that applies to medicinal marijuana also applies to recreational marijuana, and allow cities to enforce local laws with noncriminal citations that carry hefty fines. The Miami Herald Editorial Board recommends voting YES on Amendment 3 for the safe and regulated use of recreational marijuana for adults."
Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board: "The way Florida handles low-level marijuana possession is ineffective, destructive, racially biased and detached from modern sentiment. It’s a good thing voters have a chance to rectify all that in the Nov. 5 election. Legalizing adult-use recreational marijuana can’t get here soon enough. Our justice system snares too many otherwise law-abiding people for simply possessing a substance that in many ways is less dangerous than alcohol."
Orlando Sentinel and South Florida Sun Sentinel Editorial Board: "Allowing personal use of marijuana makes sense for Florida: The good outweighs the bad in Amendment 3, the proposed recreational marijuana constitutional amendment. People shouldn't be arrested for possessing small amounts of marijuana, and there are good reasons, in terms of both economics and public safety, for marijuana to be carefully regulated."

Opposition[edit]

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

Florida Amendment 4, Right to Abortion Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Sun Sentinel Editorial Board: "Women are not second-class citizens. Protect all Floridians' rights. Vote yes on Amendment 4."
Miami Herald Editorial Board: "Because the alternative, if the amendment fails to get 60% of voter approval, is the state’s current six-week abortion ban, one of the strictest in the nation. Most women don’t even know they’re pregnant that early, making it essentially a complete ban. Florida also has a 24-hour mandatory waiting period, and telehealth appointments are prohibited before the procedure, adding additional obstacles for women who don’t live near a clinic or don’t have easy transportation. The ban is cruelest to women who need an abortion to protect their own health but cannot get one because — even though the ban has such health exceptions — doctors are afraid the state will second guess their medical judgment."
Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board: "Women deserve the time and discretion to make informed medical choices, and Amendment 4 would provide that space and autonomy. It also would give doctors the certainty they need to care for their patients and the medical profession the protection to serve a growing state. The measure is also in sync with public attitudes on abortion, where Americans have long balanced the issues of privacy and life. While public support has fluctuated over time, polls consistently show U.S. adults endorse abortion access; currently, 63% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to the Pew Research Center. Gallup has reported majority support for abortion almost continually since the 1970s."
Palm Beach Post Editorial Board: "Tallahassee politicians have a history of claiming to be champions of the people when it serves their purpose — and their campaign – and running roughshod over rights when it doesn't. That can't happen this time. Floridians need to make it clear who runs Florida and who runs our individual lives. We do. We need to send a loud message to the government to, as vice presidential candidate Tim Walz put it succinctly: 'Mind your own d*** business.' Vote yes to secure reproductive freedoms under Amendment 4."
Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board: "In requiring a near-total ban on childbirth choice, Florida lawmakers not only told women what they are expected to do with their bodies. They put barriers on the kind of lives they expect women to lead. They had no right to do so."
Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board: "Florida’s rush to curtail a right that existed for decades shows the danger of politicizing health care decisions and the extent the state’s Republican-led government is out of touch with public sentiment. … Women deserve the time and discretion to make informed medical choices, and Amendment 4 would provide that space and autonomy. It also would give doctors the certainty they need to care for their patients and the medical profession the protection to serve a growing state."
Miami Herald Editorial Board: "The ban is cruelest to women who need an abortion to protect their own health but cannot get one because — even though the ban has such health exceptions — doctors are afraid the state will second-guess their medical judgment."

Opposition[edit]

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

Florida Amendment 6, Repeal of Public Financing for Statewide Campaigns Amendment (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Amendment 6. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Oppose[edit]

Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board: "If you think that special interests, big out-of-state donors and limitless campaign spending are healthy for Florida’s political environment, this amendment is for you. Otherwise, vote no. Amendment 6 would repeal the Florida program that provides public financing for some statewide political candidates who agree to campaign spending limits. This reasonable, voluntary tradeoff helps to reduce the influence of big-money politics while providing voters with a broader slate of candidates to consider."
The Palm Beach Post Editorial Board: "Money has long been an issue in running for public office, especially for candidates who aren't multimillionaires. But the Florida Legislature's GOP supermajority is fine with that and has come up with an undemocratic trick that would make it harder for less-wealthy people to run, while also making our statewide office-seekers even more beholden to special interests, lobbyists and dark money PACs. It's not like masses of candidates have been soaking the taxpayers for vast sums under Florida public financing law. Candidates collected some $13 million in matching campaign funds last year, out of a total Florida budget of $116.5 billion. Public financing provides an open door for worthy candidates who might otherwise be closed off from running because they prefer not to feed at the trough of Big Ag, Big Insurance, Big Sugar or Big Power."
TCPalm Editorial Board: "Florida enacted a public campaign finance law in 1986, and voters, right or wrong, added it to the constitution in 1998 with 64% of the vote. Voters rejected repealing it in 2010. There’s no reason to keep asking. No."
Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board: "If you think that special interests, big out-of-state donors and limitless campaign spending are healthy for Florida's political environment, this amendment is for you. Otherwise, vote no. Amendment 6 would repeal the Florida program that provides public financing for some statewide political candidates who agree to campaign spending limits. This reasonable, voluntary tradeoff helps to reduce the influence of big-money politics while providing voters with a broader slate of candidates to consider."
Miami Herald Editorial Board: "Florida voters are being asked to repeal a constitutional amendment that allows taxpayer money to be used by candidates running for top state offices, including governor. A 'yes' vote for Amendment 6 − the Repeal of Public Financing for Statewide Campaigns − would kill the Florida program that provides matching, public financing for those running for office, a boost for candidates with limited financial means. We recommend a 'no' vote."
Orlando Sentinel and South Florida Sun Sentinel Editorial Board: "Keep campaign finance laws in place: Vote 'no' on Amendment 6. Special interests are already too influential. The targeted program awards matching funds for political contributions of $250 or less from Florida residents. The money goes to candidates for governor and the cabinet who agree to limit total spending to $2 per registered voter in a governor's race and $1 per voter for races for attorney general, agriculture commissioner and chief financial officer. They can put no more than $25,000 into their own campaigns. Critics complain that it subsidizes candidates who don't need the money, but it also gives assistance to low-budget candidates who try to compete with the big bucks."

