I know of nothing that will do more than [initiative and referendum] to restore government to the hands of the people and keep it within their control.” – William Jennings Bryan, 1909
For more than a century, Nebraska’s initiative and referendum process has been a pillar of direct democracy, allowing citizens to engage in meaningful policy decisions outside of the traditional legislative process. Three proposed legislative measures (LB521, LR23CA, and LB604) each pose concerns regarding accessibility, responsiveness, and the integrity of our state’s petitioning process.
The Government, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee will hear testimony on each measure on Thursday, Feb. 20; Nebraskans can share their thoughts in person starting at 1:30 pm CST in Room 1507 at the Nebraska State Capitol, or submit testimony online until 8 am CST on Thursday, Feb. 20.
LB521 expands the Secretary of State’s powers
LB521 is primarily a routine “cleanup” bill, but Section 32 requires further scrutiny. This section expands the Secretary of State’s role in counting and verifying petition signatures. This is a responsibility that currently lies with county election officials.
This shift is concerning for several reasons:
›› The Secretary of State, as a member of the Executive Branch, is a political figure, and increasing their authority in the verification process raises concerns about the politicization of ballot qualification.
›› The bill allows the Secretary of State to obtain or contract with software providers for signature verification. Still, it provides no clarity on what software will be used or how it will be managed. The possibility of partisan influence in the selection of verification tools raises alarm.
›› Given recent litigation over ballot initiatives, this change could lead to more legal challenges regarding petition validity, increasing uncertainty for campaigns.
Our recommendation. LB521 is broadly acceptable but should be amended to remove the expanded authority of the Secretary of State over ballot initiative signature verification (Section 32). Maintaining county election officials as the primary verifiers helps ensure a more decentralized and less politically influenced process. An interim study of the issue would enable better options to be considered.
LR23CA moves up submission deadlines
LR23CA proposes a constitutional amendment requiring petition sponsors to submit signatures 16 months before the general election. This is a significant shift from the current deadline of four months – to a full year earlier.
This would:
›› Drastically shorten the signature collection window, making it harder for campaigns to gather the necessary support.
›› Prevent initiatives from responding to current events and policy changes.
›› Create a prolonged opposition window, giving well-funded opponents additional time to mount legal and political challenges against initiatives long before voters weigh in.
Our recommendation. LR23CA should not be advanced from committee. It unnecessarily stifles the initiative and referendum process, diluting it of its responsiveness and diminishing its role as a tool for timely policy change.
LB604 invites more pre-election litigation
LB604 addresses concerns about last-minute lawsuits and court rulings on ballot measures by requiring the Secretary of State to determine a measure’s legal sufficiency at the beginning of the petition process rather than after signatures are collected.
While this could provide clarity, it also raises risks:
›› The bill opens the door for preemptive legal challenges to an initiative’s substance rather than limiting litigation to procedural concerns such as signature validity or the single-subject rule.
›› Early legal battles could make the initiative process prohibitively expensive, discouraging grassroots campaigns that lack the resources to defend against preemptive lawsuits.
›› The term “substantive facial insufficiency” in the bill is vague and could invite a flood of lawsuits from opponents seeking to kill initiatives before they even reach the signature-gathering stage.
Our recommendation: LB604 acknowledges a real issue: the courts’ need for more time to resolve legal challenges. However, addressing that challenge invites excessive litigation that could crush grassroots initiatives before they start. An interim study on this legislation’s intended and unintended ramifications would be beneficial.
***
Nebraska voters must always be able to engage in the initiative and referendum process. Equally important is achieving procedural clarity and enforcing adequate legal safeguards. Our bottom line: Any legislation affecting this time-honored process must prioritize accessibility, fairness, and responsiveness – Nebraska’s “Second House” must continue to be heard.
Initiatives & referendums: a timeline
Since 1912, Nebraska’s initiative and referendum process has faced legislative restrictions and court challenges. Despite this, it remains a crucial tool for direct democracy in our state. Here’s a quick look at major legal and legislative changes in the past century:
›› 1913: First regulations enacted, requiring a central voter file for initiative arguments and criminalizing signature fraud.
›› 1919: Petition circulators must notarize affidavits and meet residency, age, and explanation requirements.
›› 1925: Secretary of State gains authority to publish full initiative texts.
›› 1931–1935: Initiatives and referenda require separate ballots; constitutional amendments must also be separately listed.
›› 1951: Circulator age raised to 21; ballot options change from “yes/no” to “for/against.”
›› 1969: Anti-fraud measures introduced; petition signatures must be verified; ditto marks banned.
›› 1973: Signer requirement changes from “legal voters” to “registered voters.”
›› 1986: Petition sponsors can publish notices in general circulation newspapers.
›› 1988: A constitutional amendment doubles the signature requirement, shifting from 10% of gubernatorial votes to 10% of all registered voters.
›› 1989: Paid circulators allowed but must register; petition deadline set four months before elections.
›› 1991: Referenda ballot language changes from “for/against” to “retain/repeal.”
›› 1995: LB 337 requires exact signature matches with voter registration; struck down in Stenberg v. Moore (1999).
›› 1997: Bernbeck v. Moore invalidates the requirement for circulators to be registered voters for 30 days before collecting signatures.
›› 1999: LR32CA raises signature thresholds, enforces a three-year rule on repeat measures, and implements a single-subject rule.
›› 2000: Voters reject amendment that would have required constitutional amendments via petition to pass in two successive elections.
›› 2006: Groene v. Seng strengthens circulator rights by ruling that restrictions on signature collection in public spaces are unconstitutional.
›› 2008: LB39 requires petition circulators to be Nebraska residents, bans per-signature compensation, and enforces age requirements.
