The following page lists media outlets that weighed in on specific 2022 ballot measures, broken out by state and by measure.

If there are no media editorials listed below a ballot measure link below it is because Ballotpedia has not identified any support or opposition endorsements by media editorial boards for that measure. If you know of an editorial not listed below, please contact [email protected].

Alabama

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

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

Alabama Amendment 1, Allow Denial of Bail for Offenses Enumerated by State Legislature Amendment (2022)

Alabama Amendment 10, Incorporate Voter-Approved Amendments in New State Constitution Measure (2022)

Alabama Amendment 7, Local Economic and Industrial Development Bonds and Financing Amendment (2022)

Alabama Amendment 8, Public Service Commission to Regulate Private Sewer Systems in Shelby County Amendment (2022)

Alabama Amendment 5, Remove Orphans' Business from Probate Court Jurisdiction Amendment (2022)

Alabama Amendment 1, Authorize $85 Million in Bonds for Public Historical Sites and State Parks Measure (May 2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at [email protected]

Opposition

Dothan Eagle Editorial Board: "Upkeep and improvement of our state’s public parks and historical sites is a worthy expenditure, no doubt. However, the decision to ask voters to borrow the money for the initiative is curious considering other spending lawmakers have undertaken recently. ... So why ask taxpayers to borrow $85 million for upkeep and improvement of state parks and historical sites? Perhaps the best reason not to is that in January, the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued its final report on COVID relief funds, in which it seems to determine that prison construction is ineligible for prison construction. This suggests that Alabama could be held accountable to the federal government for the $400 million – and a request to taxpayers to borrow $85 million for parks seems to suggest that the state doesn’t have $400 million sitting around to reimburse the federal government."

Alabama Amendment 2, Broadband Internet Infrastructure Funding Amendment (2022)

Alabama Amendment 3, Notice to Victim's Family Required for Commutation or Reprieve of Death Sentences Amendment (2022)

Alabama Amendment 4, Prohibit Changes to Election Conduct Laws within Six Months of General Elections Amendment (2022)

Alabama Amendment 9, Public Service Commission to Regulate Private Sewer System in Lake View Amendment (2022)

Alabama Recompiled Constitution Ratification Question (2022)

Alaska

See Alaska 2022 ballot measures for more information.

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 released editorials concerning that measure, or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Arizona Proposition 211, Campaign Finance Sources Disclosure Initiative (2022)

Arizona Proposition 130, Property Tax Exemptions Amendment (2022)

Arizona Proposition 128, Legislative Changes to Ballot Initiatives with Invalid Provisions Amendment (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at [email protected]

Opposition

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

Arizona Proposition 129, Single-Subject Requirement for Ballot Initiatives Amendment (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at [email protected]

Opposition

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

The Arizona Republic Editorial Board: "The same set of supporters claims the the state constitution should be amended to hold citizen groups to the same “single subject” or “adequate title” standard that binds the Arizona Legislature. It’s a false argument. Lawmakers, indeed, must follow the standard. Three of the Legislature’s Budget Reconciliation Bills were tossed by a judge last year for violating the adequate-title provision. But their sole job is to legislate. They have months to adjust language on bills. They have staff and attorneys to help them research and adhere to rules. Citizens aren’t afforded the same resources and time. But that doesn’t mean any petition initiated by them and signed by sufficient number of voters automatically qualifies for the ballot. A number of them have been challenged in court and disqualified over omitted or misleading language in the proposition’s 100-word summary. That safeguard rebuts a key argument from supporters of Proposition 129: That it would prevent special-interest groups from jamming unrelated provisions into one measure to sneak in pet projects. Don’t buy this nonsense that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Citizens needn’t be held to the same rigid lawmaking standard as fulltime legislators."

Arizona Proposition 131, Create Office of Lieutenant Governor Amendment (2022)

Arizona Proposition 132, 60% Vote Requirement for Ballot Measures to Approve Taxes Amendment (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

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

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board: "A higher wall against tax hikes would help sustain Arizona’s economic progress. Its 4.5% top income-tax rate is lower than every neighbor except zero-tax Nevada, and it’s set to fall to 2.5% by 2024. Keeping rates low has helped the state grow. It was the fourth-fastest growing state by population last year, edging out Florida and Texas. Its new residents are finding jobs: Employment rose 25% in the past decade, compared with 19% in neighboring California."

Opposition

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

The Arizona Republic Editorial Board: "We're sympathetic to the position that raising taxes should not be taken lightly. We’re certainly mindful of the divisive Invest in Education measure, which we opposed in 2020, that got us here. We also appreciate that Arizona voters in 2012 imposed a rigorous threshold for lawmakers – requiring a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers of the statehouse – to enact a tax increase. That said, demanding more than a simple majority for voter-approved revenue measures is extreme. Only nine states require supermajority approval at the ballot box, four of them solely on constitutional amendments."

Arizona Proposition 310, Sales Tax for Fire District Funding Measure (2022)

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 released editorials concerning that measure, or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Arkansas Issue 1, Legislative Authority to Call a Special Session Amendment (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

Submit links to [email protected].

Opposition

Arkansas Democrat Gazette Editorial Board: "Right now, the governor has the power to call special sessions. This proposal would allow lawmakers to do it without his/her authority. And get per diem as much as they'd like, too. One would think by reading the language of this proposal that lawmakers hardly ever get to have their voices heard. But they go into session quite a bit. They have regular sessions every odd-numbered year. And fiscal sessions every even-numbered year. And since the year 2000, governors have called 17--count 'em, 17--special sessions. Not to mention all the official, paid, working meetings that lawmakers have in-between sessions, special and otherwise. What Issue No. 1 could do is essentially make your Legislature a full-time job. A career."
Arkansas Business Editorial Board: "Issue No. 1 would give the Legislature, whose members voted to place it on the Nov. 8 General Election ballot, the power to call itself into special session at any time. Currently, only the governor can authorize a special legislative session. The state Constitution calls for the Legislature to meet every year. More than that, unless authorized by the governor, is a terrifying prospect."

Arkansas Issue 2, 60% Supermajority Vote Requirement for Constitutional Amendments and Ballot Initiatives Measure (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

Submit links to [email protected].

Opposition

Arkansas Issue 3, Government Burden of Free Exercise of Religion Amendment (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

Submit links to [email protected].

