Senators change ‘present not voting’ option, adopt permanent session rules
Following three days of debate, lawmakers adopted their permanent rules Jan. 24. The rules of the Legislature govern the lawmaking process and generally are adopted at the beginning of each biennium.
Of the two dozen proposed changes heard by the Rules Committee at a public hearing last week, two were forwarded for consideration by the full Legislature. Central City Sen. Loren Lippincott, committee chairperson, said the other proposals would be studied over the interim.
“These are rules that the whole committee agreed on unanimously and that provide for expediency and transparency in our processes,” he said.
Committee proposals
First was a proposal originally offered by Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair, which allows for collective consideration of certain gubernatorial appointees.
Currently, all gubernatorial appointees are considered by the committee with subject matter jurisdiction before being forwarded to the full Legislature for approval. That process will remain unchanged, but appointees other than agency or department heads who serve at the pleasure of the governor may be presented on the floor in a single report by each respective committee.
Hansen said simplifying the consideration of noncontroversial appointments will increase legislative efficiency.
“We’re no longer dealing with just a few gubernatorial appointments,” Hansen said, adding that the number has climbed into the hundreds in recent years.
Under the proposal, if five lawmakers sign a letter indicating that they would like to “pull” a name from a committee report, that individual’s appointment will be considered separately.
Omaha Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh expressed concern that the change will not allow sufficient time for lawmakers with questions about a specific appointee to organize and file a pull request.
“I worry about making [the process] more obtuse and less transparent, not only to ourselves but to the greater public,” Cavanaugh said.
The proposal was adopted on a vote of 39-7.
A second change, originally brought to the committee by Sumner Sen. Teresa Ibach, is intended to improve public access to statements of intent.
Currently, the statements, which are a brief explanation of a proposed bill’s purpose, must be submitted by the introducer to the chairperson of the committee the bill is referenced to at least three days prior to the measure’s public hearing.
As introduced at the Rules Committee hearing, Ibach’s proposal would have changed that timeline to instead require a statement of intent to be submitted within one day of a bill’s introduction.
Ibach said that during the hearing it was noted that bills must be referenced to a standing committee of subject matter jurisdiction before a statement of intent can be submitted to the chairperson.
As a result, she said, her proposal was amended to require submission within three legislative days of a bill being referenced to committee.
“This is aimed to help those watching at home or outside of the building to know the general concept of a bill at the time of its introduction,” Ibach said.
Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha offered what she termed a “cautionary observation” in regard to the proposal, noting that there is no penalty for failing to comply with the timeline for submitting a statement of intent, neither currently nor under the proposed change.
“Change for the sake of change isn’t an improvement on the process,” Hunt said.
The proposal was adopted 41-2.
Amendments
Lawmakers also approved an amendment offered by Omaha Sen. Kathleen Kauth.
A version of the proposal, which would have changed the way votes are calculated on all cloture motions, was offered at the Rules Committee hearing but not forwarded for debate.
A cloture motion — which ceases debate and forces a vote on a bill — requires approval by a two-thirds majority of the 49 members of the Legislature, or 33 votes.
Kauth’s revised amendment does not alter the two-thirds threshold, but requires the votes of senators who are present but not casting a vote to be officially recorded as having voted “nay” rather than “present not voting,” if the vote is on a cloture motion that is offered during the third and last round of legislative debate, known as final reading.
It will do the same for votes taken on the question of final passage of a bill.
Kauth acknowledged that there may be strategic reasons for a senator to refrain from voting during earlier rounds of debate — to signal willingness to negotiate, for example — but said senators should be required to “make a final stand” during final reading.
“I think we owe it to our constituents to give transparency and accountability to this process,” Kauth said.
The final version of her amendment also contains a provision that allows members who file a conflict of interest statement on any vote taken under the rule to be recorded as present not voting rather than as a no vote. Such votes will be noted with an asterisk in the official legislative record.
Hansen supported the change, saying he has heard from many Nebraskans who are upset by lawmakers who are present in the legislative chamber but do not cast a vote.
“I feel like this is a constituent-driven rule change,” Hansen said.
Sen. Bob Andersen of Omaha agreed, saying his constituents made their expectations clear to him on the campaign trail.
“What they did tell me is that when they elected me, they elected me to vote thumbs up or thumbs down. Either vote pro or against,” Andersen said.
Speaking against the change, Hunt said the frustration some constituents feel about the issue is understandable, but that the solution should not be to force lawmakers to vote when their conscience or ethics lead them not to do so.
“[It] forces senators into these binary choices — are you a yes or a no — and it doesn’t recognize the complexity that a lot of these issues have,” she said.
Lincoln Sen. George Dungan also opposed the change. The Legislature already maintains clear records of how members vote, he said, including those who are present but not voting.
Kauth’s change does nothing to provide transparency or accountability for constituents, he said, but rather will simply be used to gain partisan political advantage. It’s up to senators to explain their actions to their constituents, he said, not for members to dictate to each other when they must cast a vote.
“What I fear is that we’re trying to change this rule — to force a ‘present not voting’ to show up as a ‘no’ — so that it can be used in campaigns,” Dungan said.
Senators voted 31-17 to adopt the change.
Lawmakers also considered an amendment offered by Omaha Sen. Terrell McKinney that would remove a cap on the number of bills an individual senator can introduce each session, which was set at 20 last year.
McKinney said capping the number of bills that members of the Legislature may introduce, but not the number of bills the governor can have senators introduce on his or her behalf, creates an imbalance of power among the two branches of government.
In addition, he said, the current rule makes it difficult for lawmakers to adequately address the needs of those they represent.
“This limitation effectively stifles the voice of the people,’ McKinney said, “making it challenging for senators to effectively respond to constituent concerns.”
Several senators, including Hunt, called the current cap arbitrary and unnecessarily constraining. She noted a number of ways senators have found to circumvent the existing rule, including having another senator introduce proposals for them if they have reached their own bill limit.
Hansen, who introduced the rule change that led to the cap’s adoption in 2024, said it was “premature” to rescind it. Senators introduced roughly 100 fewer bills this session than in 2023, which he said is an indication that the limitation is working as intended.
In response to McKinney’s concerns, Seward Sen. Jana Hughes offered and later withdrew an amendment to his proposal that also would apply the cap to bills introduced on the governor’s behalf.
Hughes said she decided the proposal should go through the committee process before being considered by the full Legislature, however. As a result, she said she would study the issue over the interim and consider offering the proposal again in the future.
The McKinney amendment failed 16-31 and lawmakers then voted 33-6 to adopt the permanent rules.
