Nebraska
Bacon, Vargas hone in on character during second debate in Nebraska’s 2nd District • Nebraska Examiner
LINCOLN — U.S. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., and his Democratic challenger, State Sen. Tony Vargas, spent much of Tuesday evening trading barbs in a debate over “lies,” civility, criminal justice and character.
Bacon, who is seeking his fifth congressional term serving Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, repeatedly chastised Vargas for “baloney” and a “bunch of platitudes but no meat behind him.”
Vargas, who challenged Bacon in 2022, as well, repeatedly linked Bacon to former President Donald Trump and said Bacon’s constituents couldn’t afford to reelect Bacon.
“Don’t listen to Tony, the guy is deceptive, he’s not being honest. He’ll do anything to win election,” Bacon said.
Said Vargas: “Staying in power sounds like it’s more important to you than it is standing up for democracy and the independence of our district.”
The two candidates addressed about 10 questions in an hourlong debate sponsored by Nebraska Public Media at its Lincoln studio in partnership with the Nebraska Examiner, Lincoln Journal Star, Omaha World-Herald and KRVN Rural Radio Network. No live audience was present.
Aaron Sanderford, the Nebraska Examiner’s political reporter, moderated the debate, with a panel of three journalists: Kassidy Arena (Nebraska Public Media), Erin Bamer (Omaha World-Herald) and Dave Schroeder (KRVN).
Abortion
Bacon and Vargas differed on major topics, including abortion, where Bacon said he supports Nebraska’s current 12-week ban on abortion tied to gestational age, which was passed in 2023, with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. Bacon said he would defend that law.
Vargas criticized Bacon for co-sponsoring national legislation that Vargas said would have banned abortion nationally with no carve-outs for in vitro fertilization. The legislation would have recognized a fertilized egg as a person with equal protections under the 14th Amendment. Vargas said the issue ultimately comes down to a woman’s “right to choose.”
“This is a decision that politicians, especially Don Bacon, should have absolutely no say in telling them what they can and cannot do with their bodies,” Vargas said.
Bacon criticized Vargas as “deceptive” because the legislation he supported never mentioned “abortion.” Bacon did not sign on to a 2023 version of the law he had previously joined.
“At what point, Tony, does that unborn child deserve a sense of humanity?” Bacon said. “I would think a science teacher for two years would know that.”
Bacon said that abortion is “ranked very low” among priorities when he talks to voters and that Vargas is “trying to create an issue that does not belong.”
Bacon told reporters after the debate that Congress will likely never address abortion, unless Democrats win the presidency, control of both chambers of Congress and get rid of the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the U.S. Senate.
“That should be a warning sign because with that 60-vote threshold we are forced to be more bipartisan in whatever we get passed,” Bacon said.
Vargas pointed to his daughter, who he said has fewer rights than his wife did, and urged Congress to restore Roe v. Wade, which set certain constitutional protections for abortion instead of a patchwork of different state laws since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that opinion in 2022.
Israel and Ukraine
The two candidates did find agreement on foreign aid, with both stating the United States needed to remain a good ally to Ukraine and Israel, in good times and bad, and not risk war spreading to surrounding regions.
Bacon touted his military background in the U.S. Air Force and said antisemitism “is not being an American” and is “antithetical to what we support.”
Both said they stand with Israel and said the war should end on Israel’s terms, with the eradication of Hamas terrorists and the release of all hostages.
Asked if any limits should be placed on humanitarian aid to Israel, for Palestinian citizens or citizens in Lebanon, each candidate said no.
“I understand that the Palestinian people are hurting, but the most important thing to me is that this end to the war happens on the terms for Israel,” Vargas said.
Added Bacon: “The fault lies with Hamas.… Israel has the obligation to try to target just Hamas, or just Hezbollah in Lebanon, but when they’re hiding amongst the people, it is very hard.… If we were attacked, and we were on 9/11 in a similar way, we would go in and try to destroy Hamas and Gaza.”