Opposition

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 released editorials concerning that measure, or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

California Proposition 1, Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the initiative. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board: "Prop 1 is needed to ensure that such bodily autonomy decisions remain under the purview of pregnant people, their families, and their doctors, and not conservative politicians and judges. Vote YES on Prop 1."
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "Frankly, every state needs to have the right to abortion stated in its constitution. That includes California, though it is already one of the most progressive states in the nation on reproductive rights and lawmakers have passed new laws confirming the state’s status as a haven for abortion. ... Vote yes on Proposition 1."
San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "By explicitly adding protections for abortion and contraception to our state Constitution, the right to abortion will still be secure even if a future Legislature were to repeal the Reproductive Privacy Act or a future California Supreme Court decides the privacy provision no longer applies to reproductive rights."
The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "This is a necessary response to the court’s June 24 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. Proposition 1 — as with so many California ballot measures — would see the Golden State set an example for the rest of the nation. But it’s not just symbolic. Just because the California Supreme Court says the right to privacy enshrined in the state Constitution covers abortion doesn’t mean future courts will agree. Making such an arbitrary reversal impossible should reassure Californians that their reproductive freedoms will be protected."
The Mercury News Editorial Board: "Californians can no longer count on federal protections. They need to explicitly embed rights to choose an abortion and to choose or refuse contraception in their state constitution. Proposition 1 on the Nov. 8 ballot would do just that. Vote yes."
The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "With this proposition, California can ensure that pregnant people — and the rights of pregnant people traveling here — are protected from the kind of political and judicial games that have threatened those rights on a national level."

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in opposition to Proposition 1.

California Proposition 26, Legalize Sports Betting on American Indian Lands Initiative (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the initiative. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

Opposition

The Mercury News and East Bay Times Editorial Boards: "Voters should reject Proposition 26, which would expand onsite tribal casino gambling to allow sports wagering, roulette and dice games such as craps and would also allow sports betting at horserace tracks."
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "California doesn’t need more gambling or more lawsuits. Propositions 26 and 27 present more risks than benefits, which makes both of them a bad bet. Vote no."
San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: The San Francisco Chronicle said the legislature should ultimately draft a sports betting law. The board wrote,"But the push to legalize sports betting and online gambling isn’t going away, as evidenced by the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on Prop’s 26 and 27. Even if they lose, another measure is already in the works for the 2024 ballot. Voters should say no to these industry-backed measures and demand legislators do the job we pay them to do."
The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "This is a raw money grab and has nothing to do with 'self-reliance' and 'responsible' gaming. We strongly support legalizing sports betting, but not by letting tribes crush their old and new competitors alike. We urge a no vote on Prop. 26."
The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "[A]dvocates have no good explanation for why the measure includes a hugely self-serving proviso that makes it easier for tribes to sue and punish rival card-room operators. And they barely respond to criticism the measure would prop up racetracks at a time when concerns about their treatment of horses have never been more intense. ... Future California ballot measures on gaming are inevitable. They should also be better crafted. The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board recommends 'no' votes on both Propositions 26 and 27."
The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "Prop. 26 would enable a more defensible and limited expansion of gambling on tribal lands. But it muddies its argument with an overreaching attempt to litigate the tribes’ long-running and somewhat arcane dispute with urban card clubs. Its lifeline for racetracks, moreover, associates the measure with a dying industry plagued by horse drugging and deaths. And the divisions among the state’s tribes raise further doubts about the proposal. ... In the meantime, the job before voters is to reject Propositions 26 and 27."

California Proposition 27, Legalize Sports Betting and Revenue for Homelessness Prevention Fund Initiative (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the initiative. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

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

Opposition

Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board: "It would be the largest expansion of gambling in state history and turn cellphones, laptops, tablets, computers, and video game consoles into gambling devices. This is especially troubling for youth and those prone to excessive gambling. It will also hurt the Indian tribes that have casinos on tribal lands. ... Vote NO on Prop 27."
The Mercury News and East Bay Times Editorial Boards: "Voters should also oppose Proposition 27, which would allow tribes to join with large, established, out-of-state internet gambling companies to provide online wagering on sporting events — and block out small competitors."
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "California doesn’t need more gambling or more lawsuits. Propositions 26 and 27 present more risks than benefits, which makes both of them a bad bet. Vote no."
San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: The San Francisco Chronicle said the legislature should ultimately draft a sports betting law. The board wrote,"But the push to legalize sports betting and online gambling isn’t going away, as evidenced by the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on Prop’s 26 and 27. Even if they lose, another measure is already in the works for the 2024 ballot. Voters should say no to these industry-backed measures and demand legislators do the job we pay them to do."
The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "As usual, the devil is in the details. Unfortunately, supporters designed it so that only large gaming companies can control the action. Most other states that allow online sports betting impose relatively modest licensing fees, whereas this measure requires a whopping $100 million fee for a license – plus $10 million each time it is renewed. The firms would pay 10 percent of gross proceeds to the state. ... We urge a 'no' vote on Proposition 27 with the hopes that backers of online betting come back with something more reasonable."
The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "Proposition 27, with major funding by giant U.S. betting platforms DraftKings and FanDuel, would allow sports betting online on sites run by California tribes and partnering companies, with a 10 percent state tax on wagers. Although small slices of revenue would go to fund homelessness programs and tribes with no stake in online betting, the measure is best seen as an effort by out-of-state corporations to manipulate direct democracy to super-size profits. ... Future California ballot measures on gaming are inevitable. They should also be better crafted. The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board recommends 'no' votes on both Propositions 26 and 27."
The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "Of the pair, Prop. 27 is the more repugnant. It would dramatically expand the opportunities for and accessibility of gambling, and its attendant ills, to the benefit of big online profiteers. Meanwhile, it would generally undermine tribal control of gambling, which provides a small measure of recompense for a long history of atrocities against the first Americans. In the meantime, the job before voters is to reject Propositions 26 and 27."

