ReportWire

Tag: ballot measures

  • Petition effort seeks to halve Nebraska property taxes, cap valuations

    [ad_1]

    Eric Underwood, former chair of the NEGOP, center, leads a news conference with his new nonprofit Advocates For All Nebraskans to announce two ballot measures intended to lower property taxes and cap annual increases to property valuations. Aug. 25, 2025. (Photo by Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)

    LINCOLN — Advocates launched a pair of ballot measures Monday for the 2026 election, one that aims to halve property taxes and the other to cap annual property valuation increases.

    The petitions are the first of a handful being sought for 2026 by the new nonprofit “Advocates For All Nebraskans.” Leading the effort is former Nebraska Republican Party Chair Eric Underwood of Malcolm, State Board of Education member Kirk Penner of Aurora, former Nebraska State Patrol Superintendent Tom Nesbitt of Lincoln and former Lincoln talk radio host Doug Fitzgerald.

    Eric Underwood, former chair of the Nebraska Republican Party and leader of the new nonprofit Advocates For All Nebraskans. Aug. 25, 2025. (Photo by Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)

    The first petition would amend state law and halve the percentage of a property’s valuation subject to property taxes after 2026 — for homes, from 100% to 50%, and for agricultural or horticultural land, from 75% to 37.5%.

    A total of $5.3 billion in property taxes was assessed statewide in each of the past two years. A 50% reduction would mean a property tax savings of more than $2.6 billion. 

    “This immediate property tax relief and others that are out there are literally one signature and then one vote in 2026 away from becoming reality for the people,” Underwood said at a Monday news conference launching the effort.

    The second petition would amend the Nebraska Constitution to cap property valuation increases at the growth rate of Nebraska’s general fund tax receipts (as calculated at the end of each calendar year) or 3%, whichever is less.

    The valuation cap would not apply when a property is built, sold or purchased.

    Influence of valuations

    Reducing property valuations does not mean property taxes will go down at the same rate, or at all.

    There are more than 2,300 taxing subdivisions in the state, including 245 school districts, 93 counties, 528 municipalities, 408 fire districts and 327 townships. About 60% of property taxes pay for local schools, 17.2% for counties and 11.5% for municipalities.

    The proposed ballot measures would offer no replacement revenue to cover immediate reductions in property valuations.

    Qualifying for the ballot

    Voter-led changes to state law require verified signatures from at least 7% of registered voters (about 90,000). Voter-led changes to the Nebraska Constitution require signatures from at least 10% of voters (about 126,000). 

    Initiatives also need qualified signatures from at least 5% of registered voters in at least 38 of the state’s 93 counties.

    Voter totals are calculated when petitions are due to the Nebraska Secretary of State’s Office.

    Petitions seeking verification on the November 2026 ballot must be submitted in early July 2026.

    Some local officials speaking with the Nebraska Examiner after Monday’s announcement said they were still reviewing the ballot language but noted a taxing entity at or below half of its tax-asking authority could theoretically make up the difference over time.

    That would mean a school district at or below a 52.5-cent levy and counties or municipalities at or below 22.5-cent levies. The Legislature has capped how fast these three governments can increase property tax rates year over year.

    School and local government officials have in the past worried that tight spending caps could hinder growth or hurt employee recruitment or retention, and some have noted local leaders are buying products facing inflationary pressures as taxpayers are.

    Property tax rates can vary widely in the allowable range, such as for school districts. In the most recent year, Hyannis Public Schools and Humphrey Public Schools had mainline school levies of roughly 35 cents, while others were at or just below a $1.05 cap — public schools in Sidney, Plattsmouth, Medicine Valley, Gering or Walthill

    Entities within the upper half of their tax-asking authority would absorb the reduced valuations and resulting decline in tax revenue, unless they have access to additional state funding or other sources of revenue.

    In short, some Nebraskans would not receive a straight 50% reduction in property taxes.

    It’s not yet clear how lower valuations might pair with changes to the state’s main funding formula for schools. A new state commission is looking at long-term fixes to that funding, with first recommendations to the Legislature due Dec. 1.

