logo
Pillen vetoes bill ending Nebraska lifetime SNAP ban for certain drug convictions

Pillen vetoes bill ending Nebraska lifetime SNAP ban for certain drug convictions

Yahoo15-05-2025

State Sen. Victor Rountree of Bellevue, center, talks with State Sens. Danielle Conrad and George Dungan, both of Lincoln. April 10, 2025. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)
LINCOLN — Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen late Wednesday vetoed a measure passed just hours earlier to end a lifetime ban preventing some Nebraskans from accessing SNAP benefits.
The veto of Legislative Bill 319, from State Sen. Victor Rountree of Bellevue, seeks to keep in place the status quo prohibiting anyone who has been convicted of selling or distributing a controlled substance from accessing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. People with three or more felonies for possessing or using a controlled substance also are ineligible.
The current law allows Nebraskans with one or two drug possession or use convictions to access SNAP if they have completed a licensed and accredited treatment program.
LB 319 would allow someone to access SNAP quicker if they have completed their sentence or are serving a term of parole, probation or post-release supervision.
Under Rountree's bill, a person with three or more felony convictions for felony drug possession or use could access SNAP only if they are participating in or have completed a licensed and accredited treatment program, unless a health care provider determines that substance abuse treatment is not needed.
Pillen said that would create 'loopholes' where 'habitual offenders' could evade treatment.
'Individuals that distribute or sell illicit drugs should not be entitled to taxpayer-funded benefits,' Pillen said in his one-page veto letter. 'Any illegal drug users should be required to complete treatment before they receive their third felony conviction.'
Versions of LB 319 have stalled in the past, the most recent led by State Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha. LB 319 passed 32-17, and Rountree said the veto wasn't a surprise. It takes 30 votes to override a veto, but senators sometimes fall to gubernatorial pressure on such motions.
Rountree, a pastor who serves on the Legislature's Judiciary Committee, said the bill is about forgiveness and restoration. He said food shouldn't be a 'bargaining chip' and that someone should be able to access food once they've served their time.
'SNAP is an opportunity for them to reenter, get back on their feet, and I don't believe that people want to stay on SNAP forever, as many times the story is written that way,' he said.
The bill was also supported by law enforcement, Rountree noted. He said helping Nebraskans with past felony drug convictions can restore their dignity and reduce bad interactions with law enforcement officials. At the bill's hearing, only the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services opposed the measure.
Rountree said the changes would also help maintain family integrity, noting that as a substitute teacher, he saw the power of food for young children.
Advocates, such as Derrick Martinez, who had previously been banned from SNAP, had urged Pillen to sign the bill just after its passage. In a statement, Martinez said LB 319 'shows that years of advocacy can actually pay off.'
'This moves the needle in a positive direction for not just me but for our state as it works to reduce recidivism,' Martinez said. 'This means less of a struggle, less anxiety, less pressure overall for myself and for others who have been banned from SNAP because of past convictions.'
