Latest news with #NebraskaConstitution
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Pillen withdraws line-item budget vetoes Nebraska lawmakers said were unconstitutional
Gov. Jim Pillen talks with reporters after his annual State of the State speech to the Nebraska Legislature. Jan. 15, 2025. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner) LINCOLN — Gov. Jim Pillen on Tuesday withdrew his intended $14.5 million in general fund line-item vetoes to Nebraska's next two-year budget, ending a possible constitutional dispute among the state's three branches of government. Pillen joined Secretary of State Bob Evnen and Speaker of the Legislature John Arch to announce an end to the short-lived line-item veto saga Tuesday. The line-item vetoes were first identified last Wednesday in a letter to the Legislature, but the actual budget bills with his marked-up objections were not filed with the Legislature until Thursday morning. The latter is important because each line-item veto can be individually overridden, or the changes can be overridden as a group. The Nebraska Constitution requires vetoes to be filed with the Legislature within five days, excluding Sundays, while the Legislature is in session. Pillen had said Thursday he would consult with the Attorney General's Office and other legal counsel on next steps, with the thinking being that a court order could have enforced the vetoes. On Tuesday, Arch, Evnen and Pillen said that while they continue to disagree whether the constitutional requirement for the line-item vetoes was met, 'given how closely the budget bills match the governor's originally introduced budget,' Pillen signed Legislative Bill 261 and LB 264 as passed by the Legislature on May 15. The bills were then refiled in Evnen's office. 'That will render the underlying constitutional dispute moot and bring the matter to a close,' the three officials said in a joint statement. Arch told reporters last week that to his knowledge, nothing like this had happened before. The Legislature, as well as the offices for Pillen and Evnen, are in the Nebraska State Capitol. A spokesperson for Evnen told the Nebraska Examiner that both budget bills intended to be vetoed were received by the office's administrative assistant just before 5 p.m. last Wednesday. 'We fulfilled our responsibility by receiving the bills for filing,' the spokesperson said. No one from Evnen's office delivered the bills to the Clerk of the Legislature's office, which is a responsibility of the Governor's Office. The Legislature remained in session until 9:20 p.m. last Wednesday, but the copies of LB 261 and LB 264 that the governor issued line-item vetoes to, not just the veto letter, were not delivered to the Legislature by a midnight deadline. The line-item vetoes sought $14.5 million in less spending from the state's general fund, Nebraska's main pocketbook that will cover a total of $11 billion in total spending through June 2027: $11.99 million reduction of an increase to the Nebraska Supreme Court because the governor argued 'every branch of government' had to contribute to budget balancing. $2 million cut from public health departments, zeroing out COVID-19 pandemic-era increases because the 'pandemic is over' and 'spending must be shrunk to pre-pandemic size.' $511,972 from the State Fire Marshal for salary and health insurance premium increases because he argues the agency has 'sufficient funding' already. Those spending decreases would not have increased the state's coffers as they would have similarly been offset by $14.5 million in fewer funds being transferred from the cash reserve fund. A fourth veto sought to prevent an $18 million diversion of cash funds for Lake McConaughy recreational upgrades. Pillen said the project's scope has changed over many years, and further discussion is needed about how local casino revenue could support improvements. A copy of those specific objections obtained by the Examiner indicates line-item vetoes in: Six of the eight budget sections for the Nebraska Supreme Court (LB 261). Two of the three sections for the State Fire Marshal (LB 261). One of the 25 sections for the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (LB 261). One of the 24 sections for the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (LB 261), as well as a companion cash fund transfer (LB 264). One section for cash reserve fund transfer (LB 264). Lawmakers would have had until this Friday to override the vetoes had the reductions been delivered properly. Pillen and Arch said budget adjustment measures for the 2025-27 fiscal years 'will be a priority' when lawmakers reconvene in 2026, just seven months away. 'To avoid a similar future dispute,' the statement continues, 'all parties have agreed to meet during the interim to clarify and confirm procedures that meet the constitutional requirements for transmittal of budget vetoes, and ensure they are maintained in a clear written guidance for future implementation by all offices.' The Governor's Office has not responded to a request for comment on the current process of delivering vetoes and whether there were any variations in this process this time. Pillen in 2023, for example, vetoed $38.5 million in general fund spending for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 fiscal years. Lawmakers overrode about $850,000 of that. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘Constitution was not followed': Legislature questions line-item vetoes to Nebraska budget bills