Florida Amendment 2, Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Opposition[edit]

Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board: "Amendment 2 could wreak havoc with Florida's habitat and wildlife: The Sentinel endorses a 'no' vote on the Florida constitutional amendment about hunting and fishing, whose convoluted wording gives the state too much power."
South Florida Sun Sentinel Editorial Board: "Keep hunting and fishing out of the Constitution: Amendment 2 does far more than simply preserve a right to fish and hunt, which is already in state law. The amendment's extremely negative consequences for wildlife management and ethical hunting practices should have even ardent sportsmen voting a resounding 'no.'"
Miami Herald Editorial Board: "There’s not necessarily a need for Florida voters to enshrine the right to hunt and fish into the state constitution via Amendment 2 — especially when the potential consequences of the measure outweigh its benefits. The measure on the Nov. 5 General Election ballot preserves the right to 'forever fishing and hunting, including by the use of traditional methods, as a public right and preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife.'"
Sun Sentinel Editorial Board: "The Florida Constitution recognizes only a handful of rights, including to worship, speak freely, have privacy and be protected from secretive government. Most of those rights come with exemptions — in some cases, too many exemptions. ... But no guardrails constrain a 'public right' to fish and hunt. Nothing for private landowners to keep hunters off their land. No carve-out for endangered species. Not even a “please don’t shoot squirrels on a playground where kids are present.”"
The Palm Beach Post Editorial Board: "Hunting and fishing aren't the only ways to manage and control fish and wildlife. Conservation and land preservation work, too. But, those efforts will take a back seat to the 'traditional means,' whatever that means. There's also concern the amendment may be used to expand hunting and fishing in state parks, preserved lands, even private property. That might sound outlandish, given property rights and state regulations of parks and preserved lands. But Florida doesn't have the best track record of enforcing government regulations, as the recent plans to overdevelop state parks under the auspices of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection show."
TCPalm Editorial Board: "It's been almost 190 years since Florida created its constitution. For the reasons above, we see no reason to change the constitution for something that has never been a source of controversy."
Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board: "This is a ridiculous amendment that doesn't belong in the state constitution, whether you are an outdoors enthusiast or not. Let's first state the obvious: Florida is a great place to fish and hunt. The lifestyle and recreation of enjoying Florida's natural resources has flourished since the state's very existence. … Hunting and fishing are among the most thriving pursuits in Florida. They are not under threat. But they could be if Floridians pass this amendment."

Florida Amendment 5, Annual Inflation Adjustment for Homestead Property Tax Exemption Value Amendment (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Amendment 5. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Oppose[edit]

The Palm Beach Post Editorial Board: "The Post recommends voters reject this amendment with a 'no' vote. It creates the deceptive impression that state lawmakers are giving homeowners a bigger tax break. In fact they're proposing a change that would diminish revenue badly needed for counties and municipalities to operate and provide the multiple services that make our communities livable. Our counties and cities will still need to pay for municipal services and would have to raise their local tax rates to compensate for the revenue loss this tax break would create. So, increasing homestead exemptions is just a shell game, one that distorts the legitimate need for revenue collection and forces local officials to take back what state lawmakers are pretending to give away. So it benefits no one except the lawmakers who hope to score cheap publicity off it."
TCPalm Editorial Board: "While those of us who own homestead properties might potentially benefit from a small tax cut, the seemingly never-ending process of asking voters to (artificially) limit their property tax values through constitutional amendments every few years is exhausting. The potential unintended consequences ― from local governments raising millage to make up for revenue shortfalls or cost-shifts to businesses, small or large, that don’t have homesteads ― seem to be rarely considered."
Palm Beach Post Editorial Board: "The Post recommends voters reject this amendment with a 'no' vote. It creates the deceptive impression that state lawmakers are giving homeowners a bigger tax break. In fact they're proposing a change that would diminish revenue badly needed for counties and municipalities to operate and provide the multiple services that make our communities livable."
Orlando Sentinel and South Florida Sun Sentinel Editorial Board: "Amendment 5 would not change the basic homestead exemption, which exempts property taxes on the first $25,000 of a home's value. But it could reduce taxes paid of all governmental agencies except schools on the exemption that now excludes valuations between $50,000 and $75,000 of a home's value. If inflation were to go up, the city, county and special district taxes on that other part would go down unless those governing boards raise tax rates. In other words, revenue that pays for police, fire, roads, parks and other municipal and county services could be cut, and while that extra exemption may not save individual taxpayers much, it could be devastating to local governments."

Georgia[edit]

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

Georgia Amendment 1, Local Option Homestead Property Tax Exemption Amendment (2024)

Georgia Referendum A, Personal Property Tax Exemption Increase Measure (2024)

Georgia Amendment 2, Creation of Tax Court Amendment (2024)

Hawaii[edit]

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

Hawaii Judicial Appointments and Confirmations Amendment (2024)

Hawaii Remove Legislature Authority to Limit Marriage to Opposite-Sex Couples Amendment (2024)

Idaho[edit]

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

Idaho HJR 5, Citizenship Requirement for Voting Amendment (2024)

Idaho Proposition 1, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2024)

Illinois[edit]

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

Illinois Income Tax Advisory Question (2024)

Illinois Assisted Reproductive Healthcare Advisory Question (2024)

Illinois Penalties for Candidate Interference with Election Worker's Duties Advisory Question (2024)

Indiana[edit]

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

Indiana Remove Superintendent of Public Instruction from Gubernatorial Line of Succession Amendment (2024)

Iowa[edit]

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

Iowa Amendment 2, Gubernatorial Succession Amendment (2024)

Iowa Amendment 1, Require Citizenship to Vote in Elections and Allow 17-Year-Olds to Vote in Primaries Amendment (2024)

Kansas[edit]

See Kansas 2024 ballot measures for more information.