California Proposition 31, Flavored Tobacco Products Ban Referendum (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the initiative. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board: "Tobacco products are flavored with menthol or mimic candy in an effort to entice young users into what is a potentially deadly habit. We're glad the state passed the law, and we urge voters to keep it in place. Vote YES on Prop 31."
Santa Cruz Sentinel Editorial Board: "The tobacco industry also points out that it’s already illegal in California to sell to sell any tobacco or vapor product to anyone under the age of 21, flavored or not. But that hasn’t stopped many young people from obtaining flavored tobacco products, with the popularity of vapes seemingly out distancing local prohibitions. All the more reason to ensure that the 2020 law is reinstated. Vote Yes on Prop. 31."
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "Flavors in tobacco products are uniquely harmful because they mask the unappealingly harsh taste of tobacco and can lure in new and often young users and get them hooked. ... Vote yes on Proposition 31 to allow a good law to go into effect."
San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "Voters should reject Big Tobacco’s attempt to override sound public policy by saying yes to Prop. 31. The arguments for a no vote are dubious. Most try to summon faux outrage over the so-called nanny state. ... And, no, Prop. 31 won’t criminalize flavored tobacco use for people who continue to use these products if they can find them. The measure stops sales, it doesn’t create new criminal penalties."
The Mercury News Editorial Board: "This is California voters’ chance to send Big Tobacco a message. Vote yes on Proposition 31. Stop the sale of flavored tobacco products that the Centers for Disease Control says are even more addictive than regular tobacco products."
The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "Now, voters have a chance to reinstate the ban by voting “yes.” If Prop. 31 fails, flavored products will stay on shelves, although several communities have already passed local bans prohibiting them."

Opposition

The Daily Breeze Editorial Board: "A 'No' vote overturns the law. In our view, this is the correct vote and it’s no contest. Banning the sale of flavored tobacco products is based on the premise that banning them is necessary to keep children from smoking tobacco and going down the path of addiction. This premise is nonsensical for the obvious reason that it’s already illegal for minors to purchase tobacco products."
The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "Newsom and the Legislature are not powerless in discouraging vaping. The 12.5 percent increase in excise taxes on vaping products they approved last year took effect on July 1. That straightforward approach is smarter. The San Diego Union-Tribune recommends a “no” vote on Proposition 31."
The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "While proponents of banning flavors act like only children find fruit or candy-like flavors appealing, adults do, too. And for people looking to break smoking habits, flavors make it easier to make the switch. From a public health perspective, it is utterly nonsensical to reduce the desirability of what for many is a life-saving smoking cessation tool. ... Vote 'No' on Prop. 31."

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 released editorials concerning that measure, or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Colorado Proposition 122, Decriminalization and Regulated Access Program for Certain Psychedelic Plants and Fungi Initiative (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

The Durango Herald Editorial Board: "The legalization of psilocybin is different from the legalization of cannabis. There would be no dispensaries, no retail. Youth wouldn’t get into parents’ stash because they would be no stash. Again, psilocybin users would ingest the drug in a licensed facility. It would not be prescribed and taken outside of a controlled space to share or sell, like opioids.Critics say the fentynal crisis is bad enough. But fentanyl, a devastatingly deadly synthetic opioid, is worlds away from psilocybin. Psilocybin offers another tool for opioid addicts to get clean. If we want to remove the stigmas of mental health and help those who need it most, passing [Proposition 122] is a compassionate choice. Maybe those mushrooms do hold some magic."

Opposition

Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial Board: "Colorado law enforcement, educators, parents and health professionals are dealing with the soaring opioid overdose crisis and a multitude of other crime problems. Meanwhile, out-of-state corporate profiteers want voters to legalize the hallucinogenic drugs psilocybin and psilocin. ... Great. That’s what we don’t need in a state struggling with rising and disproportionate rates of suicide, overdoses, homelessness and routine exhibitions of ill people on street corners openly hallucinating and talking to the sky. Sure, bring on another for-profit drug so corporations can profit from human suffering and dysfunction. Let’s go become Dolts Gulch and get more people high — to improve their mental health, of course."
Denver Post Editorial Board: "However, we are not naïve, and while the intent of legalizing possession and cultivation is for medical treatment, we fear a robust market for recreational use would thrive. Increased legal tolerance will increase demand which will increase the temptation for profiteering. And if there is one thing we know about drug use, it’s that our teens and young adults will be most tempted to use it and they will be targeted by sellers. Psilocybin is not addictive, but it is known to rarely cause psychosis (a break with reality that is usually temporary but sometimes permanent) and hallucinogen persisting perception disorder, where people re-experience hallucinations they had while taking the drug even while not intoxicated."
Denver Gazette and Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial Boards: "It would legalize mushrooms containing psilocybin and psilocin and other hallucinogenic drugs used mainly for recreation. Ignore the smokescreen about psychedelics’ use in therapy; Prop. 122 means more impaired motorists and minors."

Connecticut

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

Connecticut Question 1, Allow for Early Voting Amendment (2022)

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 released editorials concerning that measure, or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Florida Amendment 2, Abolish the Constitution Revision Commission Measure (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

Submit links to [email protected].

Opposition

The Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board: "... The last review commission, which met in 2017-18, did badly overall. Gov. Rick Scott and House Speaker Richard Corcoran sabotaged it by appointing too many partisan members, including professional lobbyists. That vulnerability can be fixed. Instead of repealing the review commission, the Legislature should be mending it. It’s important to remember why it was created. Florida had been misruled for decades by a backward clique of rural legislators who represented fewer than 20 percent of the people and refused to modernize the 1885 state Constitution. After the U.S. Supreme Court threw them out, the ensuing reforms included the Constitution Review Commission and the initiative petition process. The intent was to protect Florida from ever being paralyzed again by the self-interests of an entrenched political empire."
Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board: "The commission has its flaws. But a better remedy is for the governor and Legislature to make bipartisan appointments, and for CRC members to propose single-issue questions for the ballot. Eliminating the CRC reduces the number of ways that Floridians can modify their Constitution. Citizens have launched petition drives in recent years to address a number of priorities (the environment, felon voting rights) in the face of the Legislature’s refusal to act. In response, the Legislature has already made it harder for citizen petitions to reach the ballot. This measure is just yet another move by the power brokers in Tallahassee to consolidate power and ignore the voters’ will. And with the commission not scheduled to convene again until 2037, voters hardly have a reason to entertain this nonsense now."
Palm Beach Post Editorial Board: "Every 20 years, the Constitutional Revision Commission meets to make changes to the state Constitution. In an ideal world, those changes would be helpful in addressing real problems or removing unwanted and outdated constitutional amendments. Alas, this is Florida and the last time the commission "improved" the Constitution, it proposed a series of partisan changes that did anything but. That can happen when the bulk of commission appointees come from the Governor and the Florida Legislature. Still, the commission remains one way the public can have input in shaping policies through amending the Constitution, along with ballot initiatives and amendments filed directly by their representatives and senators in the Legislature."
Orlando Sentinel and South Florida Sun Sentinel Editorial Boards: "... If its future were judged only by the poor performance of the last commission, which met in 2017-18, abolition makes sense. ... The blame for that commission’s failures belongs mostly to former Gov. Rick Scott and ex-House Speaker Richard Corcoran, for playing political games with the Constitution. But the revision process needs reform, not ruin. Logrolling should be banned, registered lobbyists should be banned from serving, and the Legislature’s minority leaders should have a say in CRC appointments."

