Week of January 27, 2025
After last week’s hearing on 24 proposals, the Rules committee advanced only two low-stakes changes: one allowing for committees’ appointment reports to be considered by the body all at once in a group rather than individually if they all have the same recommendation, and the other requiring Legislative Aides to submit Statements of Intent for bills within three days of the bill’s referencing to a committee. The latter will take effect in the 2026 session as it requires internal system updates. Currently, Legislative Aides don’t have the ability to submit a Statement of Intent on our Uninet system until a hearing date for a bill has been read across by the Clerk – so if you’ve ever been wondering what a particular bill does, wishing you could view its Statement of Intent and questioned what’s taking so long, that’s probably why!
Both changes were adopted with little argument among senators. Sen. Kauth then turned up the temperature by introducing a floor proposal to eliminate the option for senators to have their vote recorded as “Present, Not Voting” on Final Reading or Cloture votes. Though legislative rules, precedent and procedure do allow for rule changes to be initiated in this way – on the floor rather than going through the process of introducing a change to be heard in committee – it’s not considered by many to be a “best practice”, as it removes the opportunity for the public to weigh in, for senators to review and study its potential implications before debate is held, and for committee members to deliberate, make amendments, and hold a vote before it reaches the floor..
This proposal spurred opposition mostly from the legislature’s progressives, who shared concerns with removal of the PNV option which is generally used as a tool to communicate something other than a hard “no” on a bill. Often when measures introduced by the majority narrowly fail, it’s due to a PNV from a Republican swing vote. A PNV can communicate to a senator’s constituents, issue stakeholders, or the bill introducer that the PNV’ing senator has some openness to the policy at hand, but not the details of the proposal’s approach; it can be used in the increasingly common scenario of a massive “Christmas Tree” package containing many bills, some of which a senator may support but not others; opponents said there are a gamut of scenarios during which it should be a senator’s prerogative to choose to be Present Not Voting and have the record accurately reflect such. Others in support of the change said that they’ve heard from constituents desiring to know where their senator falls on an issue, either a hard yes or no. The quiet part underpinning much of this discussion is that the far right wing of the body wished to eliminate the “soft no” option, and the progressive wing wished to retain it, because it’s increasingly used to “give cover” to moderate or swing Republican votes to avoid making a definitive statement on a controversial issue they might be receiving party pressure about, but for personal or campaign reasons not want to give full-throated support or denial to. The change ultimately passed on a 31-17 vote.
In response to the Kauth-initiated change, Sen. McKinney brought his proposal, which he had also introduced as Rule Change #1 through the committee process, as a floor proposal. It would undo the new 20-bill limit per senator. Opponents of the rule took turns on the mic poking holes in proponents’ justifications for the rule, making a larger point that anytime the majority passes a rule seeking to limit minority power in the body, there are ways around it and clever senators will find loopholes. In one such exercise, Sen. Bostar earlier that week had attempted to introduce his 21st bill. After being told by the President that he could not, he and Sen. Hunt worked out a solution: she would introduce it for him, he would co-sponsor, then she would have the Clerk remove her name as introducer, making him the introducer by default and thus bypassing the 20-bill limit. Sen. Conrad also suggested the possibility of introducing a bill to be referenced to each committee, and then bringing an amendment to each hearing that could contain any number of additional bills like a “Christmas Tree”. That would enable a senator to have far more than 20 bills heard. The 20-bill limit is arbitrary, limits senators’ ability to effectively serve constituents as they see fit, and encourages gaming the system, opponents said. Lawmakers ultimately voted to keep the limit in place.
While a couple of substantial developments unfolded in the ongoing biannual rules fight, citizen watchers should take heart in what did not happen. Note that none of the “Big Four” most contentious and perennially attempted rule changes we’ve kept eyes out for in recent years had the votes to advance from committee: changes to the filibuster-ending cloture threshold, ending the secret ballot for leadership elections, restricting media’s access to executive sessions, and removing requirements for partisan balance on the Redistricting Committee all failed to advance from the Rules committee. While we were disappointed to see the body vote how it did on the two rule changes that were brought on the floor, it’s a major win for nonpartisanship and our Unicameral’s time-tested traditions that some of the most harmful potential changes were kept in committee and not brought up as serious propositions on the floor.
Pillen Issues Executive Order on Immigration Enforcement
Consistent with recent rumor and expectation, Gov. Pillen issued an Executive Order Friday to carry out President Trump’s recent immigration directives at the state level, ordering Nebraska state agencies to alert federal officials about undocumented immigrants or those he called “criminal aliens” and to cooperate with the feds to provide any relevant information about Nebraskans’ immigration status. In the past week, police chiefs in both Lincoln and Omaha as well as Omaha’s Mayor Stothert have taken strong public stances asserting that immigration enforcement is not within their purview and that their respective departments will not be undertaking any such efforts.
Specifically named in the order, and perhaps of most concern, are the Nebraska State Patrol and Department of Correctional Services, who Pillen has directed to fully cooperate with efforts of the federal Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Immigration & Customs Enforcement to enforce Trump’s immigration directives. This includes granting the agencies authority to keep individuals in custody if a reasonable suspicion exists that they have violated immigration law.
This comes as President’s Trump’s rhetoric about foreign “invaders” has stoked growing concern about extreme nationalist ideologies, and as multiple Nebraska press outlets have covered the high stakes this kind of large-scale deportation could have in our communities. Many of you and your organizations likely already have your finger on the pulse of this issue, but our friends at the ACLU and Appleseed are good ones to follow for updates and resources, and I know they stand ready to fight for the rights of our immigrant neighbors.
What’s Next
Monday is a check-in day for the legislature, with no official business scheduled in the morning. Tuesday will see the new Chief Justice Funke’s State of the Judiciary Address. The legislature will begin debating bills that have advanced from committee on Wednesday.