Jasmine Harris, director of public policy and advocacy with RISE, a nonprofit focused on habilitative programming and reentry support, said the legislation would remove 'another unnecessary barrier to help people meet their basic needs after incarceration.'
Eric Savaiano, program manager for food and nutrition access at Nebraska Appleseed, said LB 319 also represented a 'huge win' for Nebraskans impacted by the 'failed' War on Drugs of the 1990s.
He said more than 1,000 Nebraskans would be able to 'better support themselves and their households with critical food assistance, helping them better meet their needs and not fall back into bad habits because of desperation.'
Rountree said the bill would let impacted Nebraskans know 'their life has value and meaning.'
Also Wednesday, lawmakers voted to modify a separate SNAP-related bill with an 'unfriendly amendment' that was resurrected after having been previously defeated.
The underlying LB 192, introduced by State Sen. Dan Quick of Grand Island, calls for an extension of current SNAP income eligibility levels, which otherwise would return in October to lower pre-pandemic eligibility levels.
State Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha made LB 192 his priority bill this session. DHHS, which administers the program, has estimated that more than 4,000 families could be disqualified for earning too much money if the older eligibility threshold is restored.
While the essence of LB 192 remained, State Sen. Bob Anderson of Sarpy County successfully revived an amendment that largely mirrors his LB 656, which would prohibit DHHS from seeking what he called 'blanket' waivers that make exceptions to SNAP work requirements, such as living in areas with high unemployment.
Andersen's amendment this time passed on a 28-8 vote — a contrast from the 22-14 vote that defeated it last month. It needed at least 25 votes.
The newly amended LB 192, on a voice vote, then moved back to final reading.
Quick, during debate, noted that Andersen's was an 'unfriendly' amendment. He opposed it and said if Andersen wanted to help 'strengthen' it, as Andersen said was his goal, he could have discussed it with Quick earlier.
Quick said the amendment 'puts barriers' in place for SNAP recipients who already comply with work requirements.
Andersen said his amendment still allows for six specific work exemptions, and is aimed at about 20,000 people who he said were able-bodied Nebraskans currently exempt from work and training requirements.
He said his amendment would get workers 'trained and employed.'
State Sen. George Dungan of Lincoln pointed out that the amendment at one point was estimated to cost $2.2 million in the first year and even more in the next. He said a new financial estimate reduced the cost to zero only because, instead of requiring DHHS to help find work for impacted SNAP recipients, it says the agency 'may' do so.
Cavanaugh objected to the amendment and said the 'permissive language' is 'another sleight of hand to put off the books, to unbalance our budget behind people's backs.'
State Sen. Tom Brandt of Plymouth said he was not opposed to strict work requirements but objected to Andersen's late change in the lawmaking process.
State Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair was a fan of the amendment, saying it could result in able-bodied people getting back to work sooner. As for additional costs, he said: 'If the resources aren't there, they (DHHS) are not going to do it.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Environment, social justice groups withdraw support for governor's key groundwater protection bill
Environment, social justice groups withdraw support for governor's key groundwater protection bill

