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

Trump aides want Texas to redraw its congressional maps to boost the GOP. What would that mean?
Trump aides want Texas to redraw its congressional maps to boost the GOP. What would that mean?

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump aides want Texas to redraw its congressional maps to boost the GOP. What would that mean?

This coverage is made possible through Votebeat, a nonpartisan news organization covering local election administration and voting access. Sign up for Votebeat Texas' free newsletters here. Republicans representing Texas in Congress are considering this week whether to push their state Legislature to take the unusual step of redrawing district lines to shore up the GOP's advantage in the U.S. House. But the contours of the plan, including whether Gov. Greg Abbott would call a special session of the Legislature to redraw the maps, remain largely uncertain. The idea is being driven by President Donald Trump's political advisers, who want to draw up new maps that would give Republicans a better chance to flip seats currently held by Democrats, according to two GOP congressional aides familiar with the matter. That proposal, which would involve shifting GOP voters from safely red districts into neighboring blue ones, is aimed at safeguarding Republicans' thin majority in Congress, where they control the lower chamber, 220-212. The redistricting proposal, and the Trump team's role in pushing it, was first reported by The New York Times Monday. Without a Republican majority in Congress, Trump's legislative agenda would likely stall, and the president could face investigations from newly empowered Democratic committee chairs intent on scrutinizing the White House. Here's what we know about the plan so far: On Capitol Hill, members of the Texas GOP delegation huddled Monday night to discuss the prospect of reshaping their districts. Most of the 25-member group expressed reluctance about the idea, citing concerns about jeopardizing their districts in next year's midterms if the new maps overextended the GOP's advantage, according to the two GOP aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private deliberations. Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Lubbock, was skeptical of the idea. 'We just recently worked on the new maps,' Arrington told The Texas Tribune. To reopen the process, he said, 'there'd have to be a significant benefit to our state.' The delegation has yet to be presented with mockups of new maps, two aides said. Each state's political maps must be redrawn once a decade, after each round of the U.S. census, to account for population growth and ensure every congressional and legislative district has roughly the same number of people. Texas lawmakers last overhauled their district lines in 2021. There's no federal law that prohibits states from redrawing district maps midcycle, said Justin Levitt, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's civil rights division. Laws around the timing to redraw congressional and state district maps vary by state. In Texas, the state constitution doesn't specify timing, so the redrawing of maps is left to the discretion of the governor and the Legislature. Lawmakers gaveled out of their 140-day regular session last week, meaning they would need to be called back for a special session to change the state's political maps. Abbott has the sole authority to order overtime sessions and decide what lawmakers are allowed to consider. A trial is underway in El Paso in a long-running challenge to the state legislative and congressional district maps Texas drew after the 2020 U.S. Census. If Texas redraws its congressional maps, state officials would then ask the court to toss the claims challenging those districts 'that no longer exist,' Levitt said. The portion of the case over the state legislative district maps would continue. If the judge agrees, then both parties would have to file new legal claims for the updated maps. It isn't clear how much maps could change, but voters could find themselves in new districts, and Levitt said redrawing the lines in the middle of the redistricting cycle is a bad idea. 'If the people of Texas think that their representatives have done a bad job, then when the [district] lines change, they're not voting on those representatives anymore,' Levitt said. 'New people are voting on those representatives.' The National Democratic Redistricting Committee, Democrats' national arm for contesting state GOP mapmaking, said the proposal to expand Republicans' stronghold in Texas was 'yet another example of Trump trying to suppress votes in order to hold onto power.' 'Texas's congressional map is already being sued for violating the Voting Rights Act because it diminishes the voting power of the state's fast-growing Latino population,' John Bisognano, president of the NDRC said. 'To draw an even more extreme gerrymander would only assure that the barrage of legal challenges against Texas will continue.' When Republicans in charge of the Legislature redrew the district lines after the 2020 census, they focused on reinforcing their political support in districts already controlled by the GOP. This redistricting proposal would likely take a different approach. As things stand, Republicans hold 25 of the state's 38 congressional seats. Democrats hold 12 seats and are expected to regain control of Texas' one vacant seat in a special election this fall. Most of Texas' GOP-controlled districts lean heavily Republican: In last year's election, 24 of those 25 seats were carried by a Republican victor who received at least 60% of the vote or ran unopposed. The exception was U.S. Rep. Monica De La Cruz, R-Edinburg, who captured 57% of the vote and won by a comfortable 14-point margin. With little competition to speak of, The Times reported, Trump's political advisers believe at least some of those districts could bear the loss of GOP voters who would be reshuffled into neighboring, Democratic-held districts — giving Republican hopefuls a better chance to flip those seats from blue to red. The party in control of the White House frequently loses seats during midterm cycles, and Trump's team is likely looking to offset potential GOP losses in other states and improve the odds of holding on to a narrow House majority. Incumbent Republicans, though, don't love the idea of sacrificing a comfortable race in a safe district for the possibility of picking up a few seats, according to GOP aides. In 2003, after Texas Republicans initially left it up to the courts to draw new lines following the 2000 census, then-U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Sugar Land Republican, embarked instead on a bold course of action to consolidate GOP power in the state. He, along with his Republican allies, redrew the lines as the opening salvo to a multistate redistricting plan aimed at accumulating power for his party in states across the country. Enraged by the power play, Democrats fled the state, depriving the Texas House of the quorum it needed to function. The rebels eventually relented under threat of arrest, a rare power in the Texas Constitution used to compel absent members back to return to Austin when the Legislature is in session. The lines were then redrawn, cementing the GOP majority the delegation has enjoyed in Washington for the past two decades. However, what's at play this time is different than in the early 2000s, when Republicans had a newfound majority in the Legislature and had a number of vulnerable Democratic incumbents they could pick off. Now, Republicans have been entrenched in the majority for decades and will have to answer the question of whether there's really more to gain, said Kareem Crayton, the vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice's Washington office. 'That's the tradeoff. You can do that too much so that you actually make them so competitive that the other side wins,' Crayton said. 'That's always a danger.' Texas Republicans are planning to reconvene Thursday to continue discussing the plan, according to Rep. Beth Van Duyne, R-Irving, and Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Houston, who said they will attend the meeting. Members of Trump's political team are also expected to attend, according to Hunt and two GOP congressional aides familiar with the matter. Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. She's based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@ Disclosure: New York Times has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders appoints new head for Department of Human Services
Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders appoints new head for Department of Human Services

