Nebraska advances bill codifying legislative oversight role dealing with executive branch agencies
LINCOLN — The Nebraska Legislature inched Wednesday toward clarifying the legislative branch's legal authority to provide oversight of how the executive branch spends the people's money, including how it handles children and adults under state supervision.
Lawmakers advanced Legislative Bill 298 by voice vote. The measure, sought by Speaker John Arch, would create a new Division of Legislative Oversight and a new Legislative Oversight Committee. LB 298 would place the Ombudsman's Office, also known as the Office of Public Counsel, in the new division.
'We need information in this Legislature to legislate and appropriate,' Arch said, adding that senators require more information to do its job well than relying on news reports.
State Sen. Eliot Bostar of Lincoln emphasized the need to dig deeper independently of reporters and the state auditor. He had wanted to add new employees who monitor spending by all levels of government as a job, an amendment that failed 7-22.
'We do not have adequate oversight over all of the levels of government, over all of the governmental bodies, over all of the political subdivisions in the State of Nebraska,' Bostar said.
Senators spent much of the debate arguing about how specific the bill should be about response times for requested records from the agencies under the governor's control.
Some also discussed the origins of the debate, whether senators need to pass a new law in response to a non-binding legal opinion in 2023 from Attorney General Mike Hilgers.
State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln has argued the Legislature should have sued the executive branch and let the courts decide the limits of legislative oversight.
Conrad has argued that Arch and the Legislature should not accept an executive branch interpretation of the limits of legislative power that lacks the power of law. It is, she said, an opinion.
Evolving fix for Nebraska legislative oversight faces continued resistance
'I strongly disagree with how legislative leadership reacted to the attorney general's political opinion, which undermined our undeniable ability to conduct legislative oversight,' she said.
On Wednesday, Conrad argued that if the Legislature was going to proceed on codifying its oversight role, it should specify a timeline for record requests and responses.
She said her overarching goal was making sure that the state agencies that the Legislature funds understand that lawmakers are watching how they work, that 'the agencies are on notice.'
Arch responded that he agreed with her that a time may come when the Legislature has to set a number of days but that the experience under a memorandum of understanding has been good.
He said the inspectors general for corrections and child welfare tell him that the offices are getting information in a timely manner, often four to seven days, so deadlines aren't needed yet.
But State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha, who has long fought with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services for timely information, said agencies should not have the option.
Cavanaugh and Conrad pointed to an Ombudsman's Office report that argued the administration has been less accessible and slower in responding to the child welfare questions.
'I appreciate Speaker Arch's comments … that it hasn't been a problem recently, but that's part of the reason that we put things in statute,' Cavanaugh said.
Under the bill, the Legislature's watchdogs would retain the subpoena power to demand documentation and answers. Using that power would require a majority vote of the Executive Board.
Lawmakers seemed to agree that their oversight would need to pause during criminal investigations and that lawmakers might not be able to access every bit of executive information.
Arch has said the Legislature and executive branch sought a balance to make sure state senators get the information they need and that the executive branch can carry out its work.
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
New York Post
4 hours ago
- New York Post
Mayor Eric Adams deserves credit for his stunning housing wins
It's odd how little credit Mayor Eric Adams gets for his relentless, steady and successful drive to get more housing, including more affordable homes, built in New York City. In under four years, he's arguably done more than his predecessors achieved in the previous two decades, winning changes that will make a huge difference in the long term rather than offering empty promises of instant miracles. The latest: The City Council just OK'd Adams' plan to rezone Midtown South, opening the door for nearly 10,000 new housing units, 2,800 of them affordable, in an area that was largely zoned for (outdated) industrial uses. Advertisement Some of those units will come from converting commercial space to residential, an obvious next step for older, vacant office buildings. All told, Adams' rezoning push starting in 2021 has cleared the way for 100,000 new units to be built across the city, with 30,000 more on the way if the City Council approves his plans for Jamaica and Long Island City. Advertisement That's more housing gained via zoning changes than added in the Bloomberg and de Blasio years combined. Another unheralded gain, from years of steady effort and deft alliances: getting the Legislature to lift the floor-area-ratio cap of 12, which arbitrarily restricted the height of residential buildings. Between the mayor's massive City of Yes package, which the council approved last year, and other efforts, including the preservation of about 134,700 existing units, City Hall counts the number of units added to or kept in the Big Apple's housing supply under Adams at about 426,000. Yes, that includes the totals from proposals that still need to go through the approval process — and a good chunk, like those enabled through rezoning, won't be fully realized for years. Advertisement It doesn't help when lefty ideologues sabotage projects like the