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Environment, social justice groups withdraw support for governor's key groundwater protection bill

Gov. Tina Kotek on May 3, 2023 at the home of Ana Maria Rodriguez, a Boardman resident and Oregon Rural Action organizer, whose well water has nearly four times the safe drinking water limit for nitrate. Kotek was visiting with residents in Boardman, who are concerned that progress on the nitrate pollution in the Lower Umatilla Basin has been slow. (Alex Baumhardt/Oregon Capital Chronicle) Groups that helped champion one of Gov. Tina Kotek's key groundwater protection bills this session are withdrawing their support and asking the Legislature to let it die for now, following a last-minute amendment they say effectively neutralizes the intent of the legislation. Senate Bill 1154 as first proposed in February would provide long overdue updates to the state's Groundwater Quality Protection Act first passed in 1989, giving state agencies more authority to coordinate and to intervene early in Oregon's contaminated groundwater areas. Since 1989, three critical groundwater management areas have been identified in Oregon. They are all still considered to be in critical condition due to nitrate contamination, almost entirely from agricultural fertilizers and animal manure, and none have seen vast improvement in the last two to three decades. Groups heavily involved in addressing water contamination issues in northeast Oregon — including the nonprofits Oregon Rural Action, Center for Food Safety, Food & Water Watch of Oregon, Columbia Riverkeeper, and Friends of Family Farmers — consulted with Kotek's environmental advisers on the bill and offered testimony supporting it in recent months. But in advance of a public hearing and vote on Monday in the Senate Committee on Rules, the groups released a statement saying they could no longer support it. They wrote that a proposed 39-page amendment posted late Friday at the request of state Sen. Kayse Jama, D-Portland and committee chair, 'revealed the extent to which the Governor's office had allowed powerful industrial lobbies to influence the bill late in the session.' Lawmakers have to wrap up voting on all bills by June 29. At a news conference Monday Kotek said she was not aware of the proposed amendment. 'I think the bill is in good shape, and I know some folks would like it to be stronger, but I think it significantly strengthens what we do in the state, and I support the bill in its current state,' she said. Several environmental and social justice groups that have supported the bill continue to do so with the amendment, according to Anca Matica, a Kotek spokesperson. They include the Portland-based nonprofit Verde, Oregon Environmental Council and Beyond Toxics. The amendment strikes earlier provisions in the bill that would have required state agencies to provide regular reports to the Environmental Quality Commission, the governor and the Legislature in order to receive funding to execute their local voluntary implementation plan. It also strikes part of the original bill that would have allowed the state to modify existing permits for wastewater reuse and confined animal feed operations if doing so could curb pollution. One big change the amendment brings to the original bill, according to Kaleb Lay, policy director at Oregon Rural Action, is eliminating the requirement that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Oregon Water Resources Department work together to figure out whether new requests for groundwater permits, or requests for new uses of groundwater, might contribute to pollution. Representatives from the Oregon Farm Bureau and Water for Eastern Oregon, a nonprofit industry group representing northeast Oregon food processors and agricultural industries, said the amendment makes improvements to the bill, specifically ones that require third-party analysis of state hydrogeology and well-testing data. 'The bill has come a long way. And again, the problem is identified,' Oregon Farm Bureau Executive Director Greg Addington told lawmakers on the Senate Rules Committee. 'We want to avoid groundwater contamination. We can all understand that, and we can all get behind it.' Kristin Anderson Ostrom, executive director of Oregon Rural Action, said in the multi-group statement it would be better to abstain from voting on the bill now and to work on it for the next Legislative short session in 2026. 'Governor Kotek showed great initiative in putting this bill forward to learn the lessons of the LUBGWMA (Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area) in eastern Oregon, but this legislation doesn't go far enough to put those lessons into practice,' she wrote. 'Polluters continue to get whatever they want, while the communities directly impacted by pollution are denied what they need and have been asking for – to enforce the law and stop the Pollution.' The Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area, designated as critically impaired in 1990, has gotten worse under state supervision. A volunteer committee established in 1997 to tackle problems has had little to no impact. Thousands of residents in Morrow and Umatilla counties — mostly Latino and low-income — have been drinking from contaminated wells, which is dangerous because nitrates consumed over long periods can increase risks for cancer and birth defects. In September, Kotek and state agency officials released a comprehensive plan for curbing nitrate pollution in northeast Oregon that 'will take decades' to achieve. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Legislature meets deadline to pass $66 billion two-year budget
Legislature meets deadline to pass $66 billion two-year budget

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Legislature meets deadline to pass $66 billion two-year budget

