2018 ballot measure media endorsements

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

In 2018, 109 statewide ballot measures have been certified for 2018 statewide ballots. The following page lists media outlets that weighed in on specific 2018 ballot measures, broken out by state and by measure.

If you know of an editorial not listed below, please contact [email protected].

On this page, Ballotpedia included the official positions of the editorial boards of media outlets. This page does not feature opinion pieces or guest commentary. For lists of supporters and opponents, as well as arguments for and against ballot measures, click on the link for the ballot measure you are interested in.

Alabama

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 had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Alabama Amendment 3: Board of Trustees Membership for University of Alabama a

Alabama Amendment 1: Ten Commandments a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Amendment 1. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to [email protected]. Opposition The Anniston Star wrote: "Former state Chief Justice Roy Moore’s failed efforts to force-feed a Ten Commandments monument into Alabama’s public spaces proves the foolishness of this latest attempt to dismantle church-and-state barriers and allow these public displays. It’s unnecessary and against the American principle of religious equality.

Alabama Amendment 2: State Abortion Policy a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Amendment 2. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to [email protected]. Opposition The Anniston Star wrote: "The reprehensible attempt to steal a woman’s right to make decisions about her body is behind this amendment that would make it state policy to recognize the sanctity of life and declare that the state Constitution does not guarantee a right to an abortion or require funding for abortions. Should the amendment pass, the legal challenges against it (and legal expenses for the state) will be severe."

Alabama Amendment 4: Legislative Vacancies a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Anniston Star wrote: "We wholeheartedly agree that it is wise to hold open a seat in the state House or Senate should it become vacant on or after Oct. 1 of the year before the regular election. The Star recommends voting yes on Amendment 4." Opposition Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials opposing Amendment 4. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to [email protected].

Arizona

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 had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Arizona Proposition 125, Adjustments to Elected Officials’ and Corrections Officer's Retirement Plans Amendment a

Arizona Proposition 126: Prohibit New or Increased Taxes on Services Initiative a

Arizona Proposition 127: Renewable Energy Standards Initiative d

Arizona Proposition 306, Clean Election Account Uses and Commission Rulemaking Measure a

Arizona Proposition 305: Expansion of Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Referendum d

Arkansas

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 had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Arkansas Issue 2, Voter ID Amendment a

Arkansas Issue 5, Minimum Wage Increase Initiative a

California

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 had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

California Proposition 71: Effective Date of Ballot Measures Amendment a

Support The Desert Sun said, "Proposition 71 was placed on the ballot by unanimous bipartisan votes of both the state Assembly and Senate. It deserves overwhelming voter approval as well. Vote yes on Proposition 71." Los Angeles Times said, "The potential for a law to be wrongly put into effect grows every year as more voters cast mail ballots and the count on the day after the election becomes less reliable. ... Proposition 71 was placed on the ballot with the unanimous support of both houses of the Legislature. It deserves a unanimous yes from voters as well." The Mercury News said, "Proposition 71 would clarify when a ballot initiative goes into effect in California and prevent a situation that could turn into an ugly legal fight. Voters should give it overwhelming support on June 5." Monterey County Herald said, "Proposition 71, on the other hand, is straight forward, providing a common-sense solution to a non-political election issue that has widespread, bipartisan support." The Orange County Register said, "Proposition 71 is an uncontroversial, reasonable adjustment to the timing of when a ballot initiative, referendum or constitutional amendment approved by voters goes into effect." The Press-Democrat said, "This is a simple cleanup measure. Because it can take almost a month to count ballots, this would change the effective date for initiatives to five days after the results are certified." The Sacramento Bee said, "Yes. Of all the initiatives, this is probably the most needed. Right now under the state constitution, all propositions that appear likely to pass on election night automatically become law the next day. That may have been fine when the state was young, but absentee and provisional ballots and voting by mail can now add weeks to the time it takes to determine an election’s outcome. The result is a real potential for ballot measures to take effect, and then turn out to be defeated and have to be rolled back." San Diego Union-Tribune said, "Proposition 71 would fix a glitch in state law that lets ballot measures that seem to have won approval take effect the day after an election — before all votes are counted and voting tallies are official." San Francisco Chronicle said, "Under longtime rules, a result can take effect right away, even if the results are incomplete. This measure would delay the effect until the votes are counted, a process that assures the true outcome is tallied, not just the election night total. Vote Yes." Opposition Ballotpedia did not find any media editorial boards opposing Proposition 71. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to [email protected].

California Proposition 11: Ambulance Employees Initiative a

Support Bakersfield Californian: "Proposition 11 would make it clear that emergency medical technicians and paramedics working for private ambulance companies must remain reachable during paid work breaks so that they can respond immediately when needed. The proposition results from an earlier court ruling that placed the status of on-call workers in question. This is a sensible response. Vote yes." Los Angeles Times: "Proposition 11 on the Nov. 6 ballot would make clear that emergency medical technicians and paramedics working for private ambulance services must remain reachable during paid work breaks so that they can respond immediately when needed. It’s a sensible proposal that would maintain the status quo among emergency responders, and voters should support it." The Mercury News: "For the past 50 years, privately owned and operated ambulance firms in California have had their crews remain on call during their work breaks, making themselves available to answer emergency calls and then taking their breaks as time permits later in their shifts. It’s a reasonable practice in a life-or-death business. Especially in rural areas, where backup crews are not readily available or practical. But a 2016 state Supreme Court ruling on a private security provider case threw the legality of on-call breaks among paramedics and EMTs into question." Monterey Herald: "Labor unions are opposed to this measure, which they argue is a special carve out for one industry. But Prop. 11 also protects workers, by requiring that meal breaks not be during the first or last hour of a shift and that breaks be spaced at least two hours apart. If workers are needed to respond to a call during a break, that break would not be counted as a required break. Voters should approve Proposition 11." The Orange County Register: "Adequate rest is undeniably important for all emergency workers, and Prop. 11 requires ambulance operators to maintain staffing “at levels sufficient” to allow employees to take rest breaks during their typical 12-hour shifts. A court-imposed requirement for emergency medical workers to turn off electronic communication devices during those breaks could needlessly put lives at risk. It is simply good sense to state that labor law entitling hourly employees to take meal and rest breaks without being on-call does not apply to private-sector emergency ambulance employees. Prop. 11 it deserves a Yes vote." The Sacramento Bee: "EMTs and paramedics typically work 12-hour shifts, and being on call makes it difficult to plan meal and rest breaks. But they can squeeze them in during down time; it’s also what they signed up for when they took the job. ... We generally support workers and their rights on the job. On these ballot measures, however, patients have to come first." The San Diego Union-Tribune: "Meanwhile, it appears many emergency medical technicians and paramedics are fine with the current practice. No one bothered to submit a formal statement of opposition to election officials for use in the official state voter guide." The San Luis Obispo Tribune: "Statewide, it could cost ambulance companies as much as $100 million per year in additional staffing and equipment costs if they had to provide ambulance crews with off-duty breaks. According to the Legislative Analyst, counties that contract for ambulance services would probably bear most of those costs." Opposition Marin Independent Journal: "There’s a lot about this measure that makes sense, but asking voters to mandate that ambulance workers get paid for on-call time when, due to emergencies, they often wind up working on their breaks is not the kind of issue that should be resolved by voters, who are being flooded with campaign slogans. This is a matter for diligent review by state lawmakers." San Francisco Chronicle: "However, that bill stalled in the state Senate over two key issues: One was whether the interruptions could include less serious calls; the other was whether the legislation should effectively void pending labor-related lawsuits against American Medical Response, which also happens to be the funder of Prop. 11. Those workers should not be denied their day in court. This issue should be resolved in the Legislature, with all parties at the table to negotiate and compromise. Vote no on Prop. 11."

California Proposition 12: Farm Animal Confinement Initiative a

Support East Bay Express: "Yes on strengthening cage-free farm regulations." Los Angeles Times: "It’s heartening that both farmers and buyers acknowledge the importance of improving animal welfare standards. But it’s also important that animal welfare standards be more than suggestions or good-hearted gestures to be undertaken when it’s convenient and withdrawn when it’s not. That’s why it’s important to have a law like Proposition 12 in place." Marin Independent Journal: "Proposition 12 extends humane cage-free requirements to other farm animals. It includes a provision giving farmers and ranchers time to make needed improvements. Even though these animals are being raised and handled to be food, it doesn’t mean humane treatment can’t also be part of the process." Monterey Herald: "While we would prefer, as we do with most ballot measures, the Legislature deal with these issues, improving the lives of hens, pigs and calves was the right thing to do in 2008. It still is. Vote yes on Proposition 12." San Diego Free Press: "This is an incremental improvement, opposed by those who want to preserve the status quo and those who insist on all or nothing." San Francisco Bay Guardian: "This one’s not easy. Prop. 12 would set stricter rules for the confinement of farm animals. It would require more space for chickens, veal calves, and breeding pigs. The Human Society and the ASPCA support it." Santa Cruz Sentinel: "The measure most likely would have little cost other than decreased tax revenue from farms and egg producers who might decide to get out of the egg or meat products business – which is the argument by farm industry opponents to Prop. 12 who say it may drive them out. As for the cost to consumers, McDonald’s, a major purchaser of eggs, has said the fast-food chain wouldn’t be raising prices as a result of producers having to go with cage-free hens." The Mercury News: "Some farmers argue that the end result will be increased prices for consumers. But McDonald’s said it wouldn’t be raising prices at all as a result of going with cage-free hens. And even if it did, it’s a small price to pay for substantially improving the lives of millions of hens, pigs and calves. Vote yes on Proposition 12." Opposition Bakersfield Californian: "Now, along comes Proposition 12, which appears to be an attempt to clarify the caging requirements in Proposition 2. But some supporters of Proposition 2 are crying fowl. [Yes, it’s a pun.] They claim they were sold out by the Humane Society of the United States, which has teamed up with California egg producers to push back on caging requirements in exchange for expanding the sales prohibition and using the ballot measure for fundraising. Californians should opt out of this food fight by just voting NO." Los Angeles Daily News/The San Bernardino Sun: "It makes more sense for the Legislature to tackle this issue without the emotion and misinformation that accompanies a political campaign for a ballot measure. We recommend that voters say “No” to Proposition 12." San Francisco Chronicle: "Since Prop. 2’s passage, California egg production has dropped significantly and egg prices have risen by 33 percent, according to the California Farm Bureau. The new measure is also an effective fundraising issue for the primary proponent, the Humane Society of the United States. The Chronicle recommended a “no” vote on the first proposition, saying the ballot box is not the place to regulate this aspect of California agriculture. That is also true this time, and voters should reject Prop. 12." The Fresno Bee/The Sacramento Bee: "Voters should reject Proposition 12, which would ban the sale of eggs, uncooked pork and veal from farms that don’t meet new space requirements for hens, pigs and calves. ... This is one more example of an issue that should have been resolved in the Legislature, not foisted upon voters through a ballot initiative." The Orange County Register: "But the first red flag that something is askew here is the opposition to Proposition 12 by the well-known animal rights activist group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals." The Press Democrat: "California voters took the lead in protecting egg-laying hens a decade ago. Farmers responded by investing in new cages to comply with the new law, and they are responding to consumer preferences and demands of their clients in the food service industry by increasing production of cage-free eggs. There’s no need for another new set of rules, or to have one deadline for retailers and an accelerated one for farmers. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 12." The San Diego Union-Tribune: "Animal-rights advocates say this means chickens should be allowed to stretch their wings — which requires at least 2 square feet. State regulators have not accepted this standard. But the Humane Farming Association, a San Rafael organization that lobbies for improved conditions for farm animals, says Proposition 12 amounts to “a step backward” for chickens. Because of this flaw — and because of ample signs that consumer pressure is leading grocers and farmers to care much more about the health of farm animals — The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board recommends a no vote on Proposition 12." The San Luis Obispo Tribune: "“It keeps hens in cages until 2022 and then leaves them in crammed warehouses with one square foot of space thereafter. We think we can do more and we should do more,” PETA spokesman Ben Williamson told The Los Angeles Times. That’s concerning. Animal welfare groups need to stop fighting, join forces and at least attempt to write a measure that has their broad support."