Kentucky[edit]

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

Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 2, Allow State Funding for Non-Public Education Amendment (2024)

Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1, Citizenship Requirement for Voting Amendment (2024)

Louisiana[edit]

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 Outer Continental Shelf Revenues for Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund Amendment (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

NOLA Herald Editorial Board: "Amendment No. 1 would send any revenue generated by wind and other alternative energy production in federal waters to the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund, which pays for wetlands preservation, coastal restoration, hurricane protection and infrastructure directly impacted by coastal wetlands loss. Federal money from offshore oil and gas already goes into this account, and it’s become a vital source of funding for projects that address Louisiana’s most pressing environmental vulnerabilities. A 'yes' vote would add future revenue from new energy sources if Congress decides to share that money with the state. We don’t know whether that will happen, but we hope it does. Money from the BP oil spill settlement will stop flowing into the coastal fund in less than a decade, and any additional income would be not only welcome but badly needed. Adopting this amendment may also give Congress a comfort level in sending the money to Louisiana, knowing that it would be put to good use."

Opposition[edit]

Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in opposition to the amendment. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Louisiana Amendment 1, Judiciary Commission Investigation of Sitting Judges Amendment (December 2024)

Louisiana Amendment 2, 48-Hour Waiting Period for Concurrence on Appropriation Bills Amendment (December 2024)

Louisiana Amendment 3, Allow Legislature to Extend Regular Sessions to Pass Appropriations Bills Amendment (December 2024)

Louisiana Amendment 4, Property Tax Payments and Tax Sales Amendment (December 2024)

Maine[edit]

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 5, State Flag Referendum (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Portland Press Herald Editorial Board: "In our conversations about the flag, we on the editorial board noted that we would not be supportive of Question 5 if it spelled the end of the road for the Maine state seal. We’re satisfied that that piece of official history (and its resident farmer, scythe, seaman and anchor) will live on, administratively, in statute and in other ways. We also couldn’t have been in favor of a state flag design so new that it was brand new; as voters are by now very well aware, the design up for consideration is a version of the 1901 Maine state flag (in place until 1909). Not only does it pay homage to that time, it offers Maine a crisp, readily identifiable alternative to fly long into the present century. It will complement the new pine tree license plate, which takes the place of the chickadee next year."
Bangor Daily News Editorial Board: "Question 5 asks voters whether they support changing Maine’s flag to a simple pine tree design that was used in the early 1900s. Maine’s current state flag, which features the state seal on a blue background, is not distinctive and its imagery feels outdated. Although we think state lawmakers spent way too much time considering a new state flag, we generally like the pine tree design as a flag that is unique."

Opposition[edit]

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

Maine Question 1, Limit Contributions to Super PACs Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Portland Press Herald Editorial Board: "Ours would be the first state in the nation since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010 to move to limit contributions to PACs that can make independent expenditures. We believe that political spending has spiraled out of control, in many cases, and that the absence of any limit on PACs is inappropriate and leaves America’s system of campaigning and voting vulnerable to the whims of bad actors. If Maine can play a leading role in bringing some order and fairness to political spending nationally, we should seize the chance."
Bangor Daily News Editorial Board: "While we support Question 1, which would change state law to limit contributions to Super PACs to $5,000, voters should realize that this initiative is really about setting up a legal challenge to campaign contributions. While it is a longshot that the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn rulings that have largely extinguished limits on campaign funding, we believe that the amount of money spent on political campaigns is outrageous and that limits need to be set."

Opposition[edit]

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

Maine Question 4, Development and Maintenance of Trails Bond Issue (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Portland Press Herald Editorial Board: "This is the definition of a “bipartisan,” both-sides-of-the-aisle idea. By making our trails better and more accessible, we’re increasing their utility and their appeal. We’ll improve their chances of being used as commuter routes; of recruiting newcomers to outdoor recreation; and of linking up towns and cities in valuable ways. This is an investment in Mainers and much as it is in Maine. Our tourism and hospitality sectors stand to benefit greatly. Our children stand to benefit. Our environment stands to benefit, in the short term and the long. On top of all that, we’re particularly in favor of the provision for a private/public funding match, a mechanism that rightly seeks to mobilize local support for this most valuable – and lucrative – of our assets."
Bangor Daily News Editorial Board: "Question 4, is a $30 million bond for trails in Maine. While voters have approved several bonds for land acquisition for public recreation, hunting and commercial fishing, the state has not previously borrowed money to support the development and maintenance of trails. Increasingly, outdoor recreation has become an important economic driver in communities across Maine. Snowmobile trails, trails for mountain biking and hiking, and trails accessible to people in wheelchairs have become part of long-range plans as communities plan their futures. This bond can help jumpstart this work, which will benefit Mainers and visitors."

Opposition[edit]

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

Support[edit]

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee supporting the measure.^[1]

Committees in support of Question 4
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Partnership for Maine Trails	$102,500.00	$40,129.60	$142,629.60	$98,708.54	$138,838.14
Total	$102,500.00	$40,129.60	$142,629.60	$98,708.54	$138,838.14

Donors[edit]

The following were the top donors to the committee.^[1]

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Natural Resources Council of Maine	$0.00	$35,126.89	$35,126.89
Natural Resources Council of Maine	$0.00	$29,570.38	$29,570.38
L.L. Bean	$25,000.00	$0.00	$25,000.00
REI	$20,000.00	$0.00	$20,000.00
Maine Snowmobile Association	$5,500.00	$6,352.50	$11,852.50

Maine Question 2, Science and Technology Research and Commercialization Bond Issue (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Portland Press Herald Editorial Board: "Too often we hear about how hard it is to do business in Maine. A well-timed grant can change everything for an entrepreneur with the will to succeed. With the potential for such cold, hard return on investment, and for the good of Maine’s reputation as a place for small and medium enterprise, Question 2 should be a open-and-shut case for voters."
Bangor Daily News Editorial Board: "Question 2 asks voters to approve $25 million in borrowing to replenish a competitive grant funding program run by the Maine Technology Institute. The money, like the funds from a $45 million bond that was strongly supported by Maine voters in 2017, would be awarded to projects in six target areas that are centered on long-standing industries in Maine: forestry and agriculture; aquaculture and marine technology; environmental and renewable energy; biomedicine and life sciences; composites and advanced materials and precision manufacturing; and information technology. The $45 million approved by voters in 2017 funded 18 projects, which brought in an additional $193 million from the private sector. This bond will continue state investment in innovation that has created jobs and helped to grow Maine’s economy."

