Pillen orders Nebraska medical cannabis regulations to proceed as legislative, legal fights approach
LINCOLN — It's not every day that Nebraska's three branches of government are all involved in a single topic. But one issue is front and center within the next week: medical cannabis.
Days before legislative debate and a Lincoln court hearing, Gov. Jim Pillen on Friday announced 'intentions' for executive branch staff to offer available administrative support and resources for voter-approved medical cannabis regulators to begin their work.
'With support from the Policy Research Office, the Department of Administrative Services and other agencies, as necessary, the Medical Cannabis Commission is fully enabled to meet and carry out its responsibilities under the Patient Protection Act and the Regulation Act to meet its milestone dates of July 1 [for regulations] and October 1 [for licensing],' the release said.
Any regulations proposed by the commission would need to go through the attorney general and the governor.
State Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair, whose Legislative Bill 677 seeks to clarify and place additional guardrails, confirmed he will still push forward with the legislation and was 'a little surprised' by an executive about-face that now seeks to 'unilaterally' enact regulations.
He said he sees LB 677 as the Legislature's responsibility to act and set parameters for regulators that 'can't be changed at a whim.'
State Sen. Rick Holdcroft of Bellevue, chair of the Legislature's General Affairs Committee that is mulling medical cannabis legislation, said the executive action diminishes Hansen's previous argument that the laws could be the 'wild west' if the Legislature doesn't provide more guidance.
'I think there's actually been some thought into establishing the cannabis control commission. It's not a bad thing,' Holdcroft told the Nebraska Examiner on Friday.
But Hansen, in response, said: 'I'm not worried about the 'wild west' anymore. I'm worried about nothing happening, and then we have recreational cannabis in two years.'
He cites voters who have said that if the regulations are too restrictive, they will push a 2026 ballot measure for recreational marijuana, including some voters who prefer only medical use.
Hansen adds that part of the reason LB 677 is still needed is Pillen's two at-large 'potential' appointees to the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission. Together, they would join the three commissioners pulling double duty on the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission to create the new entity, which voters approved in November.
Pillen has appointed Dr. Monica Oldenburg of Lincoln, an anesthesiologist, and Lorelle Mueting of Omaha, the prevention director at Heartland Family Service, which focuses on drug prevention. Both have consistently opposed efforts pushed by the Nebraskans who prevailed at the ballot box last fall after more than a decade of advocacy.
Still, Pillen said that Oldenburg and Mueting are 'experienced, well-qualified individuals' who will ensure strong regulations 'to the letter of the law the people of Nebraska enacted.'
'I urge the Legislature to promptly confirm them so they can take up the urgent work of writing strong and effective 'rules of the road' for the medical cannabis industry,' Pillen said Friday.
Both Oldenburg and Mueting opposed the closest legislative attempt to legalize medical cannabis in 2021, LB 474, led by former State Sen. Anna Wishart of Lincoln, who later helped the ballot measures. The 2021 bill fell two votes short, 31-18.
Crista Eggers, executive director of Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana, said Friday that while supporters appreciated Pillen's actions, it is 'disingenuous' to characterize the new appointments as 'experienced' or 'well-qualified.'
'Appointing regulators who are fundamentally opposed to the very issue they are charged with overseeing suggests that other motives may be at play — motives that appear misaligned with the public intent, and not to mention the will of 71% of the state,' Eggers said in a statement.
The legalization position passed with 71% of the vote, while the regulatory measure trailed just slightly, with about 67% support. Eggers and other long-time advocates support LB 677 as an initial step for regulations.
At a March hearing on four medical cannabis bills, Mueting opposed LB 677 and two very similar bills and was 'neutral' on the narrowest bill: LB 483, from State Sen. Jared Storm of David City, seeking to limit medical cannabis to tinctures or pills alone. LB 483 sought to legalize up to 300 milligrams, 0.21% of the 5 ounces that voters approved.
Both appointees will go before the General Affairs Committee next Thursday for confirmation hearings before the full Legislature weighs in.
Laura Strimple, a spokesperson for Pillen, said the office interviewed three people and selected two. A staff member who oversees application materials for appointees was out of the office Friday, so the materials for Oldenburg and Mueting were not immediately made available.
State Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha, vice chair of the General Affairs Committee, said he looks forward to the confirmation hearings but is 'skeptical' of Pillen's sincerity in helping voters.
'I will keep an open mind, but any attempt to restrict what the voters passed through bureaucratic red tape should be opposed vigorously,' Cavanaugh said in a text. 'In the meantime, the Legislature should pass LB 677 to make sure that medical cannabis is legal, safe and accessible in Nebraska.'
Part of Pillen's Friday announcement mentions 'operational funding' already appropriated to the Medical Cannabis Commission, but when the next two-year state budget passed Thursday, new funding was limited.
The Appropriations Committee offered an annual $30,000 each of the next two fiscal years for employees in the Liquor Control Commission, who take on additional duties under the new laws. In comparison, the Liquor Control Commission has a $2 million annual budget, including for enforcement of regulations for compliance.
