Nebraska Democratic Party: Ballot Vacancy Discretion Confirmed by Court

• A Nebraska judge ruled that the state's Democratic Party has discretion, not a mandate, to fill a ballot vacancy when a nominated candidate withdraws.
• Lancaster District Court Judge Susan Strong sided with the Nebraska Democratic Party against former candidate William Forbes, who sought to force a replacement for Cindy Burbank.
• The court interpreted Nebraska Revised Statute 32-623 as granting discretion to parties, with mandatory rules (32-627) applying only if the party chooses to fill the vacancy.
• This decision means the U.S. Senate race will likely proceed between Republican incumbent Pete Ricketts and independent Dan Osborn, without a Democratic nominee.
• The ruling provides significant clarity on political party candidate replacement Nebraska election law ballot vacancy procedures.

The court's decision affirms that the Nebraska Democratic Party holds discretionary power to decide whether to fill a ballot vacancy when a nominated candidate withdraws, rather than being legally compelled to do so.

A Nebraska state judge has ruled that the Nebraska Democratic Party possesses the discretion to decide against filling a ballot vacancy when a nominated candidate withdraws, rather than being legally mandated to do so. This significant decision, handed down by Lancaster District Court Judge Susan Strong, sided with the Democrats in a lawsuit brought by former U.S. Senate candidate William Forbes.

The ruling clarifies the interpretation of Nebraska election law ballot vacancy statutes, specifically Nebraska Revised Statute 32-623. Judge Strong determined that this statute grants political parties the option to fill a vacancy after a candidate declines their nomination. Should a party choose to exercise this option, then the mandatory rules outlined in Nebraska Revised Statute 32-627 for filling such vacancies would apply. This interpretation, according to the court, effectively harmonizes both statutory provisions.

The immediate consequence of this judgment is that the Nebraska Democratic Party will not be compelled to nominate a replacement for Cindy Burbank, who withdrew from the U.S. Senate race in July after securing the Democratic nomination in the May 12 primary. This outcome is expected to narrow the general election contest to Republican incumbent U.S. Senator Pete Ricketts and independent candidate Dan Osborn.

The lawsuit was initiated by William Forbes, who had also vied for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination but received only 10% of the primary vote against Burbank. Forbes filed suit against the Nebraska Democratic Party in July, seeking to force them to place a candidate on the ballot to compete against Osborn in the November election.

Forbes alleged that Burbank's withdrawal was part of a strategic maneuver by the party to clear the field for Dan Osborn, a 51-year-old tattooed union leader known for leading the 2021 Kellogg's plant strike in Omaha. Forbes contended that Osborn, whom he described as having a better chance against Ricketts in the conservative state, was being favored over any candidate with a 'D' next to their name. In a brief, Forbes, a registered Democratic voter, stressed his irreparable harm arguments and claimed Burbank never intended to serve, while the Democrats accused him of being a 'plant' for the incumbent Republican's campaign.

Forbes and his legal team argued that a state law dictated that if a vacancy arose for a partisan office, it 'shall be filled by the majority vote of the proper committee of the same political party.' However, the Democrats countered that Forbes had misinterpreted the statute, pointing to another provision that states a vacancy, if a candidate drops out, 'may be filled.' The party also expressed concerns that being forced to nominate a candidate at the last minute, especially one they did not initially intend to nominate, would create confusion for voters.

Following the court's decision, the Nebraska Democratic Central Committee had already voted, amidst some internal drama, not to fill the vacancy. Jane Kleeb, the state's Democratic chair, issued a statement praising the ruling. She emphasized that the decision validates an essential principle: Nebraska political parties retain the discretion to determine whether to fill a ballot vacancy when a nominee withdraws. Kleeb further asserted that William Forbes, and by extension, 'Pete Ricketts and the MAGA billionaires,' had failed in their attempt to compel the Nebraska Democratic Party to place a candidate on the U.S. Senate ballot line, alluding to Forbes' perceived conservative past.

Erin Hawley, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney with Lex Politica, who represented Forbes, declined to comment on the ruling but referred to Forbes' brief. The brief highlighted that irreparable harm should not be excused simply because a party member crosses party lines, noting that such instances are common. The court's affirmation of the Nebraska Democratic Party ballot vacancy discretion provides crucial clarity for election law attorneys and political parties, underscoring the autonomy of parties in candidate replacement decisions.

This ruling comes just weeks before the critical September 11 deadline for the Nebraska Secretary of State to officially certify candidates for the upcoming general election. While the immediate legal challenge has concluded in favor of the Nebraska Democratic Party, the possibility remains for William Forbes to appeal the decision to the Nebraska Supreme Court. The campaign yard signs for Democratic candidates, observed at the Omaha headquarters for the Nebraska Democratic Party on May 4, 2026, serve as a backdrop to the ongoing electoral landscape in the state.

This ruling provides crucial clarity for election law attorneys and political parties in Nebraska, affirming the discretionary power of parties to decide whether to fill a ballot vacancy when a nominee withdraws, rather than being mandated to do so. Lawyers advising campaigns should factor this precedent into strategic decisions regarding candidate withdrawals and potential legal challenges to ballot composition.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service