Public safety and immigration
A large portion of the debate honed in on gun violence, public safety and criminal justice, with Bacon criticizing Vargas’ record in the Nebraska Legislature that the congressman said made his district less safe, such as legislation for early parole for certain inmates.
Bacon said he supports “due process” when it comes to reducing gun violence and suggested cracking down on “straw” purchases, in which someone purchases a gun for someone who shouldn’t be able to buy a gun.
Vargas said after the debate that any legislation that passes the Legislature, where Republicans hold a supermajority of seats in the officially nonpartisan body, needs Republican support. Vargas said the bigger concern is who would actually fight for public safety and vote for bipartisan border safety and gun violence legislation, which Bacon had opposed.
Vargas and Bacon each said the border needs to be addressed but disagreed on how.
Bacon said the administration under President Joe Biden can act now but hasn’t and said he supports a pathway to permanent “legal status” for some immigrants who came to the United States illegally, but not for criminals, and no pathway to citizenship.
Vargas, whose parents are immigrants, said something must be done to secure the border, stop fentanyl and prevent human trafficking in order to support the American dream. Vargas said Democrats are willing to compromise, and he blamed Republicans for inaction.
2nd District independence
Vargas and Bacon each told reporters that, if elected this fall, each would be an independent voice for Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, which is composed of Douglas County, Saunders County and rural Sarpy County.
Vargas said his eight years on the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee showed him the importance of passing a lean, balanced budget that invests in needed priorities, including law enforcement.
As an example where he disagrees with Democrats, Vargas said he opposes widespread student loan forgiveness that doesn’t benefit all Nebraskans.
“We need somebody that will have real independence when it matters, a problem solver when it actually matters the most,” Vargas told reporters. “I think that’s the reason why we bring up Donald Trump because he is on the ballot and was really proud of his endorsement of Don Bacon.”
Vargas said he appreciates Nebraska’s current process for distributing Electoral College votes, two for the popular vote winner and one for the winner of each of the state’s three congressional districts.
Bacon said he wishes all states followed Nebraska’s model but joined on to a letter last month with Nebraska’s other four Republican members of Congress urging the Legislature to move to “winner take all,” in which the statewide winner would receive all five votes.
Only Nebraska and Maine have the district system, Bacon said, criticizing the model as a Democratic “cash cow” that helps Vargas and other Democratic candidates.
Vargas said it’s about the independence of the district and criticized Bacon for trying to change the system so close to the election. Vargas said Trump’s endorsement of Bacon came shortly after Bacon endorsed the switch to winner take all, which didn’t have enough legislative support.
Bacon told reporters he has faced Trump’s hostility for voting for the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure bill, for the certification of the 2020 election and saying Biden won and supporting Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) for young undocumented immigrants.
“I’ve done my own thing that I think is right for the country,” Bacon said after the debate. “The fact that he [Trump] called and still wanted to make peace. I think he knows that, in reality, it doesn’t help him to be at odds with the folks in this district.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen on Wednesday announced measures to further cut state spending, including a cut in state agency spending and a hiring freeze on most positions.
Pillen said in a news release that the measures are necessary after the state paid out $307 million more in state tax refunds than anticipated in fiscal year 2026, which ended June 30. Tax receipts have come in below projections in March, April and May, leading to a current expected deficit of $172 million.
That’s after lawmakers closed a $646 million budget hole in their most recent legislative session.
The governor has previously sought to cut spending to provide more property tax relief to Nebraska residents and had called for additional cuts during the current fiscal year.
“I am pleased with the progress we have made, but I’m not satisfied,” Pillen said in a news release.
Accompanying the release was a memo Pillen sent to state agencies, boards and commissions in which he called on them to “exercise additional fiscal restraint.”
Among the measures outlined in the memo:
- A freeze on creating any new positions or filling any vacancies without approval from the state budget office. The freeze does not apply to law enforcement or corrections positions.