There is no additional funding for the remaining two months of the current fiscal year.
The Department of Administrative Services can provide limited financial support to agencies crafting regulations, but the Governor's Office could not immediately provide specifics.
Hansen's LB 677 is expected to be filibustered at each stage of debate, at a maximum of eight hours on Tuesday. If so, it would require 33 votes to advance and become law at the end.
Hansen said that considering Oldenburg and Mueting are 'both openly staunch anti-medical cannabis people, you can only assume the direction on maybe where they're going to go with the implementation of this.'
'If we don't do anything, we have no idea what to expect,' Hansen said.
Holdcroft said he would support Hansen and LB 677 by arguing in favor of a 'compromise' amendment to the bill, which gives an extra three months for regulations, prohibits smoking and outlines qualifying conditions.
Pillen previously told the Examiner that cannabis wouldn't be approved in a form that could become recreational.
'My advocacy for it is that if you have a medical condition [and] you need it, you'll get it, but it's going to taste like crap,' Pillen said last month. 'It's going to be a bitter pill to swallow.'
Also on Tuesday, Lancaster County District Judge Susan Strong will consider oral arguments on whether to dismiss a lawsuit that argues the voter-approved medical cannabis laws are unconstitutional because of federal laws outlawing marijuana.
Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, whose office is defending Pillen and other state officials, fundamentally opposes medical cannabis. He is asking that the case be dismissed, as are the regulatory commissioners and the ballot measure sponsors.
The reason is specific: Hilgers' staff argues that the Attorney General's Office and not a private citizen should be the one to challenge the laws.
LB 677 also presents a different threat to a pending appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, including from Hilgers' office, alleging signature fraud in the medical cannabis ballot measures. Strong rejected those arguments in November and upheld the ballot measures. The AG's Office and a former state senator who brought both cases before Strong appealed.
Because LB 677 would provide additional legislative weight to the 2024 ballot measures, Hilgers and other advocates have acknowledged it could nullify or weaken the pending appeal. Hilgers has said he should get a 'fair fight' in front of the high court. He has also pledged to sue the new commission if it issues any medical cannabis licenses in the future, too.
With Pillen's announcement, he joined the likes of Hilgers and U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., who have argued that lawmakers should wait and pass no cannabis-related bills this year.
Said Strimple: 'Governor Pillen does not believe it is necessary for LB 677 to pass because with existing statutory authority and resources, the Medical Cannabis Commission will have everything it needs to effectively do business.'
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
San Francisco Chronicle
3 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Leaked California redistricting maps show where Democrats would draw new lines
SACRAMENTO — California Democrats would appear to have a shot at flipping several congressional seats next year under a leaked draft map KCRA published Friday. The maps appear to make significant changes to many districts currently held by Republicans. Districts represented by Reps. Doug LaMalfa, R-Chico, and Kevin Kiley, R-Rocklin, change dramatically, making them possible Democratic pickups. Swing districts held by Reps. Adam Gray, D-Turlock; Josh Harder, D-Stockton; and George Whitesides, D-Santa Clarita, appear to become easier to hold for Democrats. The maps appear to also pack more Democrats into the districts of Rep. David Valadao, R-Bakersfield — already a difficult seat for Republicans to hold — and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-San Diego, making it a possible Democratic target. The maps were still being debated on Friday, KCRA reported. Nick Miller, a spokesperson for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, said he had not seen KCRA's maps when asked to confirm their authenticity. Democrats intend to imperil at least five Republican incumbents, Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders have said. The maps represent the centerpiece of Newsom's plan to counter efforts in Texas and other Republican-dominated states to redraw their congressional districts to further favor the GOP. In Texas and most other states, congressional maps are drawn by state lawmakers and can be manipulated by whichever party is in power. But in California, maps are drawn by an independent redistricting commission that includes equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. The proposed ballot measure would replace the commission's maps with the new ones released by the Legislature. They would be in effect for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections. After that, the independent commission would draw new maps based on the 2030 census. That argument has not assuaged opponents, particularly in the Republican Party. 'No matter how you slice it, he is undermining the will of the voters,' Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher, R-Yuba City, told the Chronicle ahead of the maps' release. He said he thinks the independent commission has drawn fair maps and that he worries new maps drawn to benefit Democrats will diminish the voting power of people in rural parts of the state. Gallagher said he supports an effort by Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Rocklin, who previously served in the state Assembly, to bar all states from engaging in mid-decade redistricting. That could halt efforts in California as well as in Texas, though Gallagher stopped short of criticizing Texas Republicans for their redistricting push, saying that was not his role. LaMalfa said he opposes Kiley's bill because he doesn't think the federal government should trample on states' rights to run their own elections. But he also opposes efforts in both California and Texas to redistrict mid-decade. 'Two wrongs don't make a right,' LaMalfa said in response to Newsom's argument that Texas' redistricting forced his hand. Under the draft map, LaMalfa's district seems to change dramatically, shedding ruby-red northern counties like Modoc, Siskiyou and Shasta. Instead, it gains somewhat less-red Plumas County, but it will also extend south and west to include parts of much bluer Mendocino, Lake, and Sonoma counties along the Highway 101 corridor — including, apparently, much of the North Bay city of Santa Rosa. Amy Thoma Tan, a spokesperson for the campaign opposing Newsom's ballot measure, said it was inappropriate for state lawmakers, some of whom are actively running for Congress, to draw new maps. 'These maps were drawn by politicians and party insiders behind closed doors with no transparency and no input from the public,' she wrote in a statement. 'Californians deserve district lines that are drawn in the open, by our citizens' independent commission.' 'Californians oppose Newsom's stunt because they won't let a self-serving politician rig the system to further his career,' he wrote in a statement. 'The NRCC is prepared to fight this illegal power grab in the courts and at the ballot box to stop Newsom in his tracks.
