Expanded sports gambling in Nebraska faces uphill legislative climb to 2026 ballot
LINCOLN — Legalizing online sports gambling in Nebraska appears to be a risky bet for some state lawmakers. A proposed constitutional amendment advanced Monday but faces an uphill legislative climb, the Nebraska Examiner reports.
Legislative Resolution 20CA, from State Sen. Eliot Bostar of Lincoln, would put the decision on whether to legalize online sports betting to voters at the November 2026 election. It advanced 27-16 in the first round of debate in the 49-member body. But as at least one opponent promised a full-fledged filibuster during the next debate stage, the measure would need 33 votes instead.
Nebraska social media age-verification bill moves forward
'Let's not leave this money on the table,' Bostar said, adding that Nebraskans are already placing bets but revenue is going to neighboring states.
State Sen. Dunixi Guereca, a freshman whose Omaha district is on the Iowa-Nebraska border, repeated Monday what he said in his 2024 campaign: from his front porch, he can see people going over a bridge to Iowa, pulling off into a gravel lot and placing bets. He said Nebraska's inaction is moving tax dollars to Iowa.
'I don't want you to like sports betting,' Bostar said, 'but I would hope that you would find an offense in us giving our money away to Iowa.' State Sen. Brad von Gillern of Elkhorn, left, listens to State Sen. Eliot Bostar of Lincoln. Aug. 8, 2024. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)
Bostar said he knew his bill would face tight margins but that at least three of the six lawmakers who missed Monday's vote are in favor of his measure. It's getting the remaining three votes that could be tricky and could require flipping at least one current 'no' vote. Bostar pledged to work with his colleagues on any desired changes.
Of the senators who haven't yet voted on Bostar's measure, State Sens. Beau Ballard of Lincoln and Tom Brandt of Plymouth and Jane Raybould of Lincoln said they support it. State Sens. Rita Sanders of Bellevue and Brian Hardin of Gering opposed an identical measure in August.
State Sen. Glen Meyer of Pender, the sixth lawmaker, said he remains 'on the fence.'
Nebraska butcher shop adds 3 new meat vending machines
Constitutional amendments have narrower changes that can be made compared to legislative bills. If approved next year, lawmakers would need to carry out voters' wishes in 2027.
Bostar has repeatedly defended the legislative push as a way to keep lawmakers in the 'driver's seat of what regulation looks like' and direct new revenue toward property tax relief. Bostar has estimated that the change would generate at least $32 million each year.
State Sen. Brad von Gillern of the Elkhorn area, who chairs the Legislature's Revenue Committee, led opposition to Bostar's bill. He distributed handouts during the debate about the potential social harms of gambling, including depression, anxiety and bankruptcy.
Von Gillern said gambling is predatory by nature, particularly for young men who might face an 'illusion of control' from the rapid gratification of 24/7 access to online sports betting.
'Please don't sell out our young people for property tax relief,' von Gillern told his colleagues.
In a letter Thursday to state lawmakers, U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb.; former Gov. Kay Orr; former Huskers football coach and former U.S. Rep. Tom Osborne, R-Neb.; and State Auditor Mike Foley urged senators to reject Bostar's measure.
The quartet, who have regularly opposed gambling, said lawmakers should 'protect our youth and families from the suffering that comes with the addiction that online gambling brings.' Osborne testified against the previous Bostar proposal last summer.
Gov. Jim Pillen has voiced support for legalizing online sports betting, in contrast to his predecessors and his former NU coach and mentor. Pillen has made property tax relief a key goal of his administration.
Multiple senators, for and against Bostar's measure, agreed that if lawmakers don't act, gambling advocates might push for getting a broader measure to voters next year anyway.
State Sen. Stan Clouse of Kearney echoed Bostar that lawmakers needed to act now to determine what that should look like. He and Bostar said that when the Legislature fails to meet voters' demands — such as paid sick leave, minimum wage or medical cannabis — the people often go beyond original legislative attempts.
Guereca said that if lawmakers waited, rather than the state collecting 20% of revenue for taxes, the potential revenue might drop, foregoing funds for tax relief or to help problem gamblers.
State Sen. Jason Prokop of Lincoln, who selected Bostar's measure as his 2025 priority, said passing LR 20CA would allow lawmakers to set proper guardrails and consumer protection measures around online betting.
Changes to school retirement plan advance to full Nebraska Legislature
State Sen. Margo Juarez of Omaha, the only progressive to vote against Bostar's measure, said she has gambled at the WarHorse Casino and connected racetrack in her Omaha neighborhood. She said she read a lot of information during the debate and was struck about the scale of debt that could be built up in a matter of moments.
'I think that I would rather see people come to the casino, come to my neighborhood, have fun, and I guess make more of an effort than having it at your fingertips,' Juarez said. 'I could see how that could be so much more out of control.'
State Sen. Tony Sorrentino of the Elkhorn area said taxation wouldn't help families, and State Sen. Jared Storm of David City called the measure 'taxation by exploitation,' most hurting young college students who might gamble away rent or tuition.