California Proposition 4: Children's Hospital Bonds Initiative a

Support Bakersfield Californian: "Some of Kern County’s most critically ill children are rushed to the Children’s Hospital in Madera for specialized treatment. Hospitals are expensive to operate and maintain. Constantly advancing medical technology is expensive to purchase. Investing in the specialized care of our children is worth supporting Proposition 4." Los Angeles Times: "It’s lamentable that children’s hospitals have to keep coming back to voters for help with their capital expenses, but it’s a direct consequence of the state’s low Medi-Cal reimbursement rates. The children these hospitals serve make up a big part of the state’s next generation, and we all have an interest in providing them with the healthcare they need. Vote yes on Proposition 4." Marin Independent Journal: "California’s 15 children’s hospitals need an investment — a $1.5 billion bond — to pay for needed construction, renovation and modern equipment to improve their care for more than 2 million of the state’s sickest children who find care in those specialty hospitals. Taxpayers have stepped forward in the past — in 2004 and in 2008 — approving bonds to jump-start those improvements. Proposition 4 builds on that important public initiative." San Francisco Chronicle: "The goal of the bond is to acquire the latest technology and life-saving medical equipment. It makes a difference. Children’s hospitals are on the cutting edge of pediatric research; perform 97 percent of pediatric organ transplants and 96 percent of all pediatric heart surgeries; and oversee 76 percent of all pediatric cancer treatments, according to the association." Santa Cruz Sentinel: "The issue is that children’s hospitals are dependent on low reimbursement rates from Medi-Cal, California’s public insurance program for lower-income residents. Because of that, the hospitals have trouble keeping current with improvements in medical technology. The Prop. 4 funds, much like the previous measures, would give health care providers the money to make vital upgrades." The Desert Sun: "Yes, lawmakers should be funding improvements at facilities that handle a combined 2 million-plus annual visits for California’s sickest and poorest patients via the state budget rather than subjecting taxpayers to the interest ($1.4 billion for Proposition 4) a bond will accrue over its 35-year repayment. Still, the need for these vital services and the track records of the institutions that will be funded by the bonds make this measure worthy. Vote yes on Proposition 4." The Mercury News: "California’s 13 children’s hospitals, which receive more than 2 million visits every year from the state’s sickest children, each require investments of $30 million to $50 million a year to meet the expectations of quality care citizens should demand. Donations and revenues from services don’t come close to meeting that need. Proposition 4 on the November ballot helps fill the gap." The Sacramento Bee: "Faced with a choice of whether to provide children with access to top-notch hospitals or leave them and their families to fend for themselves, big-hearted Californians have shown time and again that they will gladly hand over their tax dollars — even in the midst of a recession. They should do so again this year by voting “yes” on Proposition 4 on the Nov. 6 ballot." The San Diego Union-Tribune: "At a time when the state regularly sets aside billions of dollars in reserves, it’s tough to grasp the logic of using borrowed money to fix up hospitals that will end up costing taxpayers about $2.9 billion. Nevertheless, The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board supports Proposition 4. Thanks to Gov. Jerry Brown’s coolness to bonds, even if all the measures now before voters pass, the state is on track to spend less than 5 percent of its general fund budget on bond payments — a relatively small amount." The San Luis Obispo Tribune: "Medical science is advancing rapidly, but outdated, under-equipped hospitals cannot keep up with the demands of a growing patient population. Also, research conducted at children’s hospitals plays a role in keeping all children healthy, and that translates into a healthier population of California adults." Opposition Los Angeles Daily News/The Orange County Register: "If most agree the projects covered by this bond measure are truly needed, why doesn’t the state save taxpayers $1.4 billion in interest payments and make room in its ever-expanding budget to help cover the costs? ... If the state made better choices and prioritized services and projects the public needs, there’d be no need to consider Proposition 4. Instead of paying $2.9 billion for $1.5 billion in funds, voters should demand Sacramento spend within its means and prioritize practical needs over pipe dreams and special interests. While we encourage people to donate to children’s hospitals, they should vote no on Prop. 4."

California Proposition 7: Legislative Power to Change Daylight Saving Time Measure a

Support Los Angeles Times: "In other words, Proposition 7 won’t stop the clock-changing; it would just allow the discussion to continue about the merits of doing so, as well as making the procedural changes needed to allow a future shift to permanent daylight saving time. It’s a debate worth having, and for that reason we urge voters to say “yes” on this measure." The San Diego Union-Tribune: "It is for this reason that The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board urges a yes vote on Proposition 7 — but with a huge caveat. Proposition 7 would allow the Legislature to stop the time changes and to put California on daylight-saving time or Pacific Standard Time year-round. Yet the proposition’s title — “Permanent Daylight Saving Time Measure” — shows advocates’ preference. Following Pacific Standard Time all year would be good for public health. Following daylight-saving time year-round would be horrible for adolescents." Ventura County Star: "So why do we mess with time twice a year? “It’s not free to change the clocks. It takes effort and coordination. It has a cost,” CSU Channel Islands economics professor Jared Barton wrote in a guest column last month. We agree and support Proposition 7 on the Nov. 6 ballot." Opposition Bakersfield Californian: "This is a bad idea for so many reasons, and a good idea for none. Granted, the decades-long tradition of moving clocks forward one hour in the spring and back in the fall to accommodate daylight saving time and standard time has dubious benefits, other than to annoy sunlight-lovers and clock-change haters, who helped put Proposition 7 on the ballot. But to suggest California should go its own way and adopt daylight saving time as a year-round standard is nuts." Marin Independent Journal: "Daylight saving time has been around for a long time. We’re all used to it. This proposition wants to get rid of it, but consider the fall and winter months when, without moving the clock back an hour, many children would be walking or riding their bikes to school in the dark." San Francisco Chronicle: "The most convincing case against daylight saving concerns the disruption and public health drawbacks of semiannual time changes. But putting the state on its own time, and out of sync with most of the country, would cause confusion, too." The Mercury News: "It’s impossible to predict what Congress would do if Californians pass Prop 7, but it should be clear that this is an issue that should be dealt with at the federal level, with an eye to creating as much uniformity and as less confusion as possible." Monterey Herald: "Then there’s the time the Legislature would spend on this issue, as Chu tried to get the required two-thirds support for his bill that would advance this dubious proposition. Considering the serious issues California faces – housing, water, fire suppression, infrastructure – is this really a priority? The answer is no. Voters should call time out and vote “no” on Proposition 7." The Press-Democrat: "When the East Coast is on daylight saving time, the three-hour time difference we’re all used to would become a four-hour difference shortening the window for dealing with East Coast counterparts during business hours. As we said in March, the switch to and from daylight saving time is annoying and inconvenient. But living without that switch would be even more annoying and inconvenient — and also dangerous for schoolchildren. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 7." The Sacramento Bee: "There’s also the added cost of doing business. Coordinating deadlines and conference calls with people in other states would be a hassle, especially for corporations with operations in multiple time zones. Every day, Californians would have to remind people across the country what time it is, as other states continue to fall back and spring forward. ... California doesn’t have time for this. Vote no on Proposition 7." The San Luis Obispo Tribune: "Besides, this is a change that affects every one of us, so why would we give the Legislature the power to decide this? The ultimate decision should be up to the voters."

Colorado

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Colorado with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Colorado Proposition 109: "Fix Our Damn Roads" Transportation Bond Initiative d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Gazette wrote: "Hear this loud and clear. Passage of the secret society’s Prop 110 means high taxes and fewer road improvements in southern Colorado. [Proposition 109] issues bonds immediately, pays for them with existing revenues, and generates more transportation money without raising taxes. Supporters pitch [Proposition 110] as a resolution to our crisis of dangerously bad highway infrastructure. Yet less than half the money would go to fix highways. No wonder they met in secret. Don’t be fooled by a tax increase so bad a cabal of special interests concocted it behind closed doors. Vote against a secret scheme to benefit a few and for a measure created in public to benefit all with better roads. Vote 'no' on 110 and 'yes' on 109." The Greeley Tribune wrote: "We’re throwing our support behind Proposition 109. We believe the state should invest in roads as a core function of government. And we think now is the time to act. While voters could chose to support both 109 and 110, we think Proposition 109 is better for Greeley, Evans, Windsor and northern Colorado. One big reason is the list of projects that would get funded. Perhaps most importantly, though, we like that Proposition 109 doesn’t include a sales tax hike. That’s important for communities like Greeley, which recently passed its own sales tax bump to support investment in local transportation projects. To be sure, Proposition 109 isn’t perfect. For example, it offers no long-term solution to the state’s overall budget challenges that have helped create our current transportation crisis. Proposition 109 offers voters the best chance to immediately improve our roads and bridges across the state." Opposition The Aurora Sentinel wrote: "Prop 109, Fix Our Damn Roads, takes $3.5 billion away from schools, colleges, public safety or other services and forces the state to build a proscribed list of projects that may not even make sense by the time Colorado gets the roads cash. [...] And Fix Our Damn Roads comes with a written-in-legal-stone list of projects it must fund. It’s billions of dollars of projects that would be hard or impossible to change if state transportation experts and engineers found new ways to save money or improve the system. Fix Our Damn Roads is the equivalent of letting your kids handle the family finances. It’s bad for the kids and bad for everyone. Vote no." The Craig Daily Press wrote: "The way we see it, Proposition 110 is the clear winner. Proposition 109 asks us to commit ourselves to $5.2 billion in bonded indebtedness with no specific revenue stream to service that debt. And, while the notion of repairing the state's crumbling highways without increasing taxes or fees might, at a glance, seem appealing, the fact remains: If you take a loan, you have to pay it back. This leaves us with Proposition 110. It, too, creates new debt, but it also creates new revenue dedicated to paying that debt, and while we are hesitant to advocate another new tax, the modest increase proposed by 110 is, in our opinion, the most sensible path." The Aspen Times wrote: "These are two transportation funding questions getting lumped together. Prop 109 is the wrong way to address the funding for transportation improvements. Called "Fix Our Damn Roads," adding $3.5 billion in bonds and contributing to the state's debt is not the right road. We are for Proposition 110, which would add a 0.62 percent sales tax for 20 years and is earmarked for transportation fixes. We'll all share in the burden without messing with the state debt. In 20 years, it would raise about $21.7 billion and essentially pay as we go."

Connecticut

See Connecticut 2018 ballot measures for more information.

Florida

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 had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Florida Amendment 3: Voter Approval of Casino Gambling Initiative a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Herald-Tribune said: "The proposal seeks, in essence, to re-establish and codify the role of voters in the approval and expansion of gambling — long a hot topic in Florida. In recent decades, the Legislature and governor have asserted more influence over casino gambling. This amendment is intended, in part, to reverse that trend. The Seminole Tribe of Florida, which operates casinos and offers various forms of gambling, and Disney, which has opposed expansion of gaming, have contributed heavily — in their self-interest — to the committee behind this initiative. Those contributions are enough to give voters pause but not enough to warrant opposition; after all, the tribe and Disney approach the issue from opposite sides. Preserving voter control of gambling is important. We recommend voting YES, for Amendment 3. The Florida Times-Union said: "After study and interviews, we are inclined to support the amendment for three reasons: (1) We’re not confident in the Legislature’s ability to tackle this issue, especially given all the money being thrown at it from all sides. (2) Both the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters support it, a rarity. (3) The proposal isn’t automatically anti-gambling or anti-casino. Between 1978 and 2004, voters approved two gambling initiatives and turned down three. The Daily Commercial said, "YES. This amendment ensures that only voters – not the Legislature – can decide if Florida should have gambling. Preserving voter control of gambling is important. It also important to protect the Florida brand, and as we have seen in other states that have legalized widespread casino gambling, it rarely leads to the positive things that are promised up front." The Independent Florida Alligator said, "Vote YES - Amendment 3 would grant voters sole discretion to authorize expansions of casino gambling in Florida. The proposal would empower corporations with the resources to gather lots of signatures on petitions. Although it allows for a monopoly of the industry, it would eliminate the incentive casino owners would have to contribute to political candidates." Orlando Sentinel said, "But the Legislature has made a complete, confusing hash of gambling policy in Florida. And gambling interests have vast sums of money to influence individual legislators. This at least would place such a consequential decision in the hands of voters, which is why we recommend voting yes on Amendment 3." The Miami Herald said, "In effect, this would prevent the Legislature from passing laws to expand gambling or put an amendment on the ballot to do so, putting the power of bringing more casino gambling on residents." Opposition The Sun-Sentinel said: "We recommend NO. Entitled “voter control of gambling,” this is an initiative bankrolled by Disney and the Seminole Tribe of Florida that would require any extension of casino gambling to be approved by voters statewide. This amendment would protect the Tribe’s near-monopoly on casino-type games in Florida. It would prevent South Florida racinos from consolidating licenses to create a destination casino, as proposed two years ago. It would prohibit slot machines in eight counties — Palm Beach, Lee, Brevard, Duval, Gadsden, Hamilton, St. Lucie and Washington — whose voters have approved local referendums to allow slots. It would eliminate the industry’s incentive to contribute to political candidates, but that would be done better by a straightforward amendment barring campaign money from any regulated industry." The News-Press said: "No on Amendment 3: This amendment is literally a gamble. A "yes" vote means the voters decide who gets a a new gaming facility in Florida, not the Legislature. On the surface that seems like a great idea, allowing voters to decide who gets new gambling establishments in their communities. But it's complicated. In order to get a new casino, complete with card games, casino games and slot machines, a business would need to get hundreds of thousands of signatures to get it on the ballot and then hope for voter approval. This would make it more difficult for any parimutuel facility, like the Naples-Fort Myers Greyhound Racing and Poker facility, or horse track wishing to expand its gaming, to do so. This amendment would not keep the Bonita track from getting slot machines based on a referendum approved by voters in 2012. That issue remains tied up in the courts." The Tampa Bay Times said: "While it would be good to make it harder to expand gambling in Florida, this amendment is unfair. It would allow casino gambling in Florida only if voters — and only voters — proposed a constitutional amendment, which would then, of course, have to pass. That cuts out the other two means of placing amendments on the ballot, through the Legislature or the Constitution Revision Commission. On Amendment 3, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No." The Naples Daily News said: "Two important principles we embrace seemingly come into conflict in this amendment: home rule and the right of residents to decide their destiny by voting. A deeper look at the amendment, however, shows the tenets of home rule and voters’ rights are in alignment, so we urge a “no” vote on this amendment heavily lobbied by Disney and the Seminole Tribe of Florida. Disney certainly has reasons to want to rein in where visitors’ entertainment dollars will go, and the tribe that operates a half-dozen Florida casinos, including one in Immokalee, has reasons to want to limit competition. To us, home rule means it’s a local decision. Where this amendment fails is that it doesn’t give local control over whether there are casinos to local voters." The Tallahassee Democrat said: "Amendment 3 purports to put citizens in charge of any expansion of gambling, but it’s mainly a sop to Disney, which opposes all casino gambling, and the Seminole Tribe, which doesn’t want any competition for its gambling operations." Your Observer said: "While this measure sounds like it will limit government power, which it will, and increase individual freedom (the freedom to approve casinos), in reality, it will restrict Floridians’ access and freedom to gamble. Follow the money. We recommend: Vote no." The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "On the surface, Amendment 3 empowers voters. But because the amendment would be statewide, voters in one part of the state would decide whether a gaming facility could open somewhere else. This would benefit larger companies that have the resources to gather hundreds of thousands of signatures needed for a referendum."

