Week of February 10, 2025
Speaker Arch said last week he’s pleased with the efficient progress the body has been making with advancing bills, allowing for a few later-morning starts due to their getting through much of what’s been available to tackle on the worksheet. That’s likely to change soon: as more bills are advanced from committee, we’ll start to see priority designations roll in, and some of those are likely to be more controversial proposals.
At this early stage, the bills getting to see debate already – those that are taken up in the order they’re voted out of committee and listed on the “worksheet” – are in theory those that are minimally controversial and/or relatively simple in subject matter, because committees were quick to advance them. Senators are wise to save their personal priority designations for bills that are unlikely to otherwise get scheduled for debate by the time we’ve progressed to the point in the session that the Speaker must prioritize scheduling only priority bills, non-controversial bills that are expected to sail through, and eventually, budgetary measures.
However, some senators have noted in recent debates on worksheet bills that a majority or unanimous committee vote on an early-scheduled bill may not carry the same weight it once did. Traditionally, this was a good indicator for the rest of the body that didn’t have an opportunity to participate in the hearing for a bill because they don’t sit on the committee of jurisdiction that it if it had a strong majority vote on the committee statement, it must have been well-vetted and not overly partisan, biased, or nuanced. But given the gamesmanship that occurred in this year’s Committee on Committees process, which some have asserted was designed to skew most committees in favor of majority representation, committees are no longer politically balanced and thus their swift action or majority approval on a bill may not be a green flag that it’s ready for prime time. That’s where we’re seeing some more debate on these “easy” bills than might be typical; other senators in the body are sometimes now asserting that the committee the bill came from rubber-stamped it, and that it needs more extensive debate before advancement.
Winner Take All Update
Many offices are getting a lot of questions about what’s happening with Winner Take All, and while I can’t tell you for certain, we have some clues. Sen. Riepe came out with a definitive statement to national press this week that he would not support Sen. Lippincott’s proposal. Typically, when a lawmaker is quoted on their stance on an issue like this, it’s unusual and/or difficult for them to later walk it back. The piece does leave a little wiggle room for him to possibly support Sen. Dorn’s ballot initiative approach, though it sounds – from the article, and from rumor – like he’s leaning no on that one too as of now. So that’s good news for those opposed to changing Nebraska’s current split-vote electoral system. Various sources including that AP article linked above point to other additional conservatives possibly being on the fence on this issue. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a done deal – proponents of Winner-Take-All could try to find a vote across the aisle to make up for the loss of Riepe’s, or exert a serious pressure campaign among their own ranks to fall in line and get the 33 votes they need to break a filibuster and pass a bill. In any case, this year’s Republican supermajority doesn’t appear to have easily handed them the win some wanted on this just yet.
As of this writing, Chair Sanders has not yet scheduled an executive session of the Government Committee to take a vote on the measures. I’ve heard some reports that she may wait to do so until there is a clear indication that there are 33 votes in support for one approach or the other on the floor…and that one of the necessary floor votes may also be the deciding committee vote.
Anti-Trans LB89 Overwhelmingly Opposed in Hearing
On Thursday, the Government committee heard 10+ hours of public testimony on LB 89, Sen. Kauth’s “Stand With Women Act”. Of those who spoke, only 19 were in support, with over a hundred speaking in opposition. The expanded version of last year’s “Sports and Spaces” Act is a blatant attempt to isolate trans people from participation in public life in Nebraska: not only restricting student access to bathrooms, locker rooms, sports teams and school facilities in alignment with their biological sex assigned at birth, the bill would codify definitions of male and female in statute based on reproductive terms, apply similar standards to all state agency offices and public spaces under their jurisdiction, and extend from K-12 through postsecondary levels at both public and private institutions.
A wealth of medical and social science research has shown that bills like this which contribute to the isolation, stigmatization and alienation of trans youth have dangerous impacts on their mental well-being, leading to risks of self-harm, depression, and suicide. It is also a dangerous precedent on a path toward the demonization, othering and scapegoating of LGTBQ people not unlike steps taken at the beginnings of other fascist movements throughout history, which is deeply troubling given recent national developments on this topic. Similarly concerning is Kauth’s assertion upon questioning at the hearing that she believes trans people to have a mental disorder.
As has been noted in debates on Kauth’s previous proposal, the Nebraska School Activities Association (NSAA) has an established policy guiding how best to meet the needs of transgender students, as do a handful of district school boards. Only 8 students statewide have applied for participation in sports under the NSAA’s gender policy.
LB 89 opponents said it’s not about protecting women for a plethora of reasons, some including the lack of state leaders’ initiative in passing policies proven to benefit women’s health and safety such as paid family leave; and called the proposal a manufactured wedge issue used to gain cheap political points with a small but vocal extreme conservative base, noting it comes with an extreme cost to the relatively tiny population of trans youth in the state when schools, school boards and parents should have the freedom to make their own policies about how best to meet LGBTQ students’ needs.
The bill’s fate is unclear as of now. The good news is Nebraskans SHOWED UP and sent a clear message that the bill is not something that the majority of us want; online comments submitted were also about 4:1 in opposition.
What’s Next
Friday is at long last a Recess Day, which coupled with the President’s Day state holiday on Monday the 17th will give senators and some staff a much-needed longer weekend to recoup from a long stretch of very full weeks. Otherwise, the legislature proceeds with the current routine through the end of March: floor debate of worksheet bills in the morning, committee hearings in the afternoon.