Brooklyn Marine Terminal, which would offer 6,000 new units, because they'd rather have no new housing than let any market-rate apartments get built on public land. But the mayor's full-court press means he's already changed the city's long-term housing landscape for the better even if some plans fall through — and he could do even more in a second term. We know: 'Methodical' doesn't match the Adams' image, but perhaps that's because so little of the local media pays attention to day-in-day-out reality; it's so much easier to fawn over, say, Zohran Mamdani's flashy promises to freeze rents. Advertisement Even though the mayor's strategy, unlike Mamdani's, works. Freezing rent on rent-regulated apartments would force more landlords to abandon their buildings altogether or allow units to fall into disrepair, making the city's housing situation worse. Meanwhile, Adams is dramatically boosting supply, which will organically push rents lower over time. In a city where hysterically anti-development progressives constantly do their best to thwart common-sense housing fixes, Adams' success in ushering in lasting change is stunning. And though the fruits of his labor will take time to fully appear, generations of New Yorkers will benefit. As the mayoral race exits the summer 'silly season,' perhaps voters will start to realize who's actually delivering the housing solutions New York needs.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Harrison: As Texas and California talk redistricting, there's no fight in Mississippi
Don't look for Mississippi to get involved in what appears to be an escalating redistricting war where states redraw their U.S. House districts to aid Republicans or Democrats ahead of a hotly contested 2026 national election. Mississippi most likely will not engage in the redistricting battle because Republicans already have been helped about as much as possible in the Magnolia State. Here, there are three safe Republican U.S. House districts and one safe Democratic district. In theory, the Mississippi Legislature could draw the congressional districts in such a manner as to make all four districts favor Republicans. But to do so, Black voters, who generally are more prone to vote Democratic, would have to be diluted to such an extent that the redraw would conflict with long-held federal court rulings. From a legal standpoint and even from an ethical and moral standpoint, it would be difficult to justify no Black-majority districts in Mississippi, where the non-white population is nearing 40%. Unsurprisingly, Texas fired the first shot in what is shaping up as a nationwide redistricting battle. The Texas Legislature, at the behest of President Donald Trump, who fears his Republican Party will lose the U.S. House in the 2026 midterm election, is trying to redraw the Longhorn State's 38 congressional districts to give the Republicans five more seats. They currently have 25. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom is threatening to retaliate by creating more Democratic districts. California currently has 43 Democratic districts and nine Republican districts. There have been rumblings of blue New York and red Florida also going back to the redistricting drawing board to create more seats to help their respective party. Normally, redistricting is conducted every 10 years after the release of the U.S. Census. The last redistricting occurred after the 2020 U.S. Census. But it should be no surprise that Trump, fearing that Republicans will lose the House in 2026, asked Texas to eschew the norms and conduct a mid-decade redistricting. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of gerrymandering or of drawing districts to benefit their political party. The courts, generally, have said that is OK. But the courts — at least in the past — have also said their minority populations must be given opportunities to elect candidates of their choice. While the courts have said gerrymandering is allowed, a recent Economist/YouGov poll found an overwhelming 69% oppose the partisan drawing of districts, compared to only 9% who support it and 22% of respondents who are unsure. A plurality of 35% support states retaliating if another state draws districts to support one particular party. The retaliation is opposed by 30%, while 36% of respondents are unsure. A plurality also opposes Trump's call for the FBI to hunt down Texas Democratic lawmakers who have fled the state to prevent the Legislature from having the quorum needed to draw new congressional districts. For what it's worth, a study by the Princeton Gerrymandering Project found 15 states with failing grades in terms of non-partisan redistricting. Nine of those states failed because of their strong Republican tilt, while five failed because of strong Democratic leanings. Two — Tennessee and Louisiana — failed because of racial unfairness. Through court rulings, a new Black-majority district has been created in Louisiana since the Princeton study was conducted. Texas and Florida were among the states receiving failing grades. New York and California were not. Another large Democratic stronghold, Illinois, did get a failing grade. Mississippi is unique because of its racial makeup and voting patterns. Most white Mississippians vote Republican, but the large Black minority — the largest percentage of Black voters in the nation — tends to vote Democratic. While Republicans have won all statewide elections since 2016, the elections often are relatively close. In the latest redistricting, Democrats argued that because of the strong pro-Democratic minority population, one of the three heavily Republican congressional districts should be drawn in a manner to make it more competitive. But the majority-Republican Legislature rejected that argument. Hence, there is no need for the Republicans in the Mississippi Legislature to undertake redistricting now. This column was produced by Mississippi Today, a nonprofit news organization that covers state government, public policy, politics and culture. Bobby Harrison is the editor of Mississippi Today Ideas.