Speaker John Arch of La Vista listens to State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln. Aug. 2, 2024. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner) Editor's note: This story has been updated with response from the Governor's Office. LINCOLN — The Nebraska Legislature, at least for now, has blanketly rejected four line-item budget vetoes Thursday from Gov. Jim Pillen and questioned whether his objections were constitutionally submitted and whether the vetoes count. Speaker John Arch of La Vista announced that the Legislature was not in receipt of the actual line-itemed bills — Legislative Bills 261 and 264 — by the end-of-day Wednesday. Under the Nebraska Constitution, if the Legislature is in session, vetoes must be filed with the Clerk of the Legislature within five days, excluding Sunday. If the Legislature is out of session when the bills are returned, vetoed bills are filed with the Nebraska Secretary of State's Office. Pillen announces $14.5 million in vetoes from Nebraska budget, 83% of it from Supreme Court The Legislature did not receive the budget bills with the line-item objections until Thursday morning, hours after the midnight deadline and a half-day after the bills had been delivered to the Secretary of State's Office but not the Clerk of the Legislature's Office, Arch said. 'As such, we don't believe that we can accept these vetoes,' Arch said. Laura Strimple, a spokesperson for Pillen, said the governor took action on LB 261 at 1:08 p.m. Wednesday and LB 264 at 1:10 p.m. Wednesday. She said Pillen 'clearly took the legally required steps to exercise his veto authority by surrendering physical possession and the power to approve or reject the bills.' Strimple said the bills were sent to both the Secretary of State's Office and the Clerk's Office by end-of-day Wednesday. 'It is unfortunate that the Legislature is giving up its opportunity to take action on the Governor's veto and has, by unilaterally returning the mainline budget to the Governor, created an impasse,' Strimple said. 'We will consult with the Attorney General's Office and other counsel on next steps to effectuate the law.' Arch, upon learning of Strimple's statement, said the Legislature's position stood. He said he didn't know if the Governor's Office would sue to enforce the vetoes, but he hopes it won't. Speaking with reporters, Arch said that to his knowledge, nothing like this has happened before and that the Legislature would be gathering facts on the situation. 'I'm hoping that in our discussions, we can resolve the issue,' Arch said. 'But on the plain reading of the Constitution, we have concerns.' The 2025-27 budget bills have faced continued twists and turns accelerated by a major projected budget shortfall of at least $630 million by the time the budget bills passed last week. Hundreds of millions of dollars were moved around to fill the hole, including $147 million from the state's 'rainy day' cash reserve fund. Pillen's vetoes sought to reduce state spending by $14.5 million, $12 million of which was cut from the allotment to the Nebraska Supreme Court, which court leaders said could be detrimental to various services. State Sen. Rob Clements of Elmwood, chair of the Legislature's Appropriations Committee, said the budget-writing process has been stressful but that he was 'pleased' with ending at a balanced budget. Of Pillen's vetoes, he said he agreed 'the Constitution was not followed.' 'What happened with the delivery of the vetoes is not a problem with the budget,' Clements said. Now in his ninth year on the committee, and in his final two-year budget, Clements said he enjoys numbers and that it is 'a real relief' to have reached the end. Multiple Appropriations Committee members were joyful at the conclusion, with some grinning ear to ear, hugging one another and pumping their fists in the air after Arch announced the conclusion. Up until that moment, lawmakers and lobbyists were abuzz that, for seemingly the first time, vetoes might have been stopped without a vote of the Legislature. Veto overrides take at least 30 votes and often feature intense gubernatorial pressure, often behind the scenes, to flip votes on legislation that often first passes with more than 30 votes. State Sen. Terrell McKinney of Omaha, who will seek to override a veto of LB 287, a bill trying to crack down on bedbugs in Omaha and give the Omaha City Council additional oversight of the Omaha Housing Authority, took a different view. 