Opposition[edit]

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

Maine Question 3, Historic Community Buildings Bond Issue (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Portland Press Herald Editorial Board: "Some might argue that this is a “nice to have” question, something that the state could simply do without funding. But the risk we outlined above is, in our view, too significant an opportunity cost. We prefer to believe that badly needed restoration of spaces that should be maximized for the common good is something that will pay off; our communities benefit from having access to venues that are safe and welcoming, even inviting. We lose sight of and lose out on the value of our shared history without taking care to protect it. And we all benefit from taking steps to preserve historical structures in our towns and cities which, by and large, were much harder-won and far more thoughtfully constructed than their modern counterparts. While a tranche of $10 million represents nothing like a panacea for this category of building statewide, if the alternative to this bond is to let government agencies and nonprofits across the state scrabble around for cash for very worthy and worthwhile restoration and repairs, we’d prefer to vote in favor of this shot in the arm."
Bangor Daily News Editorial Board: "Question 3 would approve a $10 million bond to help restore historic government and nonprofit buildings across the state. The question requires a 25 percent local match from either private or nonprofit sources. This bond is a prudent if insufficient public investment in structures and sites like old meeting houses, town halls, public libraries, museums, grange buildings, old forts, homesteads, and other sites that might otherwise fade into memory without restoration efforts."

Opposition[edit]

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

Maryland[edit]

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

Maryland Question 1, Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment (2024)

Massachusetts[edit]

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

Massachusetts Question 5, Minimum Wage for Tipped Employees Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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[edit]

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

Sentinel & Enterprise Editorial Board: "Under existing law, tipped employees must be paid at least $6.75 an hour, as long as gratuities bring their total pay up to $15 per hour, with employers responsible for making up the difference. We don’t see why the current wage scale should change. Those workers counting on tips — especially in a restaurant setting — enjoy the best of both worlds. They’re usually the highest compensated employees, with a guarantee of making at least as much as other workers."

Massachusetts Question 3, Unionization and Collective Bargaining for Transportation Network Drivers Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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[edit]

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

Sentinel & Enterprise Editorial Board: "Under current law, Uber and Lyft drivers in Massachusetts cannot readily form unions. Question 3 would change that. It would allow drivers across multiple companies to negotiate together for better pay, expanded benefits, and other protections that would then apply across the entire rideshare industry. But so-called sector-based bargaining is largely untested in the United States and likely would face serious legal challenges. Uber and Lyft drivers would also lose the independence they now enjoy, and be forced to join a union that they might not support."

Massachusetts Question 1, Authorization of State Auditor to Audit General Court Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Boston Globe Editorial Board: "Question 1 on the November ballot, which would specifically allow the state auditor to audit the Legislature and its accounts, won’t solve all of those problems. It isn’t a magic wand. But it sure wouldn’t hurt to shine a little light in at least some of those dark corners the Legislature has created for itself. At a time when the Legislature has grown ever more secretive in the way it conducts its business — the public’s business, let’s not forget — a yes vote on Question 1 is simply the right thing to do."
Sentinel & Enterprise Editorial Board: "If passed, this question would allow State Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s office to delve into some operational aspects of the Legislature, which currently isn’t subject to such scrutiny. DiZoglio, a Methuen Democrat, backed this initiative after Attorney General Andrea Campbell thwarted her attempt to directly exercise this authority through her office. ... We wholeheartedly agree that some accounting of how the Legislature operates is long overdue."

Opposition[edit]

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

Massachusetts Question 2, Repeal Competency Assessment Requirement for High School Graduation Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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[edit]

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

Sentinel & Enterprise Editorial Board: "We don’t know how students who’ve missed a considerable amount of class time are any more qualified to graduate without having to pass a state standardized test, unless the bar for accomplishing that was considerably lowered. This testing crucible has vaulted Massachusetts students to international rankings that far exceed this country as a whole. That global and national distinction will certainly erode if this question passes."

Massachusetts Question 4, Legalization and Regulation of Psychedelic Substances Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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[edit]

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

Sentinel & Enterprise Editorial Board: "Question 4 calls for no legal action against adults ages 21 and older for 'possessing, using, processing, or testing not more than a personal use amount of a natural psychedelic substance,' and allows home-grown plants or fungi cultivated for psychedelic substances, as long as they are in an area secured from minors. If passed, this ballot initiative would legalize both the medicinal and personal use of certain psychedelics — something that wasn’t even contemplated by supporters of legalizing marijuana. Recreational marijuana was only approved after first studying the effects of pot’s use for medicinal purposes. That’s the same course therapeutic psychedelics should take."

Michigan[edit]

See Michigan 2024 ballot measures for more information.

Minnesota[edit]

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

Minnesota Amendment 1, Continue to Provide Lottery Revenue to Environment and Natural Resources Fund Amendment (2024)

Mississippi[edit]

See Mississippi 2024 ballot measures for more information.

Missouri[edit]

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

Missouri Amendment 4, Allow Legislature to Require a City to Increase Funding without State Reimbursement for a Police Force Established by State Board Measure (August 2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Opposition[edit]

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

The Kansas City Star Editorial Board: "This proposed amendment is unconscionable — the funding mandate only applies to Kansas City — and the measure reeks of partisan governmental overreach. Currently, state law requires the Kansas City Council to spend at least 20% of its budget on policing. The city routinely funds the Kansas City Police Department above its required threshold and more, as it should. In the 2024-2025 fiscal year, the council approved a little over $317 million for the police department, a sizable 11.5% increase from the previous year’s budget of $284.5 million. In a city that has seen a record number of homicides in recent years, public safety must continue to be a priority here. Why should voters in southwest Missouri or the bootheel in the southeastern part of the state have a say in how local taxpayers’ dollars are spent? In fairness, they shouldn’t."