Florida Amendment 4: Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative a

Support Florida Today said: "We expect convicted felons to fulfill their sentences, pay their dues to society and live law-abiding lives. Yet, we deprive them of a fundamental right in reintegrating them into society: voting." The New York Times said: "One hundred and fifty years after Florida enshrined this awful law, there’s only one clear way to get rid of it. Legal challenges have fallen short, the governor is no friend to voting rights, and lawmakers have limited power when it comes to constitutional amendments. It’s time for Florida’s voters to step up and restore the most fundamental constitutional right to more than a million of their neighbors." The Washington Post said: "Permanent disenfranchisement is a retrograde, racist and anti-American project. Here’s hoping Floridians heave it onto the scrap heap of history." The Tampa Bay Times said: "More than 1.5 million Floridians are prohibited from voting because of a constitutional anachronism that wastes money and deprives people of a second chance. Amendment 4, which reached the ballot after more than 800,000 Floridians signed a citizen petition, would correct Florida’s status as an outlier of disenfranchisement. The measure needs 60 percent approval to pass. Voters should have no qualms about supporting the automatic restoration of voting rights for people who have served their time and who deserve to be treated as full participants in society. On Amendment 4, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting Yes." The Sun-Sentinel said: "We recommend YES — emphatically. This is the public’s heartwarming response to the politically motivated abuse of power by Gov. Rick Scott, Attorney General Pam Bondi and their colleagues on the Cabinet. Only 992 people won clemency in 2016 and 2017, according to the web journal Florida Phoenix. Some 10,000 applications are pending. Many thousands of people seem to have simply given up. Florida’s lifetime disenfranchisement is deeply rooted in post-slavery racism — some 21 percent are African-American — and serves no purpose except voter suppression. Florida is the largest of just four states with such a harsh policy. This amendment would restore voting rights automatically upon completion of all terms of a sentence, including parole or probation, but does not apply to those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, who would still need to apply individually. The Naples Daily News said: "By approving Amendment 4, voters can tell state leaders that nonviolent felons deserve another chance once they’ve finished their sentences, including time on probation or parole. While the state appeals Walker’s ruling, voters can — by approving Amendment 4 — let Florida leaders know the state’s clemency process isn’t acceptable." The Tallahassee Democrat said: "We see no public benefit in forever forbidding felons to vote, and Florida is one of only four states that doesn't automatically restore voting rights to those who fulfilled their sentences. If we want ex-offenders to turn their lives around, we should do our best to let them fully return to society. If they re-offend and go back inside, they won’t be voting — but as long as they’re rebuilding their lives, why not let them have full citizenship? We’ll be voting 'yes' on Amendment 4." The Herald-Tribune said: "Despite having paid their debts to society, more than 1.5 million ex-felons in Florida — the largest number of any state — are denied voting rights. This is morally wrong. It is also unnecessarily punitive: Denying voting rights does nothing to protect public safety or advance the common good; it erects yet another barrier that makes it more difficult for former inmates to reintegrate into society. We recommend voting YES, for Amendment 4. Your Observer said: "Florida’s system for restoring felons’ rights is outdated and unreasonable. This amendment would expand liberty for more than 1.5 million Floridians who have paid their debt to society. We recommend: Vote yes." The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "Florida is an outlier in this realm. It's one of four states that doesn't automatically restore voting rights to those who have completed their sentences. Our state as a whole benefit when citizens who have completed their sentences can become productive members of society — and that includes voting. Moreover, Florida's current clemency system, which gives full power to the governor and Cabinet, is broken and arbitrary." Additional editorial endorsements In addition to the above editorial endorsements, the following outlets have also endorsed a yes vote on the measure: The Florida Times-Union The Palm Beach Post The Daily Commercial The Independent Florida Alligator Orlando Sentinel The Miami Herald Opposition The News-Press said, "No on Amendment 4: This isn't a vote against ex-felons who have served their sentence for certain crimes, including parole and probation, and want their voting rights restored. We believe the Legislature should be addressing this issue and giving those rights back to felons who have earned their way back and deserve to vote. Currently, former felons must wait at least 5 years after completing their sentences to ask the Florida Clemency Board, made up by the governor and the Cabinet, to restore their rights. If passed, Amendment 4 impacts 1.5 million Floridians. Florida is one of four states that disenfranchises former felons permanently." If you are aware of any more editorials opposing Amendment 4, please send an email with a link to [email protected].

Florida Amendment 13, Ban on Wagering on Dog Races Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Sun Sentinel said: "YES. This effectively bans greyhound racing in Florida by prohibiting wagering on the dogs, although not on races conducted out of state. Although the sport’s popularity has been sagging along with the state’s revenue from it, state law requires Florida’s 11 dog tracks to continue racing in order to keep their card rooms and slot machines. The chief objection to Amendment 13 is that such an issue doesn’t belong in the Constitution. Trouble is, the potent lobby for breeders and handlers persistently blocks the Legislature from outlawing this brutal “sport,” in which dogs are often injured and die and are tightly caged when not racing. Amendment 13 deserves to be ratified." The Naples Daily News said: "We recommend approval of the amendment based on two principles: the state shouldn’t force a business to operate in ways that have proven unprofitable, and animals should be treated humanely. Forty states ban dog racing. Florida is one of just six states where dog racing is legal and operational. A 2004 Florida Senate report says the Legislature first authorized wagering on dog races nearly 90 years ago. Times have changed dramatically. It’s way past time to end dog racing." The Palm Beach Post said: "Two more CRC-sponsored amendments also have merit. Amendment 12 would expand ethics rules on lobbying. Amendment 13 would ban the outdated and inhumane activity of greyhound racing." The Florida Times-Union said: "This amendment would ban dog racing as of Dec. 31, 2020 while continuing to allow dog tracks to offer other types of gambling such as poker rooms. State law mandates that in order to operate certain other forms of gambling, a certain number of greyhound races must be held. The Legislature has refused to “decouple” dog racing from the other forms of gambling, thus interfering in the free market. Because the Legislature refuses to act, amending the Constitution is the only method left." The Herald-Tribune said: "This prohibition is long overdue. It should have been imposed by the Legislature but various efforts failed. There will be no significant loss, except to the owners and trainers of racing dogs, if the amendment is approved. We recommend voting YES, for Amendment 13." The Daily Commercial said: "YES. It’s time to end the archaic sport of dog racing in Florida." The Independent Florida Alligator said: "Vote YES - Ends Dog Racing would put an end to greyhound racing involving betting over the next two years. We agree with animal rights activists — the inhumane way in which the dogs are raced and treated must come to an end." The Orlando Sentinel said: "Dog racing is an anachronism with far too much baggage when it comes to the potential for mistreating animals. Reason enough for Floridians to vote yes on Amendment 13." The Miami Herald said: "But dog-racing has become a loss leader, a sideshow to slots and card rooms. Amendment 13 allows them a graceful exit from this anachronistic form of entertainment." Opposition The News-Press said: "No on Amendment 13: The proposal ends commercial dog racing by 2020, but those who bet could still wager on races occurring in other states. Forty states already ban the activity and we support animal rights groups who want to protect the dogs where accidents, death and drugging are a part of the sport. Dog racing is dying in the state and soon, because of pressure from groups, other laws will be changed to discontinue it and allow tracks, like the one in Bonita Springs, to be profitable through card games, slots and other gaming." The Tampa Bay Times said: "The proposal would outlaw betting on greyhound racing by the end of 2020, though it would allow tracks to continue some other pari-mutuel offerings. Whatever your view on dog racing, its disposition doesn’t belong in the Constitution. On Amendment 13, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No." The Tallahassee Democrat said: "[Amendments 5, 7, 10, 12, and 13] are the detritus of the Constitution Revision Commission, with little or no impact on the lives of average Floridians, the kind of multi-tasking snowballing the CRC littered its amendments with — unrelated topics cobbled together in take-it-or-leave-it propositions. For most of them, we say leave it." Your Observer said: "Dog racing is waning. Rather than clutter Florida’s constitution with provisions on dogs and pigs, let the marketplace determine the future of the sport. Its declining economics most likely will bring it to an end. We recommend: Vote no" The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "This issue should be addressed by the Legislature, not in the state's primary governing document."

Florida Amendment 10, State and Local Government Structure Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia has not identified any media editorials in support of Amendment 10. If you are aware of one, please email [email protected]. Opposition The Sun-Sentinel said: "This piece of dirty work would prohibit any county’s voters from adopting a charter that changes the duties of certain constitutional officers or allows them to be appointed, rather than elected. It’s clearly intended to overturn parts of eight charters, including that of Miami-Dade, which has an appointed public safety director instead of an elected sheriff. It also would require Broward to begin electing a tax collector and build a separate bureaucracy. The commission tacked on irrelevant provisions to change the Legislature’s session dates, which the legislature has already changed, and create an office of counter-terrorism in the Department of Law Enforcement, which already has one. For all of this, Amendment 10 merits a resounding 'no.'" The News-Press said: "No on Amendment 10: Don't be deceived by this crowded amendment. It calls for all 67 counties to elect their sheriff, tax collector, elections supervisor and clerk of courts. Only one county, Miami-Dade, does not elect its sheriff, and only a handful do not elect the other constitutional officers. This is strictly a battle for those counties that don't elect those officers, not most of the state. The other two bundled items in this amendment are also weak attempts to muddy the system. It requires the Legislature to start its annual session in January instead of March during even-numbered election years. This is only an attempt to allow lawmakers to get out and campaign sooner. That's not good government. It also creates a counter-terrorism and security office within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Most law enforcement agencies already have versions of this. It also requires the state to have a Department of Veterans Affairs, which already exists." The Tampa Bay Times said: "This amendment would subvert local control by forcing every county to elect rather than appoint its sheriff, tax collector, property appraiser, supervisor of elections and clerk of courts — whether it wanted to or not. Those already are elected offices in most counties, but the choice should be theirs, not the state’s. Other parts of the amendment are uncontroversial but also unnecessary. It would establish a counterterrorism office within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and add to the Constitution a state Department of Veterans’ Affairs. It would make permanent the Legislature’s recent practice of beginning sessions in even-numbered years in January, rather than March. All of those elements either already are or can be handled by state law and don’t need to be enshrined in the Constitution. On Amendment 10, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No." The Tallahassee Democrat said: "[Amendments 5, 7, 10, 12, and 13] are the detritus of the Constitution Revision Commission, with little or no impact on the lives of average Floridians, the kind of multi-tasking snowballing the CRC littered its amendments with — unrelated topics cobbled together in take-it-or-leave-it propositions. For most of them, we say leave it." Your Observer said: "While uniformity in the elected offices of Florida’s 67 counties makes sense, most people also know that government is best when decisions are made locally and not dictated by the state. The crux of this amendment would reduce voters’ freedom to govern themselves. We recommend: Vote no." The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "The bundling of these unrelated proposals is ridiculous. Additionally, Amendment 10 infringes on the home rule of counties that choose to appoint their officials." Additional editorial endorsements In addition to the above editorial endorsements, the following outlets have also endorsed a no vote on the measure: The Florida Times-Union The Herald-Tribune The Daily Commercial Ocala Star-Banner The Independent Florida Alligator The Orlando Sentinel The Miami Herald

