Nebraska

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Another Red-Blue Divide: Money to Feed Kids in the Summer

      by

      The governor was firm: Nebraska would reject the new federal money for summer meals. The state already fed a small number of children when schools closed. He would not sign on to a program to provide all families that received free or cut-rate school meals with cards to buy groceries during the summer.“I don’t believe in welfare,” the governor, Jim Pillen, a Republican, said in December.A group of low-income youths, in a face-to-face meeting, urged him to reconsider. One told him she had eaten less when schools were out. Another criticized the meals at the existing feeding sites and held a crustless prepackaged sandwich to argue that electronic benefit cards from the new federal program would offer better food and more choice.“Sometimes money isn’t the solution,” the governor replied.A week later, Mr. Pillen made a U-turn the size of a Nebraska cornfield, approving the cards and praising the young people for speaking out.“This isn’t about me winning,” he said. “This is about coming to the conclusion of what is best for our kids.”After meeting with young people, Gov. Jim Pillen of Nebraska reversed himself and accepted federal money for summer meals.Kenneth Ferriera/Lincoln Journal Star, via Associated PressMr. Pillen’s extraordinary reversal shows the conflicts shaping red-state views of federal aid: needs beckon, but suspicions run high of the Biden administration and programs that critics call handouts.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Far-right podcaster prompts Nebraska move to change electoral system

      by

      The power of the far-right commentator Charlie Kirk was illustrated when his tweet prompted the governor of Nebraska to support a bill to change the state’s system for presidential elections in order to deny Democrats a single electoral vote that could decide the presidency later this year.“Nebraskans should call their legislators and their governor to demand their state stop pointlessly giving strength to their political enemies,” Kirk wrote.Jim Pillen acted soon after.Nebraska has five electoral college votes. Since 1991, it has split them. Two go to the candidate with most votes statewide, the others to the winners of three electoral districts. Though the state skews heavily Republican, it gave Democrats one electoral vote in 2008 and 2020.This year, Joe Biden could lose Arizona, Georgia and Nevada to Donald Trump but win the electoral college 270-268 if he won Nebraska’s second district again. All five Nebraska votes going to Trump would produce a 269-269 tie, throwing the election to the US House, where Republicans control more state delegations and would thus pick the winner.On Tuesday, Kirk posited that scenario and said: “Despite [Nebraska] being one of the most Republican states … thanks to this system, Omaha’s electoral vote leans blue … [and Biden is] likely to win it again this year.“California would never do this. New York would never do this. And as long as that’s the case, neither should we. This is completely fixable. Nebraska’s legislature can act to make sure their state’s electoral votes go towards electing the candidate the VAST majority of Nebraskans prefer.“There’s already a bill ready to go – LB764. All Nebraska has to do is put it up for a vote. As I write this, the Nebraska legislature is still in session … call @TeamPillen and let him know you want this fixed.”Kirk included a phone number. As noted by Semafor, a little over five hours later the Nebraska governor issued a statement “in response to a callout for his support”.“I am a strong supporter of Senator [Loren] Lippincott’s winner-takes-all bill and have been from the start,” Pillen said. “It would bring Nebraska into line with 48 of our fellow states, better reflect the founders’ intent, and ensure our state speaks with one unified voice in presidential elections.”The only other state to allow for split electoral college votes is Maine.Pillen said: “I call upon fellow Republicans in the legislature to pass this bill to my desk so I can sign it into law.”Not long after that, Donald Trump saluted what he called “a very smart letter”.The Nebraska legislative session ends this month. Democrats said they were ready to block attempts to pass LB764.“The Nebraska Democratic party is watching this bill closely and still believes we have the votes to stop the Republicans from removing a fair electoral system that represents voters,” Jane Kleeb, the Democratic state chair, told Semafor.“The only reason Governor Pillen sent a release today is the extremist Charlie Kirk sent a tweet that, of course, our governor jumped up to respond to.”Kirk, 30, is a co-founder of Turning Point USA, a youth-oriented fundraising juggernaut, and an influential rightwing podcaster. A dedicated controversialist, he recently made waves by claiming “birth control really screws up female brains”.On Wednesday, Kirk tweeted footage of pundits discussing his Nebraska gambit, writing: “MSNBC is panicking about Nebraska. BOOM!” More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Nebraska Republicans Renew Push for ‘Winner Take All’ Electoral System