'As state senators, we have to stand up for those people,' Storm said.
State Sen. Jana Hughes of Seward, noting her son falls in that demographic, said she struggled with supporting LR 20CA while the Legislature is advancing online protections for youths on social media through LB 504 from State Sen. Carolyn Bosn of Lincoln or LB 383 from State Sen. Tanya Storer of Whitman to require age verification.
Bosn supported Bostar's measure while Storer did not. Storer said the measure should include an explicit provision requiring age verification to ensure bettors are 21 or older.
State Sens. Tom Brandt of Plymouth and Ben Hansen of Blair pushed back on opponents and said the Legislature shouldn't stand in the way. Brandt described it as becoming a 'nanny state.'
Hansen pointed to other addictive behaviors — alcohol, smoking and refined sugar — and said if opponents were against addiction they had a line of other activities to go after. He said the line was between 'the side of liberty or tyranny' and that he would 'always err on the side of liberty.'
State Sen. Christy Armendariz of Omaha, who voted against LR 20CA, said she's not against the issue going on the ballot, but she said supporters should go through the petition process.
Juarez said that petition process could be good, such as through more in-depth, one-on-one conversations with voters.
Even if LR 20CA passes, not all supporters said they would vote for it on the ballot, such as State Sen. Mike Jacobson of North Platte.
'At the end of the day, if it goes on the ballot, I'm going to vote 'no,'' Jacobson said. 'But I think that people should have the opportunity to make that decision.'
Nebraska Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Nebraska Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Cate Folsom for questions: info@nebraskaexaminer.com. Follow Nebraska Examiner on Facebook and X.
This story was republished under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kansas task force debates use of graduation rate to gauge student success
Sen. Renee Erickson, second from left, a Wichita Republican who leads the Kansas Legislature's school finance task force, said Kansas should retain use of high school graduation statistics to measure student achievement despite criticism it was unclear earning the diploma meant students were prepared for college or the workforce. (Kansas Reflector screen capture from Legislature's YouTube channel) TOPEKA — Disagreement exists on the Kansas Legislature's task force reworking the state's public school finance formula about the importance of high school graduation rate as a measure of student success. A member of the task force pointed to alleged manipulation of student records at Wichita Southeast High School as evidence of why a district's annual graduation rate shouldn't be viewed as a significant metric, while others defended graduation rates as an evaluation tool when determining whether districts prepared students for the workplace or college. Rep. Kristey Williams, an Augusta Republican, said the Wichita school district had touted a 5.1 percentage point surge in its graduation rate in 2024 to 84.3%. Wichita Southeast's graduation rate climbed 12.5 percentage points in 2024 to a record-high 86.3%. Southeast's principal was replaced last week amid reports of suspected grade fixing that may have been associated with helping students meet graduation requirements. 'I wouldn't use graduation rates,' said Williams, who didn't see a meaningful correlation between graduation rate and student success. 'If we want to baby sit, that's one thing. If we want to have a safe place for them, that's one thing. But that doesn't mean you're learning anything.' Frank Harwood, a deputy commissioner of the Kansas State Department of Education, said one potential incident of administrative misconduct shouldn't justify dismissal of graduation rates as a means of measuring school districts. 'When you look at any industry, including the Legislature, there are bad actors,' he said. 'It doesn't mean you should throw out that metric all together. I'm not saying graduation rate is the best indicator, but I think it is an indicator that we can't just ignore.' The Kansas State Board of Education made elevating the state's high school graduation rate a feature in its 'Kansans Can' agenda and in terms of school district accreditation. The state board's graduation-rate goal was set at 95%. Kansas' adjusted cohort graduation rate, which tracked student graduation within four years and took into account transfers, has ranged from 86% to 89% during the past decade. In 2022-2023, more than 90 of the state's 287 school districts graduated 100% of students. Twenty school districts had graduation rates below 80% during that academic year. The Wichita district's graduation rate was at 79.2% during that period, while the Kansas City, Kansas, district came in at 73.4%. Sen. Renee Erickson, a Wichita Republican serving as chairwoman of the Legislature's school-finance task force, said Kansas should continue to include graduation rate in a set of evaluation metrics. She said the state needed to develop a definition of what a high school diploma revealed about students. Erickson said employers had reported a high school diploma didn't guarantee a quality worker. University or college officials indicated high school graduates didn't necessarily have skills to succeed in higher education, she said. 'I have post-secondary folks in my office frequently and they're saying, 'They're not prepared for our level of work,'' the senator said. 'I'm not blaming. I'm just telling you, if you can't acknowledge that, we've got a problem.' Task force member Pat Pettey, a Democratic senator from Kansas City, Kansas, said it would be folly to drop the graduation rate as an indicator of a school district's ability to prepare students for the future. 'I still am a strong supporter of graduation rates because having a high school diploma is a key to opening the first door to get a job. I don't believe it is the key, but if they don't have that they're not on a trajectory to be economically successful,' Pettey said.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
House won't override DeSantis' ‘free kill' repeal veto
