Electoral winner-take-all proposals considered
Two measures aimed at reinstating a winner-take-all system for allocating Nebraska’s five presidential electoral votes were heard by the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee Jan. 30.

Currently, the winner of Nebraska’s statewide popular vote receives two Electoral College votes. Since 1991, the state’s three congressional districts also award one electoral vote each based on the popular vote winner in each district. Maine is the only other state to use this system.
LB3, introduced by Central City Sen. Loren Lippincott on behalf of Gov. Jim Pillen, would reinstate a winner-take-all system and award all five electoral votes to the winner of the state’s popular vote.
Lippincott said a winner-take-all allocation of Nebraska’s electoral votes could prevent “pockets of power” in the state’s more densely populated areas and would “spread out” representation geographically.
A winner-take-all system would allow Nebraskans to have a “unified voice” in presidential elections, he said.
Kenny Zoeller, director of the Governor’s Policy Research Office, testified in favor of LB3, calling the current system “just bad public policy.” He said the promised benefits of potentially splitting Nebraska’s electoral votes — including bringing presidential candidates and campaign spending to the state — have not materialized.
“We ignore two-thirds of our state by prioritizing one single congressional district,” Zoeller said. “We are simply not on a level playing field with the other 48 [winner-take-all] states.”
The second proposal would achieve the same aim through an amendment to the state constitution. If approved by the Legislature, LR24CA, sponsored by Sen. Myron Dorn of Adams, would place the question of reinstating winner-take-all on the 2026 general election ballot.

Dorn said he favored Lippincott’s bill, but that he wanted to keep his proposal as a back-up option should LB3 fail to win approval.
“When looking at a national election, I think all states should have the same standard,” Dorn said.
Testifying in support of LB3, John Mark Rule agreed. He said Nebraska’s current system of allocating electors has “divided and diluted” the state’s influence in presidential elections.
“It has pitted a majority of Nebraska voters against a minority, Omaha-based group of contrary voters,” Rule said.
Michael Tiedeman, speaking on behalf of the Nebraska Republican Party, also supported the measure. He said the current system encourages outside influence in the state’s politics.
“Our state has been plagued by outside donation money in excess of $50 million every presidential cycle … we have allowed Nebraska to be a political pawn, not by candidates, but by outside special interests who try to impact our elections and erode our values,” Tiedeman said.
In a hearing lasting more than five hours, over 75 people testified — the majority of them in opposition to one or both measures. Many cited the unique nature of Nebraska politics — including being home to the nation’s only unicameral legislature — in their remarks.
Heidi Uhing, public policy director at Civic Nebraska, testified against both proposals. The district system of allocating Electoral College votes ensures more localized representation of voter intent, she said.
Uhing noted that Lippincott’s proposal received a much different reception when introduced in 2023, when only 12 people testified. That measure did not advance from committee and was not prioritized, she said, suggesting that the governor made it a top priority this session in response to political pressure from national actors.
“I encourage you to prioritize issues that are homegrown priorities for Nebraskans, to resist partisan pressure when it’s not in the best interest of Nebraskans [and] prioritize process over partisan outcomes,” Uhing said.
Also speaking in opposition was Warren Phelps, chairperson of the Cheyenne County Republican Party. Even in the “deep red sea” of his heavily Republican county, Phelps said, no one he talks with supports winner-take-all. Population growth in Lincoln and Omaha is going to continue to outpace the rest of the state, he said, and voters in western Nebraska don’t want to be “drowned out” by Democrats in the future.
“As long as the 3rd District in Nebraska has that electoral vote, we have a chip in the game,” Phelps said.
As a political independent, Melina Arroyo said the current system serves voters well. Testifying against both proposals, she said the potential of splitting the state’s electoral votes encourages presidential candidates to engage with Nebraskans and voters to engage with the political process.
“The district-based system gives weight to minority voter voices in each congressional district, preventing the marginalization of voters who might not align with the majority in the state,” Arroyo said.
Vickey Parks of Omaha also spoke against both proposals. Black voters in North Omaha were shut out of representation in local government for generations, she said, until the implementation of district elections. Bringing the vote closer to the people is a better way to represent the concerns of all Nebraskans, she said.
“We see this as another attempt to take our power and our voice out of the political process,” Parks said. “We can’t see it any different because you can’t show us any different.”
The committee took no immediate action on either measure.