Florida Amendment 11, Repeal Prohibition on Aliens’ Property Ownership, Delete Obsolete Provision on High-Speed Rail, and Repeal of Criminal Statutes Effect on Prosecution Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Tallahassee Democrat said: "Amendment 11 is a good clean-up proposal, repealing some unnecessary or unenforceable facets of existing law. It is one of those mash-ups the Constitution Revision Commission threw against the wall, but all three pieces are worthy of approval. The first two — repealing the state’s ability to stop non-citizens from buying, owning or selling property and deleting obsolete language about high-speed rail in the Constitution – are, at worst, harmless... It’s the third part of Amendment 11 we care about. It deletes the existing 'Savings Clause,' which forbids making changes to criminal sentencing laws retroactive. Repealing the Savings Clause – something else almost all states have done — ensures that people who committed the same crime at different times serve equal sentences if the laws change." Your Observer said: "It’s not as if there will be wholesale releases of felons. This provision will give the Legislature the flexibility to change sentences retroactively. We oppose bundled amendments. But this one leans in the direction of expanding freedom. We recommend: Vote yes." The Palm Beach Post said: "Another bundle to support: Amendment 11, which deletes three outmoded clauses clogging up the Constitution." The Florida Times-Union said: "This involves two housekeeping issues and one smart justice reform that would save Floridians money and help reform lives. This smart justice reform would reduce the prison population, save the state money and provide incentives for rehabilitation." The Herald-Tribune said: "Amendment 11 would remove an old provision in the constitution that discriminates against non-citizens seeking to purchase property in Florida. It includes unrelated proposals that would add consistency to the constitution. We recommend voting YES, for Amendment 11." Ocala Star-Banner said: "Amendment 11 would remove an old provision in the constitution that discriminates against non-citizens seeking to purchase property in Florida — a law that is largely ignored. It also includes a provision that deletes language that requires criminal suspects to be prosecuted under the provisions of the law they’re accused of breaking, even if that law is changed by the Legislature. And it repeals an old amendment — the bullet train — that voters repealed. We recommend voting YES on Amendment 11." Orlando Sentinel said: "Amendment 11 basically cleans up some outdated parts of the constitution, including a particularly ugly, century-old provision that allows that Legislature to prevent noncitizens from owning property. The constitution is no place for xenophobia, which is reason enough to vote yes on Amendment 11." Opposition The Sun-Sentinel said: "NO. From the revision commission. The major effect would be to allow the Legislature to reduce penalties for crimes committed before the repeal of a criminal law. The practical effects are unclear and the NRA’s reported interest in this provision is of serious concern. It’s combined with the repeal of two obsolete and harmless provisions that could await another day. Again, if the language and intent of an amendment aren’t perfectly clear, vote no." The News-Press said: "This is another amendment that will confuse voters because of its many moving parts on deletions and repeals of constitutional items. Most of what is in this bundled amendment should not be constitutional issues in the first place." The Tampa Bay Times said: "This amendment, among other things, would allow lawmakers to make some changes to criminal laws retroactive. Some gun-rights groups see this as a way to ensure that the revised Stand Your Ground law, which requires prosecutors, not defendants, to meet the burden of proof in pretrial hearings, could be applied retroactively. Other elements of the amendment would repeal a nearly century-old provision in the Constitution barring immigrants who aren’t eligible for citizenship from owning property in Florida. It also would erase a constitutional amendment ordering the construction of a high-speed train that voters already voted to repeal. Those final two elements are house-keeping measures, but the proposed retroactivity of criminal law changes makes this a non-starter for the Constitution. On Amendment 11, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No." The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "While these three proposals are reasonable on their own — each represents a sensible "cleaning up" of constitutional language — we are opposed to the Constitution Revision Commission's practice of bundling them into one amendment." The Daily Commercial said, "NO. This would revise the Constitution to remove some language, including a provision that stops “aliens ineligible for citizenship” from owning property and wording approving a high-speed rail system. It would also remove the state’s Savings Clause, which prohibits retroactively applying the amendment of a criminal statute to sentencing for a crime committed before the change, and clarify that repealing a criminal statute would not necessarily affect the prosecution of that crime committed previously." The Independent Florida Alligator said, "Vote NO - Amendment 11 prevents “aliens inevitable for citizenship” from owning property. It allows applying an updated version of a criminal statute to sentencing a crime committed before the update. Put simply, it allows for a judge to apply a harsher sentence to a crime that has already been committed, and continue a prosecution under a statute that has already been repealed." The Miami Herald said, "Yes, making the Constitution’s language less archaic would be welcomed, but this amendment represents too much messing with the state document. Sounds more like mischief, and we don’t know what problem is being solved. Give this the thumbs-down."

Florida Amendment 9, Ban Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling and Ban Vaping in Enclosed Indoor Workplaces Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Sun-Sentinel said: "We recommend YES. More logrolling by the Constitution Revision Commission, but with no apparent harmful effects. It bars offshore oil and gas drilling in Florida waters — but not pipelines or surface transport through those waters — and extends the existing ban on smoking in workplaces to vaping devices." The Palm Beach Post said: "Amendment 9 is one bundle that deserves support. It prohibits oil drilling in state waters off the Florida coast, which would protect waters about nine miles out, but not federally controlled waters beyond the state boundaries. For some reason, it’s coupled with a ban on vaping similar to that on smoking tobacco in indoor workplaces." The Herald-Tribune said: "The bundling of two unrelated provisions in this amendment has drawn criticism. Nevertheless, both components are important and worthy of approval. The vaping proposal is consistent with a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2002, banning tobacco smoking in public workplaces, restaurants and indoor areas. Extending that prohibition to vaping, in light of the deleterious health effects of secondhand inhalation, is justified. The proposed ban on oil and gas drilling in state waters, 10 miles off Florida’s Gulf coast and three miles off the Atlantic coast, offers crucial protections to the state’s environment and economy. Florida has had longstanding, bipartisan opposition to drilling in both state and federal waters, especially off the Gulf Coast. Don’t let concerns about bundling prevent passage of this measure. We vigorously recommend voting YES, for Amendment 9." Ocala.com said: "Amendment 9 would ban oil and gas drilling beneath state waters and prohibit electronic vaping devices in indoor workplaces. The bundling of two unrelated provisions in this amendment has drawn criticism... both components are important and worthy of approval.The vaping proposal is consistent with a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2002, banning tobacco smoking in public workplaces, restaurants and indoor areas. Extending that prohibition to vaping, in light of the deleterious health effects of secondhand inhalation, is justified. The proposed ban on oil and gas drilling in state waters, 10 miles off Florida’s Gulf coast and three miles off the Atlantic coast, offers crucial protections to the state’s environment and economy." Miami Herald said: "This is an easy one for most Floridians, especially those in South Florida. The amendment prohibits oil drilling beneath waters controlled by Florida, and in another example of amendment bundling, it also bans the use of e-cigarettes, also known as vaping, at indoor workplaces. That works, too." Florida Today said: "While we disagree with bundling different proposals together, Florida's economy relies on keeping our coastal waters healthy. Smoking indoors is already banned, so it makes sense ban to e-cigarettes as well." The Independent Florida Alligator said: "Vote YES - Amendment 9 bans offshore drilling that poses an environmental hazard for Florida. It is bundled with a ban on vaping inside workplaces, which is a benign side effect to increased environmental protection." The Orlando Sentinel said: "The proposal would ban drilling and exploration about nine miles off the western and southern coastlines and at least three miles off the eastern coastline. It includes bays, estuaries and other waterways. Good. Florida’s been fighting this battle for too long. Make it part of the constitution and be done with it. The ban on e-cigarettes inside restaurants and other workplaces just updates an existing ban on smoking that was passed before vaping came along." The Miami Herald said: "This is an easy one for most Floridians, especially those in South Florida. The amendment prohibits oil drilling beneath waters controlled by Florida, and in another example of amendment bundling, it also bans the use of e-cigarettes, also known as vaping, at indoor workplaces. That works, too." Opposition The News-Press said: "No on Amendment 9: This CRC amendment has a tremendous environmental component, banning oil and gas drilling in state-controlled, offshore waters. It doesn’t block transport of oil or gas from federal territorial waters through state waters to Florida’s ports. Then the amendment turns to absurd, prohibiting the indoor use of e-cigarettes and vaping devices. Vaping should not be part of this amendment and should be regulated by the Legislature. Because of vaping, this amendment should not pass." The Tampa Bay Times said: "This is the oddest combination of issues. It would prohibit vaping (the use of e-cigarettes) at indoor workplaces and ban oil drilling beneath waters controlled by Florida. Offshore drilling should be banned, but this strange juxtaposition of issues has no place in Florida’s Constitution. On Amendment 9, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No." The Tallahassee Democrat said: "The panel connected the prohibition of vaping in the workplace to offshore drilling in Amendment 9, a strained effort to connect clean air and clean water. Does a vaping ban belong in Florida’s Constitution? We say no." Your Observer said: "To put a constitutional ban on smoking and vaping in the workplace is discrimination and government intrusion into individual freedom... A constitutional ban would prevent any drilling. Both of these measures should be addressed legislatively, not in the constitution. We recommend: Vote no." The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "While our editorial board opposes offshore drilling in state waters, we also are philosophically opposed to the Constitution Revision Commission's "bundling" of these unrelated issues into a single amendment." Additional editorial endorsements In addition to the above editorial endorsements, the following outlets have also endorsed a no vote on the measure: The Florida Times-Union The Daily Commercial

Florida Amendment 5: Two-Thirds Vote of Legislature to Increase Taxes or Fees Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Your Observer said: "This amendment passes both of our tests: It will limit government power, which means it also will increase individual liberty. Nothing more needs to be said. Except …You’re likely to hear opponents to this measure say state lawmakers should be afforded flexibility — especially in times of financial crises, such as economic recessions. Don’t buy it. This measure won’t prohibit the Legislature from spending. Indeed, over the past five years, while the Legislature cut taxes, it also increased spending 31%, almost twice the national state average of 18%. Here’s a proven fact: States with falling tax burdens always show faster economic growth and higher per-capita income growth than states with rising tax burdens. As long as Florida remains a low-tax state, the economy will continue to grow, generating more and more revenue for the government, negating the need for tax increases. We recommend: Vote yes." Opposition The Sun-Sentinel said: "We recommend NO — emphatically. It requires two-thirds supermajorities in the Florida House and Senate to raise state taxes or fees, adopt new ones or reduce or eliminate any tax exemption. House Speaker Richard Corcoran muscled this through the Legislature when he was planning to run for governor. It would give a minority of the Legislature a permanent stranglehold on Florida’s future, condemn the schools and colleges to eternal mediocrity, and thrust ever-increasing burdens on local governments. This is the worst amendment to come from the Legislature in the 51 years since the court-ordered end of malapportionment, which allowed rural counties with fewer than 18 percent of the people to elect majorities of both houses. South Florida needs the state to invest in big-ticket items to address sea-level rise and traffic congestion. If this amendment passes, inland or small counties could dictate what happens in coastal or urban counties, the drivers of our state’s economy." The News-Press said: "No on Amendment 5: This amendment would require a two-thirds vote in the Florida House and Senate to raise taxes, but the amendment does not have enough teeth. The reason: your counties and cities, as well as school districts and other special districts, control most of your tax dollars. The amendment also stops a typical legislative technique of adding tax and fee increases onto other legislative bills, but the House and Senate are usually creative enough to find ways to add those fees." The Tampa Bay Times said: "This measure would make it harder for future legislatures to raise or impose taxes by requiring a two-thirds vote rather than a simple majority. The likely effect would be to make it nearly impossible to raise taxes even in times of crisis. On Amendment 5, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No." The Naples Daily News said: "Amendment 5 would require a two-thirds vote in both the Florida House and Senate to raise taxes or fees, not just a majority. This historically hasn’t been an issue so arguably it’s an amendment put on a crowded ballot by state lawmakers in an election year. More important than this amendment is for state leaders to adhere to the land acquisition funding formula voters passed, adequately fund traditional public schools, stop raiding affordable housing trust funds and fix Florida’s embarrassing No. 50 ranking in per capita mental health funding." The Tallahassee Democrat said: "[Amendments 5, 7, 10, 12, and 13] are the detritus of the Constitution Revision Commission, with little or no impact on the lives of average Floridians, the kind of multi-tasking snowballing the CRC littered its amendments with — unrelated topics cobbled together in take-it-or-leave-it propositions. For most of them, we say leave it." The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "It would allow the minority to kill a proposal, awarding a relatively small number of lawmakers power over the entire 160-member Legislature." Additional editorial endorsements In addition to the above editorial endorsements, the following outlets have also endorsed a no vote on the measure: The Florida Times-Union The Herald-Tribune The Daily Commercial The Independent Florida Alligator Orlando Sentinel The Miami Herald