A trio of flashing billboards less than two miles from the Florida Capitol is slamming Gov. Ron DeSantis for vetoing the "free kill" bill on medical malpractice. (Photo credit: Christine Sexton/Florida Phoenix) House Speaker Daniel Perez said Thursday the chamber will try again next year to pass a repeal of the 'free kill' statute following Gov. Ron DeSantis' veto of the proposal. DeSantis on May 29 vetoed the Legislature's attempt to remove the bar on parents of adult children and the adult children of single parents from suing hospitals and physicians for non-economic damages for the deaths of loved ones. The governor said repealing 'free kill' would increase health care costs for Floridians and make it harder to keep physicians in the state. 'Of course, the governor has in his right the power to veto this bill, and he chose to do so,' Perez told reporters. 'I disagree with the veto, and we will be bringing that bill back next year for a continued conversation.' Lawmakers passed HB 6017 with bipartisan support. Repealing the ban on suits to recover non-economic damages is one of the perennial arguments in Tallahassee, as business interests and medical groups oppose the move. Perez said he remains opposed to placing caps on the pain-and-suffering damages, which is something that DeSantis said could make him support the repeal in the future, along with caps on attorneys' fees. The family members barred from suing for pain-and-suffering damages can recover economic damages, such as lost wages, medical bills, and funeral costs. 'I don't think that we should determine how much a person's life is worth when someone negligently ended it,' Perez said. The Senate also rejected a bid to cap the damages at $1 million on April 30. Florida, for now, remains the only state banning the recovery of pain-and-suffering damages for parents of adult children and adult children of single parents. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Maine Republicans, gun rights groups try to force hearing on 'red flag' proposal
Jun. 5—AUGUSTA — Republicans and gun rights groups are ramping up pressure on Democrats to hold a public hearing on a so-called red flag proposal that's headed for a statewide vote in November. Republican lawmakers are accusing the majority of violating state law by refusing to hold the hearing because it will undermine their campaign to pass the law. If approved by voters, the citizens initiative would make it easier for family members to have firearms temporarily taken away from people who are in crisis and may pose a danger to themselves or others. Sen. Trey Stewart, R-Presque Isle, said at a press conference Thursday that if Democrats don't reverse course and hold a hearing, Republicans will try to force the issue through a series of floor votes. And the National Rifle Association said Thursday that it will join a planned lawsuit over legislative Democrats' refusal to hold a public hearing. Stewart said Senate Republicans plan to offer a flurry of proposals to put Democrats on the record as opposing a chance for the public to weigh in. "It doesn't matter how you break this one down," Stewart said. "There needs to be a hearing. It's abundantly clear they're in violation of Maine law. Once again, (we're) giving them an opportunity to do the right things here. But if by today that is not the case (and) that has not yet happened, you're going to see a flurry of orders put forward by Republicans in the Senate." Democrats, who control both chambers and control committees that conduct public hearings, say they don't need to hold a hearing because the question will be decided by voters. Gun safety groups collected signatures to force a fall referendum on the red flag law, which would allow family members to directly petition a court to temporarily confiscate firearms. Maine currently has what is known as a yellow flag law, which was negotiated by Gov. Janet Mills, gun rights groups and gun safety groups. It can only be initiated by police and requires a mental health evaluation before a court petition can be filed to confiscate a person's firearms. A state law requires that a public hearing be held on statewide referendum questions, unless that hearing is waived by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. And hearings have been routinely held for other referendum questions, including a recent hearing on a referendum to enact a voter ID requirement and additional restrictions on absentee voting. Lawmakers have three options when receiving a qualified citizens initiative: Enact it without changes, send it to voters, or send it to voters with a competing measure. Democrats have made clear this initiative will be sent to voters without an effort to pass it in the Legislature. Sen. Anne Carney, D-Cape Elizabeth, who co-chairs the Judiciary Committee, said she believes a state law requiring a hearing conflicts with the state Constitution, which doesn't mention the need for a public hearing. And since lawmakers have signaled they don't plan to enact the proposal, a hearing isn't necessary. Carney also noted last week that a hearing on a similar red flag proposal was held last session. But opponents of the referendum are clamoring for a hearing. The Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine issued an action alert this week, arguing that Democrats don't want to hold a hearing because it will highlight opposition, including from Gov. Janet Mills and other Democratic lawmakers. Mills came out against a red flag bill proposed last session, but the bill was never brought forward for a floor vote after an hours-long public hearing that drew a divided crowd. "Under Maine law, all ballot initiatives MUST receive a public hearing before going to the Maine voters," SAM's alert states. "But Judiciary Chairs and Maine Gun Safety Coalition allies are blocking that hearing. Why? "Because Michael Bloomberg and the progressive gun-control lobby know it could END their campaign. This is because a massive bipartisan coalition of Mainers, including Governor Janet Mills, law enforcement, and lawmakers, will discuss the dangerous and potentially deadly realities of this extreme law." Aids more Mills did not respond to a question about whether Mills would personally testify before the committee, which would be a rare and dramatic moment, or if her administration would testify on her behalf, which usually occurs. This story will be updated. Copy the Story Link