    Leadership for the Nebraska State Education Association, Nebraska Association of County Officials and League of Nebraska Municipalities had no immediate comment Monday.

    Underwood argued property tax savings from the ballot measure would be spent in local communities, which he said would energize and boost state and local sales or income tax revenue.

    ‘Rebalancing the funding structure’

    Penner, who sat on the Aurora school board for 16 years before joining the State Board of Education in 2021, said he understands that property taxes play a balanced role in supporting schools. He said the ballot measures are “not about crippling local services. It’s about rebalancing the funding structure.”

     State Board of Education member Kirk Penner of Aurora. Aug. 25, 2025. (Photo by Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)

    State Board of Education member Kirk Penner of Aurora. Aug. 25, 2025. (Photo by Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)

    Over the next 18 months, Penner challenged local governments and taxing entities to prepare and engage with constituents to find new efficiencies and sustainable funding models. He said it could be a “new era” for transparency and direct public engagement.

    “This is where elected representation should always be: a purposeful engagement of government to their constituents in a time and manner that truly listens to the voice and embraces the will of the people,” Penner said.

    Underwood told the Examiner he understands the effort might seem a “forceful way” forward, but he asked at what point conversations would occur without the people as the “primary driver.” He said he also believes the effort could increase voter turnout in the 2026 midterm elections.

    The group intends a “staged” release of petitions for 2026, Penner said, with the first two. He pledged another petition would “ensure our schools are properly funded while still moving them away from heavy reliance on property taxes.” He said the school funding mechanism is “broke” and has been for a while.

     Doug Fitzgerald, a former talk radio host in Lincoln, Aug. 25, 2025. (Photo by Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)

    Doug Fitzgerald, a former talk radio host in Lincoln, Aug. 25, 2025. (Photo by Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)

    Underwood said subsequent petitions would prioritize local control and lead to a “historical rebalancing of schools” with a focus on caring for teachers and ensuring student education.

    The group did not further detail or offer a timeline for when future petitions would be released.

    Countering or pairing with EPIC Option

    The Nebraska Constitution requires ballot measures to contain no more than a “single subject,” barring detailed but interconnected changes from appearing as a single item and requiring signatures to be gathered across multiple petitions, with each voted on separately.

    However, juggling multiple petitions has proven challenging, as indicated in past years for medical cannabis advocates or the similarly tax-centered “EPIC Option.”

    The “EPIC Option,” an acronym for the effort to eliminate property, income, inheritance and corporate taxes, is trying again for November 2026 with a “2.0” version that would take effect in 2028. Instead of two petitions to detail an alternative consumption tax, supporters landed this cycle on a single sentence. 

    If the EPIC Option is successful, the Legislature would be left to devise alternative revenue.

     Then-State Sen. Steve Erdman of Bayard leads a news conference at the Nebraska State Capitol on his EPIC Option tax proposals at the Nebraska State Capitol. May 21, 2024. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)

    Then-State Sen. Steve Erdman of Bayard leads a news conference at the Nebraska State Capitol on his EPIC Option tax proposals at the Nebraska State Capitol. May 21, 2024. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)

    Underwood told reporters Monday that his group’s effort no way counters EPIC and can be complementary or parallel.

    “We don’t think there’s going to be confusion,” Underwood said.

    However, former State Sen. Steve Erdman of Bayard, an EPIC creator and spokesperson, said while the Underwood-led effort might make Nebraska’s tax system better, it won’t fix the issue.

    “There’s only one way to fix it, and that’s start over,” Erdman told the Examiner.

    Erdman said he is worried about confusion because the more explaining his team had to do with EPIC, it hurt signature gathering in the past year, compared to now. He also expressed concern about whether the Legislature would carry out the intended 50% property tax reduction or whether capping valuations up to 3% would instead lock in unfair valuations.

    State Sens. Kathleen Kauth of Omaha and Bob Andersen of north-central Sarpy County are continuing to look at legislative ways to tackle property valuations, including a cap as Underwood’s team proposed. 

    The Andersen-Kauth effort did not advance past the Revenue Committee this spring, but the pair has not given up ahead of the 2026 legislative session, with hopes to reach the 2026 ballot, too.

