The American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging Nebraska's requirements for voter-led initiatives and referendums to qualify for a statewide ballot.

Currently, campaigns must collect signatures from at least 5% of voters in 38 of the state's 93 counties to qualify.

Daniel Gutman - a contract attorney for the ACLU of Nebraska - is leading the litigation. He said the requirement is unconstitutional because it dilutes the vote.

"Nebraska is a geographically diverse state," said Gutman. "And when you require 5% of the registered voters from 38 arbitrary counties, what you're doing is you're placing value and power on some people's vote over others."

Gutman noted that campaigns must collect 17,000 signatures in highly populated Douglas County, but the same campaign needs to collect just 17 signatures in Arthur County, with an estimated 337 registered voters.

Courts have struck down similar requirements in other states, who argued that geographical requirements were necessary to ensure that rural voters were not overpowered by urban populations.

Crista Eggers is a plaintiff in the case and leads a ballot campaign for Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana.

Her doctor told her that in order for her seven-year-old son to receive effective treatment for epilepsy, she would have to leave the state, or convince lawmakers to legalize medical cannabis. She said after an eight year struggle, she believes taking the issue to voters is the only way to change the law.

"But this is something that we're also fighting," said Eggers, "so that those who are fighting just as important issues in the future - that this is something that we take a look at - at whether this process is hindering and diluting the voice and the vote of Nebraska voters."

Gutman said there are other ways to ensure that rural and urban areas get an equal say on ballot measures. For example, other states require an equal number of qualified voter signatures from each of the state's equally populated federal Congressional districts.

"States do want input from people around the state in order to put an initiative or referendum on the ballot," said Gutman. "And that's not what we're challenging, actually; we don't necessarily disagree with that."

The nation still is dissecting revealing testimony from this week's committee hearing on the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. A top White House aide testified about former President Donald Trump's actions that day, most notably his desire to allow armed supporters at a rally before they stormed the complex.

One political expert acknowledged the latest developments might not move the needle in North Dakota but added voters should still be informed.

Mark Jendrysik, political science professor at the University of North Dakota, said it might not sway many voters in a conservative state, but he argued they should still be presented with details about how democracy was thrown into peril.

"Facts matter," Jendrysik contended. "People shouldn't be allowed to hide behind 'I don't remember' and 'That was a long time ago' or 'Why are you bringing up old stuff?' "

All members of North Dakota's Congressional delegation are Republican, and some have been critical of recent efforts to further examine last year's attack. Jendrysik noted it is not surprising given the polarization underscoring the fallout from the 2020 presidential election.

He suggests because of the magnitude of the attack, along with repeated false claims by some conservatives the election was stolen, voters and the media should not shy away from asking candidates in this year's vote about their views on the hearings.

"There is only one place to stand, and that is with the law and the Constitution," Jendrysik asserted. "You're not allowed to ignore things just because you think they're not going your way."

As for accountability, Jendrysik emphasized he does not think the hearings will result in criminal charges against former President Donald Trump. He believes "institutional fear" in Washington D.C. will be a factor as some decision-makers will try to avoid any further chaos.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.

A proposal to change the way Nevada votes is one step closer to getting on the November ballot after the State Supreme Court rejected a legal challenge.

The "Better Voting Nevada" campaign wants to end closed, partisan primaries where you can only vote for your registered party, and move to an open primary.

Sondra Cosgrove, professor of history at the College of Southern Nevada and a supporter of the "Better Voting Nevada" campaign, would like to change the state constitution to expand the number of candidates who move to the general election, to give more independent candidates a shot.

"We want to have more options," Cosgrove explained. "We don't want just two people moving forward from the primary to the general election. We want five people, because oftentimes when you look at the people who move forward, it's just the people with the most money."

The proposal would also institute ranked-choice voting in the general election. People would rank the candidates in order of preference, and if no one gets 51%, the lowest vote-getter falls off. Then, the second choice of their voters gets added to the total, and so on until someone has a majority.

The ballot measure is opposed by many of the state's top Democrats and by Silver State Voices, on the grounds it would be too confusing for voters.

Cosgrove argued the open-primary system would give candidates incentive to appeal to the widest range of voters, instead of producing far-right or far-left candidates who appeal to the extremes of their base.

"We're hoping ... the candidates will do the more moderate platform in the primary, and then just continue with that moderate platform as they move forward," Cosgrove emphasized.

The campaign turned in the last batch of signatures this week. Because the proposal would amend the state constitution, it would have to be approved by voters in two successive elections.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Washington state's primary election is coming up, and election officials are calling on voters to be vigilant about misinformation.

Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs said misinformation at election time has become more prevalent. He said local election officials are being more proactive and encourages people who have questions about the voting process to reach out to their local county auditor.

"We can't sit idly by anymore," said Hobbs. "We actually have to not only remind them to vote and sign their ballot, but also let them know what the ballot process is so it gives them the security and confidence to know their votes are going to count."

Washington state's primary is on August 2. Ballots will go out in mid-July.

Online and mail voter registrations must be received by July 25. People can register in person through election day, any time before 8 p.m.

Hobbs is participating in an online town hall meeting hosted by AARP Washington this Thursday to speak about voting and misinformation.

Doug Shadel is state director of AARP Washington. He said older Americans can be more likely to pass on misinformation in certain online contexts.

Shadel encouraged people to be more cognizant of the stories they're sharing.

"Before you do that, really do what we call lateral reading," said Shadel. "If you hear a story, question the validity of it. Find another source for that same information before you pass it on to someone else."

Shadel said voters age 50 and over are a vital segment of the electorate who show up to the polls consistently. That's why he believes it's important to get information on this subject out to them.

"Democracy depends on making decisions based on facts," said Shadel. "And we're committed to helping our members and others around the state get the facts both about the candidates and about where we stand with the elections."