Legislature meets deadline to pass $66 billion two-year budget originally appeared on Bring Me The News. Minnesota lawmakers reached agreements on a $66 billion budget for 2026-27 on Monday, passing a series of bills that were left unresolved during the regular session. A flurry of outstanding bills, some of which were hammered out behind closed doors in the weeks leading up to Monday's special session, passed in the House and the Senate, and in doing so avoided a state government shutdown that could have followed in July. The $66 billion pricetag for the budget contains a series of savings designed to reduce Minnesota's projected budget deficit, estimated at $6 billion by 2028-29, to $1.9 billion. While haste was required to pass the remaining bills before Tuesday morning's deadline, there were still lengthy debates about contentious issues, namely the proposal to remove MinnesotaCare access for undocumented immigrant adults, which narrowly passed on Monday evening. But this may not be the only special session of the year, with the Minnesota Reformer reporting that another one may be required later in 2025 as the federal funding cuts imposed by the Trump administration – including those to Medicaid and SNAP – are formalized. Here's a look at some of the bills that passed on Monday: – A $25.73 billion K-12 education bill that keeps schools funding stable during 2025-26 (a small, $4.2 million funding increase), but which also cuts $420 million in 2026-27. Session Daily reports this will include cuts to reimbursements for special education transportation, charter school aid, and teacher pipeline programs. – The repeal of MinnesotaCare access for undocumented immigrant adults, a GOP demand that sparked a significant amount of pushback from DFLers who believe it will strain emergency departments and discourage people from seeking care. – A $700 million bonding bill that includes funding for road, bridge, water and other infrastructure. The Star Tribune notes that $250 million of that will go towards roads and bridges. – A transportation bill that removed a controversial provision that would have shifted $93 million in sales tax income from the seven-county Twin Cities metro to the Metropolitan Council to pay for rapid bus transit. This had sparked objections from county council members, and was taken out of the final budget deal. The overall bill cut public transit funding by a combined $83 million, most of which impacts the Twin Cities. – Measures for data centers that will remove tax breaks on electricity for data center providers, with an exemption if they strike clean energy deals, and also introduce limits on water use. The bill also stipulates that utilities can't pass on data center costs to Minnesota consumers, and includes several measures designed to attract tech giants to build data centers in Minnesota, such as funding for weatherization and energy efficiency. – A higher education bill that provides just over $4 billion in funding for the Office of Higher Education, Minnesota State, University of Minnesota and the Mayo Clinic, per Session Daily. It also allocates an extra $44 million a year to fill a $239 million budget hole in the Minnesota State Grant program, which helps low-income Minnesotans with college fees. This story was originally reported by Bring Me The News on Jun 10, 2025, where it first appeared.

After pleas from Republicans, last-minute hearing scheduled for red flag initiative
After pleas from Republicans, last-minute hearing scheduled for red flag initiative

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

After pleas from Republicans, last-minute hearing scheduled for red flag initiative

Hundreds of supporters and opponents of gun safety reforms rallied at the Maine State House on Jan. 3, 2024. (Jim Neuger/ Maine Morning Star) After a push from Republican lawmakers, a public hearing for a red flag bill is scheduled for Wednesday. The Maine Legislature's Judiciary Committee will hold a public hearing for LD 1378, which was born out of a citizens initiative process, at 3 p.m. on Wednesday — one week before the Legislature is set to adjourn for the session. Red flag laws, formally known as extreme risk protection orders, are a mechanism to temporarily confiscate one's firearms if they are deemed to be a threat by law enforcement or their family members. Maine's current 'yellow flag law' allows law enforcement officials to take away guns from someone considered a safety risk to themselves or others after an evaluation from a mental health professional. For several weeks, Republicans have been questioning why a public hearing was never scheduled for the proposal, which is already set to appear on the November ballot for voters to decide on. In a late night Senate session last Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Trey Stewart (R-Aroostook) attempted four maneuvers to force a public hearing for the bill. He argued that they are obligated by state law to hold a hearing, but his attempts were unsuccessful at the time. Senate President Mattie Daughtry (D-Cumberland) said the Judiciary Committee still had possession of the bill, essentially saying it is up to the committee to decide what to do with it next. However, after another late Senate session Monday, the Judiciary Committee sent out a public hearing notice. 'The 'red flag' bill isn't a referendum to change the state flag,' said Assistant Senate Minority Leader Matt Harrington (R-York) after the meeting was announced. 'It is a proposal that infringes on one of our most protected rights.' The red flag proposal was brought about after the Maine Gun Safety Coalition collected more than 80,000 signatures in about two months in support of the initiative. Similar legislation was introduced last legislative session, but it died without a vote in the full Senate or House of Representatives. The Judiciary Committee held a public hearing in April 2024 for last session's proposal amid criticisms of the state's yellow flag law, which has faced scrutiny since an independent commission found that it should have been utilized to remove firearms from Robert Card II, who perpetrated the October 2023 mass shooting in Lewiston. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store