Florida Amendment 1, Disregard Flood Resistance Improvements in Property Value Assessments Measure (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

Submit links to [email protected].

Opposition

Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board: "We get the point, especially with southwest Florida still reeling from the destruction of Hurricane Ian. Florida is uniquely threatened by extreme storms and sea level rise, dangers that will only increase over time. Offering an inducement for people to harden their properties could serve a broad public benefit, especially with more transplants moving to Florida every day. But this provision is overly broad. Allowing “any change or improvement” to qualify for a tax break is an invitation to abuse. Building a seawall on waterfront property — fine. Same with reinforcing doors or electrical systems. But what about renovating property, or adding floors to existing structures, or building decks or other accessories that have less to do with flood protection than enjoying life? Owners already have financial and personal incentives to improve their properties, and while the state has an interest in hardening against floods, putting a vague, tax-shifting mechanism in the state Constitution is not the way to promote it."
Palm Beach Post Editorial Board: "Given what's occurred with the recent devastation of Hurricane Ian and Florida's continual need to address climate change, this amendment takes on a greater relevance that almost demands approval. Still, we don't believe this amendment belongs in the Florida Constitution, particularly when lawmakers can simply craft bills and budgets to do the same thing. Lawmakers should take this idea and make it a priority in the next legislative session, not embed it in the Constitution."
Orlando Sentinel and South Florida Sun Sentinel Editorial Boards: "This amendment would allow the Legislature to keep flood prevention improvements from increasing tax assessments on private property. But it doesn’t limit the exempt value to what’s spent solely to keep water out. A seawall would be a straightforward application. But the amendment could conceivably allow someone to replace an old home on a lake with a more expensive one on stilts and claim that the entire additional value is exempt."

Florida Amendment 3, Additional Homestead Property Tax Exemption for Certain Public Service Workers Measure (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

Submit links to [email protected].

Opposition

Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board: "If approved, the measure is expected to sap local government revenues by about $86 million a year, growing to $96 million in 2026. And taxpayers across the state would have to backfill the losses (another $3 million annually) in Florida’s poorest counties, which currently make up nearly half of the 67 total counties in Florida. This is a messy, halfhearted and unfair way to assist this critical public workforce. There’s an easy way to help cops, firefighters, prison guards and teachers. We’ve said it before and will say it again: Pay these professionals what they’re worth."
Palm Beach Post Editorial Board: "This proposed amendment is another effort by the Legislature to insert a tax break provision into the Florida Constitution. It doesn't belong there, and the amendment would prove costly to local governments in lost tax revenue."
Orlando Sentinel and South Florida Sun Sentinel Editorial Boards: "Although arguably well-intended, it is misguided and inequitable. The core problem with Amendment Three is that the additional exemption of up to $50,000, on taxable value between $100,000 and $150,000, does nothing for people who rent rather than own homes. That describes many school teachers, firefighters, police and other public service workers whom Amendment Three purports to benefit."

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 released editorials concerning that measure, or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Georgia Referendum A, Timber Equipment Exempt from Property Taxes Measure (2022)

Idaho

See Idaho 2022 ballot measures for more information.

Illinois

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

Illinois Amendment 1, Right to Collective Bargaining Measure (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

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

Opposition

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

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board: "Public unions already dominate government in Illinois, and Democratic lawmakers now want to amend the constitution to entrench that power and block reforms. Those are the stakes of Amendment 1, which will appear on the November ballot."
The Chicago Tribune Editorial Board: "Simply put, the Illinois Constitution then would ban any right-to-work laws (not that Illinois actually has any such law), and employers would be able to require workers to pay dues to unions as a condition of employment — something unions generally like because it can otherwise be challenging to collect those dues. Individual workers would not be able to choose whether or not they wanted to be a dues-paying member of a union if one was bargaining for them at their workplace."
Daily Herald Editorial Board: "We recommend a "No" vote on Amendment 1 on the state's Nov. 8 ballots not as an argument against unions. They are a bedrock of our society and our economy. In Illinois, unions raise worker wages by an average of 11% and are credited in particular with helping to raise the middle class and thereby helping to reduce income inequality. We recommend a "No" vote on Amendment 1 because it is not needed and because unneeded Constitutional provisions unwisely tie the hands of the people's representatives and the representatives of future generations to deal with problems we may not even foresee today."
The News-Gazette Editorial Board: "This amendment is a masterpiece of obfuscation sailing under the banner of making Illinois a constitutionally-mandated non-right-to-work state. In other words, it’s a Trojan horse. One need not be a foe of unions or collective bargaining to have serious doubts as to the wisdom of this proposal. One can vigorously support the rights of employees — public or private — to work out their issues at the bargaining table without seeing this amendment as necessary to enhance their existing statutory rights."

Iowa

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

Iowa Amendment 1, Right to Keep and Bear Arms Amendment (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

Submit links to [email protected].

Opposition

Des Moines Register Editorial Board: "Iowans should not compound the problem created by the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no justification for undertaking a 'strict scrutiny' experiment here in Iowa. The case against this amendment stands even if it were not going before Iowa voters in the same year as gunmen slaughtered 19 children and two teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas; two young women in a church parking lot in Ames; or three campers, including a child, at Maquoketa Caves State Park. Amending the Iowa Constitution is usually about a four-year process. It isn't easy because the implications can be profound and difficult to reverse. This proposal is not beneficial, and its potential for catastrophic harm is considerable. Repeal could be well-nigh impossible. Changes to the Iowa Constitution should be careful. This idea is haphazard and harmful. Iowans should flip over their ballots and vote no."

Kansas

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

Kansas Constitutional Amendment 2, County Sheriff Election and Recall Amendment (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the measure. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

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

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at [email protected]

Opposition

Kansas No State Constitutional Right to Abortion and Legislative Power to Regulate Abortion Amendment (August 2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the initiative. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

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

Opposition

The Kansas City Star Editorial Board: "[Kansans will] decide if the Kansas Constitution will make women second-class citizens, with fewer rights than men. They’ll decide if a woman’s most intimate and personal health decisions should be handed to politicians. They’ll decide if Kansas policy will be dictated by theocrats and authoritarians, without regard to an individual’s personal beliefs, faith or morality. The voters’ answer to these questions must be no. We urge a no vote on the Kansas constitutional amendment."
The Lawrence Journal-World Editorial Board: "If you believe in a broad right to abortion, you have any number of reasons to vote against this amendment. But, if like many, you have concerns about certain types of abortion procedures, you may still have one reason to vote against this particular amendment and ask supporters to rewrite it. The reason is a simple one: Any amendment that doesn’t give a woman a constitutional right to end a pregnancy to save her own life does a poor job of 'valuing them both.'"

