Some ballot initiatives this year have taken more than voter signatures to get onto the ballot in Nebraska. They've already withstood major court challenges.

This month, the Nebraska Supreme Court has heard two legal challenges to an abortion-related ballot initiative, even though it got 200,000 signatures.

Both claimed the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule. A third lawsuit argued that neither of the two ballot initiatives on abortion violate the single-subject rule, suggesting both, or neither, should be on the ballot. The justices allowed both to remain.

Joshua Livingston, an attorney at the Koenig Dunne law firm in Omaha, which filed the third lawsuit, said it is noteworthy the justices agreed on the single-subject rule issue but stressed their comments about ballot initiatives are also noteworthy.

"The opinion did say that the right of ballot initiatives is a protected right," Livingston pointed out. "That needs to be democratically and liberally construed to allow for people to vote."

The Nebraska justices also rejected a lawsuit challenging a ballot initiative which would eliminate $10 million of state funding annually for private and parochial school scholarships.

Currently pending is the outcome of a legal challenge to two ballot initiatives which would legalize and regulate medical marijuana based on alleged signature-gathering irregularities.

Nebraska is the only state with two abortion questions on the ballot this year, and the only one with an initiative seeking to restrict abortion access.

Adam Snipes, director of strategic partnerships at the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, said about two dozen states have some provision for citizen-initiated ballot initiatives. What they allow varies, including amending a state constitution, creating state statutes and/or vetoing a referendum.

But Snipes said more initiatives are being challenged through legislative attacks, court cases and administrations blocking or delaying them once they have passed.

"From our perspective, it's because our issues are winning every time," Snipes explained. "We believe that these attacks on the direct democracy process are happening because legislators are wanting to take the power away from the people because they don't like the outcomes of the election."

So far, voters in four states have amended their constitutions to protect abortion rights and in two others, they have rejected initiatives to restrict them.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

More than 1,000 protests against the policies of President Donald Trump are set for Saturday across the country, with 117 planned in California alone.

The so-called "Hands Off" protests are sponsored by a coalition of dozens of civil rights, environmental, education, social justice and labor groups.

Hunter Dunn is press and public relations director for the grassroots group 50501 So Cal, which stands for "50 protests in 50 states, one movement."

"We oppose executive overreach, including pardon abuse, the institution of Project 2025 policies, and mass deportations by ICE," Dunn outlined. "We also oppose the use of the unitary executive theory to justify ignoring the court system."

Trump has said policies are intended to save money, fight crime and support the domestic oil and gas industry. The rallies in downtown Los Angeles and Sacramento are expected to draw huge crowds for this national day of action.

Dunn argued large-scale protests over a sustained period will slow down the Trump administration's priorities and motivate people to make their voices heard at polls going forward.

"In 2026 and 2028, all the people that are in the streets, they will vote for pro-democracy candidates that are in favor of affordable housing, universal health care, workers rights," Dunn contended. "Any policies that actually make a difference in the lives of the average American."

Some of the groups involved in the protests include the Women's March, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Indivisible, MoveOn.org, Human Rights Campaign, the AFL-CIO and the League of Conservation Voters.


get more stories like this via email

A bill known as the Act for Civic Engagement did not make it out of committee in Olympia before the deadline but advocates for people who are incarcerated said they are not giving up.

The act would ensure people in Washington prisons and other facilities are able to form political organizations, communicate with community groups and elected officials and access spaces for meetings.

Karen Peacey was formerly incarcerated and now works with the advocacy group "I Did the Time." She said when people behind bars are able to stay engaged in politics and their communities, it reduces recidivism.

"They feel like they're a bigger part of society and an important part of society," Peacey explained. "Because they're helping to make it better."

Backers of the bill said more incarcerated people have submitted virtual testimony in Olympia since the pandemic but the process could be more accessible. Peacey argued people are being punished for doing political work from prison and the bill would prevent such retaliation.

The Washington Department of Corrections said implementing the bill would have cost more than $26 million and require over 100 additional employees, rendering it too expensive. Peacey countered the department already has the infrastructure in place for people in prison to communicate online with politicians and organizations.

She thinks the bill would have been important for the mental health of people in custody.

"You need to keep active, you need to keep your mind engaged," Peacey pointed out. "That's what creates a lesser evil within the prison."

Supporters of the bill said it followed other legislation passed in Olympia last year. The Nothing About Us Without Us Act guarantees legislative groups would include at least three people with direct lived experience of the issue they are working on. Peacey noted many incarcerated individuals have been part of the foster system or experienced abuse or a lack of support, giving them valuable insight into improving systems to reduce crime rates.


get more stories like this via email

An executive order signed by President Donald Trump to dramatically overhaul voting laws is unlikely to stand up in court, according to an election law expert. But some states may adopt its provisions to gain political favor.

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, called the order an "executive power grab" meant to dictate how all 50 states will run their future elections. He noted that the president's order would require proof of citizenship on the national voter registration form and require the invalidation of ballots received after Election Day.

"I think it's very, very unlikely that this will take legal effect," he said. "It may be that some states adapt procedures, if they're friendly to the president, to comply with the EO, but it's very unlikely that federal government will be able to enforce many aspects of this EO, if not all of the aspects."

The order also would give the Elon Musk-led team known as the Department of Government Efficiency access to state voter rolls to check for "consistency with federal requirements." Becker said he expects voting-rights groups and state attorneys general to file challenges.

The order threatens to withhold federal funding from states that don't comply with its directives ahead of the 2026 midterms. Becker said that would come with a hefty price tag.

"It's creating an entirely new bureaucracy in every single state," he said. "The entire price tag of this entire executive order, if it were to be upheld, is well into the billions - and possibly tens of billons - of dollars."

The Trump administration has said the EO would prevent non-Americans from voting in federal elections by requiring a government-issued ID or a passport, but not a birth certificate, as proof of citizenship. More than half of Americans don't have a passport - including many in areas of the South and Midwest that voted for Trump in the 2024 election.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email