Missouri Amendment 1, Property Tax Exemption for Childcare Establishments Measure (August 2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

The Kansas City Star Editorial Board: "There is no question that exempting property taxes paid by child care providers would cost local jurisdictions some money ... Yet child care is without a doubt an essential service. It enables tens of thousands of parents to enter the workplace while their children are protected and fed. Daily child care is a fact of life for young families across the state. At the same time, child care — which is labor-intensive — is extraordinarily expensive. Anything that can reduce providers’ costs would eventually help parents. The tax exemption might also improve the quality of child care. On balance, cheaper child care with better quality and wider availability are worthwhile goals in Missouri. And there is a chance the damage to local government budgets may be smaller than estimated. That’s particularly true if more parents enter the workforce if the amendment passes."

Opposition[edit]

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

Missouri Amendment 7, Require Citizenship to Vote and Prohibit Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Amendment 7. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Opposition[edit]

The Kansas City Star Editorial Board: "Missouri Amendment 7 deals with how elections are run in the state. The question asks voters to 'make the Constitution consistent with state law by only allowing citizens of the United States to vote.' We recommend a no vote. This is classic 'ballot candy': adding something to the ballot that sounds good to voters but has no practical effect."
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial Board: "Missouri Amendment 7 would do two things: One, solve a problem that exists only in the realm of right-wing extremism; two, prevent use of a voting method that’s designed to diffuse such extremism. This is why the state’s radicalized Legislature put this mess on the Nov. 5 ballot. And it’s why the state’s voters should soundly defeat it. Whether you favor expanded candidate choices for voters isn’t really the point. Shouldn’t voters be a little insulted that their elected representatives are asking them to limit their own future options — and stamping that limitation into the state constitution? And shouldn’t they be doubly insulted that those representatives think their constituents can be tricked into such self-sabotage with a nod toward the culture-war lie of illegal immigrant voting? Don’t accept these insults. Vote “no” on Amendment 7."

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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[edit]

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

The Kansas City Star Editorial Board: "Missouri Amendment 7 deals with how elections are run in the state. The question asks voters to 'make the Constitution consistent with state law by only allowing citizens of the United States to vote.' We recommend a no vote. This is classic 'ballot candy': adding something to the ballot that sounds good to voters but has no practical effect."
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial Board: "Missouri Amendment 7 would do two things: One, solve a problem that exists only in the realm of right-wing extremism; two, prevent use of a voting method that’s designed to diffuse such extremism. This is why the state’s radicalized Legislature put this mess on the Nov. 5 ballot. And it’s why the state’s voters should soundly defeat it. Whether you favor expanded candidate choices for voters isn’t really the point. Shouldn’t voters be a little insulted that their elected representatives are asking them to limit their own future options — and stamping that limitation into the state constitution? And shouldn’t they be doubly insulted that those representatives think their constituents can be tricked into such self-sabotage with a nod toward the culture-war lie of illegal immigrant voting? Don’t accept these insults. Vote “no” on Amendment 7."

Missouri Amendment 3, Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in opposition of Amendment 3. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Missouri Amendment 6, Levying of Fees to Support Salaries of Law Enforcement Personnel Amendment (2024)

Missouri Proposition A, Minimum Wage and Earned Paid Sick Time Initiative (2024)

Missouri Amendment 5, Osage River Gambling Boat License Initiative (2024)

Missouri Amendment 2, Sports Betting Initiative (2024)

Montana[edit]

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

Montana CI-128, Right to Abortion Initiative (2024)

Montana CI-126, Top-Four Primary Initiative (2024)

Montana CI-127, Majority Vote Required to Win Elections Initiative (2024)

Nebraska[edit]

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

Nebraska Referendum 435, Private Education Scholarship Program Referendum (2024)

Nebraska Initiative 439, Right to Abortion Initiative (2024)

Nebraska Initiative 434, Prohibit Abortions After the First Trimester Amendment (2024)

Nebraska Initiative 438, Medical Marijuana Regulation Initiative (2024)

Nebraska Initiative 436, Paid Sick Leave Initiative (2024)

Nebraska Initiative 437, Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2024)

Nevada[edit]

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

Nevada Question 7, Require Voter Identification Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Opposition[edit]

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

Las Vegas Sun Editorial Board: "The proposed ID requirements disproportionately affect vulnerable groups, including the elderly, individuals with disabilities, those lacking reliable transportation, workers unable to take time off during business hours and rural residents without easy access to government offices where IDs can be obtained. Furthermore, voting is a fundamental right, independent of activities like driving, attending school, or owning a firearm. Mandating IDs, primarily linked to these activities, essentially compels individuals to engage in at least one of them as a prerequisite for voting."

Nevada Question 6, Right to Abortion Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Las Vegas Sun Editorial Board: "Donald Trump proudly brags about appointing the Supreme Court justices who struck down Roe v. Wade. Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo has already proven that he has no qualms about controlling women’s bodies, having vetoed a bipartisan bill supported by Republican Senate Minority Leader Heidi Gansert and Assistant Minority Leader Carrie Buck that would have established the simple right to access contraception. Republican U.S. Senate nominee Sam Brown publicly championed extreme restrictions on the right to abortion when he lived in Texas. All three GOP candidates for Congress favor broad restrictions on a woman’s right to choose. And numerous GOP candidates for the state Legislature as well as every leader of the Nevada GOP are touting their support of and relationship to Trump, Lombardo, Brown and the principles contained in Project 2025, which include draconian restrictions on women’s rights, liberties and access to reproductive healthcare. In other words, there is every reason to believe that the Nevada GOP will attempt to pass a statewide abortion ban if given the opportunity. The only way for Nevadans to protect a woman’s right to choose is to pass Question 6."

Opposition[edit]

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

Nevada Question 3, Top-Five Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Opposition[edit]

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

Nevada Question 4, Remove Slavery as Punishment for Crime from Constitution Amendment (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Opposition[edit]

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

Nevada Question 1, Remove Constitutional Status of Board of Regents Amendment (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Las Vegas Sun Editorial Board: "Nevada is unique in that its entire public higher education system is managed by a single elected board, the Board of Regents, which has constitutional status. In the past, the Board of Regents has invoked that constitutional status as a means of claiming immunity from oversight by the state Legislature and other government accountability offices. Question 1 on the ballot proposes to change this by removing the board’s constitutional status. This reform is overdue and would align the board with other state governing bodies by allowing the Legislature to audit, review and adjust the board’s structure, management and finances, enabling a more efficient, effective and responsive system that is better suited to the evolving demands of modern higher education."