Florida Amendment 12, Lobbying Restrictions Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Sun-Sentinel said: "This amendment from the commission bars state officials — including agency heads, judges and local elected officials — from becoming paid lobbyists before local, state or federal agencies. (They could still lobby in connection with their official duties.) It would prohibit them from lobbying their former agencies until six years after they have left office. Presently, legislators, governors and Cabinet members must sit out two years before lobbying their former colleagues, but that hasn’t stopped lobbying firms from hiring former lawmakers to give “advice” while the two-year clock runs. The main objection to Amendment 12 is that six years is too drastic and would discourage qualified people from running for office. But if your motive for running is to become a lobbyist, perhaps “public service” isn’t your proper calling. We recommend a yes vote." The Naples Daily News said: "This amendment alone won’t clean up all that can be addressed to improve government ethics in the state. Campaign finance reform to control the influence of money on political campaigns and the meting out of harsher, quicker and more frequent penalties by the Florida Ethics Commission also would help. Amendment 12 is an improvement, however, and deserves a 'yes' vote." The Palm Beach Post said: "Two more CRC-sponsored amendments also have merit. Amendment 12 would expand ethics rules on lobbying. Amendment 13 would ban the outdated and inhumane activity of greyhound racing." The Herald-Tribune said: "The lobby industry has grown exponentially in recent years, providing greater and more lucrative opportunities for state officials to leverage their influence and public office for personal financial gain. ... Legislators and other elected officials are not going to advance the cause of ethics reform; it’s up to voters to assert their will. We strongly recommend voting YES, for Amendment 12." Ocala Star-Banner said: "The lobby industry has grown exponentially in recent years, providing greater and more lucrative opportunities for state officials to leverage their influence and public office for personal financial gain. As Gaetz noted, legislators and other elected officials are not going to advance the cause of ethics reform; it’s up to voters to assert their will. We recommend voting YES on Amendment 12." The Independent Florida Alligator said: "Vote YES - The Lobbying and Abuse of Office by Public Officers Amendment would bar public officials from lobbying while in office and six years afterward and prevent current officeholders from profiting from their position." The Orlando Sentinel said: "Considering the lack of trust in government today, it’s hard to imagine what the downside to this amendment is. This largely stops the revolving door that leads from public service to private profit. To increase public trust in government, vote yes on Amendment 12." The Miami Herald said: "However, we’ve seen too many lawmakers skirt even that rule by acting as, say, paid consultants before the time is up. Plus, there’s the perception, to say nothing of the reality, that some legislators are auditioning for their next job when they should be serving their constituents. Many government-watchdog groups support this amendment. We do, too." Opposition The News-Press said: "No on Amendment 12: It expands ethics rules for public officials, banning those who are officials/employees from lobbying the state and federal government during their terms of office and for six years after they leave office. The current rule is two years. Officials are not allowed to use their office for private gain and the Legislature should be cracking down on those who do through laws it already has." The Tampa Bay Times said: "This amendment would prevent the governor, Cabinet members, agency heads, state lawmakers and local elected officials from getting paid to lobby their former colleagues for six years after leaving office. Judges would also be banned from lobbying the Legislature or executive branch for six years. Although this amendment would move toward stopping the revolving door from elected office to paid lobbyist, it puts an unfair six-year burden on those who might otherwise consider public office and would be good candidates. It doesn’t belong in the Constitution. On Amendment 12, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No." The Tallahassee Democrat said: "[Amendments 5, 7, 10, 12, and 13] are the detritus of the Constitution Revision Commission, with little or no impact on the lives of average Floridians, the kind of multi-tasking snowballing the CRC littered its amendments with — unrelated topics cobbled together in take-it-or-leave-it propositions. For most of them, we say leave it." Your Observer said: "Few things irritate voters more than former elected and public officials becoming rich, fat-cat lobbyists. Amendment 12 would triple the amount of time former public officials would be barred from lobbying their former colleagues. But this proposed six-year ban can also be construed as government overreach into individuals’ free speech and pursuit of happiness. It would limit individual freedom. Six years is too long. We recommend: Vote no." The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "While we support enhanced ethics rules for public officials, we have concerns about enshrining such specific limits in the state's governing document. That would make them more difficult to adjust in the future. These rules should be addressed transparently by the state Legislature." Additional editorial endorsements In addition to the above editorial endorsements, the following outlets have also endorsed a no vote on the measure: The Florida Times-Union The Daily Commercial

Florida Amendment 7, First Responder and Military Member Survivor Benefits, Supermajority Board Votes for College Fees, and State College System Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Herald-Tribune said: "Amendment 7 would heighten the criteria for increasing student fees at universities, enhance the constitution’s recognition of state colleges and mandate certain benefits for first responders who die in the line of duty. Limits on university fees would be better addressed in law; the first-responder benefits are already covered by state laws. Although it is thus tempting to recommend against this bundle of provisions, the value of the amendment to the Florida College System warrants approval. State College of Florida, which effectively serves Manatee and Sarasota counties, strongly supports the amendment because the state colleges are the only education system not recognized in the constitution. We defer to SCF’s position and recommend voting YES, for Amendment 7." Orlando Sentinel said: "In this case, the supermajority requirement is less burdensome than the one found in Amendment 5 because boards of trustees often are on the same page and have fewer political motivations than legislators. The proposals to expand death benefits to families of all first responders bring more fairness to the system, while enshrining the State College System in the constitution strikes us as a good housekeeping measure." Opposition The Sun-Sentinel said: "A hearty NO. Another example of logrolling, it mixes restraints on college and university fees — governing boards would need supermajorities to raise them — with entirely unrelated death benefits to families of first responders and military personnel killed in action (the law already provides for some), and gives constitutional status to the boards that govern higher education. With state support lagging, the colleges need fee flexibility. The commission had no business meddling with them." The News-Press said: "No on Amendment 7: This amendment runs the gamut of the absurd. A part of it expands the protection of benefits and educational expenses for survivors of certain first responders and military members who die performing official duties. Then the amendment goes off the rails. It also includes requiring supermajority votes by university trustees and state university system board of governors to raise or impose legislatively authorized fees if law requires approval by those bodies. It also calls for a minor change in the Constitution, recognizing colleges in the state college system, which are no referred to as community colleges in the Constitution." The Tampa Bay Times said: "This is another amendment that jumbles together three issues. The fee issue is the major stumbling block here, as universities are already strapped for cash, and this would make it far harder — requiring much more than a majority — to raise them. On Amendment 7, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No." The Tallahassee Democrat said: "[Amendments 5, 7, 10, 12, and 13] are the detritus of the Constitution Revision Commission, with little or no impact on the lives of average Floridians, the kind of multi-tasking snowballing the CRC littered its amendments with — unrelated topics cobbled together in take-it-or-leave-it propositions. For most of them, we say leave it." Your Observer said: "What if one day it makes sense for all of Florida’s public universities and colleges to be governed by one set of trustees and a board of governors? If this amendment passes, that option is virtually eliminated. The governance of state colleges can be addressed through statutes; it doesn’t need to be in the constitution. This amendment is a mish-mash of good intentions, vaguely worded. We recommend: Vote no." The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "Our recommendation: NO. Again, the Constitution Revision Commission bundled three different proposals. We are philosophically opposed to asking voters to cast a single vote for multiple changes to the state constitution. " The Palm Beach Post said: "Amendment 7 is ... flawed. While it ensures death benefits for survivors of first-responders or military members, it also mandates a two-thirds vote by university overseers to raise student fees. Not smart. Who knows what schools’ needs will be?" Additional editorial endorsements In addition to the above editorial endorsements, the following outlets have also endorsed a no vote on the measure: The Florida Times-Union Ocala.com The Daily Commercial The Independent Florida Alligator The Miami Herald

Florida Amendment 6, Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights, Judicial Retirement Age, and Judicial Interpretation of Laws and Rules Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support 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 [email protected]. Opposition The Sun-Sentinel said: "We recommend NO. Florida’s Constitution and laws already assure essential victims’ rights, including the right to be informed and heard at every stage. Except for occasional failures of enforcement, there is no problem that needs solving here. We don’t need this elaborate (and expensively advertised and lobbied) import from California, which erases a provision to respect the civil rights of defendants and poses a threat to Florida’s public records laws. Those best suited to judge it, the executive council of the Criminal Law Section of the nonpartisan Florida Bar, recommended against this amendment by a vote of 29 to 3. Amendment 5 also includes two separate and entirely unrelated issues, fixing judicial retirement firmly at 75 (it’s now 70, but flexible) and barring judges from relying on administrative agency interpretations of law. Bundling disparate items into a single amendment is called logrolling, and it’s a fraud on the voters." The News-Press said: "This is the first of the bundled amendments by the Constitution Revision Commission. The best part of this amendment is how it expands victims rights to due process, protections from intimidation and abuse by the accused, Modeled after Marcy's Law in California, it expands those rights, including access to sentencing reports. But as with all the bundled amendments, there is a catch. In order to approve that you must also agree to raising the mandatory retirement age for Florida judges from 70 to 75 and agree to prohibit state courts from accepting a certain agency's interpretation of a state statue or rule. Without the age change and courts ability to act on certain interpretations, the bill could make sense. With them, it does not." The Tampa Bay Times said: "This measure includes three separate issues — raising the retirement age for judges from 70 to 75, banning courts from deferring to a state agency’s expertise on interpreting a law or rule, and a series of rights for crime victims. These are each big issues that should be considered on their own merits, not jumbled into one proposal. On Amendment 6, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No." The Tallahassee Democrat said: "There are some worthwhile proposals that deserved individual consideration, such as improving victims’ rights as part of Amendment 6... If only the Constitution Revision Commission had stopped there. Instead, it linked a mandatory retirement age for judges and a legal procedural process with victims’ rights into the three-subject Amendment 6." Your Observer said: "This ballot measure addresses three disparate, unconnected items. And while all three issues appear logical and sensible, they should not be contained in the same ballot question. Regardless of the merits of the proposals, we oppose allowing one group (the Constitutional Revision Commission) to have special privileges that individuals and others groups do not have. We recommend: Vote no." The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "Our recommendation: NO. Our editorial board is philosophically opposed to the Constitution Revision Commission's practice of "bundling" unrelated amendments on the ballot. These proposals are vastly different and have far-reaching consequences that voters should be allowed to consider separately." The Palm Beach Post said: "Victims’ rights are already protected in the constitution and this measure eliminates an existing provision that ensures victims’ rights don’t infringe on the rights of accused criminals. Also, the ACLU points out that 'victims' would include corporations, which now would have the right to appear in court hearings when they accuse people of even minor crimes like shoplifting." Additional editorial endorsements In addition to the above editorial endorsements, the following outlets have also endorsed a no vote on the measure: The Florida Times-Union The Herald-Tribune Ocala.com The Daily Commercial The Independent Florida Alligator Orlando Sentinel The Miami Herald

Georgia

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 had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Georgia Amendment 3, Forest Land Conservation and Timberland Properties Amendment a

Georgia Amendment 4: Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights Amendment a

Georgia Referendum A: Homestead Municipal Property Tax Exemption a

Georgia Amendment 2: Business Court Amendment a

Georgia Referendum B: Include Business-Financed Properties in Existing Non-Profit Mentally Disabled Housing Tax Exemption a

Hawaii

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 had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Hawaii Constitutional Convention Question d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Honolulu Civil Beat said: "The last time Hawaii had a con-con was in 1978, and it was a watershed moment. It led to the establishment of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and other far-reaching changes in state governance. If lawmakers continue to ignore the popular will on key issues, the people can take matters into their own hands in November. A recent Civil Beat Poll found two-thirds of registered Hawaii voters want another con-con. They also want citizen initiative, referendum and recall; term limits for legislators; a statewide lottery; all-mail voting; and medical aid in dying. Frankly, it may be time for another constitutional convention even if legislators finally act on the aforementioned issues next session. An argument can be made that the state government is in need of a good shakeup after inadequately addressing massive problems such as the housing shortage and homelessness. But if lawmakers again fail to do the public’s bidding, that just might seal the deal." West Hawaii Today said: "Hawaii voters have a rare opportunity this election to take control of their government. Not by selecting the lawmaker a voter thinks will best represent him or her — though there’s always that option, too — but by sidestepping the establishment and diving directly into legislating. Chad Blair, Ph.D., a politics and opinion editor for Civil Beat on Oahu, said, 'It’s putting the power back in your hands. Because you’re not satisfied with what the Legislature is doing.' Agreed. Which is why we urge voters to vote yes on holding a constitutional convention." Opposition Ballotpedia did not find any media editorial boards opposing the constitutional convention. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to [email protected].

