The Nebraska Supreme Court made a significant ruling on Wednesday that had major implications for the upcoming election. The court declared that Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen did not have the authority to declare unconstitutional a state law that restored the voting rights of individuals who have been convicted of a felony. This decision came after Evnen had ordered county election officials to reject voter registrations of those with felony convictions, citing an opinion by Attorney General Mike Hilgers.
Hilgers’ opinion, which Evnen had requested, deemed the law passed by the Legislature this year as unconstitutional. This law aimed to immediately restore the voting rights of individuals who had completed the terms of their felony sentences. Evnen’s order could have potentially disenfranchised over 7,000 Nebraska residents, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Many of these individuals reside in Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, where the race for president and Congress could be highly contested.
The 2nd District of Nebraska has been known to award electoral votes to Democratic presidential candidates, despite the state being predominantly red. In a close presidential race, a single electoral vote from this district could be pivotal in determining the outcome. Democratic nominee Kamala Harris and Democratic groups have heavily invested in campaigning in the district in hopes of securing this crucial electoral vote.
The deadline to register to vote for the 2024 general election in Nebraska is October 25, with in-person registration required at the voter’s county election commission office. Election Day is set for November 5. Hilgers’ opinion argued that the new law violated the state constitution’s separation of powers, stating that only the state Board of Pardons, controlled by the executive branch, could restore voting rights through pardons.
Pardons are rare in Nebraska, with the three-member Board of Pardons consisting of Evnen, Hilgers, and Governor Jim Pillen, all of whom are Republicans. The opinion also deemed a 2005 state law unconstitutional, which had restored voting rights to individuals with felony convictions two years after completing their sentences.
The ACLU, representing advocacy group Civic Nebraska and two Nebraska residents, one Republican and one independent, challenged Evnen’s directive in court. Given the proximity to the November election, the ACLU requested to take the lawsuit directly to the Nebraska Supreme Court, which was granted. The issue of restoring voting rights to former felons has garnered national attention in recent years, particularly in states like Florida where similar laws have faced challenges.
In Florida, lawmakers have attempted to weaken a 2018 voter-approved constitutional amendment aimed at restoring the voting rights of most convicted felons. The battle over voting rights for individuals with felony convictions continues to be a contentious issue across the country, with legal challenges and political debates shaping the landscape of elections.
The Nebraska Supreme Court’s ruling in this case underscores the importance of upholding voting rights and ensuring that all eligible individuals have the opportunity to participate in the democratic process. By striking down Evnen’s directive and affirming the constitutionality of the law restoring voting rights to former felons, the court has reaffirmed the principle of inclusivity and democracy in the electoral system. As the 2024 election approaches, the focus on voting rights and access to the ballot box remains a critical issue for policymakers, advocates, and voters across the nation.
