Most commenting on proposed Nebraska legislative rules opposed drastic changes | Nebraska Examiner

LINCOLN — Nebraska’s 2024 rules fight drew interest Monday over a foundational issue: which senators could speak in what situations and for how long until a majority votes.

The Rules Committee’s public hearing touched on several topics, including whether the officially nonpartisan Legislature should continue the tradition of voting e for its leaders by secret ballot.

As expected, the future of the filibuster dominated discussions about 34 proposed changes after a 2023 legislative session marked by controversial bills and a nearly session-long series of filibusters aimed at stopping them. 

Slippery roads across much of the state during Monday’s snowstorm likely limited the number of in-person testifiers to about a dozen. The committee received another 230 public comments online by midday.

Majority rules vs. minority rights

Two themes emerged: Many of those commenting opposed wholesale changes to the Legislature’s rules, urging senators to protect the unique traditions of the Unicameral body.

And some argued for making it harder for a single senator or two to derail a legislative session because they oppose a bill and using the Legislature’s rules to do so.

Nathan Leach of Kearney, representing himself and Nonpartisan Nebraska, which advocates protecting the Legislature’s nonpartisan approach, spoke about the need for measured changes. He warned of potential consequences of restricting free and full debate.

Retired University of Nebraska-Lincoln journalism professor Charlyne Berens, who wrote a book on the Unicameral, opposed changing the Legislature’s election of leaders to a public vote. 

She wrote in an online comment that the secret ballot tradition “has worked well for decades.” She said it lets senators make decisions about who would be the best leaders above political considerations.

Allie French of Nebraskans Against Government Overreach and a legislative candidate in District 23, argued the opposite, saying all votes should be public so voters can hold state lawmakers accountable for votes that partisans might dislike.

She and other testifiers supported a change to give the public access to more digestible summaries of what bills would do at least five days before a public hearing instead of the current one-day rule.

Erdman’s proposals

Nancy Finken, Nebraska Public Media’s chief information officer and a representative of Media of Nebraska, defended reporters’ access to attend legislative committees’ executive sessions.

State Sen. Steve Erdman of Bayard, chairman of the Rules Committee, has been trying to ban reporters from such sessions for seven years. He argued Monday that reporters are not allowed to attend executive sessions at any other level of government.

Erdman’s sweeping package of rules changes generated the most opposition Monday. Some of those testifying expressed concerns that his proposals tilted too far toward majority rule and away from providing minority rights.

His most controversial proposal would shift the required number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster to a sliding scale based on how many senators vote on a particular bill.

Erdman said the Legislature’s rulebook needs a fuller rewrite. He has said the current rules let the minority stop too many bills proposed by conservatives.

Unicameral experts have argued that the late Sen. George Norris, “father” of Nebraska’s one-house Legislature, designed his system to cool the passions of the majority and encourage moderate public policy so it is accepted by more Nebraskans.

Arch’s proposals

No one testified in person against a rules package from Speaker John Arch. Senators who spoke to the Nebraska Examiner last week praised Arch and Erdman for sharing their proposals early.

A proposal by Arch to let a senator seek cloture votes (or end debate) on motions as well as when bills are being debated received little public pushback Monday.

Arch also proposed codifying limits that senators adopted last year limiting the number of priority motions a senator can file and then withdraw from a single bill during each round of debate.

State Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha proposed tweaking Arch’s proposal limiting priority motions to make sure his Arch’s concerns about filibusters don’t limit legitimate disagreements.

Arch said he and Cavanaugh would continue to talk. The committee has an executive session set for 10 a.m. Tuesday to discuss the proposals and what they took away from the hearing.

Handful of other ideas

State Sen. Justin Wayne of Omaha explained the reason why he proposed requiring senators to vote yes or no during the final reading of bills, pointing to the Nebraska Constitution. He also poked fun at himself, because he has himself voted “present, not voting.” 

State Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair faced questions from lawmakers about his proposal to limit senators to introducing no more than 14 bills a year and letting senators select a second priority bill when they propose five or fewer bills.

“The question I ask is, are we sacrificing quality for quantity?” Hansen said.

State Sen. Wendy DeBoer of Bennington and State Sen. Eliot Bostar of Lincoln, who sit on the Rules Committee, asked what Hansen would do about productive lawmakers who pass double-digit bills in a given year.

Hansen said some would be able to pass off some of their “technical clean-up” bills to committees. DeBoer wondered aloud whether his idea might encourage more combined bills to skirt the limit.

Clerk of the Legislature Brandon Metzler spent much of the day testifying in a neutral capacity, answering lawmakers’ questions about the impacts of specific proposals and possible changes.

Heidi Uhing of Civic Nebraska praised Erdman and the Rules Committee and staff for making it easier to comment publicly online. She applauded their efforts to publicize all the proposals in one place on the Legislature’s website.

She also warned senators about the risks of tinkering with the cloture process. She said a rural state that is growing more urban and suburban might want to maintain minority members an opportunity to slow legislation down they disagree with.

“Nebraskans continue to believe that the Unicameral’s nonpartisan structure makes it more effective at problem-solving than a partisan Legislature,” Uhing said.