Over the weekend, the president again promised sweeping new rules for how Americans vote: a national voter-ID mandate, a near-ban on mail ballots (carve-outs only for the seriously ill and overseas military), and “paper ballots only.”

The headline is big; the legal authority is not. The Constitution leaves election administration to the states, with Congress able to “make or alter” those rules—there’s no presidential power to dictate how Nebraskans cast ballots. Courts have already halted key parts of the president’s March order that tried to force documentary proof of citizenship for federal voter registration and to curb the counting of certain late-arriving mailed ballots. Those rulings underscore the ironclad truth that executive overreach runs aground quickly.

But in Nebraska, the danger isn’t necessarily another decree from DC. It’s when state-level actors in the Legislature or in the executive branch decide to carry this particular banner. And that is what we must focus on now, because it’s precisely how the voter-suppression playbook works on the state level.

We’ve already seen it run in Nebraska. In July 2024, two days before LB20 was to go into effect, the state attorney general issued an opinion attacking its provisions that immediately restored the voting rights of Nebraskans who had completed felony sentences. The Secretary of State immediately instructed all counties to halt the registration of newly eligible Nebraskans. Three months later, the Nebraska Supreme Court ordered officials to follow the law and allow those citizens back on the rolls in time for November. But the damage was done – and that mid-campaign, switch-off-then-back-on-again tactic was a real-time display of executive maneuvers that can shrink the electorate unless they are checked.

We’ve seen a repeated, zombie-like reincarnation of the Electoral College fight, too. This past April, the Nebraska Legislature defeated a renewed winner-take-all push after first-round debate, following 2024’s constant drumbeat around a special session that never materialized. For now, Nebraska’s long-standing split vote remains intact because senators stood down that pressure. The pattern, though, is familiar: revive an idea repeatedly, time it for maximum partisan advantage, and then push to rush it through.

This same “copy-and-enforce” cycle has unfolded in other states following the president’s March executive order. Wyoming enacted HB156, requiring documentary proof of citizenship and residency to register; the Secretary of State lauded it as aligned with the federal push, and litigation followed. Oklahoma’s SB1086 tightened registration controls and added proof-of-citizenship provisions; the governor signed it in May. Texas advanced an expansive proof-of-citizenship bill through the Senate before it died – but even in defeat, it previewed the next round. Missouri’s SB62 moved forward with a framework to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register. And Nebraska’s secretary of state – who, incidentally, is running for re-election in 2026 – consistently shares that he supports the president’s March executive order despite it all.

Nebraska legislators long have tried to gut voting rights. LB541, introduced earlier this year, is the latest in a decades-long effort to all but eliminate the opportunity and ability to vote. The bill rolled together a hodgepodge of bad ideas to eliminate online registration, restrict mail registration, require “grounds” for early voting, and re-center error-prone hand counts. It was introduced, heard, and then went nowhere. That’s good news, but it’s also a preview of how a future package might be assembled and sold as “common sense.”

So what, exactly, will we see and hear if and when state-level efforts ramp up supporting the president’s latest threats? It likely won’t arrive as a single bill with red flashing lights saying THIS IS THE VOTER SUPPRESSION BILL WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. It will be a steady soundtrack: claims that mail ballots “invite fraud,” that “strict” ID is simply common sense, that only “uniform” rules can restore confidence, that “paper ballots only” is the key to security.

Here’s the reality, in plain language:

›› Nebraska is among 36 states that already have some form of voter ID mandate. Piling on harsher versions creates hurdles for seniors, students, rural voters, and working-class Nebraskans without measurably improving security. Our elected officials know this.

›› Documented mail-ballot fraud is exceedingly rare. Election administrators have built thick layers of checks – ballot tracking, barcodes, signature verification –  that work, have worked, and will continue to work to prevent bad actors from tampering with any ballots. Our elected officials know this.

›› USPS handled an extraordinary surge of election mail in 2020 at speed and scale, and subsequent readiness audits sharpened the playbook for on-time delivery. Our elected officials know this.

›› Nebraska already votes on paper. But reasonable people can assume that the president’s rhetoric isn’t really about paper ballots; it’s about removing the options voters use. Our elected officials know this.

So, we’re tempted to say keep calm and carry on, but experience tells us Nebraska is not without risk. In the run-up to 2026, when rumor starts to harden into “common sense” and procedural shifts are proposed as harmless “alignment” with national priorities, it is the moment when anti-democratic actors tend to be busiest. That’s usually when anti-democratic bills and amendments reappear; when a guidance memo or “emergency” rule quietly changes who can register, how mail ballots are processed, or when they’re counted; when another winner-take-all sprint suddenly returns. Lest we all forget, we’ve lived versions of each in just the last two years.

All of this might have you asking what you can do right now. Remain vigilant isn’t a very satisfying answer, so here are a few things to keep in mind as this plays out.

›› First, name the pattern before it lands. Hopefully, that’s what we’ve started to do here, so you don’t have to.

›› When national headlines blare, cite the constitutional limits and the rubber-meets-road likelihood of such steps actually coming to pass. Recall how quickly courts checked the president’s March order. The administration wants noise and anger. Instead, be a cooler head.

›› Remind neighbors that Nebraska has already weathered orders from hardline party bosses to shrink our electorate and scrap our split Electoral College system. Be ready to mobilize widely on this issue if or when the time comes.

›› Then, keep your eye on where power actually moves – committee hearings at the statehouse, executive branch directives to county election officials, surprise “alignment” bills that suddenly appear at the statehouse and are deemed urgent priorities. Our one-house Legislature is designed for deliberation, which means many steps are taken before bad laws can be officially enacted. This provides time to organize and mobilize if necessary.

Civic Nebraska will continue to track these proposals, publish straightforward analysis, mobilize opposition, and, if needed, litigate. The president’s orders are likely to keep colliding with the Constitution; It’s the job of fair-minded Nebraskans to guard against attempts at state-level implementation by officials who have shown they like to curry favor from the White House. With your help, Nebraska’s elections will remain accessible, secure, and fair.