Nebraska Supreme Court hears case for restoring voting rights to people with felony convictions

The Nebraska Secretary of State told election offices in July to stop registering voters with felony records after the Legislature passed a law eliminating a two-year waiting period for voters with a felony conviction.

Attorneys for two men who served prison time appeared in front of the state’s highest court on Wednesday asking it to protect their right to vote. ACLU attorney Jane Seu told the justices clarity is needed before the election. They argued the court should issue a writ of mandamus — a type of order required the Secretary to follow the law.

"The court should correct this overreach, issue the writs as soon as possible, to give Nebraskan voters the clarity they need before this year's election," Seu said.

In response, Nebraska’s Attorney General argued local election offices don't need to move forward with registering individuals with felony convictions, claiming the law restoring their voting rights is unconstitutional.

“I think it's at least implicit in Secretary Evnen’s acts that he has made a good faith judgment that these statutes are unconstitutional.” Eric Hamilton said, speaking on behalf of the Attorney General.

During the 2024 Nebraska legislative session, state senators passed LB20, which eliminated the two-year waiting period for convicted felons to register to vote. The law allowed those individuals to register immediately after serving their sentences.

Gov. Jim Pillen allowed the bill to become law, but did not sign it and raised questions about the constitutionality of the law. This lead the Attorney General to examine the bill.

Advocates for the bill have said it creates a more inclusive democracy.

The Secretary of State’s office said it will need a decision from the Nebraska Supreme Court in time to meet the voter registration deadlines in October.

Also up for debate at the hearing was the definition of a pardon. The bill which would restore voting rights to Nebraskans with felony convictions does not issue pardons to those individuals, rather restoration of one civil right. The justices inquired about the status of other civil rights if this statute stands, and if those civil rights can also be restored by Legislature.

There are two precedents on which the Nebraska Supreme Court justices based their questioning: Van Horn v State (1895) and Wright v. Pepperl (1986). The Court described Van Horn as a case in which the constitutionality of a statue can be raised and determined in the context of a mandamus action whereas Pepperl says it can't.