Nebraska Supreme Court: Overseas Voting Law Ruling Upholds Nonresident Ballots

• The Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the state's overseas voting law against a challenge from the Republican National Committee.
• The RNC argued the law violated the Nebraska Constitution by allowing individuals who never lived in the state to vote.
• The challenged provision permits voting for those who have not lived in the U.S. but have a parent registered in Nebraska.
• The court found the RNC and co-plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the law conflicted with the state constitution.
• The court also affirmed that one plaintiff, Pamela Dingman, had standing, despite a dissenting opinion citing the low number of affected voters.

The Nebraska Supreme Court's ruling effectively affirms the constitutionality of the state's specific provisions for overseas voting, particularly those pertaining to individuals with parental ties to Nebraska voters despite never having resided in the U.S.

The Nebraska Supreme Court recently issued a significant ruling, rejecting a challenge brought by the Republican National Committee (RNC) against the state's overseas voting law. This decision upholds provisions that allow certain individuals who have never resided in the United States to cast ballots in Nebraska elections. The RNC, along with two Nebraska voters, had contended that a specific subsection of the state's election statutes violated the Nebraska Constitution by expanding voter eligibility beyond established residency requirements.

This legal battle in Nebraska is part of a broader, nationwide effort by the national Republican party to contest similar voting laws across various states. The RNC initiated its challenge in Nebraska in June, following a prior lawsuit concerning North Carolina's voting regulations, where it reportedly achieved some success. Subsequently, the committee also filed legal actions against overseas voting provisions in Colorado, Nevada, and New Jersey, indicating a coordinated strategy to influence nonresident voter qualifications.

The core of the RNC's argument centered on the interpretation of the Nebraska Constitution, which, according to the plaintiffs, mandates that voters must be citizens aged 18 or older who have established residency within the state. RNC Chairman Joe Gruters emphasized this point, stating that the state's constitution clearly requires voters to live in Nebraska and that the challenged law attempted to circumvent this fundamental requirement by allowing individuals who have never lived in the state to vote. The specific provision under scrutiny permits individuals who have not lived in the United States but have a parent registered to vote in Nebraska to participate in the state's elections.

Nebraska Secretary of State Robert Evnen, a Republican himself, was named as the defendant in the lawsuit. Evnen expressed some bewilderment regarding the litigation, describing it as "a little baffling" to a news nonprofit. Prior to the Supreme Court's review, Lancaster County District Court Judge Ryan Post had already ruled against the RNC in August, granting a summary judgment that found the statute was not unconstitutional on its face. This lower court decision was then appealed by the Republican plaintiffs to the state's highest court.

Beyond the constitutional merits, the issue of legal standing played a crucial role in the proceedings. Secretary Evnen had filed a cross-appeal, challenging whether the plaintiffs had the necessary standing to bring their case before the court. The Nebraska Supreme Court ultimately determined that at least one of the plaintiffs, Pamela Dingman, possessed standing. Dingman was identified as a candidate for Lancaster County engineer in the upcoming November election, which the court found sufficient to establish her interest in the matter.

However, this finding on standing was not unanimous. Justice William B. Cassel penned a dissenting opinion, arguing against the majority's conclusion regarding standing. Justice Cassel highlighted the extremely small number of voters affected by the challenged law, noting that they constitute only 0.007% of the total voter population. He characterized the alleged harm as "neither actual, imminent, nor palpable," likening it to "a droplet in a deluge," and asserted that while standing might exist in other circumstances, it was absent in this particular case.

The Nebraska Supreme Court's ruling effectively affirms the constitutionality of the state's specific provisions for overseas voting, particularly those pertaining to individuals with parental ties to Nebraska voters despite never having resided in the U.S. This outcome ensures that the children of military members stationed abroad and other Americans working overseas, as highlighted by state Democratic Party chair Jane Kleeb, retain their ability to vote. Kleeb had previously criticized the RNC's challenge, suggesting it was "so blinded by their radical ideas" that they were willing to disenfranchise service members' children.

The court's decision provides clarity on Nebraska's nonresident voter qualifications and reinforces the legal framework for certain overseas ballots. For political campaigns and election law practitioners, this ruling establishes a precedent regarding the validity of such provisions within the state, potentially influencing future voter registration strategies and legal challenges to similar laws elsewhere.

Attorneys advising political campaigns or involved in election law should note this ruling as it affirms the constitutionality of Nebraska's specific overseas voting provisions, which could influence voter registration efforts or future challenges to similar laws in other states. The court's discussion on standing also provides a relevant precedent for litigators.

Source: Original reporting via news agency