Defenders of Nebraska's ‘blue dot' come out in force against winner-take-all at hearing
A crowd of testifiers waits to speak to the Legislature's Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee Thursday about proposals to shift how the state awards its Electoral College votes. (Courtesy of Tom Becka)
LINCOLN — Nebraskans came out in big numbers Thursday to criticize — but mostly to defend — the state's unusual system of awarding Electoral College votes for president by congressional district.
State Sen. Rita Sanders of Bellevue, chair of the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, anticipated overflow crowds and made space for them in an adjacent room and hall.
But many would-be testifiers left before speaking, with some expressing frustration about long lines. Many of those who stayed represented political parties or civic groups.
Differences were palpable in the first public hearing on the issue without the urgency of 2024 election-related pressure from President Donald Trump or his campaign surrogates.
Chief among Thursday's differences was the makeup of testifiers: More people spoke this time in support of preserving the current district method of awarding electoral votes than testified against it.
Last year, Trump spoke with Nebraska state senators, as did local consultants helping his campaign. That was when both parties worried the Omaha area might break a national tie in the Electoral College.
Trump was still a factor this week, with fears of the president's displeasure motivating Gov. Jim Pillen before a possible 2026 GOP primary race with a top Trump donor, Charles Herbster.
Legislative Bill 3 by State Sen. Loren Lippincott of Central City would shift Nebraska to awarding all five of the state's electoral votes to the statewide winner of the presidential popular vote.
Nebraska and Maine, uniquely among states, award a single electoral vote to the winner of the presidential popular vote in each congressional district. The other 48 states award all electoral votes to the statewide winner, which is often called 'winner-take-all.'
Legislative Resolution 24CA, a proposed constitutional amendment from State Sen. Myron Dorn of Adams, would have voters consider a similar change.
Pillen's policy research director, Kenny Zoeller, testified in support of Lippincott's LB 3. He argued Nebraskans should move to winner-take-all and need to retain the flexibility to change again in the future, which Zoeller said a constitutional amendment like Dorn's LR 24CA wouldn't allow.
'The promised benefits of the current system have been exaggerated or just not met,' Zoeller said.
Most Republicans who spoke backed the Nebraska Republican Party's decades-long push to shift to winner-take-all.
Most Democrats backed the Nebraska Democratic Party's change from the 1990s under former Gov. Ben Nelson that split the state's electoral votes.
And some Nebraskans bucked party and geography, including Warren Phelps, chair of the Cheyenne County GOP who said he wants to keep the district system so rural Republicans in the 3rd Congressional District always have a voice.
He said the GOP majority in the officially nonpartisan Legislature should consider the changing demographics in the state and the population growth in the Omaha and Lincoln areas.
He said Republicans might one day appreciate having the district system if the state blues up over time. He said he and other rural Republicans do not 'want to be drowned out.'
'Competition makes everybody better,' Phelps said, adding that the GOP should compete for Omaha votes. 'It forces candidates to come up with ideas. Ideas that … help the whole country.'
Ron Cunningham, who described himself as a longtime Republican, argued that no Nebraskan should want other people's votes to count less and that the district system works.
'Republicans continue to talk about and promote unity and fairness, but they don't want those votes to count,' Cunningham said.
Michael Tiedeman, a Sarpy County Republican, said the state GOP wants the change to reduce the amount of outside spending on Nebraska elections, including the presidential race.
He said keeping the so-called 'blue dot' would lead to greater competition during redistricting to gerrymander the Omaha-based 2nd Congressional District that's been up for grabs.
He pointed to suburban, exurban and rural Washington County as an example of what could happen. That county has been in all three of the state's U.S. House districts in recent decades.
'This district was a political experiment that did not make sense in the 1990s, and it does not make sense in 2025,' Tiedeman said. 'Please get this bill out of committee.'
Jeanne Reigle, a former legislative candidate from Madison who is government relations director of the Nebraska GOP, said the outside spending concentrates more money and power in the east.
She said small rural communities and their needs too often get drowned out by the national and local focus on reporting from the up-for-grabs 2nd Congressional District.
'They're hurting,' Reigle said. 'They're dwindling. There are very few rural senators left. And very few left involved with agriculture.'
Liz Abel, who lives in 'blue dot' territory in Omaha, said she supports winner-take-all. The Republican said dividing Nebraska's electoral votes 'splinters our electorate' and adds to divisions between rural and urban Nebraska.
She also said she would like to receive less campaign mail from Democrats like former President Joe Biden or nonpartisans like former U.S. Senate candidate Dan Osborn. She said she hoped getting rid of the district system in ruby red Republican Nebraska might lead Democrats to spend their money elsewhere.
'I believe having a split vote diminishes our state's influence,' Abel said.
Preston Love Jr., a civil rights activist in North Omaha who ran for U.S. Senate as a Democrat, said the move by the majority feels to him and others like voter suppression.
He echoed statements from the campaign trail where he said black and brown Nebraskans already vote in lower numbers and getting rid of district-level electoral votes would depress turnout.