    ‘Historic, lawful power’

    Underwood, who led the Nebraska Republican Party between 2022 and 2025, and his fellow ballot sponsors said the Legislature has not listened to the public on property taxes, an argument Erdman has also championed.

     Retired Nebraska State Patrol Superintendent Tom Nesbitt. Aug. 25, 2025. (Photo by Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)

    Retired Nebraska State Patrol Superintendent Tom Nesbitt. Aug. 25, 2025. (Photo by Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)

    The 49-member, officially nonpartisan Legislature, where members do not formally caucus by party, has a Republican supermajority. Underwood and his supporters are Republicans.

    Fitzgerald said he’s heard loud and clear from Nebraskans fed up with the state’s “property tax nightmare.”

    Nesbitt said he appreciates the one-house Legislature, the only statehouse of its kind in the country. But he said that “over the years, I’ve watched an erosion of something fundamental: the will of the people taking a back seat to the machinery of government.”

    “Our petitions aren’t radical by any means, or even partisan,” Nesbitt said. “They’re to return to a historic, lawful power of Nebraskans to legislate of, by and for the people.”

    SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nebraska AG & US Senator Urge Lawmakers To Ignore Medical Marijuana Legalization Vote

    [ad_1]

    Nebraska’s Attorney General and former Governor are urging state lawmakers to halt efforts to adopt a pair of citizen-initiated measures regulating the possession, use, and production of medical cannabis. Some 70 percent of Nebraska voters approved the measures on election day.

    Writing in an op-ed, AG Mike Hilgers and former Governor (now US Senator) Pete Ricketts called on lawmakers to ignore the voters’ will. “The legislature has no duty to act now,” they wrote. “In fact, there are plenty of reasons to not act at all.”

    The duo opined that cannabis is “harmful, easily abused, and is not safe to consume even under medical supervision.” Ricketts, a longtime opponent of marijuana policy reform, has previously alleged: “If you legalize marijuana, you’re gonna kill your kids. That’s what the data shows from around the country.”

    During public hearings yesterday, a representative from the AG’s office warned that the state would consider filing a lawsuit if regulators moved forward with licensing medical cannabis providers, arguing that such actions are inconsistent with federal law. Opponents of the law have already filed a pair of lawsuits seeking to nullify the election outcome.

    On Monday, lawmakers also heard testimony regarding legislation, LB 483, repealing patients’ access to botanical cannabis. NORML’s Deputy Director Paul Armentano provided testimony against the bill, stating: “Elections have consequences. Nebraskans have made it clear that they want patients to have regulated access to botanical cannabis. Lawmakers must respect their vote.”

    He added: “LB 483 is undemocratic; it is also bad public policy. … Many patients seeking rapid relief of symptoms such as pain, nausea, or spasticity will suffer by having their access limited solely to cannabis pills and other oral formulations,” which are far slower to take effect.

    In total, more than 300 witnesses testified against the bill.

    Lawmakers on Monday also deliberated over separate bills providing further clarity for regulating medical cannabis access. Those efforts were supported by initiative proponents Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana, who held a rally at the state capitol yesterday morning during which they criticized the former Governor’s efforts.

    “The individuals who are continuing to be opposed are absolutely disregarding the fact that 71 percent of people in this state support safe and regulated medical cannabis,” said Campaign Manager Crista Eggers. “And I would ask them to take a look at any state that has legalized medical cannabis and I’d like them to see that their arguments hold no weight.”

    Ultimately, lawmakers did not take votes yesterday on any of the marijuana-related bills.

    NORML’s Armentano warned that elected officials’ efforts in Nebraska to undermine voters’ decisions is consistent with Republican-led efforts in several other states, including Ohio, where Senate lawmakers recently voted in favor of GOP-backed legislation rescinding much of the state’s voter-approved legalization law and recriminalizing many marijuana-related activities. Separate legislation introduced earlier this year in South Dakota that sought to repeal the state’s voter-approved medical cannabis law failed by a single vote.

    “In a healthy democracy, those with competing visions on public policy vie for voters’ support and abide by their voting decisions. However, it is becoming clear that those who oppose marijuana policy reform would rather take voters out of the equation altogether,” Armentano said. “Whether or not one personally supports or opposes cannabis legalization, these cynical and undemocratic tactics ought to be a cause of deep concern.”

