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

Opinion - Nationwide injunctions are un-American — the Supreme Court must halt them now
Opinion - Nationwide injunctions are un-American — the Supreme Court must halt them now

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - Nationwide injunctions are un-American — the Supreme Court must halt them now

Seventy-seven million Americans elected Donald Trump last November. They elected him to make us safer, to restore law and order, and to return common sense to our country. Since his inauguration, President Trump has carried out his promises to the American people, issuing executive orders on a range of policy objectives. That's how it should work in our country — the people choose the president and the president directs the executive branch to enact his agenda. In the opening months of the second Trump administration, however, we've seen a new resistance to Trump's policies. This resistance is anti-democratic and contrary to the rule of law. And it's coming from within the federal judiciary. Since Trump took office, federal district court judges have issued more than 40 nationwide injunctions blocking his agenda. That's on top of 64 issued during his first term, representing a majority of all the nationwide injunctions ever issued in American history. Often filed by liberal activists before sympathetic judges in carefully selected jurisdictions, a nationwide injunction enjoins conduct across the entire country. In this way, it departs from the proper role of a court in adjudicating a particularized dispute between clearly identified parties. Nationwide injunctions have no basis in American legal traditions or English common law. They violate principles of judicial restraint. And their increased use has serious consequences for constitutional order. The Constitution limits judicial power to only those 'cases' and 'controversies' before the courts. That makes sense. Judges shouldn't be issuing decisions that constrain people who never even set foot in the courtroom. But with a nationwide injunction, one federal judge can block a policy affecting millions, creating a judicial policy veto that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Beyond these clear constitutional problems, nationwide injunctions hurt the uniform and efficient administration of justice. These injunctions, especially when issued as temporary restraining orders, don't allow for thorough fact-finding, meaning appellate courts wind up reviewing an incomplete and inaccurate record. They also unfairly benefit special-interest plaintiffs who file identical suits in multiple jurisdictions, because the plaintiffs need only succeed in convincing one court, while the government must successfully defend every case in every jurisdiction. The rise of nationwide injunctions, and their obvious abuses during the first four months of the Trump administration, demand a response. In the House of Representatives, we've passed a bill drafted by Rep. Issa that would restrict a federal judge's ability to issue a nationwide injunction. It's up to the Senate to send it to the president's desk. The Judiciary Committee and its Courts Subcommittee, which we respectively chair, have held hearings and done oversight about the abuse of nationwide injunctions. We've urged congressional appropriators to use the power of the purse to force the judiciary to make reforms. And our work isn't done. But the institution that's best positioned to stop the abuse of nationwide injunctions sits just across from the Capitol Building. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week about nationwide injunctions in an immigration case. That appeal gives the court a chance to rein in the abuse of such injunctions and force lower-court judges to stick to their proper constitutional role. In his confirmation hearing before the Senate, Chief Justice John Roberts famously equated the job of a judge to that of a baseball umpire — calling balls and strikes, and nothing more. Applying his metaphor, a nationwide injunction would mean that an umpire's ball-and-strike call in Cleveland would apply to the game in San Diego, in Houston, and everywhere else. That wouldn't fly in our national past-time and it shouldn't be acceptable in our nation's courtrooms. Our nation is the greatest because 'We the People' have the ultimate authority. We are blessed to live in a democracy where the policy decisions are made by those elected to office — not by unaccountable bureaucrats or unelected judges. The policy agenda of a president elected by 77 million people shouldn't hinge on the separate approvals of 677 unelected district court judges. The Supreme Court must end the abuse of nationwide injunctions. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) oversees the House Judiciary Committee; Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) chairs its Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Many people to blame for Layla Ramos' death, but the shooter isn't one
Many people to blame for Layla Ramos' death, but the shooter isn't one

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Many people to blame for Layla Ramos' death, but the shooter isn't one

