ACLU Launches Supreme Court Challenge Against Nebraska Voting Rights Decision for Released Felons

LINCOLN, Neb. — The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nebraska has launched a legal challenge against key state election officials, specifically targeting the refusal by Secretary of State Bob Evnen to enact a new policy designed to grant voting rights to felons immediately after their release from prison.

This legal contention stems from Evnen’s decision following a determination by Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, who declared the new legislation unconstitutional. The law in question—known informally as LB 20—sought to amend previous statutes regarding the post-incarceration rights of convicted felons.

The heart of the dissent lies in the interpretation of these laws’ constitutionality, particularly regarding the separation of powers within state governance. Historically, the Nebraska Board of Pardons retained the exclusive authority to restore voting rights following felony convictions—a process typically mired in bureaucracy and waiting periods.

In contrast, the contentious LB 20 removes a pre-existing two-year waiting requirement, established under a 2005 law, which necessitated felons to wait for this period before becoming eligible to register to vote. Hilgers’ approach, asserting the foundational autonomy of the Board of Pardons, suggests a challenge to any legislative changes perceived as encroaching on this autonomy.

The implications of these decisions are non-trivial, with the ACLU noting that approximately 7,000 individuals recently released or soon to be released from incarceration could be directly affected. Their potential enfranchisement hinges heavily on the repeal of the restrictive waiting period, thereby making their rights to vote immediate upon re-entry into society.

This legal battle is noteworthy not only for its immediate impact on thousands but also for its larger implications on voting rights debates nationally. The ACLU, accelerating their lawsuit to the Nebraska Supreme Court and bypassing lower courts, underscores the urgency and significance they attribute to the case.

As the legal proceedings continue, advocacy groups have mobilized, organizing forums and public awareness campaigns to support the revocation of the Secretary of State’s stance. These groups argue that immediate reinstatement of voting rights is crucial for fostering societal reintegration for ex-offenders, promoting a healthier democracy through increased participation.

In a recent statement, a spokesperson for the ACLU articulated the organization’s stance on the need for prompt action: “Every eligible citizen’s right to vote is foundational to the health of our democracy. Delaying these rights does a disservice not only to the individuals directly impacted but to the whole fabric of our political system.”

As the case escalates to the higher echelons of Nebraska’s judicial system, both sides remain entrenched in their positions, with significant legal arguments and constitutional interpretations hanging in the balance. The outcome of this case could set a precedent that might influence similar legal and civil rights discourse across the United States.

At the moment, officials from Evnen’s office have declined to comment pending litigation, while Attorney General Hilgers maintains his initial viewpoint, abstaining from further comment amidst ongoing legal processes.

The resolve of the ACLU in this matter suggests a landmark ruling might be on the horizon for Nebraska, one that could resonate well beyond its borders, testing the waters of state governance, civil liberties, and the potent intersections of law and rights.