Kansas Constitutional Amendment 1, Legislative Veto or Suspension of Executive Agency Regulations Amendment (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the measure. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at [email protected]

Opposition

The Wichita Eagle Editorial Board: "The Kansas state Legislature is in full power-grab mode and completely out of control. And it’s up to voters to put a stop to it on Nov. 8 by voting a resounding 'No' on Ballot Question 1. Having tried and failed in August to establish a beachhead for dictating decisions by the state Supreme Court on abortions, the Legislature is back at it again, this time trying to steal the authority of the governor’s office and regulatory agencies."
The Kansas City Star Editorial Board: "No. This proposal would provide the Legislature with the tools to second-guess decisions made by any governor, enabling it to overturn orders and regulations with a simple majority vote. We strongly recommend a no vote. Handing a simple-majority legislative veto to state lawmakers disrupts the careful balance of authority among the branches of Kansas government."

Kentucky

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

Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 2, No Right to Abortion in Constitution Amendment (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at [email protected]

Opposition

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

Lexington Herald Leader Editorial Board: "However, if Amendment 2 passes, courts could no longer interpret the Kentucky Constitution as protecting abortion as part of privacy and bodily autonomy. It would put the General Assembly solely in charge of legislating our reproductive rights. The judiciary would essentially be knocked out of any decisions regarding abortion challenges in our courts. And because it would eviscerate privacy for one group of people, some legal experts believe the amendment could lead to the further erosion of privacy rights in the state, possibly affecting issues like access to birth control or rights for LGBTQ Kentuckians. There are many opinions about abortion, how much it should be restricted or allowed. But most reasonable people believe that even the most stringent abortion restrictions should have exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother, and that reproductive decisions should be between families and their doctors, not elected politicians."

Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1, Changes to Legislative Session End Dates and Special Sessions Measure (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at [email protected]

Opposition

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

Lexington Herald Leader Editorial Board: "It’s very clear how easily these new rules would allow the General Assembly to become full-time, with taxpayer-backed full-time salaries to match. This particular bill is a power grab by legislators piqued by a governor’s well-justified actions during a once in a lifetime pandemic. It’s also quite obvious that special sessions are only needed in extraordinary moments, such as the devastating floods that swept through Eastern Kentucky in July. The governor called a much-needed special session immediately; lawmakers met and voted to send $200 million in aid to the region. The system worked as it should. The General Assembly has frequently imposed its will on the executive branch, and will continue to do so in their regular sessions, where they have plenty of time to pass laws. Vote no on Amendment 1."

Louisiana

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

Louisiana Amendment 2, Property Tax Exemptions for Certain Disabled Veterans and Spouses Measure (2022)

Louisiana Amendment 3, Senate Confirmation for Appointees to State Police Commission Measure (December 2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not locate a campaign in opposition to the ballot measure.

Louisiana Amendment 2, Senate Confirmation for Appointees to State Civil Service Commission Measure (December 2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not locate a campaign in opposition to the ballot measure.

Louisiana Amendment 1, Citizen Requirement for Voting Measure (December 2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

The New Orleans Advocate Editorial Board: "We have long held that citizenship is a privilege for Americans but it is also something that we hope immigrants will embrace. Our country needs more immigrants, not fewer. A combination of legal language in the Louisiana Constitution and state law amounts to a clear policy that one must be a citizen to vote in our state’s elections. ... But if the amendment’s passage persuades even a few folks that our election process is more secure, perhaps that will be a positive outcome."

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not locate a campaign in opposition to the ballot measure.

Maryland

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

Maryland Question 3, Civil Jury Trials Amendment (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the measure. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at [email protected]

Opposition

Maryland Question 4, Marijuana Legalization Amendment (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the measure. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

Opposition

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at [email protected]

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 released editorials concerning that measure, or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Massachusetts Question 3, Changes to Alcohol Retail Licensing Initiative (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial board as taking positions on Question 3. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

The Boston Globe Editorial Board: "The chain stores beckon — so cheap and convenient. But spending too much money in a big box can feel like a betrayal of the small, mom-and-pop stores that give our neighborhoods life. Striking a balance is key to building a healthy economy and healthy communities. And Question 3 on the Massachusetts ballot is a good if imperfect step toward striking that balance in one sector, at least: alcohol sales. The Globe urges a yes vote on the measure. ... Overall, though, Question 3 is a good compromise. It gives chains like Trader Joe’s and BJ’s Wholesale Club and Total Wine a chance to sell beer and wine in more locations, in a win for consumers. But it wouldn’t blow up the caps altogether. And that means neighborhood package stores will still have a fighting chance."
The Berkshire Eagle Editorial Board: "Ballot Question 3 asks voters to approve lifting the cap on the number of liquor licenses that a single retailer can control in Massachusetts as well as several minor adjustments to the state’s alcohol sale laws. ... Since the Legislature has unfortunately left that responsibility to the voters once again, The Eagle endorses a yes vote on Question 3."
The Harvard Crimson Editorial Board: "If passed, Ballot Question Three could be a win for packies over big corporations (albeit one born out of compromise!) and those in favor of a more safe and more fun nightlife involving responsible alcohol consumption. Our state can do better than second-to-Utah; our local stores deserve protection and our consumers deserve the ability to buy low-grade alcohol at more locations. For those reasons, we urge voters to vote yes on Ballot Question Three."

Opposition

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at [email protected]

Massachusetts Question 1, Tax on Income Above $1 Million for Education and Transportation Amendment (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the measure. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

The Berkshire Eagle Editorial Board: "If it does, this will be serious step toward making the state tax system more equitable in a way that only impacts a very while generating revenue for public investment that our communities desperately need. That’s an opportunity Massachusetts voters shouldn’t pass up. The Eagle endorses a yes vote on Question 1."
The Harvard Crimson Editorial Board: "We find question one’s tax increases not only unobjectionable but blatantly beneficial — if not for a tiny handful of Beacon Hill high earners, for everyone around them who, through their consumption and labor, tacitly enables such exorbitant earnings. If a meager 4 percent rise in your marginal tax rate can increase your state-level tax bill by a figure equivalent to others’ annual income, odds are you should probably be taxed. ... On those grounds, out of solidarity with our entire state and the challenges our fellow residents face, we urge Massachusetts voters to vote yes on ballot question one."