'I wish the veto for LB 287 was invalid too, but overall it's karma,' McKinney said. State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha, a new face on the Appropriations Committee this year, said she feels the Governor's Office would try to make the vetoes stick anyway. She said the drama would end up in front of the people of Nebraska. 'I told everybody this morning, 'Let's just descend into the chaos.' And they took me literally,' Cavanaugh told the Nebraska Examiner. She continued: 'I mean, process matters, the Constitution matters. We're upholding the Constitution, which is our job, and that's pretty much it.' Nebraska Examiner reporter Juan Salinas II contributed to this report. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Burial, cremation requirement for procedural abortions in Nebraska advances
State Sens. Ben Hansen of Blair, left, and Merv Riepe of Ralston. April 14, 2025. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner) LINCOLN — State lawmakers took a step Tuesday toward requiring Nebraska health care facilities that perform procedural abortions to dispose of the remains by cremation or burial. Legislative Bill 632, from State Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair, advanced 34-11, with one senator who voted 'yes' saying after that he had done so inadvertently. However, whether the bill will have the 33 votes needed to keep moving forward depends on negotiations between Hansen and State Sen. Merv Riepe of Ralston for a possible amendment. Hansen has described the intent of LB 632 as uplifting the 'dignity' of an aborted fetus, similar to a 2003 Nebraska law requiring hospitals to have a written policy for the proper disposition of the remains of any child born dead at a Nebraska hospital. Hansen said other health care facilities, such as Planned Parenthood, are an 'exception' to the 2003 law. He has said LB 632 is mirrored after a similar Minnesota law adopted in 1987. 'Nothing differs in the body of a baby between elective or spontaneous abortion,' Hansen said, referring to the medical term for miscarriages. 'The only difference is the cause of death.' State Sen. Ashlei Spivey of Omaha, whose nonprofit I Be Black Girl is focused on reproductive justice, led opposition to the bill. She was a key part of an unsuccessful ballot measure in 2024 to expand abortion rights in the state to the point of fetal viability. Spivey blasted the bill as a 'back door attempt to ban abortions' in the state, which Hansen repeatedly denied. Spivey said the bill also ignores existing laws for how facilities handle human tissue, including fetal or pregnancy tissue. 'The reality is LB 632 disrespects patients by essentially imposing a funeral requirement for abortion,' Spivey said, stating the 'human dignity' goal 'cannot be further from the truth.' She continued: 'Imposing this type of requirement without the patient having any say in the matter is wrong and, furthermore, insulting.' Under Hansen's bill, a facility would not need to notify the woman upon whom an abortion is induced of the method of disposition of the fetal remains. Abortion is legal up to 12 weeks gestational age in Nebraska after 2023 legislation, and the Nebraska Constitution now explicitly prohibits most abortions in the second or third trimester after a 2024 vote of the people. State Sen. Dan Lonowski of Hastings, who selected Hansen's proposal as his 2025 priority bill, said 'fetal dignity laws' are needed when the abortion 'industry' shows a 'high disregard' for aborted remains. 'It is crucial to start affirming the humanity of the unborn in the law,' Lonowski said. 'Fetal dignity laws help shape a culture that honors and respects the unborn by acknowledging their humanity and affirming the dignity of each life lost through abortion.' Spivey and others said the Hansen-Lonowski partnership could open the door to future 'personhood' legislation, extending civil rights to fetuses often by legally stating life begins at conception. Other religions, such as Judaism, consider life beginning with the first breath. Spivey cautioned that such laws might open the door to banning in-vitro fertilization, care for miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies. State Sen. George Dungan of Lincoln described LB 632 as 'big government overreach' and read a letter from a military veteran who said she was raped while serving and got an abortion. Dungan and Spivey said the bill could revictimize survivors and limit accessibility to women seeking abortions in cases of rape or incest, which are legal exceptions to the current 12-week law. 'We can find ways to support people that don't create these problems and that don't have these hoops to jump through,' Dungan said. 