No more vetoes, Pillen says as 2025 Legislature wraps up; two lawmakers relieved
State Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha speaks on the floor of the Legislature on May 19, 2023, in Lincoln, Neb. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner).
LINCOLN — Two Nebraska bills most vulnerable to a governor's veto in the waning hours of the 2025 Nebraska Legislature are about to become law without his objection.
The pair — separate priority bills from Omaha State Sens. Megan Hunt and Terrell McKinney — were among a late wave of 26 bills approved by the full Legislature and awaiting action by Gov. Jim Pillen as lawmakers adjourned for the year. Both the Hunt and McKinney bills cleared final votes Friday by less than the number needed to override a veto.
Pillen, in a letter early Monday to the Clerk of the Legislature, said all the bills on his desk 'will become law without my objections in the coming days.' Included in the 26 bills Pillen is expected to approve were three sent to his desk Monday.
That negated any need for veto override attempts on the Legislature's final day.
Hunt said she was 'surprised,' and excited to see her Legislative Bill 275 cross the finish line.
The bill reforms the use of Social Security benefits received by eligible Nebraska foster children, in part strengthening communication between the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services and the youth's representative. Hunt described recipients as among the state's most vulnerable, because the benefits are related to the death of a parent or guardian or a physical or mental disability.
DHHS currently intercepts the Social Security benefits bound for those kids and uses the funds to offset the state costs of the youths' care. LB 275 requires DHHS to set aside at least 20% of all Social Security benefits in a separate trust fund, beginning when the foster youth is 14, with the percentage increasing gradually to 50% at age 18. Meant to ease transition to adult independence, it brings Nebraska 'in line with federal law to provide further accountability, transparency and conservation of a portion of the funds in a trust account for the youth's own use when they exit state care.'
Hunt said she thought LB 275, which advanced to Pillen's desk on a 29-19 vote, might be in jeopardy partly because of a roughly $1 million in annual notification and operational costs estimated in a fiscal note and also because of a pattern of Pillen's vetos, which she said have been 'less about policy and more about the introducer.'
McKinney said Monday that he was unsure what Pillen might do on LB 48, his bill aimed at helping to keep youths out of the criminal justice system. He said he was happy to see it unobstructed by a veto, and proud of the accomplishment.
'It's good legislation that's going to help a lot of families and juveniles, keeping them out of the system,' he said.
LB 48 calls for an around-the-clock Family Resource and Juvenile Assessment Center pilot program in Omaha. The goal is two sites that will address family dynamics, mental health, substance abuse and educational challenges to juvenile delinquency.
The bill faced resistance and near demise during earlier legislative debate. It passed final reading on a 27-21 vote.
Of 26 bills awaiting Pillen's signature Monday, two others passed final legislative debate with 33 votes; four passed with vote tallies in the mid to upper 30s, and the rest secured 40 or more votes.
Said Hunt: 'I'm excited now to breathe a sigh of relief and move on to the next issue.'
Nebraska Examiner reporter Zach Wendling contributed to this report.
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
Associated Press
15 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Bipartisan deals on voting and election changes are rare. It just happened in one swing state
LAS VEGAS (AP) — 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. In a deal that came together in the waning days of the session, the Democratic-controlled Legislature approved a bill that combined a requirement for voter ID — a conservative priorityacross the country and something that has been on Lombardo's legislative wish list — with a Democratic-backed measure to add more drop boxes for mailed ballots in the state's most populous counties. Lombardo is expected to sign the bill. The compromise represents a form of bipartisan dealmaking that has been especially scarce in recent years as the country's political divisions have deepened, especially around any potential reform to voting and election laws. President Donald Trump's lies about his loss in the 2020 presidential election fueled a wave of restrictive voting laws in Republican-led states that Democrats countered with changes to make voting more accessible, while an executive order Trump signed earlier this year seeking to overhaul how elections are run was met with a wave of Democratic lawsuits. Election legislation has mostly hit a dead end in states where the parties share power, making Nevada's bill all the more remarkable. A requirement for voters to show photo identification at the polls has long been a nonstarter for Nevada Democrats, who have argued that it threatened to disenfranchise low-income voters and make it more difficult for people to vote, especially older voters, those with disabilities and those without driver's licenses. Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, the Democrat who brokered the deal with Lombardo after the governor vetoed his original bill to expand drop box access, acknowledged it was a tough concession. But he said it was the best they could do with the time they had left. 'Now I understand and appreciate that this will be a particularly challenging bill for some to support, but I also believe we have a duty to move forward,' he said over the weekend when releasing details of the deal publicly for the first time. It's a stark contrast to the 2023 legislative session, the last time lawmakers met. Lombardo outlined voter ID as one of his main priorities, but Democrats in the statehouse refused to give the proposal a hearing. The governor vowed he would take the issue directly to voters. Last November, Nevada voters overwhelmingly approved the voter ID ballot initiative that Lombardo supported. Voters will have to pass it again in 2026 to amend the state constitution, and the requirement would then be in place for the 2028 presidential election. Yeager told his colleagues over the weekend that voters seemed poised to give their final approval to the measure. He argued that passing a voter ID law now would give the state a two-year head start on implementing the requirements, to get ready before the next presidential contest. Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, a Democrat, said he respects the will of the voters and will work with the governor and local election officials 'to continue strengthening our elections.' That includes, under the proposal, a new — and free — digital form of voter ID that his office will be in charge of rolling out. Polls have shown that most Americans support voter ID laws, and that has been consistent over the years and across party lines. A 2024 Gallup poll found 84% of Americans supported requiring all voters to provide photo ID at their voting place to cast a ballot, consistent with Gallup findings from 2022 and 2016. That includes about two-thirds of Democrats, according to the 2024 survey. 'This may not be my favorite policy to have to implement, but I think as a Legislature we have a responsibility to do this,' Yeager told his colleagues. State Sen. Carrie Ann Buck, a Republican, praised the effort, saying, 'I think this is very thoughtful and very courageous of you to bring this in a bipartisan way ... I think our common goals are that every legitimate voter gets to vote.' But not all Democrats were on board, with five voting against it when it passed the Senate. 'I recognize what you're attempting to do, to stave off something worse,' said Democratic Sen. Dina Neal. But she said she was 'wrestling with the philosophical issue with voter ID.' 'I'm not in the space where I am openly willing to disenfranchise a population who may not even understand this law as written.' If Lombardo signs the bill, Nevada will join 36 other states that either require or request voters show ID when voting in person, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Not all states require photo ID, though. Some accept documents such as a bank statement, and some allow voters without ID to vote after signing an affidavit. A few states allow poll workers to vouch for voters without an ID. Under Nevada's bill, voters will be required to show a form of photo ID when voting in person, which will include government-issued IDs and Nevada-issued university student IDs. 'Nevada has some of the most secure and accessible elections in the country,' Yeager said, 'and this bill is a set of compromises between the Legislature and the governor that I believe can ensure that tradition continues.' ___ Associated Press writers Christina A. Cassidy in Atlanta and Linley Sanders in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.