    A state-by-state guide to pending marijuana legislation is available from NORML’s Take Action Center.

    [ad_2]

    NORML

    Source link

  • Opinion: Sirota’s ranked-choice voting amendment pushed back on monied interests

    Opinion: Sirota’s ranked-choice voting amendment pushed back on monied interests

    [ad_1]

    Thank you, Rep. Emily Sirota for ensuring that Colorado voters and county clerks are not overwhelmed with massive election changes that moneyed interests hope to foist on us through the ballot box this November.

    Sirota’s amendment to Senate Bill 210, an election reform bill, will ensure the rollout of ranked-choice voting, should it pass by voter initiative, will be implemented thoughtfully. The amendment, which passed unanimously, would require a dozen Colorado municipalities of varying sizes and demographics to conduct ranked-choice voting before it goes statewide.

    The phase-in will allow cities to develop best practices before all jurisdictions are required to implement a complicated and wholesale change. Just as mail-in voting was phased in over several years, the Sirota amendment will give clerks time to develop policies, purchase software, train employees, and educate their constituents.

    It also gives voters the opportunity to see how ranked choice voting works and gives them a chance to repeal it after the new car smell fades and they see how confusing and unfair it is. This election, Alaska voters are looking to repeal the ranked-choice voting system they approved just four years ago. They would have saved themselves a lot of money and frustration if the system had been implemented in a dozen jurisdictions instead of going all in from the start.

    A ranked-choice voting system for Colorado is being sought by the wealthy former CEO of DaVita, a Denver-based kidney dialysis provider, Kent Thiry. His proposal, which has been approved for signature collection,  would impose an open primary and ranked-choice general elections on the state.

    Here’s how it would work: Anyone, regardless of party affiliation, could run in the primary with the top four contenders advancing to the general election. In the general, voters would be asked to rank candidates in order of preference.

    It’s a confusing system, so I’ll put names to an example. Let’s say that out of a gubernatorial primary former Sen. Cory Gardner, current Sen. Michael Bennet, former Rep. Ken Buck, and Denver Mayor Mike Johnston advance to the general.

    I vote in the general for Bennet, Johnston, Buck, and Gardner in that order. If nobody gets 50% of the statewide vote, the votes are retallied. Let’s say that in the first tally, Bennet gets the least number of votes and is eliminated. Johnston, my second choice will get my vote. If Johnston is eliminated in round two, Buck will get my vote and either he or Gardner will emerge from the final round.

    In some elections, after all the tallying is done the most popular candidate (the one most voters ranked first) will go home empty-handed. In the 2010 Oakland mayoral race, the candidate who received the most votes in round one ultimately lost the election after nine rounds of vote redistribution. How fair is that to candidates or voters?

    If you’re confused, imagine how much effort, time, and money the Secretary of State and county clerks will have to expend to educate voters. It is likely the complexity will persuade some voters to chuck their ballot. Then there will be less voter participation.

    Being confusing isn’t the only problem with ranked-choice voting. Let’s say you picked only Johnston and Bennet and neither of them made it to the third round; your ballot will be considered exhausted and tossed out. Only those who voted for Buck and Gardner in whatever order, will be counted in the final tally.

    This has happened. In Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, the candidate who got the most votes ultimately lost to the second-place candidate. The Maine Secretary of State threw out more than 14,000 exhausted ballots from people who did not vote for the top two candidates. Sound fair?

    Proponents of ranked-choice voting think that such a system will reduce the number of extremist candidates and help voters coalesce around a mainstream candidate. This is a solution looking for a problem that isn’t a problem.

    Colorado does not have a problem with extreme candidates or officeholders. I did not vote for either of the state’s U.S. senators, my congressman, my representatives in the Colorado General Assembly, the governor, the attorney general, the secretary of state or the treasurer. While they are wrong on most issues, not one of them is extreme. Not one. Fanatics do come along but the current system is self-correcting.