      by

      A renewed push by Nebraska Republicans to move to a “winner-take-all” system in presidential elections has raised the prospect that the 2024 contest could end in an electoral college tie — with the House of Representatives deciding the winner.Nebraska and Maine are the only states that divide their electoral votes according to the presidential winners of congressional districts. In 2020, Joseph R. Biden Jr. won the eastern district around Omaha and its one vote. On Tuesday, Gov. Jim Pillen of Nebraska, a Republican, threw his support behind a G.O.P.-led bill languishing in the state’s unicameral legislature that would end the practice.“It would bring Nebraska in line with 48 of our fellow states, better reflect the founders’ intent, and ensure our state speaks with one unified voice in presidential elections,” Mr. Pillen wrote in a statement.The resurrection of the state bill was sparked this week by Charlie Kirk, the chief executive of Turning Point USA, a pro-Trump conservative advocacy group, who pressed the state legislature to move forward on social media.Former President Donald J. Trump quickly endorsed the governor’s “very smart letter” on his social media site.And for good reason. If Mr. Biden were to hold Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, but lose Georgia, Arizona, Nevada and the one Nebraska vote he took in 2020, the electoral college would be deadlocked at 269 votes each. The House would then decide the victor, not by total votes but by the votes of each state delegation. That would almost certainly give the election to Mr. Trump.But that Sun-Belt-sweep-plus-one scenario still might be out of reach. Democrats in the legislature expressed confidence on Tuesday that they could filibuster the measure, and the state legislative session is set to end on April 18.Conversely, Maine, where Democrats hold the governor’s office and a majority in the legislature, could change its system to take back the electoral vote that Mr. Trump won in 2020. Mr. Biden won Maine by nine percentage points, but Mr. Trump took a vote in the electoral college by winning the state’s rural second district. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Former congressman Jeff Fortenberry’s conviction reversed by appeals court

      by

      An appellate court on Tuesday reversed a 2022 federal conviction against former Nebraska congressman Jeff Fortenberry, ruling that the Republican should not have been tried in Los Angeles.Fortenberry was convicted in March 2022 on charges that he lied to federal authorities about an illegal $30,000 contribution to his campaign from a foreign billionaire at a 2016 Los Angeles fundraiser. He resigned his seat days later after pressure from congressional leaders and Nebraska’s Republican governor.In Tuesday’s ruling, the US court of appeals for the ninth circuit wrote that the trial venue of Los Angeles was improper because Fortenberry made the false statements during interviews with federal agents at his home in Lincoln, Nebraska, and in his lawyer’s office in Washington.“Fortenberry’s convictions are reversed so that he may be retried, if at all, in a proper venue,” the decision said.A federal jury in Los Angeles found the nine-term Republican guilty of concealing information and two counts of making false statements to authorities. He vowed to appeal from the courthouse steps.Fortenberry was charged after denying to the FBI that he was aware he had received illicit funds from Gilbert Chagoury, a Nigerian billionaire of Lebanese descent.At trial, prosecutors presented recorded phone conversations in which Fortenberry was repeatedly warned that the contributions came from Chagoury. The donations were funneled through three straw men at the 2016 fundraiser in Los Angeles.The case stemmed from an FBI investigation into $180,000 in illegal campaign contributions to four campaigns from Chagoury, who lived in Paris at the time. Chagoury admitted to the crime in 2019 and agreed to pay a $1.8m fine.It was the first trial of a sitting congressman since the Democratic representative Jim Traficant of Ohio was convicted of bribery and other felony charges in 2002.Fortenberry and his wife, Celeste Fortenberry, praised the court’s decision.“We are gratified by the ninth circuit’s decision,” Jeff Fortenberry said in a statement. “Celeste and I would like to thank everyone who has stood by us and supported us with their kindness and friendship.”Representatives from the US attorney’s office in Los Angeles did not have an immediate comment. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Fresh US abortion bans show Republicans trying to soften message

