Senators change rules to require recording votes as 'yes' or 'no'

23 de Enero de 2025 a las 17:00 ·

Sen. Terrell McKinney debating rules changes Thursday. (Photo by Fred Knapp, Nebraska Public Media News)
Sen. Terrell McKinney debating rules changes Thursday (Photo by Fred Knapp, Nebraska Public Media News)

Listen To This Story

Nebraska state senators will be put on record as voting "yes" or "no" on the final passage of bills, under a rules change approved in the Legislature Thursday.

Currently, senators who are not excused when final votes on bills are taken have the option of voting “present not voting.” That has the same effect as a "no" vote, but is not recorded that way, either on the voting board or in the legislative journal. Sen. Kathleen Kauth, sponsor of a rules change to end that practice, described how her proposal will work, and why she thinks it’s a good idea.

"This will on final passage, final reading, if you do ‘present not voting,’ it will change to a ‘no’ vote. And this is for transparency and accountability for our constituents, so they know where we stand or how we're voting on issues, so we can't, kind of take the easy way out,” Kauth said.

The change would also apply to cloture votes, which are used to stop a filibuster. The only exception would be if a senator has filed a conflict of interest statement, they could still be recorded as “present not voting.”

Opponents of the change said it would take away senators’ option to indicate that while they couldn’t support a bill, they didn’t feel strongly enough to vote against it. Sen. John Cavanaugh said it would also distort the legislative record.

“This rule specifically calls for us to maintain an inaccurate journal, which is certainly bad, irresponsible, and it serves no actual objective of the legislature. And if anything, it will serve to create a historical record that is not reflective of actual history,” Cavanaugh said.

Nevertheless, senators voted 31-17 in favor of the rules change.

Sen. Terrell McKinney then proposed another rule change, to get rid of the limit adopted last year that says senators can introduce only 20 bills per session.

“This limitation effectively stifles the voice of the people, making it challenging for senators to adequately respond to constituent concerns, especially at the start of session,” McKinney said.

McKinney said some constituents aren’t aware of the limit and ask senators to introduce bills at the last minute, whereas lobbyists get their requests in early before senators have used up their allotment.

But Sen. Ben Hansen, who sponsored the 20-bill limit that was adopted last year, said it should be given time to work. Hansen said the limit had reduced the total number of bills from 820 in the last 90-day session to 715 this year. He said this means senators can concentrate on the most important topics.

“We still get a large amount of bills through,” Hansen said. "We just make the more non-controversial, smaller bills, clean-up bills, through the committee process so the senators can work on the more substantive bills themselves."

Sen. Danielle Conrad favored removing the limit, noting that there is no limit on bills that can be introduced at the request of the governor. Sen. Megan Hunt reinforced the point.

“It is wrong to give the governor unlimited authority to introduce bills in this co-equal branch of government that we do not have ourselves," Hunt said. "I would like everybody in this body to reflect on how far we've gone to diminish and degrade our own power as a separate co-equal branch of government."

Sen. Jana Hughes said she would try to amend the rules to put a 20-bill limit on the governor as well. The Legislature adjourned for the day before reaching a vote on McKinney’s proposal.

The rules debate followed the Legislature’s adoption of two less controversial changes. One would allow voting on gubernatorial appointments below the level of agency director in groups, rather than individually. Another, which will take effect next year, would require senators to file “statements of intent” describing what their bills would do, within three days of when they are referred to a committee, rather than three days before those committees hold a public hearing on them.

Also, Thursday afternoon, the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing on a proposal, LB166, by Sen. Jana Hughes aimed at safeguarding the home addresses of judges, law enforcement officials and National Guard members serving in a law enforcement capacity. Hughes said those addresses are already kept out of public records maintained by county assessors and registers of deeds, but can still be accessed via county treasurers’ property tax records.

Taylor Sambk of the York County Sheriff’s Department was among those speaking in favor of the bill.

“Speaking from experience, there's nothing more unsettling than someone you've arrested knowing where your family resides. As a law enforcement officer, I know the countless risks associated with my job, both on and off duty, however, my home is one place where I can let my guard down and relax,” Sambk said.

Testifying neutral on the bill, Candace Meredith of the Nebraska Association of County officials said that using search engines, people can find information about home addresses through various means other than government records. And Mary Weber of Lincoln suggested expanding the bill to include survivors of domestic violence, to guard against their abusers finding them. The committee took no immediate action on the bill.

More from the Unicameral:

Nebraskans as young as 11 could be detained for felonies under legislative proposal

Senators debate requiring 'yes' or 'no' votes

Medical marijuana, abortion, debate rules discussed in Legislature

Nebraska lawmakers propose ideas to address state's budget shortfall

Proposals offered on teacher bonuses, online sports betting

Ending death penalty, rule changes among legislative proposals

Lab-grown meat, post-disaster looting among topics discussed by legislature