    Extreme Democrats like Reps. Elisabeth Epps and Tim Hernández face formidable primary opponents this year and extreme Republicans like Ron Hanks and Dave Williams are unlikely to win in their primaries. Congresswoman Lauren Boebert had to flee her home district because voters yearned for normalcy and were poised to turn her out in the primary or general.

    While we’re popping illusion balloons, the Sirota Amendment was not some sneaky last-minute ploy. County clerks and the Colorado Clerks Association approached Sirota with the concerns they have about implementing the Thiry proposal if it passed and she listened. Matt Crane, executive director clerks association, told me that organization “strongly support[s] the amendment and appreciate[s] Rep. Sirota’s willingness to include it in the bill.”

    [ad_2]

    Krista Kafer

    Source link

  • Abortion Could Matter Even More in 2024

    Abortion Could Matter Even More in 2024

    [ad_1]

    Last month, during a meeting of Democrats in rural southwestern Iowa, a man raised his hand. “What are three noncontroversial issues that Democrats should be talking about right now?” he asked the evening’s speaker, Rob Sand, Iowa’s state auditor and a minor state celebrity.

    I watched from the side of the room as Sand answered quickly. The first two issues Democrats should talk about are new state laws dealing with democracy and education, he told the man. And then they should talk about their support for abortion rights. “People in the Iowa Republican Party and their activist base” want to “criminalize abortion,” Sand said.

    I registered this response with a surprised blink. Noncontroversial? Democrats in competitive states, and especially committed centrists like Sand, aren’t usually so eager to foreground abortion on the campaign trail. This seemed new.

    Ascribing a narrative to some elections is easy. The past two midterm cycles are a case in point. The Democrats’ 2018 blue wave, for example, will go down as a woman-led backlash to a grab-’em-by-the-groin president. In 2022, Democrats performed better than expected, according to many analysts, because abortion rights were on the ballot. Now, a year after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Democrats want to do it again.

    They’re betting that they can re-create and even supercharge their successes last year by centering abortion rights in their platform once again in the lead-up to 2024. They want all of their elected officials—even state auditors—talking about the issue. “If we can do all that, we’re gonna be telling the same story in December 2024 that we told in 2022,” Yasmin Radjy, the executive director of the progressive political group Swing Left, told me.

    But this time, Republicans might be better prepared for the fight.

    After the leaked draft opinion before the Dobbs decision last May, many in Washington assumed that abortion would fade from voters’ minds by the time November rolled around. “As we get further away from the shock of that event, of Roe being overturned, you don’t think that … people will sort of lose interest?” CNN’s Don Lemon asked the Democratic political strategist Tom Bonier in September 2022. People did not. Two months later, Democrats celebrated better-than-expected results—avoiding not only the kind of “shellacking” that Barack Obama’s party had suffered in 2010, but the widely predicted red wave. The Democrats narrowly lost the House but retained control of the Senate, flipping Pennsylvania in the process. Abortion-rights campaigners won ballot measures in six states.

    “The lesson has been well learned,” Bonier told me last week. “This is an issue that is incredibly effective, both for mobilizing voters but also for winning over swing voters.”

    The latest polling suggests that the issue is very much alive. A record-high number of registered U.S. voters say that abortion is the most important factor in their decision about whom to vote for, and most of those voters support abortion rights, according to Gallup. Rather than growing less salient over time, abortion may even have gained potency: Roughly a quarter of Americans say that recent state efforts to block abortion access have made them more supportive of abortion rights, not less, according to a USA Today poll last week. Not only that, but recent data suggest that demand for abortion has not been much deterred, despite post-Dobbs efforts to restrict it.

    Americans have watched as Republicans in 20 states restricted or banned abortion outright, and activists took aim at interstate travel for abortions and the pill mifepristone. Stories about pregnant women at risk of bleeding out or becoming septic after being denied abortions have lit up the internet for months. All of this attention and sentiment seem unlikely to dissipate by November 2024.

    “Republicans ran races on this issue for decades,” the Democratic strategist Lis Smith told me. “You’re gonna see Democrats run on this issue for decades to come as well.”

    Already, Democratic activists plan to engage swing voters by forcing the issue in as many states as possible. So far, legislators in New York and Maryland have introduced abortion-related ballot measures for 2024. Similar efforts are under way in other states, including Florida, Arizona, Missouri, South Dakota, and Iowa.