'If your true goal is to try to create a healthier, safer Nebraska, invest in health care, invest in housing, and make the right decision.' State Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha also questioned whether the bill would require the burial or cremation of fetal tissue or blood, asking 'how much blood has to be on the pad' or what 'evidence' would be needed. She questioned whether the bill could create an abortion 'bounty' and encourage civil penalties against abortion providers. Spivey and Hunt said the end result would be increasing costs to patients, pushing care further or fully out of reach. State Sen. Dave Murman of Glenvil referred to the Health and Human Services Committee hearing for LB 632, when a representative from Planned Parenthood who was asked about the organization's current protocol for disposing of aborted remains did not specifically say what happens. 'What we do currently is completely in line with what most other health care providers who manage fetal tissue do,' she responded at the hearing. Planned Parenthood Advocates of Nebraska estimated that about 18% of abortions in the state are procedural, not medication abortions. Hansen said that if burial or cremation was not being done, providers might be disposing of remains by 'throwing them in a dumpster.' Hunt and Spivey said the lack of a policy didn't mean the allegations that Lonowski, Murman and Hansen stated were accurate. Murman argued that if the remains were treated with dignity, then Planned Parenthood should have been able to detail the process. 'I believe every human, no matter how small, deserves some measure to ensure human dignity,' Murman said. Riepe spoke little during the four-hour debate but echoed a comment from Dungan that the bill is a serious topic. He continued to work with Hansen off the legislative floor and said little during debate, other than arguing that women having an 'option' for the disposition of fetal remains might be better. His possible amendment has not been filed, but in details shared with the Nebraska Examiner, Riepe is looking to give mothers the choice of mass cremation, individual burial or cremation or the disposition of remains in a manner determined by the health care facility. If the woman doesn't choose, it would be up to the facility. Riepe's in-progress amendment also is looking to explicitly protect in-vitro fertilization and medication abortions, the latter of which Hansen sought to fix by having his language cover abortions performed and 'completed' at the same facility. Riepe told the Examiner that he and Hansen are at a 'very friendly point' and that he feels good about the negotiations. Second-round debate would be limited to up to two hours on Hansen's bill, pursuant to scheduling from Speaker John Arch of La Vista on 'controversial and emotionally charged' bills. That could narrow the time needed to amend Hansen's bill to secure Riepe's support, putting him in a similar position as he was two years ago when he defeated a near-total abortion ban. Also similar to 2023: Hansen and Riepe working behind the scenes for a path forward. The two worked together to craft the current 12-week law, rising from the ashes of the near-total ban. 'If we don't get what I feel is needed on this thing, to try to make it a less controversial issue, then at that point in time I would not vote for cloture,' Riepe said, referring to the procedural motion to cease debate, which requires at least 33 votes. Riepe is likely to be the 33rd vote. Freshman State Sen. Victor Rountree of Bellevue spoke against the bill during the debate and voted against cloture, but he later voted to advance Hansen's bill. He said that was a 'mispunch' and remains opposed to the bill. State Sens. Dan Quick of Grand Island and Jason Prokop of Lincoln were 'present, not voting' on the advancement of Hansen's LB 632. Prokop opposed cloture, while Quick did not take a position, the same stance he took when the bill advanced 5-1 from the committee. Quick said he has some concerns about whether the new requirements would apply uniformly and that he understands, for instance, the disposition policy of CHI Health St. Francis in Grand Island but not the policies of non-faith-based facilities. Quick said it's possible that an amendment could address his concerns. Prokop said he would continue listening to ongoing negotiations. State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha, a progressive who is friends with Riepe, said an unintended consequence of Nebraska's 2003 law required providers to ask parents what they wanted to be done with fetal remains after a miscarriage or abortion in a hospital setting. She said dictating medical practice in law means 'we muck things up that we don't even know we're mucking up.' Cavanaugh detailed that she had been pregnant with twins but had a nonviable pregnancy that was so early in her pregnancy she had no remains. Eight months later, as she was preparing to give a live birth to one of her children, she was still asked to fill out paperwork to cover the hospital's liability. While Hansen's bill wouldn't require providers to talk to the parents, Cavanaugh said they would still take a family's baby. 'I'm not going to let you take my baby and bury it without my permission, without my say-so. No. Absolutely not, 100% not going to happen,' Cavanaugh said. 'If I want to bury a baby, I will grieve how it's best for me and my partner and my family. I don't need the state telling me how to grieve my losses.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