Contrary to what you may have read, there were two victims this week when a 5-year-old Phoenix girl was shot and killed in her south Phoenix home. Layla Ramos is dead, but she is not the only victim here. Her 9-year-old brother, who Phoenix police say fired the bullet that killed her, also is a victim — one who will have to live with this week's tragedy for the rest of his life. Of course, it wasn't his fault. It was the fault of his father, Irvin Ramos-Jimenez, 33, who shouldn't have even had a rifle, much less stored it in his son's bedroom. It was the fault — though not legally — of whomever sold him the AR-15-style rifle. In Arizona, you can sell your gun privately to any Tom, Dick or dirty Harry, no questions asked. And it's the fault of the Arizona Legislature, which refuses to pass a bill requiring universal background checks. Had the previous gun owner been required to check, he presumably would have learned that he was selling his rifle to a man who can't legally possess one. According to court records, Ramos-Jimenez, 33, told police he has a prior felony drug conviction for narcotics and can't legally possess a firearm. So, he bought one anyway through a private sale, for 'personal protection.' Then he stored it in his 9-year-old son's bedroom closet. Court records say he also had a handgun in his truck. Ramos-Jiminez was arrested after the June 3 death of his daughter, on suspicion of possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. Let me count the ways our leaders could at least attempt to avoid such tragedy in the future. They could pass a bill requiring that every gun sale in Arizona be preceded by a background check, to determine whether the purchaser is legally allowed to own a firearm. They could pass a bill holding a seller liable if he or she doesn't do that background check and a little girl dies. They could pass a bill requiring gun owners to store their weapons responsibly, so that 9-year-old boys can't gain easy access and kill their sisters. So, what will the Arizona Legislature do to try to avoid the tragedy of another 5-year-old being put into a far-too-early grave? Or a 9-year-old put into what likely will be a self-imposed lifelong purgatory? Absolutely nothing. Reach Roberts at Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) at @LaurieRobertsaz, on Threads at @LaurieRobertsaz and on BlueSky at @ Subscribe to today. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Phoenix shooting is no fault of the boy with the gun | Opinion

Kansas lawmakers release $36.2 million for state employee salary adjustments
Kansas lawmakers release $36.2 million for state employee salary adjustments

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Kansas lawmakers release $36.2 million for state employee salary adjustments

Gov. Laura Kelly and bipartisan leaders of the Kansas Legislature voted to release $36.2 million to implement annual adjustments in the state employee pay plan and to compensate out-of-state agencies for helping in the March search for a man swept away in a flash flood. (Kansas Reflector screen capture from the Legislature's YouTube channel) TOPEKA — Gov. Laura Kelly and the Kansas Legislative leadership unanimously voted to release $36.2 million to provide funding necessary to implement pay raises for state employees. The 2025 Legislature authorized $40 million for compensation adjustments under the state pay plan, but the Kansas Department of Administration said not all of that money would be needed to comply with mandated raises. The State Finance Council, which includes the governor, voted to release enough to implement the salary changes in conjunction with the new fiscal year. 'There will be a little bit of money that will go back during the next budget cycle to the state general fund,' said Adam Proffitt, secretary of the Department of Administration and the state budget director. Meanwhile, the bipartisan State Finance Council voted Friday without objection to allocate $45,000 to the Kansas Fire Marshal's Office to compensate emergency responders taking part in the March search for Lynn Gregory, 82, in southeast Kansas. Gregory had been driving a tractor attached to a trailer through a low-water crossing when the farm equipment was caught in a flash flood. He was swept downstream by the current. Marshal Mark Engholm said Kansas Search and Rescue task forces were deployed over a 14-day period in the effort to recover Gregory's body. An Oklahoma agency with cadaver dogs was deployed because search canines weren't available from Kansas, he said. 'It was a very difficult search because of the water level in the area,' Engholm said. 'Unfortunately, we couldn't find him.' The state council likewise agreed to dedicate $425,000 to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to update a state database known as KEIMS or Kansas Environmental Information Management System. Kate Gleeson, deputy director of environment at KDHE, said the online data system was designed to improve internal accessibility of regulatory records tied as well as broaden public access to the agency.

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