Nebraska Supreme Court Restores Voting Rights to Thousands Just Before Election Deadline
In a landmark ruling that could reshape the political landscape in Nebraska, the state Supreme Court ordered officials to restore voting rights to tens of thousands of citizens who have completed their criminal sentences. This decision, delivered just nine days before the voter registration deadline, comes after state officials had illegally suspended these rights earlier this year, raising concerns about voter suppression ahead of the crucial 2024 elections.
Back in July, Nebraska’s Attorney General Mike Hilgers and Secretary of State Bob Evnen, both Republicans, took controversial actions against two laws—L.B. 20 and L.B. 53—that aimed to restore voting rights to individuals with felony convictions. L.B. 20, passed by the Nebraska Legislature, was designed to automatically reinstate voting rights upon the completion of a sentence. However, Hilgers issued an advisory opinion claiming the law was unconstitutional, leading Evnen to prohibit election officials from registering eligible voters. This move effectively disenfranchised an estimated 66,000 Nebraskans.
The Supreme Court’s 5-2 decision in the case of Spung v. Evnen marks a significant victory for voting rights advocates, who argued that the actions of Hilgers and Evnen were not only illegal but also a blatant attempt to manipulate the upcoming elections. Justice Stephanie F. Stacy noted that the state Legislature has historically held the authority to determine the process for restoring civil rights, and their decision to reinstate voting rights without requiring a pardon was well within their powers.
The implications of this ruling are profound, especially with the 2024 presidential election on the horizon. Nebraska has become a focal point for both parties, with Vice President Kamala Harris eyeing Omaha as a potential battleground for electoral votes. Additionally, the state’s Senate race is heating up, with independent candidate Dan Osborn challenging Republican incumbent Deb Fischer in what could be a pivotal contest for control of the Senate.
Despite the court’s ruling, concerns linger about whether the newly enfranchised voters will have enough time to register and participate in the upcoming elections. Justice Lindsey Miller-Lerman criticized her colleagues for delaying the decision, suggesting that the court’s inaction allowed state officials to effectively suppress voter participation. With online voter registration ending soon and in-person registration deadlines looming, civil rights groups are scrambling to inform and register eligible voters.
As the dust settles from this ruling, questions remain about accountability for the state officials involved in the initial suspension of voting rights. Legal experts have pointed out that Evnen’s actions may constitute a violation of Nebraska law, which prohibits public servants from knowingly disregarding statutes related to their duties. However, it remains uncertain whether any legal repercussions will follow.
In the end, this Supreme Court decision not only restores the voting rights of thousands of Nebraskans but also serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle for civil rights in the face of political maneuvering. As the 2024 elections approach, the newly reinstated voters could play a crucial role in shaping the future of Nebraska and beyond.
