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."

By Kyla Russell for WISH-TV.
Broadcast version by Joe Ulery for Indiana News Service reporting for the WISH-TV-Free Press Indiana-Public News Service Collaboration

Indiana Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith said he supports efforts to redistrict Indiana's U.S. House seats, and he's seen what could be redrawn maps floating around, but has not seen any official maps.

He shared his thoughts on Friday in a one-on-one interview with I-Team 8.

"People want to scream about gerrymandering. Listen, every state does it. Democrats do it. Republicans do it. I think what Republicans have kind of fallen into the trap of doing for many years in the establishment way of thinking is if we just play nice, they'll play nice, if and when they're in power. We found out that that doesn't happen. So, listen, we've got the ball. We need to run the ball down the field, and we should do everything we can to make big wins for Republican principles, constitutional concepts and I believe ... the Republican Party embodies those principles better than the other party does. So, I'm fully in support of President Trump and his offensive-minded strategy here."

Beckwith told I-Team 8 he does not know exactly what happened on Thursday in a closed-door meeting at the Statehouse with Vice President JD Vance, Gov. Mike Braun and other top state lawmakers.

However, Beckwith said, he is aware of the taxpayer cost to calling a special session.

He says it's worth it.

"I think in the long run, if we can get the outcome that we're looking for, I think it will be certainly we're going to have to spend money. Yes, they are expensive. Nobody takes that lightly. That is certainly a conversation that needs to be had, and we need to look at that. But, I do think if we can take the 1st and 7th districts back, and really make Indiana a powerhouse red state, and then also give Washington a boost with a little bit more in the majority there. I think, economically, it will pay off in the long run, and I think we'll see our investment have big returns."/p<>


Kyla Russell wrote this article for WISH-TV.


get more stories like this via email

A public funding mechanism for Seattle elections is up for renewal in next week's election.

The Democracy Voucher program was passed 10 years ago. It offers voters four $25 vouchers to use each election cycle for candidates who accept certain fundraising and spending limits. Supporters said it is a model for more inclusive democracy, touting higher turnout, increased participation from more small donors and a more diverse candidate field.

Spencer Olson, spokesperson for the group People Powered Elections Seattle, which supports Proposition 1, said the program helps level the playing field.

"It's really important that people's voices are heard and that candidates can run being supported by their constituents," Olson contended. "Versus just listening to those wealthiest donors, those special interests that have historically been the loudest voices at the table and really dominated what priorities rise to the top."

The voucher is supported by a property tax. Olson and other supporters hope to bring the model statewide. Critics said the program is not big enough to make a difference in elections and has not curbed outside spending. Ballots are due by 8 p.m. Tuesday.

Olson pointed out the vouchers have succeeded in encouraging more diverse participation in local elections.

"The intention of the program was to bring a public financing program to Seattle elections to help empower more candidates -- more diverse candidates, women, renters, people of color -- to have equal access to be able to run, and run competitive elections without having to rely on wealthy donors, special interests," Olson emphasized.

Olson noted because the money comes from a dedicated tax levy, unused vouchers roll over to the next election.

"The goal isn't to create an unlimited pot of money but to be able to provide resources for candidates to run with the community's support," Olson stressed. "But it's not a blank check at the same time."


get more stories like this via email

Texas lawmakers will return to Austin on July 21 for a special legislative session called by Gov. Greg Abbott.

The 18 items on the agenda include redrawing congressional maps. Redistricting usually occurs every 10 years, following the census, but Abbott added the item to the agenda after the Department of Justice drew attention to four Democratic seats.

Christina Sanders, founder of the nonprofit PoliChic Engagement Fund, said Texas maps are already caught up in litigation.

"Some of the court cases that are still even pending from the maps that have not been drawn fairly and the potential impact of new maps in the middle of a census cycle," Sanders explained.

The Biden administration sued Texas, alleging the state's legislative and congressional district maps discriminate against Latino and Black voters. The Justice Department, under President Donald Trump, withdrew from the lawsuit earlier this year.

The seats targeted by the Justice Department are held by Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas, and Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas. They are also focused on the vacant seat previously held by late Congressman Sylvester Turner. Following the 2023 legislative session, Abbott called four special sessions to pass a school voucher bill, which failed.

Sanders feels Abbott is using special sessions to push personal agendas.

"A special session would be for something like the flood that just occurred," Sanders argued. "It would be something that there is an emergency -- something immediate needs to happen at this moment -- because this policy for the state cannot wait."

Flood warning systems and communication are also on the agenda, along with hemp and THC legislation and changes to the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness test.