Democrats and Republicans split the past five presidential elections in the 2nd District, with Democrats winning the district in 2024, 2020 and 2008 and Republicans winning it in 2016 and 2012.
Republicans won statewide each time.
'Listen to a segment of your community, your state, a whole congressional district to let our votes count,' Love said. 'I think everyone in Congressional District 2 feels that way.
'Are you just ignoring us?'
Melina Arroyo, who said it was her first time speaking to a legislative committee, told senators Nebraska should not change what makes it stand apart in a good way from others.
She said voters benefit from the attention being paid to a state that in no other way would qualify as a swing state. Republicans outnumber Democrats more than 2 to 1, with nonpartisans growing.
She said the district system 'ensures that the voices of all Nebraskans are heard.' Arroyo argued that voters of every political persuasion feel more involved here.
'It shows that we value diversity and fairness in how votes are cast and counted,' she said.
Lippincott, a Republican, said he was encouraged to see the turnout, that it showed a government for the people. He argued that 'having winner-take-all is unifying.'
Dorn said he would support Lippincott's bill but that his proposed constitutional amendment should be treated as a fallback position in case LB 3 stalls.
State Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha, a Democrat, said there was nothing unifying about wanting to 'diminish the value of the votes of these people.'
The Government Committee still must vote on whether to move the measures to the legislative floor. That vote could come as early as Friday.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
11 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Defying Trump, National Portrait Gallery Director Kim Sajet is still at work
President Donald Trump's latest attempt to assert control over an elite American cultural institution has turned into a high-stakes Washington stand-off. In defiance of Trump's announcement last Friday that he was firing her, Kim Sajet — the director of the Smithsonian Institution's National Portrait Gallery — has continued to report for work, conducting meetings and handling other museum business as she did before, according to several people familiar with her activities who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel matter. Writing on Truth Social, Trump had declared he is firing Sajet because she 'is a highly partisan person' and because she is a 'strong supporter of DEI,' a reference to diversity, equity and inclusion. He said her replacement would be named shortly. Trump has not provided a legal reasoning to support his authority to fire Sajet. Two top congressional Democrats have asserted the president does not have legal authority for the firing. In a joint statement, House Administration Committee ranking Democrat Joe Morelle of New York and House Appropriations Committee ranking Democrat Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut said: 'President Trump has no authority to fire employees of the Smithsonian Institution — including the Director of the National Portrait Gallery. The dismissal of Director Sajet is unacceptable and has the same legal weight as the President's prior attempts to undermine the Smithsonian's independence: absolutely none. Should the White House require a copy of the Constitution, we would be more than happy to provide one.' Sajet's refusal to abide by Trump's decision sets up a test of the bounds of presidential authority over the Smithsonian, a sprawling complex of 21 museums, 14 education and research centers and the National Zoo. It is not a traditional government agency nor part of the executive branch, and hiring and firing decisions have historically been handled by the Smithsonian's secretary, rather than its Board of Regents. The Smithsonian's current secretary, Lonnie G. Bunch III, is widely expected to discuss the president's attempt to oust Sajet when regents meet next Monday. In an only-in-Washington twist, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. — who has been presented with major questions at the Supreme Court regarding the limits of presidential authority since Trump took office — is the chancellor of the Smithsonian and a member of its board. A Trump White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A Smithsonian spokesperson declined to comment. In February, Trump made another foray into American arts when he took over control of the Kennedy Center, dismissing his predecessor's appointees to its board, who then installed him as chairman and replaced the institution's director with a political ally with scant experience in the arts. The Smithsonian differs from the Kennedy Center because presidents don't appoint members to its board, which is composed of a mix of officials from all three branches of government and members of the public. But Trump is not without allies on the Smithsonian board, including Vice President JD Vance who, like Roberts, is an ex-officio member. Trump's move against Sajet follows an executive order he issued on March 27 titled 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,' which aims to 'restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness.' A 35-year-old special assistant and senior associate staff secretary, Lindsey Halligan, was among the order's architects — instigated, in part, by her early-2025 visit to the show 'The Shape of Power: Stories of Race and American Sculpture,' an exhibition at the Smithsonian American Art Museum, which shares a building with the Portrait Gallery. The order calls for Halligan and Vice President JD Vance to 'remove improper ideology' from the Smithsonian and 'prohibit expenditure on exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race.' 'President Trump's attempt to fire the National Portrait Gallery Director is outrageous and represents yet another disturbing example of his relentless effort to control American art and culture,' said Rep. Chellie Pingree (Maine), ranking Democrat of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, which oversees the Smithsonian, in a statement. 