New York Post
12 hours ago
- New York Post
NY Dems aim to de-mask ICE agents to scare them off their raids — NOT to protect the public
Supporters claim a bill introduced by Democratic state lawmakers last month banning ICE agents and police from wearing masks during raids will ensure safety and prevent authoritarianism. One backer, Sen. Patricia Fahy, fumes that ICE is 'operating like masked militias' and 'paramilitary secret police' and so must be reined in. Nonsense: The awkwardly and misleadingly named Mandating End to Lawless Tactics Act is actually little more than an attempt to thwart immigration enforcement by making ICE agents fear for their personal safety. It joins similar efforts in other states and in Congress to 'unmask ICE.' In the words of GOP Sen. George Borrello, 'This bill is driven by ideology, not a genuine concern for public safety.' The Left's hypocrisy on this issue is staggering. Progressives — including many of the MELT Act's supporters in the Legislature — have opposed mask bans for criminal suspects and rioters, such as Nassau County's common-sense ban, which has exceptions for law enforcement. Yet for all their sympathy for those involved with the criminal-justice system, they have no qualms about painting cops as criminals and subjecting them to mask bans. If these lawmakers truly cared about public safety, they'd go after the rioters and real criminals who've routinely hidden their identities to evade accountability following the 2020 George Floyd unrest and Oct. 7 demonstrations. ICE and other law enforcement don't mask up because they have machinations of becoming a 'paramilitary secret police.' They do so to keep themselves and their families safe from multinational gangs such as Tren de Aragua. Facial-recognition technology, now rapidly improving due to AI, gives anyone — including nefarious actors like Antifa or cartel members — the ability to reverse image search the unmasked face of an ICE agent. They can then obtain and post their names, addresses and information about their relatives to social media. While the Justice Department can prosecute those responsible for such doxxing, it is nonetheless a frequent threat to agents and loved ones. Addresses of hotels where agents stay during operations are routinely spread on social media so that protesters can harass them. Agitators are so well-organized that an app was created to report and rush to ICE raid locations, as seen in Los Angeles riots this year. The Department of Homeland Security has reported an 830% increase in assaults on ICE personnel this year, attributed to an increase in doxxing and rhetoric against agents. Worse still, even if the MELT Act passes, its effects would be largely symbolic. Lawmakers like Fahy clearly don't understand federalism. Because the Constitution gives federal law precedence, any federal regulation would immediately supersede the MELT Act if passed, rendering it largely symbolic. Additionally, federal agents are immune from state criminal prosecution when acting within the scope of their authority. The MELT Act would also require that all law enforcement agents display their names or badge numbers on their uniforms, hamstringing the plainclothes units of local New York police departments, which now must only provide this information verbally. Some of the bill's supporters mention a more realistic point that masking without wearing identification might allow for easier impersonation of ICE officers. They might also argue that a lack of masking deters possible police misconduct, despite the widespread use of body cameras. Those are valid concerns. But there are ways to protect the public even with masked law enforcement. Public-education campaigns should remind residents that ICE agents and other law enforcement are legally required to identify themselves as police as soon as it is practicable and safe to do so. New Yorkers under arrest should keep in mind their constitutional protections, such as the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Masked or not, imposters can still pose as ICE or any other law-enforcement officers. Requiring names or badge numbers does nothing if there's no reliable way to immediately verify the person's legitimacy. The answer isn't a largely symbolic law to neuter real agents; it's to strengthen identification through local cooperation. The only way to fully reassure New Yorkers is cooperation between local police and ICE, whether via collaborative task forces, such as through the federal 287(g) program already adopted by several counties, or by having nearby officers accompany raids to keep public order, which would help quickly debunk any imposters. This type of public partnership would not be a political statement about immigration, rather a commonsense way to put the public at ease and ensure all involved in raids are safe. The MELT Act is symbolic theater that punishes law enforcement while doing nothing to realistically stop imposters. New Yorkers would be safer if lawmakers scrapped this bill and instead fostered real cooperation between local police and ICE to deter fraud and protect both the public and the agents doing dangerous work. Paul Dreyer is a cities policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute.