Opposition[edit]

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

Nevada Question 5, Sales Tax Exemption for Diapers Measure (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Las Vegas Sun Editorial Board: "Exempting child and adult diapers from sales tax is a sound public policy decision that can alleviate financial burdens on families and individuals, promote public health and ensure greater equity. Diapers are a basic necessity, not a luxury, and treating them as taxable items disproportionately affects low-income households, seniors and people with disabilities who rely on these products daily. Eliminating the sales tax on diapers helps reduce the overall cost for families and caregivers, making it easier to meet essential needs without sacrificing other important expenses like food or health care. Furthermore, access to affordable diapers is closely tied to public health. Babies and adults who lack an adequate supply of diapers may experience rashes, infections or other medical issues, which can lead to higher health care costs for them as individuals and for society. By making diapers more affordable through a tax exemption, the policy helps reduce the risk of such health complications and leads to better health outcomes."

Opposition[edit]

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

Nevada Question 2, Revising Language Related to Public Entities for Individuals with Mental Illness, Blindness, or Deafness Amendment (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Las Vegas Sun Editorial Board: "Question 2 on the 2024 ballot seeks to modernize the Nevada Constitution by removing outdated and stigmatizing terms such as “insane,” “deaf” and “dumb,” and replacing them with more appropriate and inclusive language. The terminology in question has remained unchanged for 160 years, even as society and professional practices have evolved significantly. Today, such terms are widely considered offensive and inappropriate, particularly within legal, educational and social work settings. The initiative to amend this language is not merely a symbolic gesture; it represents a commitment to inclusivity and reflects the broader societal shift toward using respectful language that does not perpetuate stigma. Updating the terminology will help ensure that Nevada’s legal framework aligns with contemporary values and fosters a more compassionate society."

Opposition[edit]

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

New Hampshire[edit]

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in New Hampshire 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 Hampshire Increase Mandatory Judicial Retirement Age Amendment (2024)

New Jersey[edit]

See New Jersey 2024 ballot measures for more information.

New Mexico[edit]

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

New Mexico Bond Question 4, Public Safety Radio Communications Systems Bond Issue (2024)

New Mexico Bond Question 1, Senior Citizens Facilities Bond Issue (2024)

New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 1, Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption Amendment (2024)

New Mexico Bond Question 2, Public Libraries Bond Issue (2024)

New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 3, Judicial Nominating Commission Amendment (2024)

New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 4, County Officer Salaries Amendment (2024)

New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 2, Increase Veteran Property Tax Exemption Amendment (2024)

New Mexico Bond Question 3, Public Education Bond Issue (2024)

New York[edit]

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 1, Equal Protection of Law Amendment (2024)

North Carolina[edit]

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

North Carolina Citizenship Requirement for Voting Amendment (2024)

North Dakota[edit]

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

North Dakota Initiated Measure 1, Congressional Age Limits Initiative (June 2024)

North Dakota Initiated Measure 5, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2024)

North Dakota Initiated Measure 4, Prohibit Taxes on Assessed Value of Real Property Initiative (2024)

North Dakota Constitutional Measure 2, Single-Subject Requirement for Initiatives and Require Constitutional Initiatives to be Passed Twice Amendment (2024)

North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1, Language Describing State Institutions Amendment (2024)

North Dakota Constitutional Measure 3, Legacy Fund Transfers Amendment (2024)

Ohio[edit]

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, Establish the Citizens Redistricting Commission Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

The Toledo Blade Editorial Board: "... [T]he problem in Ohio isn’t the formula used to draw legislative districts; it’s the makeup of the body creating the political boundaries. ... But 15 engaged citizens — five Republicans, five Democrats, and five independents — will have no reason to seek personal political advantage, which is why this reform plan is the best option. ... Ohio Issue 1 is recognition that state government belongs to citizens. Districts drawn by civic-minded Ohioans in public view can help restore trust in state government that has been eroded by constant scandal always tied to partisan political advantage."
The Columbus Dispatch Editorial Board: "The best proof that Issue 1 will work can be found in the false claims of Republicans, especially the ballot language that misrepresents the amendment. They even convinced the current Ohio Supreme Court to harm its credibility by allowing the wording. We urge everyone to read the amendment's actual wording. Make no mistake, Issue 1 will end gerrymandering and remove self-serving politicians from the process. Neither party would control the maps. We heartily endorse Issue 1 as a critical step in reforming Ohio's state government and attracting more moderate candidates to run in their party primaries with reasonable hopes of prevailing into a fair general election."
The Plain Dealer Editorial Board: "Successful government in the United States is predicated on the notion that people who seek elected office will carry out their duties in good faith. Sadly, in Ohio at least, when it comes to drawing the lines for congressional and Statehouse districts, good faith goes out the window. Whichever party is in power can’t resist the temptation to cook the books and give themselves congressional and state legislative seats out of proportion to how state voters break down by party. The result is grossly disproportionate representation, as we have now in Ohio. Issue 1 on the Nov. 5 ballot would restore good faith to the mapmaking by ousting from the process the elected officials, politicians, lobbyists or anyone else with a vested interest in cheating."
The Cincinnati Enquirer Editorial Board: "Ohioans have given elected leaders plenty of chances to draw fair maps, but they've repeatedly failed to do so, defying the will of voters and thumbing their noses at rulings from the Ohio Supreme Court. Voters must not let this moment to end Ohio's legacy of gerrymandering slip by."

Opposition[edit]

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

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board: "Memo to Ohio voters: The 'independent' redistricting commission proposal on your ballot this November is nothing of the sort. The measure is funded by progressives to hand a permanent advantage to Democrats. ... Proponents say the idea would create a “bipartisan” system to end gerrymandering. But the giveaway of the real purpose is that the ballot measure is funded by a partisan coterie of unions and major national progressive nonprofits. The goal is to enshrine progressive gerrymandering in Ohio’s constitution. ... Ohio’s Congressional delegation is currently 11 Republicans and six Democrats, which reflects the state electorate’s turn to the right and a mildly partisan gerrymander. But at least lawmakers on the current redistricting commission are accountable to voters."