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders appoints new head for Department of Human Services

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – An announcement from Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Wednesday afternoon marked a change in leadership at the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS). The governor announced that Deputy Secretary Janet Mann will serve as the next DHS Secretary. Current DHS Secretary Kristi Putnam is returning to Kentucky and will depart her role on July 25, having served for two and a half years. Arkansas expands Child Care Assistance Program, adds two additional groups Sanders said Putnam had overhauled programs during her time as DHS head, including foster care, Medicaid, maternal health and food stamps, and that the state was fortunate to have Mann stepping into that role. 'My administration was extraordinarily lucky to have someone with her [Putnam's] skillset and leadership in charge of one of the most critical agencies in state government,' the governor said. 'I am grateful that we have someone as qualified as Janet to take over for Kristi and seamlessly continue to make positive changes at DHS.' Federal, state program helps Arkansans who had their SNAP benefits lost due to scam Sanders complimented Mann for her encyclopedic knowledge of DHS and her leadership skills. 'I am honored by Gov. Sanders' decision to select me for this role and am excited to continue the great work Kristi and I have been able to accomplish in this administration,' Mann said. 'We have made enormous progress in providing support to Arkansans who need it and also in working with other agencies for all Arkansans who want a path to economic independence.' Arkansas DHS changing Medicaid dental from managed care to fee-for-service Mann currently serves as the Deputy Secretary of Programs and State Medicaid Director for the DHS. The Program includes Medicaid, aging, substance abuse & mental health, developmental disabilities, provider services & quality assurance, eligibility, child welfare and youth services. The programs serve approximately one in three Arkansans annually, with a total budget of an estimated $11 billion. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

By the numbers: Here are the changes proposed to the food stamp program
By the numbers: Here are the changes proposed to the food stamp program

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

By the numbers: Here are the changes proposed to the food stamp program

The Brief More than 3 million people could be cut from food stamp assistance if President Trump's spending bill is approved. A little over 42 million people receive food stamps in the U.S., or one out of every eight people. President Donald Trump's big, beautiful spending bill could mean billions of dollars in cuts for food stamps. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. Those changes would likely cut 3.2 million people from the SNAP program, the Congressional Budget Office estimated. Here's what to know: RELATED: Senate Republicans plan to release revisions to Trump tax bill The backstory The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. Timeline The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law took effect eliminating a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. RELATED: Trump's actions in Los Angeles spark debate over deportation funds in spending bill By the numbers A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the country. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. The money can be spent on most groceries, but Trump's administration recently approved requests by six states — Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah — to exclude certain items, such as soda or candy. Big picture view Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion of federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come by shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come by expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. RELATED: Trump touts $1,000 'Trump accounts' for babies born in US Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. Dig deeper To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. Local perspective The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures likely would not serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. What's next The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The bill passed the House last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food aid and Medicaid, and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it. The Source This report includes information from The Associated Press.

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