'Despite what the President may think, America's cultural institutions are not run by dictatorial impulses.' On Tuesday a White House official provided The Post a list of 17 instances in which, the White House argued, Sajet was critical of Trump or outspoken about her support for diversity, equity and inclusion. The list included her donations to Democratic politicians and advocacy groups; a social media post praising Anthony Fauci; the caption for the museum's presidential portrait of Trump mentioning his two impeachments and 'incitement of insurrection' for the events of Jan. 6, 2021; and numerous quotes from interviews in a variety of publications about her efforts to represent a broad swath of Americans within the gallery's walls. One item on the list was a quote in a 2019 USA Today story about Black artists demanding representation in American artistic institutions: 'We owe it to Americans to reflect them because we owe it to accurate history,' Sajet says. 'I'm not interested in only having a museum for some people.' The list additionally took issue with remarks Sajet has made in support of the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements, and criticism of Columbus Day and her rejection of one artist's 2016 portrait of Trump as 'too political.' It notes that Sajet has commissioned artworks about Mexican immigration and 'the complications of ancestral and racial history.' It was critical of her 2013 decision to use '50 percent of all money spent on art' to 'support diverse artists and portrait subjects.' Since its founding 179 years ago, the Smithsonian, which receives about 60 percent of its budget from federal appropriations and grants, has generally operated independently, although there have been several controversies in which museums have altered exhibitions in response to outside criticisms, including from politicians. Museum directors, such as Sajet — holders of some of the most prestigious positions in American arts — are not paid with federal funds, instead drawing their salaries from the Smithsonian's trust fund. Hours after Trump's post, Bunch told Smithsonian staff in an email obtained by The Washington Post that the White House also sent new details of proposed cuts to the institution's budget, slashing it by 12 percent and excluding funding for its Anacostia Community Museum and its forthcoming National Museum of the American Latino, Bunch said. On Saturday, at the Portrait Gallery and SAAM's joint family Pride celebration, a trio of visitors strolled the central courtyard in neon vests emblazoned with 'Hands off the arts' on the back — closely watched by a Smithsonian staff member, who hovered nearby. 'I'm outraged' by Sajet's firing, said Karen Nussbaum, 75, of Washington. 'There's a place for a political expression in art, but not political control of art.' 'I think the next step is controlling what artists think and do,' said Cynthia Cain, 60, of Washington, 'and that's not acceptable.' Sophia Nguyen and Janay Kingsberry contributed to this report.

Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
James Altucher: 'America Just Hit the AI Reset Button'
New briefing reveals how Trump and Musk are quietly building the most powerful artificial intelligence system in U.S. history — and why July 1 could mark a major turning point BALTIMORE, June 04, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- In a new briefing, tech entrepreneur and bestselling author James Altucher reveals a development he says will 'change America forever.' At the center of it is Project Colossus — a classified supercomputer initiative led by Elon Musk's xAI — and backed by sweeping support from President Donald Trump. A Presidential Reversal with Massive Implications Altucher says the shift began with one of Trump's first presidential actions in 2025. 'In one of his FIRST acts as President… Donald Trump overturned Executive Order #14110.' This decision reversed Biden-era restrictions on AI research, which Altucher claims had 'prevented us from unleashing its true power.' 'Trump also announced the LARGEST AI investment in history… Stargate… a massive, AI data center and infrastructure project.' Hidden Inside a Warehouse in Memphis Altucher's report reveals a facility in Tennessee that, until now, has gone largely unnoticed. 'Right here, inside this warehouse in Memphis, Tennessee… lies a massive supercomputer Musk calls 'Project Colossus.'' 'It contains not just one or two… but 200,000 units of Nvidia's all-powerful AI chips… making it the most advanced AI facility known to man.' 'The fastest supercomputer on the planet.' — Jensen Huang, Nvidia CEO July 1: 'When It All Changes' According to Altucher, time is short. A critical update to Colossus is imminent. 'That's when I predict Elon could announce a major update to this new AI project. One that some say will essentially 10X its power – overnight.' Altucher refers to this moment as a 'second wave' of AI — what he calls: 'Artificial Superintelligence.' 'This second wave… will rival all of the great innovations of the past. Electricity… the wheel… even the discovery of fire.' A Warning… and a Milestone Altucher closes his briefing with a quote from Vladimir Putin to stress the stakes: 'Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world.' — Vladimir Putin He believes Project Colossus may determine whether America leads — or falls behind — in the AI race. About James Altucher James Altucher is a computer scientist, entrepreneur, and bestselling author. A pioneer in AI since the 1980s, he previously worked on IBM's Deep Blue supercomputer and developed early AI trading systems on Wall Street. His latest research uncovers critical breakthroughs in AI infrastructure and the political forces accelerating its rise. Media Contact:Derek WarrenPublic Relations ManagerParadigm Press GroupEmail: dwarren@


Washington Post
15 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Bipartisan deals on voting and election changes are rare. It just happened in one swing state
LAS VEGAS — Facing a legislature dominated by Democrats, Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo stood before Nevada lawmakers earlier this year with a message that some did not expect to go far: 'Set aside partisan politics.' It was a plea that might have seemed more aspirational than realistic, given the country's deep polarization. Yet it set the stage for one of the session's most unexpected outcomes — a bipartisan agreement to bring voter ID requirements to the perennial battleground state by next year's midterm elections.