Oklahoma[edit]

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 833, Public Infrastructure Districts Amendment (2024)

Oklahoma State Question 834, Citizenship Requirement for Voting Amendment (2024)

Oregon[edit]

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

Oregon Measure 117, Ranked-Choice Voting for Federal and State Elections Measure (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

Opposition[edit]

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

The Oregonian Editorial Board: "Oregonians should hold off until voters can see how Multnomah County implements ranked-choice voting on the local level, starting with Portland city races this November. Multnomah is the state’s largest county and can provide helpful insight on implementation. And before authorizing an expansion, voters should know how ranked choice affected voter turnout; the number of ballots excluded due to mistakes or because voters did not choose any surviving candidates; any difficulties in counting; the time for reporting results and other central aspects of such a change. There’s no reason Oregonians have to vote 'yes' on this measure now, particularly with so many unanswered concerns and more data on the horizon to consider. Voters should reject Measure 117."
The News-Register Editorial Board: "We find lots to like in a fair, efficient and transparent ranked choice voting system. But this one, referred by a Legislature that should know better, doesn’t come close. It’s cumbersome, confusing and convoluted — to the point where it would run great risk of diminishing rather than bolstering public confidence in democracy. It would, initially at least, apply only to elections for federal office. But if we ever dare to dip our toe into ranked choice at the state level, the devil is in the details."

Oregon Measure 118, Corporate Tax Revenue Rebate for Residents Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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[edit]

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

The Oregonian Editorial Board: "Measure 118 advocates attempt to compare this with an Alaskan program that distributes an annual cash payment to all residents, but this measure is nothing like it. The payments to 600,000-plus Alaskans come from investment earnings off the Alaska Permanent Fund – a now $79 billion fund built primarily from stashing a portion of royalties paid to the state by oil companies over decades – not a gross-receipts tax whose repercussions will reverberate back onto residents. ... The opposition reflects an impressive show of unity from entities across spectrums – politics, geography, membership and mission – all urging Oregonians to vote 'no' on Measure 118. Voters should join them."
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board: "There are bad ideas and then there are ideas so lousy that even liberal Democrats disown them. Count in the latter category an Oregon ballot measure that would stick companies with the highest corporate tax burden in the country while pitching it to voters as a "rebate.'"
The News-Register Editorial Board: "The annual rebate, initially projected at $1,000 to $1,300, is much too small to serve as a minimum guaranteed income safety net. The vast majority of the money would be showered on middle- and upper-income residents with no such need in the first place. It could make Oregon companies less competitive. And through workings much too complicated to explain here, it figures to cut millions from the corporate income tax flow to the state general fund. It’s a half-baked idea that could prove incredibly damaging."
The East Oregonian Editorial Board: "We don’t doubt the supporters of Ballot Measure 118 have the best of intentions. But Oregon voters this November will need to look past those good intentions and take a hard look at the measure’s unintended consequences."
The Source Weekly Editorial Board: "The notion of turning corporate profits, from a new corporate sales tax, into checks paid out to needy Oregonians sounds good, but it's a bit too socialist for our taste. It's a bit like robbing Peter to pay Paul; it puts a few-thousand-dollar check into the hands of a working family, but if that comes at the expense of the state being able to adequately fund things like schools — where a host of wraparound services are available to help struggling students — it could have a more negative impact. Vote no on Measure 118."

Oregon Measure 115, Impeachment of Elected State Executives Amendment (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

The Oregonian Editorial Board: "Ideally, impeachment is a tool that Oregonians will never have to use. But it should still be available. Voters should elect leaders who will fulfill their duties with integrity – but should also make sure to check the 'yes' box on Measure 115."
The News-Register Editorial Board: "A bipartisan legislative referral initiated by the GOP, this measure would end Oregon’s status as the only state with no provision to impeach top elected state officials. Fortunately, Fagan’s Democratic colleagues, eager to quench the flames, were able to secure her resignation, but we might not be so lucky next time."

Opposition[edit]

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

Oregon Measure 119, Unionization of Cannabis Workers Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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[edit]

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

The Oregonian Editorial Board: "While certainly there’s an argument to simply passing this measure and letting the courts sort this out in the litigation that will inevitably follow, there’s a better argument that Oregonians should let other states, on their dime, fight this out first. Voters should consider the caution that legislators have already shown when considering the question and vote 'no.'"
The News-Register Editorial Board: "This measure was cooked up by the United Food & Commercial Workers Union, which is trying to organize the cannabis industry. It would require cannabis businesses to submit a signed labor agreement in order to renew their licenses, serving to all but force them to unionize. Think right to work imposed in reverse. Think big government run amok."

Oregon Measure 116, Independent Public Service Compensation Commission Amendment (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

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

The News-Register Editorial Board: "One incentive for Fagan to accept money from wealthy agency supplicants was taking a big pay cut from what she was pulling down from her high-profile law practice. Oregon has the governor at $98,600, secretary of state at $77,000, attorney general at $82,220, and treasurer and labor commissioner at $77,000 — all at or near national lows. This clangs in a state where 9,899 state employees earn more than $100,000, 90 more than $200,000, and nine over $300,000. The measure would create an independent non-partisan commission to set pay levels going forward. That would presumably mean big bumps the first year, but modest increases thereafter."

Opposition[edit]

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

The Oregonian Editorial Board: "The proposed constitutional amendment would create a commission of appointees to set salaries for hundreds of elected officials with no way for legislators, the courts or the public to modify its decisions. Instead, the salaries set by the 'Independent Public Service Compensation Committee' for the five statewide elected officials, 90 state legislators, 202 state-paid judges and 36 district attorneys would be 'automatically appropriated' from the state’s General Fund, regardless of the state’s economic position. While Oregonians should support higher salaries through the regular legislative process, they should vote 'no' on Measure 116′s flawed constitutional proposal."

Pennsylvania[edit]

See Pennsylvania 2024 ballot measures for more information.

