OMAHA, Neb. — In a contentious legal battle with profound implications for voter participation, the ACLU of Nebraska has initiated a lawsuit against the state’s chief election official over rules that would bar many former felons from voting in the upcoming presidential election. The legal challenge, lodged on behalf of three disenfranchised Nebraska residents, targets a controversial directive from Secretary of State Bob Evnen that instructs county election officials not to register individuals with felony convictions for the November polls.
T.J. King of Omaha, a key plaintiff in the case, expressed his frustration over the situation, stressing the importance of civic engagement for those who have served their sentences. King, who completed his probation in 2022 for drug and theft-related offenses, had anticipated participating in this year’s electoral process as a registered Democrat, underscoring that voting is as crucial as other societal responsibilities like employment and tax payment. The lawsuit also includes plaintiffs who intended to register as a Republican and an independent, illustrating the non-partisan impact of the issue.
This legal action stems from a recent interpretation by Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, who on July 17 argued that recent state legislation allowing immediate re-enfranchisement for individuals who have completed their felony sentences violates the state’s constitution. Hilgers opined that only the state Board of Pardons, which includes Evnen, Hilgers, and Governor Jim Pillen—all Republicans—has the authority to restore voting rights through pardons, a rare occurrence in Nebraska.
Evnen, who sought Hilgers’ legal opinion, claims his directive aligns with the constitution and insists that the attorney general’s findings were meticulously researched. However, his stance has ignited significant controversy, particularly since this directive could disenfranchise approximately 7,000 Nebraskans according to advocacy groups.
The ACLU argues that Evnen’s interpretation unlawfully overrides legislative authority, suggesting that his directive reinstates a permanent disenfranchisement not supported by state law. Jonathan Topaz, an attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, emphasized that state law delegates the power to deem a law unconstitutional to the courts, not to executive offices. He criticized the secretary of state’s actions as an attempt to undermine democracy and disenfranchise thousands under the guise of constitutional adherence.
The lawsuit, filed directly with the Nebraska Supreme Court due to the urgent and significant nature of the case, highlights the broad implications of Evnen’s decision as the state approaches a presidential election. Nebraska’s unique method of allocating electoral votes—where votes are split across congressional districts—further underscores the potential electoral impact of voter disenfranchisement. Historically, the Omaha-centered 2nd District has occasionally swung Democratic, awarding electoral votes to Barack Obama in 2008 and Joe Biden in 2020.
Evnen has refuted claims that his directive aims to disenfranchise voters or influence the election outcome, stating his only goal is to comply with the Nebraska Constitution. As the court deliberates on this pressing issue, the outcome will not only affect the thousands of potential voters in Nebraska but also resonate as a pivotal moment in the broader national discourse on voting rights for former felons.