Opposition

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at [email protected]

Massachusetts Question 4, Remove Proof of Citizenship or Immigration Status for Driver's License Applications Referendum (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the referendum. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

The Berkshire Eagle Editorial Board: "Everyone in our communities deserves the increased safety that comes with knowing more motorists on our roads are trained, licensed and able to be insured. And while Massachusetts is not the first state to pass such a law, ours is actually the strictest with regard to the documentation required to prove identity and residence in order to receive a license. We should keep it. The Eagle endorses a yes vote on Question 4."
The Harvard Crimson Editorial Board: "“Non-qualified” immigrants — including undocumented immigrants — generally cannot receive food stamps, sign up for Medicaid, or enjoy most other federal public benefit programs. Contrary to the narrative propagated by Fair and Safe Massachusetts, granting undocumented immigrants the legal right to drive constitutes a small, measured, and exceedingly practical improvement to this patchwork of restrictions. We cannot give in to fear unfounded in fact. On question four, that means voting yes."

Opposition

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at [email protected]

Michigan

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

Michigan Proposal 3, Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

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

The Michigan Daily Editorial Board: "This initiative is the subject of current debate, with an extremely widespread “No” campaign that claims the proposition is “confusing” and “extreme.” But what this Editorial Board finds even more “extreme” is the alternative to the approval of this initiative: a “No” vote on the proposition leaves those who depend on reproductive health care in Michigan in a dangerous situation, one where the draconian 1931 ban could be enforced. It is essential that we approve this ballot initiative in order to validate reproductive rights and protect the future of abortion in the state of Michigan. As such, the Editorial Board recommends a “Yes” vote on Proposal 3."
Michigan Chronicle Editorial Board: "The Michigan Chronicle Editorial Board emphatically endorses voting 'yes' on Michigan Proposal 3, the 'Reproduction Freedom for All' constitution-amending proposition, which will be on the November 8 General Election ballot. The Chronicle believes it is a “constitutional right” for women to have and exercise reproductive freedom and rights in Michigan. ... In addition, the passing of Proposal 3 with a majority of 'yes' votes will strike down and do away with the archaic and out-of-touch 1931 abortion ban that has threatened to become law again after the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) overturned Roe v Wade almost four months ago."
Detroit Free Press Editorial Board: "The U.S. Supreme Court reneged on a guarantee of bodily autonomy multiple generations of American women had taken for granted when it overturned its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, the decision that had recognized a constitutional right to abortion. Michigan voters have a chance to restore what was lost -- and protect women from the state Republican Party's ongoing campaign to criminalize their private health decisions -- by voting yes on Proposal 3. Besides unambiguously establishing a state constitutional right to choose abortion, Proposal 3 would prohibit state legislators and law enforcement authorities from restricting access to contraception, miscarriage care and treatment for infertility."

Opposition

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

Michigan Proposal 1, Legislative Term Limits and Financial Disclosure Amendment (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

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

The Michigan Daily Editorial Board: "The approval of Proposal 1 is essential in protecting the ethics of Michigan’s state politics. Placing additional term limits on officials and requiring that they be more open about their earnings creates a more democratic and honest system for Michigan citizens, leading this Editorial Board to endorse a “Yes” vote on Proposal 1."
Detroit Free Press Editorial Board: "This shouldn't have required a ballot initiative, of course. Legislators could have adopted the minimal ethical standards that prevail in nearly every other state decades ago with a simple majority vote. Instead, lawmakers whose primary objective is to secure more flexible term limits have offered this overdue financial disclosure requirement as an added inducement to voters. It's a offer Michiganders should accept, however cynical its inspiration. The opportunity to improve the quality of Michigan's legislative representation and provide voters with new tools for holding lawmakers accountable is ample justification to vote YES on Proposal 1."
The Detroit News Editorial Board: "Prop 1 wouldn’t get rid of term limits, as we have long advocated. Rather, it would reform the 1992 constitutional amendment to make it work better for Michigan, with the added benefit of finally bringing transparency to state government."
Michigan Chronicle Editorial Board: "The Editorial Board believes the passage of Proposal 1 will give legislative officeholders more longevity in either the Senate or House to better forward their agendas on behalf of serving and empowering constituents. The Editorial Board also believes that state lawmakers should be required to file annual financial disclosure reports because of the transparency it would provide to the citizens of Michigan."

Opposition

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at [email protected]

Michigan Proposal 2, Voting Policies in Constitution Amendment (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

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

Detroit Free Press Editorial Board: "But in a craven surrender to conspiracy theorists who continue to amplify baseless claims of widespread voter fraud, GOP lawmakers are poised to adopt a laundry list of election law changes designed to counteract the reforms voters adopted in 2018. ... The adoption of Proposal 2 would short-circuit that scheme by incorporating many of the election law reforms Secure MI Vote seeks to block in the state constitution, where they would be protected from the Republican legislative majority's efforts to weaken them."
Michigan Chronicle Editorial Board: "While the roles of lawmakers are essential for the good of the people, it has been well documented that since the 2020 Presidential Elections, many lawmakers – mostly Republicans – have attempted or passed laws across the country, including in Michigan, to make the voting experience more difficult and restrictive for Black and Brown voters. ... The Michigan Chronicle believes passing Proposal 2, with its provisions adopted into the Michigan Constitution, voting rights and election integrities will be significantly strengthened and protected."

Opposition

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

The Detroit News Editorial Board: "The question voters should ask: Do these measures really need to be implemented through a constitutional amendment that would be almost impossible to fix should one or more of them prove ineffective, irrelevant or even harmful in the future? In our view, the answer is no. All of them could be put in place through the regular lawmaking process, if needed. ... Placing such a large piece of election law off-limits to the legislative process will work against the ability to efficiently adapt to change."