Rhode Island[edit]

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

Rhode Island Question 2, Higher Education Facilities Bond Measure (2024)

Rhode Island Question 4, Environmental and Recreational Infrastructure Bond Measure (2024)

Rhode Island Question 3, Housing Acquisition, Development, and Infrastructure Bond Measure (2024)

Rhode Island Question 5, Cultural Arts and Economy Grant Program Bond Measure (2024)

Rhode Island Question 1, Constitutional Convention Question (2024)

South Carolina[edit]

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

South Carolina Citizenship Requirement for Voting Amendment (2024)

South Dakota[edit]

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

South Dakota Referred Law 21, Regulation of Carbon Dioxide Pipelines Referendum (2024)

South Dakota Initiated Measure 29, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2024)

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment G, Right to Abortion Initiative (2024)

South Dakota Initiated Measure 28, Prohibit Food and Grocery Taxes Initiative (2024)

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment F, Medicaid Work Requirement Amendment (2024)

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment H, Top-Two Primary Elections Initiative (2024)

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment E, Gender-Neutral Constitutional Language Amendment (2024)

Tennessee[edit]

See Tennessee 2024 ballot measures for more information.

Texas[edit]

See Texas 2024 ballot measures for more information.

Utah[edit]

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

Utah Amendment C, Elections of County Sheriffs Amendment (2024)

Utah Amendment B, State School Fund Distribution Cap Increase Amendment (2024)

Vermont[edit]

See Vermont 2024 ballot measures for more information.

Virginia[edit]

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

Virginia Property Tax Exemption for Veterans and Surviving Spouses Amendment (2024)

Washington[edit]

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 2109, Repeal Capital Gains Tax Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Initiative 2109. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Opposition[edit]

The Columbian Editorial Board: "In 2023, the capital gains tax was paid by fewer than 4,000 people in Washington and generated nearly $900 million — 85 percent of it from King County residents. The Office of Financial Management estimates that repeal of the tax would reduce state revenue by $2.2 billion over five years. That money is dedicated to K-12 education, higher education, early learning and child care. In particular, it is being used to help with school construction, especially in rural and low-income districts that have difficulty getting bond measures approved."
The Seattle Times Editorial Board: “A vote is kind of a prayer for the world we desire for ourselves and for our children.” — U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga. Washington voters should reflect on those words from the gentleman from Georgia as they mark their ballots for the general election, specifically on Initiative 2109. On the Nov. 5 ballot, voters are asked whether to repeal the state’s 7% capital gains tax. The answer should be a resounding “no.”

Washington Initiative 2124, Opt-Out of Long-Term Services Insurance Program Initiative (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in opposition to Initiative 2124. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Washington Initiative 2117, Prohibit Carbon Tax Credit Trading and Repeal Carbon Cap-and-Invest Program Measure (2024)

Washington Initiative 2066, Natural Gas Policies Measure (2024)

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

Seattle Times Editorial Board: "Reducing greenhouse gas emissions of the more than 1.2 million natural gas customers in Washington will be among the hardest parts of the state’s clean energy transformation. State lawmakers owe it to constituents to carefully craft and thoroughly debate legislation so fundamental to our lives: the way we stay warm, bathe and cook our food. Earlier this year, a slim majority of Democratic lawmakers failed to live up to those expectations. At a time when Washington’s power grid is increasingly under stress, they rushed a flawed but wide-ranging bill giving Puget Sound Energy, the state’s largest utility, new abilities to assess and request rate hikes to advance electrification. The bill passed the House in the wee hours of a March morning — while most Washingtonians were asleep. Initiative 2066 on this fall’s ballot is a course correction, requiring them to slow their roll and rethink their haphazard approach to this momentous transition. Voters should approve the measure."
The Chronicle Editorial Board: "Our editorial board strongly endorses Initiative 2066, a critical measure on this year’s ballot that will protect natural gas as a viable, affordable energy option for Washingtonians. As our state faces increasing pressure to move toward electrification, I-2066 offers a balanced approach that preserves energy choice for residents and businesses alike, while pushing back against government overreach and costly retrofits. Voting “yes” on I-2066 is a vote to maintain affordability, reliability, and energy freedom in Washington. I-2066 provides a much-needed safeguard against such policies. It ensures that Washingtonians are not forced to abandon natural gas, a vital energy source that is more affordable than electricity and, in many rural areas, more reliable during extreme weather events. Join us in voting “yes” on I-2066 and preserve the right to choose the energy that works best for you, your home and your business."

Opposition[edit]

The Columbian Editorial Board: "This initiative would repeal parts of the Washington Decarbonization Act and amend others. The law, passed this year, limits the use of natural gas in new construction in an effort to reduce carbon emissions. Critics say it is a step toward banning the use of natural gas for heating and cooking throughout the state — an exaggeration of what the law actually does. In truth, state law dictates that natural gas be made available in areas where access already exists. Consumers will continue to have a choice in most areas. Both supporters and opponents of the initiative claim that if the other side wins, utility rates will increase. That points out the convoluted nature of the measure."

West Virginia[edit]

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

West Virginia Amendment 1, Prohibit "Medically-Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia, and Mercy Killing" Measure (2024)

Wisconsin[edit]

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 2, Only Designated Election Officials to Conduct Elections Amendment (April 2024)

Wisconsin Question 1, Ban on Private and Non-Governmental Funding of Election Administration Amendment (April 2024)

Wisconsin Question 2, Require Legislative Approval for State Expenditure of Federal Funds Amendment (August 2024)

Wisconsin Question 1, Prohibit Legislature from Delegating Appropriations Power Amendment (August 2024)

Wisconsin Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment (2024)

Wyoming[edit]

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

Wyoming Property Tax on Residential Property and Owner-Occupied Primary Residences Amendment (2024)

Footnotes[edit]

↑ ^1.0 ^1.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named finance

[finance-1] 1.0 ^1.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named finance

[1]

2024 Ballot Measure Media Endorsements

Alabama[edit]

Alaska[edit]

Arizona[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Arkansas[edit]

California[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Colorado[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Connecticut[edit]

Delaware[edit]

Florida[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Oppose[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

Oppose[edit]

Georgia[edit]

Hawaii[edit]

Idaho[edit]

Illinois[edit]

Indiana[edit]

Iowa[edit]