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."

An Arizona election official shared his concerns at a recent national conference about threats to safe and fair elections.

Multiple experts at the University of California-Los Angeles School of Law event said they are worried about democracy as the next presidential election approaches. The conference topic was, "Can American Democracy Survive the 2024 Elections?"

Stephen Richer, county recorder for Maricopa County, a Republican who took office after the 2020 election, said he fears election denialism has become integral to the Arizona GOP, and the state has become "the global hot spot" for conspiracy theories.

Richer argued it has created what he calls an "incentive structure" for politicians to simply go along with.

"I am deeply, deeply pessimistic, because this is a necessary ingredient for winning a Republican primary in the state of Arizona is to say that the 2020 election, and now the 2022 election, were 'stolen' in order to win a Republican primary," Richer explained.

Richer shared some voicemail messages with the crowd, in which election deniers threaten him and his office for alleging election tampering.

Richer pointed out it is not helpful when election administrators have to deal with what he calls "a group of partisan warriors," with no election expertise, peddling false claims. But he noted one positive aspect to come from the election denialist movement is the general public has become more informed about the postelection procedures in Arizona, meant to verify election integrity.

"People became more aware of the postelection audits that are in fact done, because Arizona has long done postelection audits," Richer emphasized.

Speakers at the conference agreed misinformation is one of the root causes of the problems the nation is facing. They also called on the federal government to invest in, and enact more, legal and administrative protections for election workers.


get more stories like this via email

Voting rights advocates in Massachusetts are applauding Governor Maura Healey's budgetary backing of new policies stemming from last year's passage of the VOTES Act. The law expands early voting options and allows all voters to cast their ballot by mail for any reason, but some municipalities are struggling to handle the expansion of mail-in voting for local springtime elections, citing a lack of personnel.

Common Cause of Massachusetts Executive Director Geoff Foster said timing of the governor's funding could not be better.

"Lack of resources or staff hopefully shouldn't be the reason why municipalities are opting out of what's a really valuable expansion to our voting laws," he said.

Healy has dedicated $5 million for grants to cities and towns to more easily manage ballot requests. 37% of Massachusetts voters cast their ballots by mail in last year's midterm elections.

Registered voters will now receive a letter in the mail each year offering the chance to opt in to mail-in voting, which can also be done online. Foster said the policy aims to improve turnout among those who may struggle with child care, work multiple jobs or those with physical challenges.

"To be able to bring democracy literally home to your kitchen table potentially to fill out a mail ballot at home at a time that that works for you, I mean that's just a win all around for our democracy," Foster said.

There is still work to be done, Foster said. The VOTES Act changed the cut-off date for voter registration from twenty days prior to an election to ten days, but voting advocates say they will continue to push for same-day voter registration. With some 150 bills meant to restrict voter access already introduced nationwide this year, voting advocates say Massachusetts is on the right track.


get more stories like this via email

Texas' GOP-dominated legislature is considering bills to flip the script on powers traditionally afforded home-rule cities, instead forcing them to abide by state regulations. Two bills have been introduced this session to curb local laws governing safety, the environment and discrimination.

Rick Levy, president of the AFL-CIO Texas branch, said the proposed legislation is extremely far-reaching, and would force the hand of cities across the state.

"Under the current system, home-rule cities have the ability to do anything they're not prohibited from doing. This would make them basically seek permission from the state to do anything," he said.

The Republican bill sponsors say regulatory powers should be returned to the state so small businesses can operate under consistent regulations. Unions represented by the AFL-CIO and other labor groups say the proposals could undo hard-fought measures to protect workers.

As written, Levy said the bills also would affect non-discrimination ordinances - including those that cover gay, lesbian and trans people.

"To the extent that those differ at all from state law, or federal law, in terms of the clarity of their protections for lesbian and gay folks or anything that goes beyond that would be immediately pre-empted - so it's a pretty draconian effort," he said.

After Alaska, Texas is the second largest state geographically and Levy said he has always been impressed that lawmakers come together to represent such diverse interests. He does not believe they should dictate what elected officials in various cities are allowed to do.

"And just to kind of impose the will of a very small sector of the population on every community in the state - in their zeal to crush any kind of dissent or any kind of diversity they're really stepping on what it means to be Texan," he said.

The proposed legislation comes after Austin, known for its progressive policies, lost the ability to enforce a ban on plastic bags after it was challenged and the Texas Supreme Court ruled it violated state law.