News
Nebraska activists seek to put opposing abortion questions on the ballot
Demonstrators came to the Nebraska Capitol in Lincoln last year to protest plans to revive an abortion ban last year. They were prompted by the sentencing of an 18-year-old woman to 90 days in jail for burning and burying a fetus after she took medication given to her by her mother to end her pregnancy.
Margery Beck/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Margery Beck/AP
OMAHA, Nebraska — At a farmers’ market in midtown Omaha, abortion politics are playing out near the produce stands, flower vendors and a brass band.
Petitioners for two opposing ballot measures have set up folding tables near each other, competing for signatures from registered voters. One initiative would put an amendment in the state’s constitution allowing abortion until fetal viability – usually about 24 weeks. That would replace the current ban on most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy currently in state law.
Samantha Weatherington stopped to sign the fetal viability proposal. To her, the state’s current ban is too restrictive.
“It’s terrifying to think that we can’t even make choices of our own bodies again, it’s like going back to the ‘40s and ’50s,” she said. “I don’t want to see people’s daughters using a coat hanger as a last resort.”
Less than 20 feet away is another table where petitioners solicit signatures for a different ballot question. This would ask voters to put the current 12-week ban into the constitution.
Andrew Shradar planned to sign that petition.
“I believe that it’s a human being at conception,” he said. “Protecting the unborn is what needs to be done no matter what, and for the two petitions that are being held right now, that’s the one I’m going to sign.”
At a farmers’ market in midtown Omaha, Richard Riscol solicits signatures for a petition to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would limit abortion at 12 weeks of pregnancy.
Elizabeth Rembert/Nebraska Public Media
hide caption
toggle caption
Elizabeth Rembert/Nebraska Public Media
Since The Supreme Court overturned the federal right to abortion in 2022, the issue has been fought out state by state. It is already on the ballot in Colorado, Florida, Maryland and South Dakota and there are efforts underway in six more states.
The opposing groups have to get on the ballot and then compete
In several, like Arizona and Missouri, abortion rights supporters are going to the voters to get around Republican-led legislatures that have passed laws restricting abortion.
That’s the case in Nebraska too, but with the added twist of the competing campaigns. Four months after the abortion rights groups got going on the fetal viability proposal, activists opposing abortion started the drive for the 12-week ban.
To get on the ballot, the campaigns have until July 3 to collect signatures from 10% of the state’s registered voters – about 123,000 people. That has to include signatures from 5% of voters in at least 38 of Nebraska’s 93 counties. To pass, the ballot proposals require majority approval, with votes from at least 35% of those casting ballots in the November election.
There’s a chance they could both get on the ballot. “This is where the conflict arises,” said Sec. of State Bob Evnen in an interview. “You have two conflicting initiatives proposing an amendment to the Nebraska constitution. That conflict has to be resolved.”
And while it’s up to the governor – after the vote – to rule officially that two amendments are in conflict, he says he thinks these do. “They are wholly in conflict with each other,” he said. “There’s nothing to reconcile.”
Evnen says that would test for the first time a law established in 1912 that says that if they both pass, then whichever proposal gets more approving votes will be adopted in the state’s constitution.
“It’s possible that one of the proposals could get approved and not be adopted,” Evnen said. “It’ll come down to, whichever one receives the most votes is the one that would go into Nebraska’s constitution.”
Voter education will be key
That could all lead to confusing choices for Nebraska voters. Rachel Rebouché, a reproductive and family law expert and dean of Temple University’s law school, said that twist will make outreach even more important for each campaign.
“Having to choose between 12 weeks and fetal viability is going to slice voters up in different ways,” she said. “Each side has a stable group of supporters. But how are they going to reach people who have abortion ambivalence and convince them that their stance is the best option?”
For now, both campaigns said they’re focusing on getting their proposal onto the November ballot. Once that’s cleared, they said they’ll turn to educating and turning out voters, since a majority might not be enough to win.
“Decisions about pregnancy are personal, and they should be made between medical providers and the patient,” said Allie Berry, campaign manager for Protect Our Rights, which backs the fetal viability amendment. “A lot of people agree with that and are excited to sign.”
Brenna Grasz, treasurer for Protect Women & Children, is confident in the 12-week ban petition drive. “We believe that Nebraska voters are majority pro-life, and the vote in November will reflect that.”
One of her allies, Nebraska Right to Life President Sandy Danek, says she supports the 12-week amendment in part because it will allow for tighter abortion limits in law later. “It does give us an ability to go back to the Nebraska legislature and seek further protections,” she said. “I can’t tell you when the body will be in a place to do that, but this initiative does give us that liberty.”
Elizabeth Rembert reports for Nebraska Public Media.
News
Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP
The Supreme Court
Win McNamee/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Win McNamee/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits.
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.”
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced.
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor said that if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.”
Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow. Earlier last month the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map. California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district. Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
News
Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California
Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown. The New York Times
A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.
The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.
As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.
Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.
News
US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets
The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.
“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.
“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.
In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.
“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.
Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.
This story has been updated.
-
World5 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts5 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Denver, CO5 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana1 week agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Technology1 week agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Politics1 week agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT
-
Technology1 week agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
News1 week agoWorld reacts as US top court limits Trump’s tariff powers