    Smith and her fellow party operatives are confident that they’ve landed on a message that works—especially in purple states where candidates need to win over at least a few moderates and independents. The most successful Democrats last year anchored their abortion messages around the concept of personal liberty, Swing Left’s Radjy told me, because it was “the single issue that is equally popular among far left, far right, center left, and center right.” Radjy shared with me a research report that concluded: “With limited attention and resources, [candidates should] lead with the freedom to decide. Freedom is resonating with the base and conflicted supporters, as well as Soft Biden and Soft Trump women.”

    Smith echoed this reframing. “Republican politicians want to insert themselves into women’s personal medical decisions,” she said, by way of exemplifying the message. “They want to take away this critical freedom from you.” In her view, that gives Democratic candidates a decisive advantage: They don’t even have to say the word abortion; they only have to use the language of freedom for people to be receptive.

    Joe Biden has never been the most comfortable or natural messenger on abortion. But even he is giving the so-called freedom framework a try. Freedom is the first word in the president’s reelection-announcement ad. Republicans, he says in a voice-over, are “dictating what health-care decisions women can make”; they are “banning books, and telling people who they can love.”

    It’s helpful, Democratic strategists told me, that the Republicans jockeying for the presidential nomination have been murky at best on the issue. Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley held a press conference in April to explain that she sees a federal role in restricting abortion, but wouldn’t say what. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina was foggy on his own commitments in interviews before appearing to support a 15-week national ban. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who recently signed a six-week limit on abortion, talks about that ban selectively. The leader of the primary pack, Donald Trump, has said that abortion laws should be left to the states, but told a reporter recently that he, too, is “looking at” a 15-week restriction.

    Trump clearly wants to appease the primary base while keeping some room to maneuver in the general election. But if he’s the nominee, Democrats say, he’ll have to answer for the end of Roe, as well as the anti-abortion positions advocated by other Republicans. “When I worked for Obama in 2012, as rapid-response director, we tied Mitt Romney to the most extreme positions in his party,” Smith told me. If Trump is the abortion-banning GOP’s nominee, they will “hang that around his neck like a millstone.”

    I found it difficult to locate Republican strategists willing to talk with me about abortion, and even fewer who see it as a winning issue for their party. One exception was the Republican pollster and former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, who says that Republicans can be successful in campaigning on abortion—if they talk about it the right way. At a press conference celebrating the anniversary of the Dobbs decision, hosted by the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List, Conway seemed to take a swipe at the former president—and the rest of the wishy-washy primary field. “If you’re running to be president of the United States, it should be easy to have a 15-minimum-week standard,” she said.

    To win on abortion is to frame your opponent as more extreme, and Democrats have made that easy, says Conway, who also acts as an adviser to the Republican National Committee. Broad federal legislation put forward by Democratic lawmakers last year, in response to the Dobbs leak, would prevent states from banning abortion “after fetal viability” for reasons of the mother’s life or health. Republicans claim that this means that Democrats support termination at all stages of pregnancy. Voters may not like outright bans on abortion, but they also generally don’t support abortion without limits. Conway advises Republican candidates to explain to voters whether they support exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, and get that out of the way—and then demand that their Democratic opponents define the time limits they favor. “I’d ask each and every one of them, ‘What are your exceptions? I’ve shown you mine,’” Conway told me.

    Conway’s bullishness is belied by what some of her political allies are up to. While Democrats are pushing for ballot measures that will enshrine abortion rights into law, Republicans are trying to make it harder to pass state constitutional amendments. For example, after it became clear that a ballot measure could result in new abortion protections being added to the Ohio Constitution, state Republicans proposed their own ballot measure asking voters in a special election later this summer to raise the threshold for passing constitutional amendments.

    This scheme does not demonstrate faith that a majority of voters are with them. But it does set up Ohio as the first practical test of abortion’s salience as a political issue in 2024. If Democrats can get their voters to show up this August in the name of abortion rights, maybe they can do it next year too.

    [ad_2]

    Elaine Godfrey

    Source link