Indiana

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 had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Indiana Public Question 1: Balanced Budget Amendment a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Indiana Public Question 1. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to [email protected]. Opposition The Journal Gazette wrote: "The General Assembly has acted responsibly in approving balanced budgets for 167 years, so Pence's amendment amounts to troublesome and unnecessary tinkering with our state constitution. Vote no."

Massachusetts

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 had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Massachusetts Question 3: Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Veto Referendum (2018) a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Daily Free Press said: "Repealing the existing law would only make everyday life more dangerous for people who already face more than their fair share of discrimination. If our state doesn’t stand by minority groups, it reflects poorly on all of us." The Telegram & Gazette said: "Transgender rights that lift the fear of discrimination from a group of people have not been an issue since being adopted in Massachusetts two years ago. Opponents who play up fears of men using a pretext to harass and attack women in restrooms or locker rooms ignore that such behavior is already against the law." Opposition The New Boston Post wrote: "Voting No on 3 simply means that only women and girls who are biologically female should be allowed to use women’s public facilities. We want to avoid the possibility that our loved ones might be exposed to a biological man who exploits this radical law, especially a man who is a convicted sex offender, which is currently allowed by the law. The safety threat is real. This law sets up a look-but-don’t-touch scenario, making it impossible for women and girls to speak up effectively for themselves until after they have been assaulted or otherwise harmed."

Massachusetts Question 2: Advisory Commission for Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Regarding Corporate Personhood and Political Spending Initiative a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Daily Free Press said: "It’s high time that political spending is no longer considered a freedom of speech. Allowing corporations and unions with billions of dollars to spend as much as they want limits the political process, drowns out the voices of everyday Americans and is to the detriment of democracy." The Telegram & Gazette said: "What motivates us in supporting the measure is the opportunity to develop a solution in which we all would have an equal say, one in which the wealthiest couldn’t drown out everyone else. It’s an opportunity to work on a solution bringing greater transparency and equality to the system. Plus the fact that, in a manner of the Electoral College, whatever emerges will require both red states and blue states as equals to agree." Opposition Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials opposed to Question 2. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to [email protected].

Massachusetts Question 1, Nurse-Patient Assignment Limits Initiative d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Question 1. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to [email protected]. Opposition The Boston Globe wrote: "The Globe endorses the no side on Question 1 — and not because of the dire warnings from hospital executives who predict it will cause patients to die, force pregnant women to trek to Connecticut to deliver babies, or provoke an immediate staffing crisis." MassLive wrote: "What the ballot approach ignores is that most voters will not have the time or resources to review an extremely complex subject that affects not just medical care but medical cost and hospital efficiency. Nurse staffing is a vital issue, but it's not one the voters of Massachusetts are equipped to determine in a fact-based, informed fashion. Not every important decision should be tossed onto the laps of the voters, even in a democratic republic such as ours. This is one such example that demands time and study by people who were elected to serve us, and who have staff members to help with the research. In fact, when it comes to referendum questions, this might be the best example yet of when not to use it." The Wall Street Journal wrote: "To meet the new mandate, Massachusetts hospitals would have to add up to 3,101 additional full-time nurses, according to the Health Policy Commission. The ratios would create an artificial scarcity of nurses, driving up wages and overtime. Higher medical bills would be one outcome, though another way to meet the ratios would be to limit patients. Voters—future patients nearly all—have every reason to reject Question 1." The Bay State Banner wrote: "This proposal, if enacted, would ultimately shift the cost to patients and health insurance customers. This proposal seems to be a union ploy to frighten the public into paying more for health care. The purpose of Question 1 is to enable nurses to get a bigger piece of the spiraling cost of health care. VOTE NO ON QUESTION 1!!!" The Crimson wrote: "The effects of this ballot measure could be large and numerous, so are its complexities. Healthcare is one of this country’s most complex and controversial issues. Although we are calling for voters to vote no on this ballot measure, we are not calling for the dismissal of this issue, but rather that it be given more careful consideration by legislators — who can improve and amend it. Because of the complexity of healthcare issues, the general public is not able to make a well-informed decision." The New Bedford Standard-Times (South Coast Today) wrote: "Nursing staff levels is a complicated issue that deserves continued examination for beneficial medical outcomes, patient safety, and the well-being of nurses. Adequate nursing levels deserve input from all involved — hospital administrators, nurses, and union leaders — and should be negotiated with support from the Legislature, the way mandated ratios for intensive care units were in 2014. It is not one that voters should be deciding." The Falmouth Enterprise wrote: "Managing hospitals and health care requires specific expertise, and voters overwhelmingly do not have it. Massachusetts hospitals are required by the state to have a patient care assessment program and that program must be approved by the state Board of Registration in Medicine. Further, there is the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission, an independent board that, in addition to monitoring healthcare costs, provides policy recommendations for healthcare delivery If the entities that oversee hospitals and patient care are not doing their job, then they should be the target of reform. And that is something voters can address by sending a message to their elected representatives." The Cape Cod Times wrote: "Depending on whom you believe, the measure will either provide a desperately needed enhanced level of nursing care, or it will create a cataclysmic situation that will force hospitals to lay off hundreds of employees or, in some cases, to close altogether. However, after weighing all of the factors, we recommend a no vote on Question 1. Although the intent behind the question has merit – who does not want a more personalized level of care when getting medical treatment? – the one-size-fits-all approach to this measure seems roughly akin to using a chainsaw to trim hedges; it will get the job done, but you could easily end up doing more harm than good." Note: This editorial was republished as an opinion piece in the MetroWest Daily News, Newburyport Wicked Local, and the NewsChamber of Massachusetts. Other opposing media editorials The following editorial boards have also endorsed a no vote on Question 1: The Berskhire Eagle The Republican The Daily Hampshire Gazette The Daily Free Press The Telegram & Gazette

Missouri

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 had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Missouri Proposition B: $12 Minimum Wage Initiative a

Missouri Amendment 2: Medical Marijuana and Veteran Healthcare Services Initiative a

Support Joplin Globe: "Having three measures on the ballot at the same time is confusing, but for a number of reasons, Amendment 2 clearly stands out as the best option for our state. ... Voters in Missouri who support legalizing medical marijuana should vote yes on Amendment 2, no on Amendment 3 and no on Proposition C." St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "Having dissected the three measures — Constitutional Amendments 2 and 3, and Proposition C — we recommend Amendment 2. ... So why is Amendment 2 superior? The first issue isn’t about marijuana, but our Legislature — which has a history of arrogantly reversing ballot propositions voters pass but that legislators don’t like. If voters legalize medical marijuana via Prop C, lawmakers could reverse it because it’s a mere statutory change. ... Between Amendment 2 and Amendment 3, we prefer the earmarked use of the money in Amendment 2, which will go for veteran health services, a tangible benefit to the state. Amendment 3 would use its proceeds to create and fund a cancer research institute — a goal no one would denigrate, but one that shouldn’t take precedence over Missourians’ more immediate needs." Opposition Ballotpedia did not find any media editorial boards opposing Amendment 2. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to [email protected].

Missouri Amendment 4: Management and Advertisement of Bingo Games Amendment a

Missouri Amendment 3: Medical Marijuana and Biomedical Research and Drug Development Institute Initiative d

Support Ballotpedia did not find any media editorial boards supporting Amendment 3. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to [email protected]. Opposition Joplin Globe: "Having three measures on the ballot at the same time is confusing, but for a number of reasons, Amendment 2 clearly stands out as the best option for our state. ... Voters in Missouri who support legalizing medical marijuana should vote yes on Amendment 2, no on Amendment 3 and no on Proposition C."

Missouri Proposition D: Gas Tax Increase, Olympic Prize Tax Exemption, and Traffic Reduction Fund Measure d

Missouri Proposition C: Medical Marijuana and Veterans Healthcare Services, Education, Drug Treatment, and Public Safety Initiative d

Support Ballotpedia did not find any media editorial boards supporting Proposition C. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to [email protected]. Opposition Joplin Globe: "Having three measures on the ballot at the same time is confusing, but for a number of reasons, Amendment 2 clearly stands out as the best option for our state. ... Voters in Missouri who support legalizing medical marijuana should vote yes on Amendment 2, no on Amendment 3 and no on Proposition C."

Missouri Proposition A: Right to Work Referendum d

"Yes" vote Southeast Missourian: "Ultimately, the idea of being forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment seems to violate basic principles of freedom. If someone is opposed to things being pushed by the union, they should not be forced to support those ideas with their pocketbooks in order to remain employed. ... there are more reasons to vote “yes” on Prop A than against it." The St. Joseph News-Press: "Union membership has declined markedly over the last 50 years and today stands at less than 11 percent of the workforce, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unions may not like it, but it hardly makes sense they should be able to continue to dictate terms of employment — through mandatory payment of dues — to workers who choose not to belong. Defenders of workers’ freedom to choose will vote “yes” on Prop A and allow the legislature’s 2017 approval of right-to-work to take effect." "No" vote Columbia Daily Tribune: "Everything about Proposition A, better known as “Right to Work,” is misleading, from it’s name to its objective and funding sources. Right to work, if passed, would prohibit mandatory union participation and payment of fees for union representation. A “yes” vote on Proposition A won’t mean more freedom or rights for employees, however. It will mean lower pay and less workplace safety. That’s not what Missouri workers need or want." St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "Missouri voters should vote no and reject this blatant attempt to weaken labor bargaining rights. ... Prop A asks workers to give up too many collective bargaining rights in a Hail Mary attempt to improve Missouri’s business climate. Don’t buy proponents’ assertions. Vote no." The Kansas City Star: "Pro-labor organizations counter that right to work undermines collective bargaining and lowers wages while effectively hastening the decline of organized labor. We strongly agree. ... Making Missouri a right-to-work state isn’t the way to address what ails unions. Give workers in the state a fighting chance by voting no on Proposition A." The St. Louis American: "The passage of Prop A would make it more difficult for unions to bargain for better wages and benefits and to protect workers against workplace harassment and unfair termination. ... But passage of Prop A, over time, will weaken unions and diminish the wages for all workers, whether or not a union bargains for their wages and benefits. Only the wealthy will benefit from the passage of Prop A. Our advocacy, however, is for workers and the poor. We strongly and eagerly endorse a vote of NO on Proposition A."

Missouri Amendment 1: Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting a

Support Kansas City Star: "Corruption and ethics issues have plagued Missouri government for too long. And lawmakers have been unwilling to address obvious problems. It’s up to voters to approve Amendment 1 for needed ethics reforms in Jefferson City." St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "There is ample voting evidence that Missourians want these reforms. The tightening of campaign contribution limits in particular has been approved via statewide referendum before, only to have the Legislature reverse it. Because Amendment 1 changes the state constitution, and not just statutes, lawmakers wouldn’t be able to reverse it if it passes." Opposition Ballotpedia did not find any media editorial boards opposing Amendment 1. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to [email protected].

Montana

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 had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Montana I-186, Requirements for Permits and Reclamation Plans of New Hard Rock Mines Initiative d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Missoulian wrote, "Montanans have already paid tens of millions to reclaim and treat polluted water from just a handful of mines. The Zortman Landusky mine’s acid drainage alone cost more than $27 million, and will continue to cost taxpayers $1 million or more a year, every year, forever. It closed in 1998, but Montanans are still paying and will continue to pay the costs of treating its contaminated water. Instead of waiting for another environmental disaster to occur and then passing a law to prevent it from happening again, let’s recognize that perpetual water pollution is one thing that Montana can get out in front of. We can pass I-186 and make sure Montana isn’t left with any more perpetually polluted water and perpetual public costs than the mining industry has already created here with certain short-sighted practices. Vote 'yes' on the Requirements for Permits and Reclamation Plans of New Hard Rock Mines Initiative, I-186." Opposition The Billings Gazette said: "In one hand, I-186 is redundant because Montana law already requires clean water protection plans before it issues or amends mining permits. So is there a downside to doubling down on protecting our water? Well, yes, for the future of mining in Montana. The language of I-186 creates reasonable uncertainty about how the proposed law would be applied and conflicts with the standard of proof currently in the law. I-186 won’t fix any of the historic mining water pollution that has plagued our state. It may stop new well-regulated mines from opening. We encourage voters to say no to I-186 on their Nov. 6 ballots." The Montana Standard said: "Bottom line: We believe this initiative is redundant and unneeded. Further, we believe there's an excellent chance it will turn into a litigation factory, and we certainly don't need another one of those. We also don't need to spend time arguing about whether or not this initiative will harm current mining operations. If there is even the slightest chance that it will, it must be rejected by Montana voters. We urge you to vote no on Initiative 186."

