Legislature heads to vote on winner-take-all next week

By Fred Knapp , Senior Reporter/Producer Nebraska Public Media

3 de Abril de 2025 a las 17:00 ·

Nebraska Capitol (Photo by Fred Knapp, Nebraska Public Media News) — Nebraska Capitol. (Photo by Fred Knapp, Nebraska Public Media News)

Listen To This Story

The Nebraska Legislature is heading toward a key vote on the controversial attempt to change how the state casts its Electoral College votes for president.

And senators performed a rare reversal of a vote they had just taken against a pilot program to keep kids out of the juvenile justice system.

Speaker of the Legislature John Arch announced Thursday the Legislature will debate and vote Tuesday on changing Nebraska’s electoral college voting system Tuesday.

Nebraska gives two votes to the presidential candidate who gets the most votes statewide. The other three go to whoever wins each of the state’s three congressional districts.

Since the system went into effect in 1992, the Republican candidate has won every statewide vote. But Barack Obama in 2008, Joe Biden in 2020, and Kamala Harris in 2024 each snagged one vote for the Democrats from the Omaha-area 2nd Congressional District.

President Donald Trump has urged Nebraska to change back to the winner-take-all system used by every other state except Maine, and Gov. Jim Pillen has named it a priority.

Arch said he would limit the time senators can speak before allowing a cloture motion to cut off debate to four hours.

Most bills that are filibustered are given eight hours on first round before cloture. But Arch said Thursday he didn’t think that would be worthwhile.

I believe most members have determined how they will vote on this bill, and the measure does not lend itself to amendment. So a general file debate of four hours provides time for the arguments for and against to be made for the record. I do not believe a drawn out, eight-hour debate benefits this body or anyone on either side of the issue,” he said.

There are 33 registered Republicans in the officially nonpartisan Legislature, exactly the number that would be needed to end debate and vote on the bill. But Sen. Loren Lippincott, Republican sponsor of the proposed winner-take-all change, said Friday he doesn’t have the votes.

One Republican, Sen. Dave Wordekemper, voted last month to advance the bill out of committee. But he said then that did not necessarily mean he would support it when the full Legislature considers it, saying he would prefer to let the voters decide via a proposed state constitutional amendment.

In an interview with Nebraska Public Media News Thursday, Wordekemper stuck to that statement, saying “That’s still my Stance.”

Wordekemper was less definitive in response to a follow up asking if that meant he would vote for cloture.

“I will keep an open mind until Tuesday.”

Another Republican, Sen. Merv Riepe, is more definitive. Riepe said he won’t vote for cloture, because constituents in his politically-divided district like the attention Omaha receives in presidential years because of Nebraska’s system.

“My intent is that I will be a ‘no’ vote on cloture, and part of that is because what I'm hearing from my voters is that it's not so much a Democratic or Republican issue, but rather a unique issue," he said. "They like the fact that Omaha is unique, gets a lot of attention. And I think like all of us as human beings, we all like to get some special attention."

Sen. John Cavanaugh, a Democrat, predicted Tuesday’s debate would be unproductive.

“I don't think it has the support in the Legislature, so I think it'll be a continued waste of time," he said. "The people in the state of Nebraska have been clear that they like the system that we use."

Tuesday afternoon’s debate begins at 1:30 p.m. central. It will be carried live on Nebraska Public Media’s world television channel, online and on the Nebraska Public Media app.

Also Tuesday senators first defeated, then resurrected a bill by Sen. Terrell McKinney that tries to keep kids out of the juvenile justice system.

McKinney wants to establish a $1 million pilot program in Omaha that the Department of Health and Human Services would run together with community organizations to provide 24/7 services ranging from food and clothing assistance and tutoring, to drug treatment and mental health programs.

McKinney said the program would actually save the state money.

“The cost of jailing a child is far higher than providing support services. Every dollar spent on prevention saves taxpayers money by reducing future court incarceration and social service costs,” he said.

Sen. Kathleen Kauth said the program would be redundant.

“It sounds very nice, but again, there are already a lot of programs out there that are work to help kids and work to help them through the juvenile justice system," she said. "I would prefer to see a comprehensive assessment of everything that is out there, everything that is available, so that when we make these decisions, we're not playing on emotion, we're playing on facts."

Despite the fact that the bill had come out of committee on a 6-1 vote and McKinney named it his priority, only 22 senators voted for it -three short of what’s needed – with 14 opposed.

McKinney blasted his colleagues.

“It’s really showing when people stand up and say that they care about youth, and they care about kids and they vote against something like that. It's hypocritical. Time after time, people show who they are truthfully: hypocrites, because you don't care about kids. You don't care about keeping kids out the system. You care about keeping up with the status quo,” he said.

Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh suggested a different explanation.

“Senator McKinney's program is a cost savings program," she said. "It's a reduction in systems involved children. It's a good program. It's a good idea, but it's Senator McKinney's idea. And I don't know if it's because he's black or because he's a Democrat, but there's some reason in there that you all can't vote for his things."

Sen. Danielle Conrad then moved to resurrect McKinney’s bill as an amendment to another. That move succeeded on a vote of 27-7, with half a dozen senators changing their votes.