      by

      After repeated failed attempts to pass stricter bans, Republicans in some US states are changing their messaging, touting “common sense” abortion laws presented as more lenient than outright bans, but that are more restrictive than they seem when looked at in detail.Nebraska’s state legislature passed a 12-week ban on Friday, days after another 12-week ban cleared its final hurdle in North Carolina.Meanwhile, South Carolina’s senate will again weigh a six-week abortion ban that the legislature has repeatedly tried and failed to pass in previous weeks.In Nebraska, Republican lawmakers praised the ban as a compromise, but their Democratic colleagues did not see it that way. “This place is morally bankrupt,” said the Omaha state senator Machaela Cavanaugh. “I’m looking forward to 2025 when I no longer have to serve with many of you.” Cavanaugh filibustered for hundreds of hours in recent months in an attempt to stop the bill passed on Friday, an anti-trans measure to which the abortion ban was attached.Two weeks ago, a six-week ban was tanked in Nebraska, partly by one of its original co-sponsors – the Republican state senator Merve Riepe – who had come to think of it as too extreme, as many women do not yet realize they are pregnant at six weeks. Ahead of the earlier vote, which Riepe abstained from, he passed around a news article warning that abortion was hurting the Republican party, according to the Washington Post. Polling has consistently found that strong majorities of Americans oppose abortion bans.The Nebraska ban includes no exceptions for fetal anomalies or pregnancies incompatible with life and threatens doctors with jail time.Republicans in Nebraska’s technically non-partisan legislature (where each lawmaker nonetheless identifies either as Republican or Democrat) have painted the bill as a huge step down from the six-week ban.Nebraskans crowded the statehouse as the bill progressed on Wednesday, drowning out the lively debate on the house floor with angry chants and foot stomping. By the end of the night, lawmakers were forced to seek refuge, fleeing the capitol rotunda through a back tunnel flanked by police escorts in a bid to avoid angry protesters.With the legislative session about to end, lawmakers craftily advanced the ban by attaching it to a measure limiting gender-affirming care to transgender people.“You are willing to drive this state into the ground. You look ridiculous,” Cavanaugh, said on Wednesday, adding: “Women will die, children are dying, and you are responsible.”In North Carolina, the 12-week ban was passed on Wednesday, when Republican politicians overrode the Democratic governor’s veto. The fresh ban brings the current limit down from 20 weeks.Republicans described the bill as “pro-life plan, not an abortion ban”, as they passed it amid protestors chanting “shame” from inside the state legislature. But the bill will make it incredibly difficult to obtain an abortion in North Carolina, a state that has become somewhat of a safe haven for abortion in the increasingly restrictive Bible belt.Most notably, the bill limits the use of medication abortion – the most common US method of abortion – to 10 weeks of pregnancy, and requires three in-person visits to get pills or any other form of the procedure. Those restrictions will make it harder to get an abortion for those with uncompromising work schedules, those who can’t afford to pay for childcare and those traveling from out of state.Further worsening the effect of abortion bans on low-income people and women of color, it will also make people seeking abortions wait 72 hours between visits. It will require women to watch ultrasounds before they have an abortion, and to be warned about unfounded medical side-effects of abortion before having one.Strict licensing requirements written into the bill could also shutter a number of the state’s remaining 14 clinics, and oblige abortion providers to report details on people who have sought an abortion to the state department of health and human services.And in South Carolina on Wednesday, a six-week abortion ban finally progressed to the senate, after weeks of Republicans repeatedly trying and failing to move it forward. But even if it passes, it must be upheld by the state supreme court, which blocked a similar six-week ban earlier this year. (The composition of that supreme court has since changed – the judge who wrote the decision striking down the ban has been replaced by judge who GOP lawmakers hope will overturn it.) Meanwhile, Republican and Democratic women have repeatedly united in a filibuster to stop the bill from passing. They have said they plan to do so again.Some 900 amendments were affixed to the legislation – many by Democrats hoping to delay the passage of the bill. Some of those amendments included making the state liable for funeral costs of people who die after being denied an abortion, and making men liable for child support and the costs of half of all pregnancy expenses, starting from fertilization. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘I am a substantial roadblock’: a Nebraska state senator’s filibuster for trans rights