- A 5% reduction in budgets for all state agencies.
- All agencies, boards and commissions must provide monthly cash flow projections.
- Agency leaders are directed to “concentrate” on eliminating redundant processes, services regulation and aid programs.
- Agency leaders are directed to reduce their agencies’ physical footprint and “consolidate teams and services.”
All state entities are required to submit their plans for reducing spending by the end of the month.
The memo also said agencies should “prepare for downward adjustments to appropriations” not only in the current fiscal year but also in the 2028 and 2029 fiscal years.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Nebraska’s lawsuit against Colorado over a proposed canal that would take water out of the South Platte River in Colorado and send it to a reservoir in Nebraska.
Nebraska claims Colorado is deliberately obstructing efforts to build the ditch, known as the Perkins Canal, even though everyone agrees Nebraska has the right to do so. The canal is necessary, Nebraska says, because Colorado isn’t sending enough water into Nebraska.
The Perkins Canal would divert water from the South Platte River near Ovid to a storage site somewhere in Nebraska. The South Platte River Compact, ratified by both states and Congress in 1923, requires Colorado to guarantee a flow in the river of 120 cubic feet per second at a water gauge near the state line during the irrigation season. The compact also authorizes Nebraska to build the canal and grants the right to use the power of eminent domain to acquire land on which to build it. Initial work was done on the canal more than a century ago, but the project was abandoned as unfeasible.
Nebraska resurrected the idea in late 2021, citing fears that urban development along Colorado’s Interstate 25 corridor and plans to expand water storage were causing Colorado to violate the terms of the 1923 compact.
The idea that Nebraska might actually build the canal has water users in the lower reaches of the river worried that doing so would disrupt the water augmentation process that underpins much of the crop irrigation along the South Platte, especially between Fort Morgan and the Colorado-Nebraska state line. It is designed to help Colorado meet the terms of the 1923 compact.
Colorado land owners have resisted Nebraska’s efforts to buy land in the Julesburg area so the canal can be built. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser and Gov. Jared Polis, while recognizing Nebraska’s right to build the canal, have nevertheless sworn to do all they can to protect Coloradans’ property and water rights. Seeing such rhetoric as subverting Nebraska’s right to build, Nebraska sued Colorado in the Supreme Court in July 2025, alleging that Colorado is obstructing Nebraska’s efforts to go ahead with the Perkins project. Nebraska also attacked Colorado’s water augmentation system, saying it doesn’t work.
To understand augmentation, it’s important to know that Colorado operates on the prior appropriation doctrine, meaning the oldest (senior) water right holders get their water first. During dry periods, senior users may place a “call” on a stream, forcing junior users to stop taking water to ensure the senior rights are fulfilled. When someone pumps water out of a river basin, it eventually pulls water out of nearby streams and rivers, which can illegally shortchange senior surface-right holders. In that case, the junior wells would have to be shut down until senior rights were satisfied
To avoid such shutdowns, called “curtailment,” Colorado devised a system called augmentation in which the water that is pumped during the irrigation season must be replaced during the winter months so it flows back through the aquifer into the river in the following irrigation season. Some augmentation is done simply by buying water rights from upstream users, increasing the amount of water in the river. The system is highly complex and requires detailed accounting of river flows.
In a prepared statement issued last week, after the high court agreed to hear the case, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said Colorado is in compliance with the compact.
The court’s decision, he wrote, “merely opens the door for Nebraska to bring its claims against Colorado. Nebraska’s burden to prove those claims is incredibly high and we will vigorously defend Colorado’s full entitlements under the compact.”
Perkins Canal needed because Colorado is harming Nebraska
But Nebraska officials insist water augmentation isn’t doing what it was supposed to do. In its 55-page complaint to the U.S. Supreme Court, Nebraska calls the augmentation system illegal and a violation of the river compact.