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 released editorials concerning that measure, or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Missouri Constitutional Convention Question (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at [email protected]

Opposition

St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial Board: "As complex and often convoluted the Missouri Constitution might be, current political circumstances wouldn’t bode well for the outcome of a constitutional convention, which would have a tendency to attract wackos and weirdos at a time when the state already has a bumper crop of them. There is no groundswell of support for this question, which by law must appear on the ballot every 20 years."
St. Joseph News-Press Editorial Board: "If approved, a constitutional convention question would allow the governor to call delegates to propose revising or amending the Missouri Constitution. Thank you, but no. It’s hard to imagine this not making things worse."
The Kansas City Star Editorial Board: "An unbounded convention could wreak havoc on important parts of the state constitution, then present it to voters as an up-or-down proposal. The Missouri Constitution is a mess, but wholesale changes are too risky. Just vote no."

Missouri Amendment 4, Allow Legislature to Require a City to Increase Funding without State Reimbursement for a Police Force Established by State Board Amendment (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at [email protected]

Opposition

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

St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial Board: This largely Republican-backed measure is aimed specifically at the state-governed Kansas City Police Department. Although it is presented as a constitutional permission for the state to increase funding for that police force — and to formally block any defund-the-police movement — this measure could help solidify state control instead of restoring full local control.
The Kansas City Star Editorial Board: "It is beyond outrageous that legislators who live outside of the city think they can order Kansas Citians to spend tax money they may not wish to spend. This year, lawmakers raised the threshold for Kansas City police spending to 25% of local revenue, up from the current 20%. That is bad enough. But there is nothing in Amendment 4 that limits the increase in future years. State legislators could require Kansas Citians to spend 50%, or 90%, or all of their tax revenue on the police, without any recourse for local government. That could mean drastic cuts, or elimination, of virtually every other city function. No other Missouri city faces this kind of dictatorial overreach. No other American city has been so badly treated by lawmakers who live somewhere else. It’s the worst kind of colonialism, championed by extremists. If the amendment passes, the city should sue in federal court to strike it down. Missouri voters can spare that expense by soundly rejecting this worthless proposal."

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 released editorials concerning that measure, or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Montana C-48, Search Warrant for Electronic Data Amendment (2022)

Montana LR-131, Medical Care Requirements for Born-Alive Infants Measure (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the measure. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at [email protected]

Opposition

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 released editorials concerning that measure, or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Nevada Question 2, Minimum Wage Amendment (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

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

Las Vegas Sun Editorial Board: "Question 2 raises the minimum wage for all Nevadans from $10.50 to $12 and eliminates exceptions that allow some employers to pay less than minimum wage in certain circumstances. It also provides predictability for employers by setting the minimum wage to a fixed dollar amount without adjustments for cost of living or other external factors (except for the federal minimum wage). While costs for employers may increase slightly, this amendment brings the benefits of both stability and predictability to workers and employers alike."

Opposition

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

Nevada Question 3, Top-Five Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

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

Opposition

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal Editorial Board: "This scheme would eliminate party primaries. Instead, the top five vote getters in an open primary would advance to the November election. At that point, a complicated — and even radical — new election mechanism would kick in. Voters would then select their first choice and rank the remaining candidates. If no one receives 50 percent, the candidate with the lowest vote total is eliminated. Those who selected that candidate in the No. 1 spot would have their votes recalculated with the second choice moving up to the top. That continues until someone wins a majority. This format could delay the results for weeks, undermining confidence in elections. Voters who fail to list a full slate of candidates could be disenfranchised. There are many things Nevada needs, but a more confusing election system isn’t one of them."
Las Vegas Sun Editorial Board: "While we recognize the goals of reducing extremism and partisanship, we believe that open primaries and ranked-choice voting offer too many opportunities to further manipulate the primary system and create confusion — ultimately undermining the electoral process. We believe the goals of Question 3 might be appropriate at some point, especially if extremism continues to dominate major party politics. And we are interested to see how open primaries and ranked-choice voting work in other states that are experimenting with the idea. However, we are not yet ready to endorse Question 3, especially as a package asking two separate questions and with the current risks of election manipulation so high."

New Hampshire

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

New Hampshire Question 1, Abolish Office of Register of Probate Amendment (2022)

New Hampshire Constitutional Convention Question (2022)

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 released editorials concerning that measure, or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 3, Appointed Judge Elections Amendment (2022)

New Mexico Bond Question 2, Public Libraries Bond Issue (2022)

New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 1, Land Grant Permanent Fund Distribution for Early Childhood Education Amendment (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the initiative. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

Ballotpedia has not identified any media editorials in support of Constitutional Amendment 1.

Opposition

Albuquerque Journal Editorial Board: "New Mexico is already rolling in more new revenue — $2.5 billion at last count — thanks to high oil and gas production. Without the amendment the permanent fund is expected to distribute $952 million just to education in fiscal 2024 and more than $1 billion in 2025. And the state established an Early Childhood Education and Care Fund in 2020, with the original $300 million growing to an estimated $2 billion this summer and expected to hit $4 billion by 2025. Like the permanent fund, that growth is also courtesy of oil and gas and investments. Meanwhile, annual funding for early childhood programs has exploded from $179 million to $579 million over a 10-year period. ... But critics correctly point out increasing withdrawals would leave the state with smaller annual distributions over the long haul because of slowed growth in the fund. ... Voters should instead reject the constitutional amendment and vote no — for the sake of New Mexico’s children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and on and on."

New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 2, Authorizing Funds for Residential Services Infrastructure Amendment (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the initiative. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

Albuquerque Journal Editorial Board: "It’s past time to build high-speed internet infrastructure throughout the state for all New Mexicans to use. This amendment would add high-speed internet, energy, water and wastewater to the list of critical infrastructure projects the state can fund. None of these services is a luxury. They are necessities for all hardworking New Mexicans. ... We encourage voters across New Mexico to vote 'Yes' on Constitutional Amendment 2 on the back of your ballot."