      by

      When state senator Machaela Cavanaugh set out to block every bill brought by the Nebraskan legislature this session, it was kind of an accident.She was so incensed by the advancement of LB 547, a bill looking to block gender-affirming healthcare for young people in Nebraska, she promised to hold up every single bill the legislature brought – including those she agreed with – unless her colleagues agreed to drop it.If the bill continued to progress, she told her colleagues, she would “burn the legislative session to the ground”.That was 23 February. Ten weeks later, Cavanaugh has spent some several hundred hours speaking on the house floor at length, delaying every single bill the senate tries to pass.Sometimes she has filibustered bills that she would really rather be passing, like one agreeing on state senator salaries – a mere $12,000 a year – which, if she agreed to it, would mean she could get paid. She has filibustered till her lungs became sore; taken naps on her office floor between filibustering; she’s filibustered so much she’s barely seen her family.“I imagine when session is over I will sleep a lot for several days. I’m so exhausted,” Cavanaugh told the Guardian in a phone interview, her voice hoarse.She added: “It wasn’t a deeply thought out plan, it was just the tool I have available to me.” Nebraska’s legislature is technically non-partisan, though each lawmaker identifies either as Republican or Democrat, and that swing is currently in favor of the Republicans, 32-17.“I’m in the minority party here – the only thing I have is time,” she explained. “We have a 90-day session and a limited amount of hours in which we can accomplish whatever we want to accomplish. And so I decided I was going to take control of that commodity. That’s what I’ve been doing ever since,” explains Cavanaugh.Originally, Cavanaugh wanted to force her colleagues’ hands. Would they rather get on with their jobs, passing the huge number of bills – usually more than 200 in one session – required to keep a healthy state moving forward? Or were her colleagues so dead set on passing LB 574 that they would fight over every other bill rather than drop it? So far, they have chosen the latter. But Cavanaugh has stuck to her crusade because she feels she has no other choice.“It targets a vulnerable minority population in such a vicious manner as to deny them access to lifesaving healthcare,” said Cavanaugh. “They are targeting children. I don’t view it as an option to do anything other than fight against it. That’s my job as an elected official,” she says.“I just wish my colleagues would come together and acknowledge this is bad for the state. But they’ve chosen legislating a hateful bill,” said Cavanaugh.One of the bills Cavanaugh has contributed to blocking in recent weeks was a six-week abortion ban in Nebraska.“I’m grateful it failed to move forward. It is a total ban, essentially,” she said, in reference to the fact that many people don’t realize they are pregnant at six weeks, just two weeks after their first missed period. Realizing this, the Republican co-sponsor of the six-week ban also withdrew support from his own bill last week, effectively tanking it – the bill ultimately failed to pass by one vote.Cavanaugh believes there is a marked similarity in the way that Republicans – who have brought 533 anti-trans bills since the 2023 legislative session started – target abortion and trans healthcare.“They talk about the actual healthcare and how horrible it is. They really villainize it. And right before they block access to lifesaving care to people, they say: ‘because children need to be protected’,” she said.“And just like that, you’ve eliminated health care for trans people in Nebraska, and you’ve essentially eliminated trans people’s ability to exist in Nebraska. It’s not about protecting anybody at all.”These arguments certainly sound reminiscent of those used in a huge, ongoing national case, that will decide the fate of a crucial drug used in more than half of abortions in the US.Plaintiffs bringing that case argue mifepristone – which is used in roughly 53% of US abortions – is hurting women and girls. As well as being the preferred method of US abortions, that drug is used in miscarriage care, and for lifesaving abortions. But an argument based on the vulnerability of women could be just the thing that drastically curtails access to the drug.What happens on LB 574 next is unknown. In April, Republicans in Omaha agreed to compromise on the bill, but since then, conversations seem to have broken down. No compromise amendment has been submitted; but Cavanaugh’s colleagues still have 17 days left to try to pass LB 574 if they choose to. It’s unclear if Republicans will have the votes to pass the bill if it is advanced.Cavanaugh and two of her closest allies in the battle against LB 574 – senators John Fredrickson and Megan Hunt – will continue to fight it, regardless.“I think everyone I work with would say that I am a substantial roadblock. They all are as frustrated with me as I am frustrated with all of it … It still has one more round of debate, and it could fail or pass. If it fails, I will stop talking. And if it passes, I will continue talking,” said Cavanaugh.Even if it does pass, Cavanaugh believes the bill won’t make it past an appeals court if challenged – because late last year, the eighth circuit court of appeals blocked an almost identical bill brought in Arkansas.“If this bill passes, it will be tragic for the trans community in Nebraska. It will be tragic for Nebraska writ large … And then it’s likely to be overturned in the courts. And so we will have done all of this harm and it won’t even get the result that they wanted,” she said.But she is looking forward to the session being over, and finally seeing her children and her partner. “I just want to do normal things that normal people do. Over the last 10 weeks, I’ve missed a lot,” she said. More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      States Push for New Voting Laws With an Eye Toward 2024