Montana LR-128: Property Tax for State University System Measure a

Nevada

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 had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Nevada Question 4: Medical Equipment Sales Tax Exemption Amendment a

New Mexico

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 had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 2: Independent Ethics Commission a

New Mexico Bond Question D: Higher Education, Special Schools, and Tribal Schools a

New Mexico Bond Question B: Public Libraries a

New Mexico Bond Question C: School Buses Bond a

New Mexico Bond Question A: Senior Citizen Facilities a

Oklahoma

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Oklahoma with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Oklahoma State Question 793, Right of Optometrists and Opticians to Practice in Retail Establishments Initiative d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Oklahoman wrote, "Even if SQ 793 becomes law, optometrists will still be subject to state licensure, and health and safety standards will remain in place. This undermines claims that SQ 793 will lower overall quality. [...] SQ 793's main impact will be to increase market competition, increase consumer access and lower prices for eyewear. Those reasons alone justify voting “yes” on SQ 793." Opposition Tulsa World said: "State Question 793 is a short-sighted effort to change the way Oklahomans care for their eyes. Currently, optometrists are regulated by a licensing board and given broad statutory protections against competition from major retailers. The proposed constitutional amendment would shift the balance of power to the big boys, who would be able to employ optometrists more freely, limit their practices and essentially capture their customers when they buy frames, lenses and anything else that might be on their shopping lists. We urge voters to reject SQ 793 and the Oklahoma Legislature to look at more limited statutory efforts to broaden Oklahoma’s eye care marketplace." The Muskogee Phoenix said: "Currently, if you have concerns about your eyesight, you go to an optometrist who will check your eyes and prescribe glasses if you need them. Then, you go somewhere of your choice to get those glasses. SQ 793 would allow retailers to have control of the process under one roof. The optometrist would work for the retailer. He or she would not be independent. We have a problem with that part of the constitutional amendment. SQ 793 also takes control away from the Oklahoma Board of Optometry, which is the licensing agency for optometrists. We don’t need to mess with the outstanding quality of care we have. Amending the Oklahoma Constitution with SQ 793 is the wrong thing to do." The Enid News & Eagle said: "We don’t need to mess with the outstanding quality of care we have. Amending the Oklahoma Constitution with SQ 793 is the wrong thing to do."

Oklahoma State Question 801: Allow Certain Voter-Approved Property Taxes to Fund School District Operations Amendment d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Tulsa World said: "We endorse State Question 801, which would allow school districts to use property tax money dedicated to a building fund for other uses. We favor local control and greater freedom with school funding, but hasten to point out that the proposal won’t add a penny to the amount of money available to schools and certainly isn’t the solution to inadequate state funding of public schools." Opposition The Muskogee Phoenix said: "Even with recent spending increases, per student spending in Oklahoma remains below 2009 levels. This is inexcusable and must be addressed during the next legislative session. State Question 801 is not part of the solution. We recommend you vote No on SQ 801." The Enid News & Eagle said: "Opponents argue SQ 801 does nothing to improve overall funding for education, but it potentially shifts a small portion of that burden from state to local resources. Most education organizations oppose this proposed constitutional amendment because they feel it gives property-rich districts an unfair advantage and misleads taxpayers into thinking local schools and teachers are getting more money. It’s hard to support for that reason."

Oklahoma State Question 788: Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative a

Support Tulsa World wrote, "To be honest, the Tulsa World editorial board is not of one mind on State Question 788. We are troubled by determining pharmaceutical issues by democratic vote. Safety and efficacy, judged as we have other medical treatments for decades through the FDA, are a better system. At the same time, we recognize that marijuana’s medical potential has been artificially ignored by the federal process for a variety of inappropriate reasons. We are convinced that marijuana may offer some relief to some suffering people. SQ 788 isn’t the ideal solution, but it’s the only alternative before voters on June 26. On balance, we recommend that voters approve the question, but we urge legislators to act quickly to fix some of its more troubling defects." Opposition The Oklahoman wrote, "State Question 788 seeks to make 'medical' marijuana legal in Oklahoma. The use of quote marks here is apt because the question is so broad that if it's approved by voters, marijuana would be medical in name only — ours would be the most liberal medical marijuana law in the nation. [...] We look to our neighbor, Colorado, and see the many issues that have resulted from legalization of recreational marijuana — additional tax revenue, yes, but also more youngsters using pot, more law enforcement costs, more illegal marijuana operations springing up — and don't want to see them replicated here in any way. Oklahomans should reject SQ 788." Other The Journal Record wrote, "Because it would create a statute rather than amend the state’s constitution, legislators would have an opportunity to change the law should portions of it prove unmanageable. As worded, it might, but even for recreational purposes, marijuana has proven substantially less harmful than its more socially acceptable counterparts. Pro or con, we hope voters will read SQ 788 and give it serious consideration."

Oklahoma State Question 788: Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative a

Support Tulsa World wrote, "To be honest, the Tulsa World editorial board is not of one mind on State Question 788. We are troubled by determining pharmaceutical issues by democratic vote. Safety and efficacy, judged as we have other medical treatments for decades through the FDA, are a better system. At the same time, we recognize that marijuana’s medical potential has been artificially ignored by the federal process for a variety of inappropriate reasons. We are convinced that marijuana may offer some relief to some suffering people. SQ 788 isn’t the ideal solution, but it’s the only alternative before voters on June 26. On balance, we recommend that voters approve the question, but we urge legislators to act quickly to fix some of its more troubling defects." Opposition The Oklahoman wrote, "State Question 788 seeks to make 'medical' marijuana legal in Oklahoma. The use of quote marks here is apt because the question is so broad that if it's approved by voters, marijuana would be medical in name only — ours would be the most liberal medical marijuana law in the nation. [...] We look to our neighbor, Colorado, and see the many issues that have resulted from legalization of recreational marijuana — additional tax revenue, yes, but also more youngsters using pot, more law enforcement costs, more illegal marijuana operations springing up — and don't want to see them replicated here in any way. Oklahomans should reject SQ 788." Other The Journal Record wrote, "Because it would create a statute rather than amend the state’s constitution, legislators would have an opportunity to change the law should portions of it prove unmanageable. As worded, it might, but even for recreational purposes, marijuana has proven substantially less harmful than its more socially acceptable counterparts. Pro or con, we hope voters will read SQ 788 and give it serious consideration."

Oregon

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 had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Oregon Measure 105: Repeal Sanctuary State Law Initiative d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Baker City Herald said: "We think Oregon voters should repeal the state’s 31-year-old 'sanctuary' statute by approving Ballot Measure 105 on the Nov. 6 ballot. We agree with Knute Buehler, the Republican candidate for governor, who said he will vote for Measure 105 because he believes repealing the sanctuary law will eliminate confusion and potential discrepancies in how individual counties deal with illegal immigration issues. Opponents of the measure contend its passage would encourage police to engage in the noxious tactic of racial profiling. But the 1987 “sanctuary” law is not the only bulwark against profiling. In 2015 Gov. Kate Brown signed a law — one we support — that creates a database of profiling complaints against police, and an independent task force to review those complaints." Opposition The Portland Tribune said: "Federal agents for Immigration and Customs Enforcement are supposed to handle immigration concerns, while police officers and sheriff's deputies focus on criminal matters. As far as crime rates go, statistics show immigrants in general are less likely than native-born Americans to commit criminal offenses. We agree with local law enforcement officials that they should concentrate on preventing and solving criminal violations and communicate with ICE when it is appropriate on immigration cases. Voters should reject Measure 105." The Oregonian said: "Voters should reject Measure 105, too, knowing that a no vote will help to guarantee our ever-dwindling public safety dollars will be spent on policing local laws - not those that federal agents are paid to enforce. Measure 105 supporters have relied on fear tactics, telling voters that illegal entry is a "precursor" to other crimes. In fact, simply being in the country without authorization -- for instance if someone overstays a visa - isn't a crime but a civil offense. Also, numerous studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than American citizens. As lawmakers did in 1987, Oregonians should stand together against racial profiling and reject changes to a law that keeps us all safe." The Bend Bulletin said: "Measure 105 isn’t about public safety. Rather, it’s an unfortunate product of our political moment, and it encourages people to vote mad according to their views of Donald Trump, Kate Brown, the wall, the “resistance,” the nation’s incoherent immigration policy, the proliferation of sanctuary cities, you name it. While voting mad can feel pretty good, it often doesn’t produce thoughtful policy, which is what Oregonians ought to want. For that reason, voters should defeat Measure 105." The Register-Guard said: "Oregon has been a sanctuary state for three decades. We don’t spend state or local law enforcement resources assisting federal immigration enforcement when the only violation is immigration status. If an undocumented immigrant commits another crime, that’s another matter. Measure 105 asks voters to repeal the sanctuary law. They should not." The Salem Weekly said: "Repealing the Sanctuary Law is not a constructive way to deal with complex problems. Please vote no on Measure 105." Willamette Week said: "Yes, people living in Oregon without legal authorization have broken a law. But it is a federal law, and there is an entire federal agency dedicated to enforcing it: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Oregon police shouldn't be enlisted to do ICE agents' jobs. Proponents' fear-mongering claims about criminal immigrants are so overblown they're essentially fiction. Data shows immigrants are far less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens. Reject this bad idea." The Herald and News wrote, "We still think it’s a good idea, though the board was split on it. On one hand, people who are in the country illegally are subject to our laws and when they break them, should be punished just like a regular citizen. But there should be a strict dividing line between state and federal authority. Many county sheriff’s want to see this law repealed. Yet, this is a “feel good” law, politically motivated, and the change is cosmetic. Keep the separation of law enforcement powers, Vote 'No.'" Additional editorials opposing Measure 105 In addition to the above media endorsements, the following editorial boards have endorsed a no vote on the measure: The Corvallis Gazette-Times

Oregon Measure 101: Healthcare Insurance Premiums Tax for Medicaid Referendum a

Support for "yes" vote Pamplin Media Group, owner of the Portland Tribune said, "A 'yes' vote on Measure 101 allows the democratic process to work, gives lawmakers a year to monitor the new financing package they passed last summer, avoids another divisive distraction from other pressing issues, and ensures that our state's most vulnerable residents get quality health care." The Daily Astorian said, "Forty-eight other states and the District of Columbia levy tax assessments against health care providers to fund care for low-income patients. The strategy is popular because it generates matching federal dollars. In this case, Oregon health care providers agreed to tax themselves, and insurers may not raise rates more than 1.5 percent to cover the assessment. An impressive list of more than 160 organizations in Oregon have endorsed the plan, including the medical and education communities. Given that groundswell of support, both statewide and locally, we urge you to vote “yes” on Measure 101." Mail Tribune said, "Oregon has been a national leader in expanding health insurance coverage to more people through innovative funding mechanisms and cost-containment measures. The plan adopted in July to keep that system going for two more years may not be perfect, but it is better than the alternative — putting as many as 350,000 Oregonians at risk of losing health coverage while the Legislature does battle over funding all over again. Without the tax proceeds, lawmakers would have to make painful cuts to the Oregon Health Plan or other parts of the state budget. The system of taxing providers a little to generate a lot of federal matching funds has been working well for more than 10 years. It would be a mistake to end it now." The Register-Guard said, "It’s likely that if Measure 101 is defeated, the Legislature would find a way to preserve at least part of the expanded Medicaid program and the federal money that comes with it. There’s no guarantee that those funding mechanisms would be better than the ones Measure 101 would preserve. And there’s a danger that many Oregonians would lose their health insurance, or that other important public services would be cut to save it. Oregonians should not take that risk. They should vote yes on Measure 101." East Oregonian said, "We sent our legislators to Salem to do a job and this is the job they did. If we don’t like it (and we don’t), then we should vote them out. Until such time, voters should approve Measure 101. In recent years, we’ve seen the number of insured Oregonians increase dramatically in the state. And with the help of coordinated care organizations, we’ve seen health outcomes improve, too. The opioid epidemic is lapping at these gains, however, and we cannot be complacent. Assessing that situation, a Band-Aid is better than pushing a still recovering patient back into the street." Street Roots News said, "Street Roots has endorsed Measure 101 because we know the people hanging in the balance. Hundreds of other organizations, including hospitals and labor unions, have endorsed it as well. To do no harm, Measure 101 needs to pass. Still, we support future efforts in Salem to do better, to eliminate careless spending and to find that interconnectivity on issues, challenges, opportunities and solutions that are critical to so many vulnerable Oregonians." The Statesman Journal said, "We encourage you to vote 'yes' on Measure 101, which basically asks voters to approve a plan the 2017 Legislature passed to provide health-insurance coverage for those who otherwise could not afford it. Let's avoid undoing coverage for Oregon's low-income children, seniors, people with disabilities, and other needy families across the state." The Source Weekly said, "Let's not get caught up again waiting for absolute perfection in the realm of politics. This bill will help the people who need health care the most in our state. [...] Vote against making perfect the enemy of good, and vote YES on Measure 101 this week." The Corvallis Gazette-Times said, "The Gazette-Times reluctantly recommends a "yes" vote on the measure [...] With all that said, we need to hold elected state officials to their promise that Measure 101 is a temporary measure. We've seen plenty of "temporary" taxes become permanent." The Portland Mercury said, "But we simply can’t look at what’s happening outside of our Old Town office doors and in Washington DC and think that rolling back coverage on hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Oregonians is an acceptable option. And—other than saying they “believe” they can come up with a solution—Parrish and Hayden give us absolutely no confidence that legislators will be able to plug the massive budget hole that results from a “no” vote in the short legislative session that begins in February. For these reasons, we say “yes” on Measure 101. You should, too." Support for "no" vote The Bulletin said, "Virtually all Oregonians will pay this tax if Measure 101 passes, and lawmakers will get the message: Disguise a new tax by levying it on, not the user of the service but the supplier, and Oregonians will swallow it whole. Vote “no” on Measure 101." The Oregonian said, "Oregonians should stand against the inequity of this tax, demand that lawmakers find a fairer way to meet the Medicaid obligation and vote no on Measure 101." Baker City Herald said, "Measure 101 proponents contend the taxes in House Bill 2391 are necessary to prevent major cuts in the Oregon Health Plan. But the financial data show otherwise. Voters should reject those taxes and demand that lawmakers take advantage of their other options rather than increasing the burden on Oregonians already struggling to afford health insurance." Other Albany Democrat-Herald said, "Opponents of Measure 101 say they have no desire to see any Oregon resident lose access to health care; instead, they say, legislators can find the money elsewhere. We're not so sure we want to take that risk. Legislators would have to find that money with little more than a year remaining in the state's two-year budget cycle. And there's considerable uncertainty surrounding the budget proposals floated as substitutes by Measure 101 opponents."