“Colorado’s water administration system, including its augmentation plans, have harmed and will continue to harm Nebraska,” the lawsuit reads. “For example, many augmentation projects … allow junior well owners to pump water out of priority during the irrigation season, provided they pump or divert additional water during the non-irrigation season and apply it to recharge ponds. This method assumes that water will percolate back into the water table and make its way to the South Platte River in time to make whole downstream senior users.”
Kent Miller is general manager of the Twin Platte Natural Resources District, which includes most of the South Platte River in Nebraska. He’s said he’s watched the river since 1972 and is skeptical that augmentation even works.
“Those plans have not been working, and I base that on the fact that the Western Irrigation District rarely receives what it’s supposed to receive,” Miller said.
In May, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer filed an amicus brief with the high court recommending that the court allow the suit to go ahead, but with conditions.
In its lawsuit, Nebraska addresses augmentation because of its complexity and insists that any mechanism Colorado uses to comply with the compact should be simple. In his amicus brief, Sauer recommended tossing the argument.
“Nebraska reads Article VIII (of the compact) as mandating that compliance mechanisms be ‘simple,’ and it alleges that Colorado has violated that requirement,” Sauer wrote. “But Article VIII imposes no such requirement; it merely authorizes Colorado officials to enforce the Compact without action by the Colorado legislature. Because Nebraska’s Article VIII claim is facially meritless, it should not be permitted to proceed further.”
Sauer further recommended disallowing arguments that Colorado is obstructing Nebraska’s efforts to build the canal, saying Nebraska offers no evidence of such obstruction.
In signaling its acceptance of the lawsuit on Monday, the Supreme Court said it wants to hear all of Nebraska’s complaints and let the justices judge for themselves whether parts of it lack merit. Colorado originally had 30 days to respond to the court’s action but, on July 2, requested a 60-day extension.
Bellevue, Neb — Some Nebraskans arrived early with signs outside U.S. Rep. Mike Flood’s second town hall of the year, hoping to press the congressman on issues ranging from food assistance to the conflict in the Middle East.
Rhonda Mays said she brought a sign to show Flood what some constituents think and to encourage others heading inside to speak up. “People walking by that plan on going in there need a reminder to speak out, to ask the right question, and don’t just go to listen but to actually challenge the representative,” Mays said.
Flood said Nebraskans are able to treat each other with respect while also having tough conversations.
During the hourlong event, attendees asked about a range of topics, including multiple questions about SNAP benefits. Some Nebraskans said there is a large population facing food insecurity. Flood responded, “I understand your concerns with SNAP I work often with the foodbanks and with Nebraskans that need assistance. I appreciate the question and I will double back with some of my sources when I get a chance this week, but I have not heard anything about that from any of my sources.”
The crowd became particularly rowdy during discussion of the conflict in the Middle East. Flood said, “We have no greater ally in the middle east than Israel. We have no greater ally than Israel.”
Asked about the outcry after the town hall, Flood reiterated his position, saying, “Isreal was attacked by Hamas; a terrorist organization and horrific things were done to Israelis. At the same time Hezbollah working to do the same on the northern border and then you have the Houthis. Israel has the right to defend itself and we would as well if we were put in that situation.”
Flood holds three town halls a year. It was not known where his third town hall will be.
The town hall was held in Bellevue.
-
News28 minutes agoThree more people charged with damaging Reflecting Pool after Trump’s multimillion-dollar restoration | CNN Politics
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 hours agoLoved ones search for missing 34-year-old Southern California woman
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoChickens, geese found at vacant home after nonprofit reports them stolen
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoWhat’s next for San Francisco Giants as MLB trade deadline approaches?
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoDallas millionaire files lawsuit against groundwater district
-
Miami, FL2 hours ago7 more women arrested at southwest Miami-Dade massage parlors, accused of prostitution in undercover sting
-
Boston, MA3 hours ago‘They’re my buddies’: 96-year-old Back Bay woman befriends French soccer team
-
Denver, CO3 hours agoDenver officers cited for separate incidents, 1 fired