Hamilton Spectator
22 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Judge largely denies request to block restrictions on getting measures on Florida's ballot
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — A federal judge has largely denied requests by grassroots campaigners to block portions of a new Florida law that restricts the state's citizen-driven process for getting constitutional amendments on the ballot. Organizers of separate campaigns to expand Medicaid and legalize recreational marijuana had urged U.S. District Mark Walker to block implementation of parts of the law, arguing that the new requirements violate their First Amendment rights. But in an order issued Wednesday, Walker granted a narrow injunction, barring state officials from enforcing one section of the law criminalizing ballot petition fraud against one campaign staffer. The order means that at least for now, the campaigns will largely have to operate under the new restrictions as they try to gather enough signatures to qualify for the 2026 ballot. Legislatures in dozens of states have advanced bills recently to crack down on the public's ability to put measures up for a vote, according to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center. Voting rights advocates say the trend betrays the promise of direct democracy. Under Florida's new law, an individual could be charged with a felony if they collect more than 25 signed ballot petitions, other than their own or those of immediate family members, and don't register with the state as a petition circulator. The law signed last month by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis also gives campaigns just 10 days instead of the previous 30 to return signed petition forms to local elections officials. Petitioners could also face stiff fines if they don't return the petitions on time, or send them to the wrong county. Lawmakers argue that the new restrictions are needed to reform a process they claim has been tainted by fraud. The Republican-controlled Legislature pushed the changes months after a majority of Florida voters supported ballot initiatives to protect abortion rights and legalize recreational marijuana, though the measures fell short of the 60% needed to pass. Attorneys for the campaigns Florida Decides Healthcare and Smart & Safe Florida have argued the new law makes gathering enough petitions from voters prohibitively expensive and effectively impossible. In his order, Walker wrote that the new provisions have caused 'an immediate reduction in protected speech' by constraining the campaigns' ability to collect petitions — and volunteers' willingness to help. But Walker said the campaigners didn't prove that their free speech rights had been 'severely burdened.' 'Instead, the record shows that these provisions simply make the process of getting their proposed initiatives on the ballot more expensive and less efficient for Plaintiffs,' Walker wrote. But there are still free speech concerns to address as the lawsuit moves forward, Walker noted: 'this Court is not suggesting that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on their First Amendment challenges to the new deadline and associated fines.' In a statement, Mitch Emerson, the executive director for Florida Decides Healthcare, said he remains optimistic for the legal challenge ahead. 'While the Court did not grant every part of our motion for preliminary relief, this is far from the final word,' Emerson said. A spokesperson for Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. ___ Kate Payne is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Axios
23 minutes ago
- Axios
DOJ sues Texas over in-state tuition for undocumented students
The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday sued Texas over a decades-old law letting undocumented students receive in-state tuition, despite about half of the other states offering the same eligibility. Why it matters: The challenge could reshape access to higher education for thousands of undocumented Texans — and could intensify legal scrutiny of similar tuition policies in other states. Driving the news: The DOJ alleges the state's in-state tuition law is unconstitutional and violates federal immigration law. Federal law prohibits undocumented immigrants from getting "tuition benefits that are denied to out-of-state U.S. citizens," the complaint states, also citing Trump-era executive orders directing agencies to block such policies. State of play: The lawsuit comes just after the state Legislature adjourned without passing a bill to repeal the statute. Senate Bill 1798, authored by Sen. Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston), would have repealed the policy and also prohibited universities from providing financial aid to undocumented students. How it works: Texas has granted in-state tuition to undocumented students since 2001, when it became the first state to extend eligibility. To qualify, students must live in the state for three years, graduate from a Texas high school, and sign an affidavit promising to seek legal status. About 19,000 students have signed the affidavit, per state officials, the Texas Tribune reports. Zoom out: 24 states, including the District of Columbia, offer in-state tuition to undocumented students, according to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal — though Florida repealed the policy this year. What they're saying: "The Justice Department will relentlessly fight to vindicate federal law and ensure that U.S. citizens are not treated like second-class citizens anywhere in the country," U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement Wednesday. The other side: Supporters say the policy signed by then-Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, helps students succeed, fuels the economy, and strengthens the workforce. "This lawsuit would eliminate states' abilities to have these clearly beneficial tuition policies. It would push higher education further out of reach and roll back decades of progress in expanding opportunity and supporting students who are already part of our communities," Todd Schulte, president of immigration nonprofit said in a statement.