      by

      Republicans are focused on voter ID rules and making it harder to cast mail ballots, while Democrats are seeking to expand access through automatic voter registration.The tug of war over voting rights and rules is playing out with fresh urgency at the state level, as Republicans and Democrats fight to get new laws on the books before the 2024 presidential election.Republicans have pushed to tighten voting laws with renewed vigor since former President Donald J. Trump made baseless claims of fraud after losing the 2020 election, while Democrats coming off midterm successes are trying to channel their momentum to expand voting access and thwart efforts to undermine elections.States like Florida, Texas and Georgia, where Republicans control the levers of state government, have already passed sweeping voting restrictions that include criminal oversight initiatives, limits on drop boxes, new identification requirements and more.While President Biden and Democrats in Congress were unable to pass federal legislation last year that would protect voting access and restore elements of the landmark Voting Rights Act stripped away by the Supreme Court in 2013, not all reform efforts have floundered.In December, Congress updated the Electoral Count Act, closing a loophole that Mr. Trump’s supporters had sought to exploit to try to get Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 election results on the day of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.Now the focus has returned to the state level. Here are some of the key voting measures in play this year:Ohio Republicans approve new restrictions.Ohioans must now present a driver’s license, passport or other official photo ID to vote in person under a G.O.P. measure that was signed into law on Jan. 6 by Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican.The law also set tighter deadlines for voters to return mail-in ballots and provide missing information on them. Absentee ballot requests must be received earlier as well.Republicans, who control the Legislature in Ohio, contend that the new rules will bolster election integrity, yet they have acknowledged that the issue has not presented a problem in the state. Overall, voter fraud is exceedingly rare.Several voting rights groups were quick to file a federal lawsuit challenging the changes, which they said would disenfranchise Black people, younger and older voters, as well as those serving in the military and living abroad.Texas G.O.P. targets election crimes and ballot initiatives.Despite enacting sweeping restrictions on voting in 2021 that were condemned by civil rights groups and the Justice Department in several lawsuits, Republican lawmakers in Texas are seeking to push the envelope further.Politics Across the United StatesFrom the halls of government to the campaign trail, here’s a look at the political landscape in America.2023 Races: Governors’ contests in Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi and mayoral elections in Chicago and Philadelphia are among the races to watch this year.Democrats’ New Power: After winning trifectas in four state governments in the midterms, Democrats have a level of control in statehouses not seen since 2009.G.O.P. Debates: The Republican National Committee has asked several major TV networks to consider sponsoring debates, an intriguing show of détente toward the mainstream media and an early sign that the party is making plans for a contested 2024 presidential primary.An Important Election: The winner of a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in April will determine who holds a 4-to-3 majority in a critical presidential battleground state.Dozens of bills related to voting rules and election administration were filed for the legislative session that began this month. While many are from Democrats seeking to ease barriers to voting, Republicans control both chambers of the Texas Legislature and the governor’s office. It is not clear which bills will gain the necessary support to become laws.Some G.O.P. proposals focus on election crimes, including one that would authorize the secretary of state to designate an election marshal responsible for investigating potential election violations.