Oregon Measure 102: Removes Restriction that Affordable Housing Projects Funded by Municipal Bonds be Government Owned a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Corvallis Gazette-Times said: "The measure also would encourage the sort of innovative collaboration that could, over the long run, make a big difference in creating affordable housing options throughout the state. The measure comes with a little bit of risk, but the payoff for Oregon residents struggling to find a place to live could be huge. We recommend a "yes" vote on Measure 102." The Oregonian said: "Unlike the other statewide measures on the November ballot, Measure 102 is well-constructed, targeted, noncontroversial and aims to solve a pressing problem: how to stretch tax dollars earmarked for affordable housing to serve as many Oregonians as possible. Voters should endorse this common-sense fix to the constitution and vote 'yes' on Measure 102." Willamette Week said: "Just about everybody believes it's a good idea: Lawmakers in both parties voted unanimously to refer the matter to voters, and there's no organized opposition to the measure. We are typically wary of amending the constitution, but in this instance, it's warranted." The Herald and News wrote, "We vote “Yes.” Anything that will create more affordable housing and help clear up some red tape to that goal is a good thing. Auditing is important." Opposition The Register-Guard said: "The idea behind Measure 102 is a good one: Oregon should allow cities to pursue public-private partnerships for desperately needed affordable housing. Unfortunately, the Legislature wrote a flawed constitutional amendment to accomplish that end. Oregonians should reject it so that lawmakers can come back with a better version next year. The authors of the Constitution recognized the risks of entangling local government with private industry. If taxpayers are footing the bill, taxpayers should retain ownership of the final product or receive a substantial public good, not just pad private sector profits with public subsidies. The constitutional clause also is a barrier to corruption that prevents public officials from diverting tax dollars to their cronies in the private sector. Those were very real dangers in 1857, and they remain dangers today. If Oregon is to create an exception for affordable housing, it must provide adequate safeguards to ensure it is not abused. Measure 102 failed to include those safeguards."

South Dakota

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 had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

[[South Dakota Constitutional Amendment X, 55% Vote Requirement to Approve Constitutional Amendments Measure (2018)|]] 

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Amendment X. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to [email protected]. Opposition The Argus Leader wrote: "This measure would raise the bar for future constitutional amendments to 55 percent passage before enactment. Paired with the proposed Amendment Z and IM 24, this amendment would erode the potential of direct democracy in the state."

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment Z, Single-Subject Rule for Constitutional Amendments a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Amendment Z. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to [email protected]. Opposition The Rapid City Journal wrote: "Vote no on Amendment Z. It would place an undue burden on citizens when petitioning the government for a redress of grievances." The Argus Leader wrote: "While we advocate for streamlined, well-thought-out language in state law, this measure meant to constrain proposed amendments to a single subject also unnecessarily hamstrings voters’ ability to effect change."

South Dakota Initiated Measure 25, Tobacco Tax Increase Initiative d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Measure 25. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to [email protected]. Opposition The Rapid City Journal wrote: "We also know smoking disproportionately involves the poor. While smoking may start as a choice, it quickly becomes an addiction. A pack-a-day smoker would need to dole out another $360 a year if this becomes law. The burden could push many to need government assistance or even prevent them from seeking technical education." The Argus Leader wrote: "Although increased price has proven to be the top deterrent to teens starting to use tobacco, this measure arbitrarily gifts what would hopefully be a diminishing source of revenue to tech schools alone, rather than to broader educational needs or toward beefing up tobacco-use cessation and prevention efforts."

South Dakota Initiated Measure 24, Ban Out-of-State Contributions to Ballot Question Committees Initiative a/ot

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Measure 24. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to [email protected]. Opposition The Rapid City Journal wrote: "If the U.S. Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision rejects limits on political action committees as an infringement on free speech, then IM 24 either cannot stand or cannot function. Voters should save themselves the money and the courts the trouble. Reject IM 24." The Argus Leader wrote: "Championed by House Speaker Mark Mickelson, it has already been flagged as likely to be challenged on constitutional grounds. It is concerning as a limit on free speech expression and as a move by lawmakers to limit inconvenient voter-initiated measures."

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment Y, Changes to Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights Amendment a

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment W, State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws, Government Accountability Board, and Initiative Process d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Amendment W. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to [email protected]. Opposition The Argus Leader wrote: "Questions regarding the presumed transparency of the new board concern us, and the proposed amendment seems more effective as a strong rebuke to state legislators than as a thoughtfully crafted permanent change to the state’s constitution."

Utah

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 had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Utah Proposition 3: Medicaid Expansion Initiative 

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Salt Lake Tribune said: "The people of Utah have already left more than a billion dollars in federal support on the table over the last five years due to our stubborn, partisan and hurtful refusal to go along with the provisions of the original Affordable Care Act and expand eligibility for Medicaid to thousands of our uninsured relatives and neighbors. If Prop 3 passes, Utah voters will have commanded their reticent state government to accept the expansion, take the money, and provide coverage to some 150,000 working and low-income Utahns who now, through no fault of their own, lack the kind of access to health care that the residents of 33 other states — and every nation considered civilized — take for granted... [Utah Propositions 2, 3, and 4] individually and collectively, stand to improve both our quality of life and our democratic institutions. The voters should give them their resounding assent." Opposition The Wall Street Journal: "Utah is proposing to raise the sales tax to 4.85% from 4.7%—yes, a regressive tax on the poor to pay for health care for those above the poverty line. [...] Medicaid expansion is a bad fiscal and health-care bargain that looks worse as time passes. States like Kentucky are already looking for reforms like work requirements before the “free” money drowns their state fisc. Voters would be wise to reject the phony compassion and focus scarce resources on the poor and disabled."

Utah Proposition 2: Medical Marijuana Initiative 

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Salt Lake Tribune said: "The agreement on medical cannabis announced [on October 4, 2018] is a welcome compromise in a political climate that too often can’t find middle ground. It’s a good first step in a state that has resisted the first step. The next step is for voters to pass Proposition 2." Opposition The Deseret News said: "Getting to good legislation by passing a bad proposition rarely turns out well. The best path is for Utahns to vote against Proposition 2 and then show the nation how real compromise and commonsense solutions can be achieved. We continue to affirm being for medical marijuana and against Proposition 2 is a congruent and compassionate position. Voting no on Proposition 2, while holding the Legislature and governor accountable for passing the compromise legislation, will be Utah at its best."

Utah Constitutional Amendment C: Changes Related to Special Legislative Sessions and State Revenue a

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials supporting Amendment C. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to [email protected]. Opposition The Salt Lake Tribune said: "Amendment C is a pernicious idea that is designed to upset a constitutional balance of power that has been working rather well in Utah for more than a century. But the question here is not about some Platonic ideal of a Constitution and Legislature, but about the known proclivities of the Utah Legislature. This is a body that already has a nasty habit of cooking up, rushing through and adopting major policy decisions, effectively in secret due to the inability of the press and public to keep up. This is a habit that would only be made more troublesome and more common if lawmakers had the power to call snap special sessions for purposes that would likely become clear only after the dirty work was done. The part of the Utah Constitution that Amendment C would fix is not broken. It should be rejected by the ultimate authority of the state, the voters."

Utah Constitutional Amendment B: Tax Exemption for Property Leased by a Government Entity d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials supporting Amendment B. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to [email protected]. Opposition The Salt Lake Tribune said: "Amendment B is another property tax break idea that was offered to the voters — and rejected by them — once before. It deserves to be rejected again. The idea is that property owned by those governments is automatically tax-exempt, and so the properties they rent should be, too. The claim is that it would actually save those governments some money because private owners, knowing there will be no property taxes to pay, can charge lower rents. The problem with that idea is that landlords are unlikely to cut local governments break in their rent if they get a break in their taxes. They’ll just pocket the savings. Savings that will have to be made up by raising property tax rates on everyone else. Rates charged not only by the, say, city that is leasing the property, but also by the county, school district, library and every other taxing district affected. The proposal is an unneeded boost for the landowning few."

Utah Nonbinding Opinion Question 1, 10 Cents per Gallon Gas Tax Increase for Education and Local Roads d

Utah Proposition 4: Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative 

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support The Salt Lake Tribune said: "After the 2020 federal census, Utah will draw new districts for its state Senate, state House and our four (or maybe more) members of the U.S House of Representatives. In past years, the process has been less a serious consideration of numbers and communities and fairness and mostly a partisan political, and sometimes just personal, act by which state legislators draw maps to advantage their party generally and some of their colleagues specifically. That’s not democracy. That’s gerrymandering... [Utah Propositions 2, 3, and 4] individually and collectively, stand to improve both our quality of life and our democratic institutions. The voters should give them their resounding assent." Opposition Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in opposition to Proposition 4. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to [email protected].

Wisconsin

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Wisconsin with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, either no media outlets had released editorials concerning that measure or Ballotpedia has not completed research for that state. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Wisconsin Question 1: Elimination of State Treasurer Amendment d

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements Support Racine Journal Times said, "The ship has sailed, as the responsibilities of the office have been stripped away. All that’s left to do is let taxpayers pocket the remaining couple of hundred thousand dollars, and turn the Capitol office into storage space or give it to other staff." Republican Eagle said, "Established under the Wisconsin Constitution in 1848, the Treasurer's Office originally did hold a variety of key duties administratively, but legislation has transferred most of them to other agencies as a result of technology, specialization and, so lawmakers claim, streamlined government. Modern-day auditors, revenue officers and more have made the state treasurer obsolete, so paying the annual $69,936 salary is a waste of taxpayers' money." Wisconsin State Journal said, "So rest assured, Wisconsin voters: Eliminating the do-nothing and wasteful state treasurer’s office in Tuesday’s spring election won’t compromise good government or harm your right to know what state government is up to. Instead, it will save a little money and further the noble efforts launched a half-century ago to professionalize the main functions of state government." Opposition The Cap Times said, "This would make Walker and future governors ever more powerful. The cronies they appoint would manage state business as extensions of the governor’s office, rather than as extensions of the electorate. Accountability would be further eroded." Channel 3000 said, "This is an accountability and checks and balances issue at its heart. ... We don’t take amending the constitution lightly. This doesn’t rise to that level." The Shepherd Express said, "Eliminating the state treasurer would make it easier for politicians to play fast and loose with our state tax dollars. ... This amendment is an invitation to corruption and will cost the state taxpayers millions and millions of dollars if we shoot the watchdog."