The State Editorial Board did not make a presidential endorsement. Here’s why. | Opinion

When all is said and done, millions of South Carolinians will have voted in the Nov. 5 election. More than 1 million have already, many after waiting in long lines to cast their ballots at early voting centers statewide. Voting may be the most precious and personal of American acts.

It’s also one of the hardest. There are a ton of candidates and campaigns to research, too much material to sort through, too many conflicting claims to weigh. That’s why I convene a South Carolina editorial board each election at The State, The Island Packet and The Beaufort Gazette, and The Sun News. In recent weeks, we published 60 full candidate Q&As, competing commentaries on sales tax hikes in Richland and Beaufort counties and 30 recommendations on races from sheriff and school board to Statehouse and Congress. We shared all of this research and information with our readers in hopes that you would consider whom we endorsed and why.

This year, we endorsed in all seven congressional elections, four competitive General Assembly races, school board races in four Midlands area districts, the Richland County sheriff’s race and two Beaufort County Council races and made recommendations on two 1% sales tax increases.

One obvious omission is the presidential election. I considered a presidential endorsement, discussed it with our editorial board, even told readers of our “From the Newsroom” newsletter three weeks ago that we would publish one on Oct. 27. In the end, I wrote a piece explaining why Donald Trump is so dangerous that could have run as an endorsement under the aegis of The State Editorial Board or as a column under my byline, and I chose to publish it as a column.

I’ll let the column speak for itself. I think it is clear, and pointed, and any questions or feedback about it can be addressed to me at mhall@thestate.com, just as any questions or feedback about our endorsements or lack thereof in any race should be sent my way.

As McClatchy’s South Carolina opinion editor, I ultimately made the decision to own any criticism and not to publish an endorsement that would speak for our entire board and institution. To me, this was about making a crucial and complicated point in this moment and this market about the damage Trump has done to his country and his party. It was about the art of persuasion and not anticipatory obedience. Then, decisions by owners of the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post not to publish presidential endorsements drew headlines and outrage and kicked off a broader, nationwide conversation about journalism and democracy.

Even without that flashpoint, I would have explained my thought process about our endorsements in this column in the closing days of the election. That’s because I’ve always approached opinion journalism the same way, trying to make the clearest points in the strongest way while sharing with readers the values and research underpinning the work.

It will surprise few people in this ruby red Southern state to read that The State Editorial Board endorsed Jimmy Carter in 1976, Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, George H.W. Bush in 1988 and 1992, Bob Dole in 1996, George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 and John McCain in 2008.

But our archives also record that The State Editorial Board did not endorse a presidential candidate in 2012 while making just 10 endorsements, endorsed Hillary Clinton and only two other candidates in 2016 and endorsed seven people but no presidential candidate in 2020. This, then, will be the third time in the last four presidential elections without a presidential endorsement here — and the most endorsements we’ve published in recent memory, by far, with 30.

Reflecting on all this, I ultimately figured a column highlighting the problems with Trump might most resonate with South Carolinians open to criticism of a troubling candidate so many people support in a race with so few undecided voters. I still don’t think a different label atop my piece or a different argument against Trump or for Kamala Harris would have informed or influenced readers more.

This approach also respects our readers. The reality is general election presidential endorsements don’t carry the weight they once did, especially at smaller outlets like ours where no presidential candidate has sat down for an editorial board interview in years and where increased polarization and growing skepticism of the media jeopardize our journalism.

Editorial board endorsements, however, do still inform and influence people about state, county and local races because we can interview candidates and share new insights about them. I’ve heard from readers and candidates alike that they appreciate our approach on endorsements. I’ve also heard from others that we got this or that endorsement wrong or shouldn’t endorse anyone at all.

I believe it would be wrong to learn all we did about candidates and issues — and have long, detailed, sometimes difficult conversations about them among ourselves — and not share what we know and think with readers and allow you to consider that information as you choose.

Our work is there if you want it, but it’s your vote. Please read our full interviews and recommendations, email me about any, and exercise your right to vote.

Elections have consequences. This one, perhaps, more than most.

Send me 250-word letters to the editor here, 650-word guest essays here and email here. Say hi on X anytime.

Matthew T. Hall

Opinion Contributor,

The State

Matthew T. Hall is a former journalist for The State