“Similar bills have passed in Florida and in Georgia,” said Jasleen Singh, a counsel in the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “We should be concerned about whether this will happen in Texas as well.”Under another bill, a voter could request that the secretary of state review local election orders and language on ballot propositions and reject any that are found to be “misleading, inaccurate or prejudicial,” part of a push by Republicans in several states to make it harder to pass ballot measures after years of progressive victories.One proposal appears to target heavily populated, Democratic-controlled counties, giving the state attorney general the power to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate voter fraud allegations if local officials decline to do so. Another bill goes further, allowing the attorney general to seek an injunction against local prosecutors who don’t investigate claims of voter fraud and pursue civil penalties against them.A 19-year-old registering to vote in Minnesota, where Democrats introduced a bill that would allow applicants who are at least 16 years old to preregister to vote. Tim Gruber for The New York TimesDemocrats in Minnesota and Michigan go on offense.Democrats are seeking to harness their momentum from the midterm elections to expand voting access in Minnesota and Michigan, where they swept the governors’ races and legislative control.In Minnesota, the party introduced legislation in early January that would create an automatic voter registration system and allow applicants who are at least 16 years old to preregister to vote. The measure would also automatically restore the voting rights of convicted felons upon their release from prison and for those who do not receive prison time as part of a sentence.In Michigan, voters approved a constitutional amendment in November that creates a nine-day early voting period and requires the state to fund absentee ballot drop boxes. Top Democrats in the state are also weighing automatic voter registration and have discussed criminalizing election misinformation.Pennsylvania Republicans want to expand a voter ID law.Because of the veto power of the governor, an office the Democrats held in the November election, Republicans in Pennsylvania have resorted to trying to amend the state constitution in order to pass a voter ID bill.The complex amendment process, which ultimately requires putting the question to voters, is the subject of pending litigation.Both chambers of the Legislature need to pass the bill this session in order to place it on the ballot, but Democrats narrowly flipped control of the House in the midterms — and they will seek to bolster their majority with three special elections next month.“If the chips fall in a certain way, it is unlikely that this will move forward and it might quite possibly be dead,” said Susan Gobreski, a board member of the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania. “But it ain’t dead yet.”Gov. Josh Shapiro has indicated an openness to compromise with Republicans on some voting rules.“I’m certainly willing to have an honest conversation about voter I.D., as long as that is something that is not used as a hindrance to voting,” Mr. Shapiro said in an interview in December.First-time voters and those applying for absentee ballots are currently required to present identification in Pennsylvania, but Republicans want to expand the requirement to all voters in every election and have proposed issuing voter ID cards. Critics say the proposal would make it harder to vote and could compromise privacy.Mr. Shapiro has separately said he hoped that Republicans in the legislature would agree to change the state’s law that forbids the processing of absentee ballots and early votes before Election Day. The ballot procedures, which can drag out the counting, have been a flash point in a series of election lawsuits filed by Republicans.Georgia’s top election official, a Republican, calls to end runoff system.Early voting fell precipitously in Georgia’s nationally watched Senate runoff in December after Republicans, who control of state government, cut in