{"id":37216,"date":"2025-01-31T10:19:33","date_gmt":"2025-01-31T16:19:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/?p=37216"},"modified":"2025-01-31T10:19:33","modified_gmt":"2025-01-31T16:19:33","slug":"electoral-winner-take-all-proposals-considered","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/?p=37216","title":{"rendered":"Electoral winner-take-all proposals considered"},"content":{"rendered":"

Two measures aimed at reinstating a winner-take-all system for allocating Nebraska\u2019s five presidential electoral votes were heard by the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee Jan. 30.<\/p>\n

\"Sen.
Sen. Loren Lippincott<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Currently, the winner of Nebraska\u2019s statewide popular vote receives two Electoral College votes. Since 1991, the state\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s popular vote.<\/p>\n

Lippincott said a winner-take-all allocation of Nebraska\u2019s electoral votes could prevent \u201cpockets of power\u201d in the state\u2019s more densely populated areas and would \u201cspread out\u201d representation geographically.<\/p>\n

A winner-take-all system would allow Nebraskans to have a \u201cunified voice\u201d in presidential elections, he said.<\/p>\n

Kenny Zoeller, director of the Governor\u2019s Policy Research Office, testified in favor of LB3, calling the current system \u201cjust bad public policy.\u201d He said the promised benefits of potentially splitting Nebraska\u2019s electoral votes \u2014 including bringing presidential candidates and campaign spending to the state \u2014 have not materialized.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe ignore two-thirds of our state by prioritizing one single congressional district,\u201d Zoeller said. \u201cWe are simply not on a level playing field with the other 48 [winner-take-all] states.\u201d<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\"Sen.
Sen. Myron Dorn<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Dorn said he favored Lippincott\u2019s bill, but that he wanted to keep his proposal as a back-up option should LB3 fail to win approval.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen looking at a national election, I think all states should have the same standard,\u201d Dorn said.<\/p>\n

Testifying in support of LB3, John Mark Rule agreed. He said Nebraska\u2019s current system of allocating electors has \u201cdivided and diluted\u201d the state\u2019s influence in presidential elections.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt has pitted a majority of Nebraska voters against a minority, Omaha-based group of contrary voters,\u201d Rule said.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s politics.<\/p>\n

\u201cOur state has been plagued by outside donation money in excess of $50 million every presidential cycle \u2026 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,\u201d Tiedeman said.<\/p>\n

In a hearing lasting more than five hours, over 75 people testified \u2014 the majority of them in opposition to one or both measures. Many cited the unique nature of Nebraska politics \u2014 including being home to the nation\u2019s only unicameral legislature \u2014 in their remarks.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Uhing noted that Lippincott\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

\u201cI encourage you to prioritize issues that are homegrown priorities for Nebraskans, to resist partisan pressure when it\u2019s not in the best interest of Nebraskans [and] prioritize process over partisan outcomes,\u201d Uhing said.<\/p>\n

Also speaking in opposition was Warren Phelps, chairperson of the Cheyenne County Republican Party. Even in the \u201cdeep red sea\u201d 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\u2019t want to be \u201cdrowned out\u201d by Democrats in the future.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs long as the 3rd District in Nebraska has that electoral vote, we have a chip in the game,\u201d Phelps said.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s electoral votes encourages presidential candidates to engage with Nebraskans and voters to engage with the political process.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe 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,\u201d Arroyo said.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe see this as another attempt to take our power and our voice out of the political process,\u201d Parks said. \u201cWe can\u2019t see it any different because you can\u2019t show us any different.\u201d<\/p>\n

The committee took no immediate action on either measure.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Two measures aimed at reinstating a winner-take-all system for allocating Nebraska\u2019s five presidential electoral votes were heard by the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee Jan. 30.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":37211,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"colormag_page_container_layout":"default_layout","colormag_page_sidebar_layout":"default_layout","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[11],"tags":[286],"class_list":["post-37216","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-government-military-and-veterans-affairs","tag-sen-loren-lippincott"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/LB3Lippincott1-30-25a.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37216","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=37216"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37216\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":37217,"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37216\/revisions\/37217"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/37211"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=37216"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=37216"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=37216"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}