University of Nebraska regents amend bylaws to comply with federal anti-DEI mandate
FILE — The University of Nebraska Board of Regents meets Oct. 5. 2023, at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner) OMAHA — The University of Nebraska Board of Regents approved multiple bylaw changes Friday in response to President Donald Trump with some opposition from students, faculty and two elected regents. In two 6-2 votes, the NU Board of Regents amended various policies, including those on 'equal opportunity' in employment, admission of students and cultural diversity in setting nonresident tuition remission programs. NU's four student regents did not support the changes, though their votes are non-binding under the Nebraska Constitution. The changes came after the Trump administration in February warned colleges and universities that federal funding could be at risk if they didn't end diversity, equity and inclusion programs. NU Regent Elizabeth O'Connor of Omaha, who opposed the changes along with Regent Barbara Weitz of Omaha, said the decision 'weighed heavily' on her after an emergency Feb. 25 meeting, less than two weeks after the Trump letter, to let the bylaw changes to come up for a vote in time. O'Connor said the federal action against DEI didn't specifically define the targeted programs. She noted DEI isn't just race or ethnicity but is also about women, first-generation college students, nontraditional students, veterans, low-income students and students with disabilities. 'The practices targeted are often research-based practices with decades of education research that indicates numerous benefits to individuals, community and society,' O'Connor said. Student Regents Elizabeth Herbin (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), Ishani Adidam (University of Nebraska at Omaha) and Pranita Devaraju (University of Nebraska Medical Center) said they publicly opposed the changes on behalf of their student bodies. Herbin and Adidam have spoken out on past actions on their campuses to shut down DEI-related offices. Zackary Bursh, a 19-year-old sophomore at UNL, said the regents had a choice to decide how to respond and show they care. UNL faculty Stephanie Bondi and Crystal Garcia, who said they study higher education and the proposed changes on students, told the regents Friday that amending the bylaws could hurt students. Garcia said the Trump 'anti-civil rights guidance' wasn't law and that other universities that have complied in response to similar threats have still lost federal funding. 'Complying with this administration will not save us,' Garcia said. 'It will only open our campus communities to years of continued scrutiny, surveillance and coercion.' Adidam, whose UNO campus hosted the regents Friday, said there has been a 'culture shift' since the closure of DEI offices. She and Herbin said the policies were more than 'language.' 'Yes, this is language, but language is the first step to creating more action that could potentially have negative consequences for students,' Adidam said. 'I personally don't think UNO students would want that.' The fourth student, Sam Schroeder (University of Nebraska at Kearney), abstained from one of the votes but opposed the second. He will return as UNK's student regent next year, while this is the last scheduled meeting for the three other student regents. Regent Jim Scher of Norfolk said he didn't necessarily disagree with the students or O'Connor but that he was concerned about the 'extent of damage' that inaction could cause. 'I don't want to cause a financial problem that is much greater than the verbiage problem that we're talking about,' Scheer said. Noting the groundswell for underrepresented students that the students and O'Connor defended, Scheer said it could be the same students who lose Pell Grants or federal funding. 'The same students that we're talking about being recognized and feeling inclusive or important and helpful, without those Pell Grants, wouldn't be here,' Scheer said. 