half the number of days for casting ballots before Election Day.Long lines at some early-voting sites, especially in the Atlanta area, during the runoff led to complaints of voter suppression.But the G.O.P. lost the contest, after a set of runoff defeats a year earlier that gave Democrats control of the Senate.Now Brad Raffensperger, a Republican who is Georgia’s secretary of state and its top election official, wants to abandon the runoff system altogether, saying that the condensed timeline had put added strain on poll workers.Critics of ranked-choice voting cited the system as being instrumental to the re-election last year of Senator Lisa Murkowski, a centrist Republican.Ash Adams for The New York TimesRepublicans in Alaska want to undo some voting changes approved in 2020.After a special election last year and the midterms, when Alaska employed a novel election system for the first time, some conservatives reeling from losses at the polls have directed their ire at a common target: ranked-choice voting.At least three Republican lawmakers have introduced bills seeking to repeal some of the electoral changes that were narrowly approved by voters in 2020, which introduced a “top-four” open primary and ranked-choice voting in general elections. In addition to deciding winners based on the candidate who receives the most votes, the bills also seek to return to a closed primary system, in which only registered party members can participate.Supporters of the new system contend that it sets a higher bar to get elected than to simply earn a plurality of votes.But critics have called the format confusing. Some have blamed it for the defeat of Sarah Palin, the Republican former governor and 2008 vice-presidential nominee, in a special House election in August and again in November for the same office.They also cited the system as being instrumental to the re-election last year of Senator Lisa Murkowski, a centrist Republican who angered some members of her party when she voted to convict Mr. Trump at his impeachment trial after the Jan. 6 attack.Still, Republican foes of ranked-choice elections could face hurdles within their own party. According to The Anchorage Daily News, the incoming Senate president, a Republican, favors keeping the system in place.Nebraska Republicans aim to sharply curb mail voting.Nebraska does not require voters to provide a reason to vote early by mail, but two Republican state senators want to make wholesale changes that would mostly require in-person voting on Election Day.Under a bill proposed by Steve Halloran and Steve Erdman, G.O.P. senators in the unicameral legislature, only members of the U.S. military and residents of nursing homes and assisted living facilities could vote by mail.The measure would further require all ballots to be counted on Election Day, which would become a state holiday in Nebraska, along with the day of the statewide primary.The League of Women Voters of Nebraska opposes the bill and noted that 11 of the state’s 93 counties vote entirely by mail under a provision that gives officials in counties with under 10,000 people the option to do so.“This is an extreme bill and would be very unpopular,” MaryLee Mouton, the league’s president, said in an email. “When most states are moving to expand voting by mail, a bill to restrict vote by mail would negatively impact both our rural and urban communities.”In the November election, Nebraskans overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative that created a statewide photo ID requirement for voting.A Republican bill in Missouri would hunt for election fraud.In Missouri, where Republicans control the governor’s office and Legislature, one G.O.P. bill would create an Office of Election Crimes and Security. The office would report to the secretary of state and would be responsible for reviewing election fraud complaints and conducting investigations.Its investigators would also be authorized to enter poling places or offices of any election authority on Election Day, during absentee voting or the canvass of votes. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Ballot Measures in Swing States Could Have Sizable Impact on 2024 Voting