Politico
4 hours ago
- Politico
California Dems release map drawn to oust 5 House Republicans
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference Thursday, Aug. 14, 2025, in Los Angeles. | Marcio Jose Sanchez/AP By Blake Jones and Melanie Mason 08/15/2025 07:29 PM EDT SACRAMENTO, California — California Democrats on Friday finalized their plan to snatch five GOP House seats next year by redrawing the state's congressional lines, according to a copy of the new House map submitted to the Legislature on behalf of the DCCC. The new lines, which voters would need to approve in a Nov. 4 special election, adds registered Democratic voters to districts held by Republicans and frontline Democrats, while making some safe blue districts slightly more competitive. State legislators are expected next week to place the new district lines on the statewide ballot, sparking a furious campaign to override the work of the state's independent redistricting commission for the next several election cycles. California's bold and risky play, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom and senior members of the state's congressional delegation, is designed to cancel out Republicans' bid to flip five Democratic-held House seats in Texas — a tactic urged by President Donald Trump to retain the House majority.
San Francisco Chronicle
4 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The next steps in California Democrats' plan to counter Texas Republicans' redistricting push
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California is the first Democratic-led state to wade into a brewing national redistricting fight after President Donald Trump urged Texas Republicans to draw new maps to maintain the party's slim U.S. House majority after the 2026 midterm elections. The Texas plan was temporarily stalled when minority Democrats left the state to stop the Legislature from passing any bills, but some lawmakers said they'll return to Texas now that California is moving forward with its counter act. Both parties hope to add five seats for their side. Here's what happens next in California: Legislative approval Lawmakers will return to the Capitol on Monday after summer break and plan to immediately take up the partisan plan. State Democrats hold supermajorities in both chambers — enough to act without any Republican votes — and Newsom has said he's not worried about winning the required support from two-thirds of lawmakers to advance the maps. Lawmakers will hold hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday on a package of bills to establish the new congressional map, declare a Nov. 4 special election and authorize to reimburse local government for the costs. Elections committees in both houses are asking for public feedback on the proposed map, but it's unlikely any changes would be made after the bills are officially introduced Monday. Amendments to any legislation would require a 72-hour wait before a vote. That would jeopardize Democrats' plan to approve the package by Thursday to give elections officials enough time to prepare ballots for a statewide election in November. State leaders already have blown past deadlines designed to give local officials adequate time for organizing an election. Special elections are costly California sends every voter a mail-in ballot roughly a month before each election. That means local officials have less than two months to prepare and print ballots. They're already preparing. On Friday, a coalition of county officials urged the Legislature to provide money in advance, because many counties are cash-strapped, and officials worry they won't have enough money to administer the election. A 2021 special election cost over $200 million to conduct. State Republicans this week estimated this year's would cost $235 million. Democrats chose Nov. 4 for the election because Los Angeles County and others are already holding local elections that day. An intense campaign Newsom is leading the campaign in favor of the maps. He and Democrats signaled Thursday they'll make the effort a referendum on Trump and tie it to the future of American democracy. Perhaps the most prominent opponent will be former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed the state's independent redistricting commission during his time in office. On Friday, he posted a photo of himself lifting weights on social media wearing a T-shirt that called to 'terminate gerrymandering,' a nod to his role in the "Terminator' movies. Republican donor Charles Munger Jr., who spent tens of millions to support the California ballot initiative that gives redistricting power to an independent commission, also plans to 'vigorously defend' nonpartisan redistricting, his spokesperson said. State Republicans say the move is a power grab by Democrats and some have vowed to go to court. Steve Hilton, a Republican candidate for governor, earlier this month paid for a legal opinion that says redistricting outside of the normal process and cycle violates the California Constitution. The new map wouldn't be fair because state lawmakers are relying on outdated population data, he said. Common Cause, a good governance group that supports independent redistricting, initially opposed California's effort but this week reversed its stance. The group said it won't challenge partisan redistricting in California if the effort is approved by voters, among other criteria. A temporary change California voters in 2010 gave the power to draw congressional maps to an independent commission, with the goal of making the process less partisan. The commission last redrew maps following the 2020 census, and the maps were in place for the 2022 and 2024 U.S. House elections.