'I'm not going to be cavalier enough to say I'm going to take a stand symbolically because when those people, those students, don't get their Pell Grants and their funding, they're no longer students.' He continued: 'I think the education of those students outweighs the value of this symbolic vote to withstand the pressures put on us.' Regent Kathy Wilmot of Beaver City echoed Scheer that her 'overarching responsibility' was to ensure NU could continue to offer educational opportunities. O'Connor said she recognized those arguments but disagreed with Scheer that she was being 'cavalier.' She said that seemed 'rude.' Scheer said he was only talking about himself. 'Reasonable minds can have different votes here,' O'Connor said in response. Devaraju said she understands concerns that without the changes NU could lose funding but said she wanted to use even her 'symbolic' vote to speak out. She added that the 'intentionally unclear guidance' came after NU had made many DEI-related changes to appease the federal government and seemed to be leaning toward potential 'over compliance.' 'I also feel that in 50 years we will look back and wonder why we didn't protest at all as our hand was being forced,' Devaraju said. O'Connor said she worried Friday's action wouldn't be the end. 'While today is just one piece of unraveling support for students in research supported by DEI,' O'Connor said, 'I believe that it is just the beginning, and it will be hard to reverse the damage done in the future.' Regents on Friday also approved: Establishing the Nebraska Children's Justice and Legal Advocacy Center in the Nebraska College of Law on UNL's campus. Creating a graduate certificate for emergency nurse practitioners at UNMC. Approving collective bargaining agreements for unionized employees at UNK and UNO. Naming the volleyball court in the Bob Devaney Sports Center the 'John Cook Arena' and putting up a bronze statue of the former Huskers volleyball head coach outside. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Lawsuit over wind farm rule changes in Knox County, Neb. mostly dismissed
KNOX COUNTY, Neb. (KCAU) — A lawsuit that was filed after changes to a wind farm zoning ordinance in Knox County, Nebraska has now been mostly denied. On Friday, a district judge granted in part and denied in part the motion for the suit's dismissal. Most of the claims in the suit filed by North Fork Wind, LLC and landowners in the county were dismissed, but two of the claims were allowed to proceed. North Fork Wind argued five claims against the defense: the Contracts Clause, Equal Protection Clause, the prohibition of 'special legislation' in the Nebraska Constitution, substantive and procedural components of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and Nebraska Constitution. The claims the U.S. District Judge allowed to pursue are those related to the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause and those related to state laws limited to the county's non-compliance with posting zoning ordinances. Woodbury County officials remind residents to check for snow buildup in outdoor vents The judge also granted that Kevin Mackeprang, a supervisor, be dismissed from the lawsuit altogether. Supervisor Kevin Mackeprang was named as a defendant as part of his position on the board of supervisors in the lawsuit. The defense said that he leased land to North Fork Winds, serving as an undisclosed business partner with the company for years, failing to disclose his potential conflict of interest until Sept. 2024. The rest of the defense asked that the suit be tossed due to his conflict of interest or that he at least be named a plaintiff in the case. North Fork Wind filed the lawsuit in Aug. 2024 against the Knox County Board of Supervisors and others over zoning regulations. The company claimed they had been working since 2017 to set up a 600-megawatt commercial wind energy conversion system (CWECS), with the county even having adopted new zoning regulations in Nov. 2023. Then, in May 2024, a group began to push for a change to the rules in May 2024, leading to the Knox County Board of Supervisors voting to change the setback rules to more than three times the original distance. The lawsuit claimed that the changes were made 'with the express purpose of regulating North Fork Wind and the Wind Farm only.' It stated zoning changes for wind farms were done without properly posting proposed amendments in meeting agendas. It also said that impacted landowners did not receive written notice about the proposed amendments. In meeting minutes and agendas, North Fork Wind and the wind farm were specifically mentioned for the proposed amendments. The judge said that allegations surrounding the Knox County zoning board's conduct were concerning, but government bodies are given to power to enact laws in the interest of the public. 'It is not the place of the Court to disrupt those decisions,' the judge said. The judge also ordered that discovery be bifurcated, saying that the evidence of property interest is separate from other issues in the case. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