      by

      While the midterm elections in November will decide control of Congress and some governors’ offices, there are other far-reaching issues at stake. Among them: the fate of voter ID rules, early voting expansion and ranked-choice voting.Ballot measures on these issues will appear in several battleground states, where most of the attention has been on marquee races, with a blizzard of campaign ads dominating the airwaves.But the outcome of those measures could weigh significantly on the 2024 presidential election, as Republicans and Democrats haggle over the guardrails of voting.Here is a roundup of ballot measures facing voters across the United States:ArizonaUnder a ballot measure embraced by Republicans, voters would be required to present photo identification when casting ballots in person. If it passes, the state would no longer accept two nonphoto forms of identification — such as a motor vehicle registration and a utility bill — in place of a government-issued ID card or a passport.The measure, which has been criticized by Democrats and voting rights advocates, would also create new requirements for voting by mail. Voters would be required to write their birth date and either a state-issued identification number or the last four digits of their Social Security number on an early ballot affidavit.MichiganA proposed constitutional amendment would create a permanent nine-day period of early in-person voting at polling sites, as well as an expansion of existing options for voters to visit clerks’ offices and other local election offices to cast early ballots.The measure, which was backed by a voting rights coalition and survived a wording-related challenge, with the Michigan Supreme Court weighing in, would also allow voters who are unable to present ID at the polls to sign an affidavit attesting to their identity.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.The Final Stretch: With less than one month until Election Day, Republicans remain favored to take over the House, but momentum in the pitched battle for the Senate has seesawed back and forth.A Surprising Battleground: New York has emerged from a haywire redistricting cycle as perhaps the most consequential congressional battleground in the country. For Democrats, the uncertainty is particularly jarring.Arizona’s Governor’s Race: Democrats are openly expressing their alarm that Katie Hobbs, the party’s nominee for governor in the state, is fumbling a chance to defeat Kari Lake in one of the most closely watched races.Herschel Walker: The Republican Senate nominee in Georgia reportedly paid for an ex-girlfriend’s abortion, but members of his party have learned to tolerate his behavior.Michigan would also be required to pay for drop boxes and return postage for absentee ballots, in addition to mail expenses associated with applications.To prevent partisan groups from subverting election results, as supporters of former President Donald J. Trump tried to do in 2020 in Michigan when they put forward a slate of fake electors, canvassing boards in the state would be required to certify results based only on the official record of votes cast.NevadaNevada voters will decide whether to adopt ranked-choice voting for the general election and to overhaul the state’s primary system.Under a proposed constitutional amendment, primaries for statewide and federal offices, but not for president, would be open to all voters, with the top five vote-getters advancing to the general election. The law currently stipulates that voters must be registered as Democrats or Republicans in order to participate in their parties’ primariesIf approved in November, the measure would be placed on the ballot again in 2024 for voters to decide. The earliest that the changes could take effect would be in 2025.In a ranked-choice system during the general election, voters list candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority, officials would eliminate the last-place finisher and reallocate his or her supporters’ votes to their second choices until one candidate has at least 50 percent of the votes.Alaska recently adopted ranked-choice voting, and some Republicans blamed that system for the defeat of Sarah Palin, a former governor and the 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee, in a special House election in August.New York, Maine and Utah also have some form of ranked-choice voting, as do dozens of American cities.OhioCities and towns in Ohio would be barred from allowing non-U.S. citizens to vote in state and local elections under a constitutional amendment that seeks to rein in the home rule authority of municipalities.Opponents contend that federal law already bars noncitizens from voting in federal elections. But the measure’s supporters say that an explicit prohibition is needed at the state level, despite instances of voter fraud proving to be rare.The issue arose after voters in Yellow Springs, Ohio, a small village east of Dayton, voted in 2019 to allow noncitizens to vote for local offices. None have registered since then, though, according to The Columbus Dispatch.NebraskaEmulating other red states, Nebraska could require voters to present photo ID at the polls under a constitutional amendment supported by Gov. Pete Ricketts, a term-limited Republican who is leaving office in January. Critics say the rule change would disenfranchise voters.ConnecticutConnecticut is one of a handful of states that do not offer early in-person voting, but a proposed constitutional amendment could change that.The measure directs the Legislature to create a mechanism for early voting, which would be separate from accepting absentee ballots before Election Day. The timing and details would be decided by lawmakers, who could enact the changes by the 2024 election. More