Opposition

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at [email protected]

New Mexico Bond Question 1, Senior Citizens Facilities Bond Issue (2022)

New Mexico Bond Question 3, Public Education Bond Issue (2022)

New York

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

New York Proposal 1, Environmental Bond Measure (2022)

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 released editorials concerning that measure, or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Oregon Measure 113, Exclusion from Re-election for Legislative Absenteeism Initiative (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on Measure 113 Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

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

Yambill County's News-Register Editorial Board: "Discouraging use of legislative walkouts as a last resort exercise of minority opposition, without barring it outright, also seems reasonable. ... [A]n emphatic yes on 112 and 113."
Portland Tribune Editorial Board: "Yes ... We wish it wasn't necessary to change the constitution to ensure that elected officials do the job they were elected (and paid) to do. Ordinarily, we'd be inclined to say that voters, not the constitution, should be the safeguard against bad behavior. However, given the hyper-partisanship that is impacting state and national politics, the all-or-nothing political calculus will dominate any divisive issue. So, long, protracted walkouts will be a tempting tactic."
The Corvallis Advocate Editorial Board: "We’re voting 'Yes' on this, because we strongly believe that the people of Oregon have elected representation that can talk through their disagreements with the people on the other side of the aisle. As no small aside, both parties have conducted walkouts when they’ve found themselves in the minority, and we don’t care which party is in power, we’d like an end to this practice."
Eugene Weekly Editorial Board: "Measure 113, YES. ... Having a majority in the Oregon Legislature doesn’t mean a party has control. Oregon requires a quorum of legislators, meaning a simple majority of the elected politicians must be present to pass a vote. In the past, party members have walked out and not shown up. Coordinated Republican absences led the 2020 session to end with numerous unresolved issues. This measure means if legislators don’t show up, they don’t get to run for their office the next time."
Portland Mercury Editorial Board: "Measure 113 allows lawmakers to still use walkouts as a threat to legislative progress while still incentivizing collaboration across the aisle. We support Measure 113 as a technique to keep lawmakers doing the job we pay them to do, while still allowing them to wild out every so often. For accountability and maturity in the state legislature, vote for Measure 113."

Opposition

Oregon Measure 114, Changes to Firearm Ownership and Purchase Requirements Initiative (2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on Measure 114. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

Yambill County's News-Register Editorial Board: "Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have firearm permit-to-purchase laws on the books. The district joins nine states in banning high-capacity magazines. We view these as reasonable measures our state might impose in the interest of citizen safety, without unduly infringing on federal rights established in the Second Amendment. ... [A] measured yes on 114."
The Oregonian Editorial Board: "Oregonians can take a stand for stronger laws that protect both the right to bear arms and the safety of the public by voting yes on Measure 114. Developed and promoted by a coalition of faith leaders, gun owners, students, gun-safety advocates and others, the measure would help address gaps in Oregon’s background checks, boost a culture of safety and ban the sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines that allow mass shooters to cause widespread devastation. While no law can stop all gun violence, the comprehensive approach offered by Measure 114 provides a framework that Oregonians should support."
Eugene Weekly Editorial Board: "Measure 114, YES. ... Every time there’s a mass shooting there’s hand wringing and prayers — and so much mourning. This measure prohibits magazines with more than 10 rounds and requires obtaining a permit to buy a firearm — entailing fingerprints, photo ID, a background check and safety training. It’s not taking away the right to have a gun; it’s making gun ownership safer and more accountable."
Portland Mercury Editorial Board: "Measure 114 represents common sense changes to gun ownership in Oregon, that would limit spur-of-the-moment gun and large magazine purchases and eliminate dangerous policy loopholes. Vote yes on Measure 114."

Opposition

Portland Tribune Editorial Board: "Our recommendation is that Oregonians vote "no" on Measure 114 while the 9th Circuit sorts out the legalities on the topic of magazine limitations. When the dust settles, we'd like to see a measure return to the ballot that avoids an all-or-nothing approach to statewide firearm policy. Oregonians are likely ready for some changes to firearm policy, but Measure 114's approach is the wrong way to get there."
The Corvallis Advocate Editorial Board: "We’re voting 'No', but we would like to see a similar, but better envisioned and written, set of laws enacted in the future. We like the spirit of the measure, but there’s devils in the details that render it unwieldy."

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 released editorials concerning that measure, or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment D, Medicaid Expansion Initiative (2022)

South Dakota Initiated Measure 27, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2022)

Tennessee

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

Tennessee Constitutional Amendment 3, Remove Slavery as Punishment for Crime from Constitution Amendment (2022)

Tennessee Constitutional Amendment 1, Right-to-Work Amendment (2022)

Tennessee Constitutional Amendment 2, Acting Governor Amendment (2022)

Tennessee Constitutional Amendment 4, Remove Religious Minister Disqualification Amendment (2022)

Texas

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

Texas Proposition 1, Property Tax Limit Reduction for Elderly and Disabled Residents Amendment (May 2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on Proposition 1. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "Two constitutional amendments on the May 7 ballot are designed to take the financial bite out of rising school district property taxes. We recommend a yes vote on both amendments."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "The wording is a mess that only a lawyer could love. But this proposition would help senior citizens whose property taxes are frozen get in on recent and future school tax cuts. It’s a small amount, estimated at about $110 this year, but every little bit helps. Recommendation: Yes."
The San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "For: This proposition would lower property taxes for homeowners who are elderly or disabled, allowing them to receive the benefits other homeowners received under a 2019 law that reduced property taxes."
The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: For: "The measure will eliminate an unintended consequence of the Lege's last attempt to shoulder as little as possible of the burden for paying for schools while also lowering property taxes, by compressing the school district tax rate. Under the status quo, taxpayers over 65 or living with disabilities whose taxes are frozen would end up, at some point, paying more in school district property taxes than the median homeowner. Kudos where due to state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, who can also often be malign, for being proactive to get it fixed."

Opposition

Ballotpedia had not identified media editorial boards in opposition to the ballot measure.

Texas Proposition 2, Increased Homestead Exemption for School District Property Taxes Amendment (May 2022)

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on Proposition 2. Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "Two constitutional amendments on the May 7 ballot are designed to take the financial bite out of rising school district property taxes. We recommend a yes vote on both amendments."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "This proposal is also a modest effort to ease the blow of property taxes. It would increase the homestead exemption for school taxes from $25,000 to $40,000, meaning less of the value of a home would be taxed. Recommendation: Yes."
The San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "For: Proposition 2 would increase from $25,000 to $40,000 the residence homestead exemption from ad valorem taxes for public school purposes."

Opposition

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 released editorials concerning that measure, or Ballotpedia has not identified media editorial boards that have taken a position on this measure. Please email [email protected] if you know of editorials that are not listed.

Utah Constitutional Amendment A, Emergency Session Appropriation Limits Measure (2022)

Vermont

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

Vermont Proposal 2, Prohibit Slavery and Indentured Servitude Amendment (2022)

Vermont Proposal 5, Right to Personal Reproductive Autonomy Amendment (2022)

West Virginia

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

West Virginia Amendment 2, Authorize Tax Exemptions for Vehicles and Personal Property Used for Business Measure (2022)

Wyoming

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

Wyoming Constitutional Amendment B, Judicial Retirement Age Measure (2022)

Wyoming Constitutional Amendment A, Local Government Stock Investing Amendment (2022)

Footnotes