On Jan. 30, Heidi Uhing, Civic Nebraska’s director of public policy, testified in opposition of LB3 and LR24CA (the so-called ‘winner-take-all’ measures) before the Nebraska Legislature’s Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee. Here is her testimony as prepared.

“Hello, Chairman Sanders and members of the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee. I’m Heidi Uhing, public policy director with Civic Nebraska, speaking in opposition to LB3 and LR24CA.
“Civic Nebraska, a nonpartisan, pro-voting organization, has long favored the split electoral vote because it serves Nebraskans well, ensuring a more localized representation of voters’ intent. It bolsters our state’s relevancy in federal elections, generating more attention from national candidates and boosting voter turnout. These are all good things.
“We’ve testified to this effect before. However, something notable has happened on this issue that I want to recognize, particularly for the senators new to this committee. This “winner-take-all” bill was heard in this room as recently as 2023. The hearing was comparatively short and sweet: five proponents, seven opponents. It didn’t make it out of committee. No senator prioritized it.
“And now? The governor has named it a top priority for the state, we have an uncomfortably packed hearing room, an overflow room, and a very long night for all of you. What has changed to create this interest?
“The bill that gave us the split electoral vote in 1991 had five co-sponsors: two Republicans, three Democrats. It passed with the support of three Republicans.
“What’s different today is that last April, with only hours left of the legislative session, someone from outside Nebraska suddenly made a demand of this body that would best serve a particular candidate. In a Tweet.
“I encourage you to prioritize issues that are homegrown priorities for Nebraskans. To resist partisan pressure when it’s not in the best interest of Nebraskans. To put process over partisan outcomes. You’ve heard calls today to conform to how other states tally these votes. They’re right – it would be more consistent.
“But this very institution is evidence of Nebraska’s tradition of doing things differently. Those who have come before us have customized a government, and this unique electoral system is designed solely to represent us better. Nebraska and Maine got it right. It’s OK to be better than the rest.”
