LINCOLN, Neb. (KSNB) - Following four hours of discussion on the floor of the Nebraska Legislature on Tuesday afternoon, LB3, also known as the 'Winners-take-all' legislation , a motion for cloture did not succeed in ending the filibuster.
To initiate cloture on LB3, 33 senators' affirmative votes were required. However, following all senators’ voting, it garnered only 31 of those needed votes.
LB3 was introduced by Senator Loren Lippincott from Central City at the governor's behest. The state transitioned to a method in 1991 where electoral votes were allocated based on congressional districts. During Tuesday's discussion, Senator Lippincott argued against this approach, stating it had been poorly conceived when initially implemented.
Senator Lippincott stated, "The district plan was approved with a slim majority in the state legislature, receiving 25 'yea' votes, 23 'nay' votes, and one legislator choosing not to vote." He further noted, "This suggests that the district plan lacked widespread support or endorsement from a large coalition of legislators."
In the debate, Senator Dan Lonowski from Hastings stated that the blue spot in Nebraska’s second congressional district could be better described as a shade of purple.
"It indicates a complex political environment. This could suggest that although the region generally leans progressive, there remains a substantial conservative contingent, highlighting a blend of differing political perspectives, even in what are typically seen as predominantly liberal zones," Senator Lonowski stated.
David City Senator Jared Storm stated that this attempt to return to a winner-take-all system is not unprecedented.
Ever since the modification in 1991, a total of 13 bills have been proposed to switch it back to the winner-take-all system," Senator Storm stated. "This indicates that for nearly every two-year period except three since 1991, there has been an effort to return to the winner-takes-all approach.
On the opposing end of the debate, Senator Danielle Conrad from Lincoln proposed an amendment to permanently delay the bill. She expressed her concerns regarding the potential discriminatory effects of LB3.
"When it pertains to voting rights, actions taken by states must not be racially biased. As we have learned from redistricting efforts, both federal and constitutional laws mandate that legislatures should not create district boundaries resulting in the weakening of minority votes," Senator Conrad stated.
In the midst of the debate, Senator Jane Raybould from Lincoln had harsh comments about LB3.
Let's refer to LB3 for what it truly represents: a sluggish, myopic effort aimed at depriving Nebraska voters of their authority and transferring it to nationwide political organizations," Senator Raybould stated. "This isn’t driven by principles of equity or uniformity; rather, it seeks to suppress the voices of Nebraskans under the guise of partisan allegiance. Essentially, this move aims to diminish Nebraska, rendering it less noticeable and simpler to overlook.
Senator Merv Riepe from Ralston expressed his support for postponing the matter to the next legislative session during the discussion.
Adopting winner-take-all isn’t a concern for 2025; it’s something we’ll address in 2028," Senator Riepe stated. "A debate about this could realistically occur during the legislative sessions of either 2027 or 2028. By 2028, we will have the chance to reassess the topic nearer to the subsequent presidential elections.
Leaders from both ends of the political spectrum in Nebraska reacted to the failure of LB3's cloture vote.
I am profoundly let down that a small faction within the Legislature overruled the wishes of most legislators as well as the majority of Nebraskan residents through the use of a filibuster against Winner-Take-All legislation. This policy has garnered support from a significant number of elected officials and warranted an open and direct vote. The citizens of Nebraska anticipate and merit consistent leadership grounded in principle from their public servants, yet today’s events show that these standards were not met due to legislative shortcomings.
I remain convinced that it is essential to implement the Winner-Take-All system for Nebraska’s electoral votes to amplify the state’s influence in presidential elections. Over the past three decades, numerous attempts have been made to address this issue, and I am committed to collaborating with my colleagues in the Legislature to achieve this before the 2028 election.
Governor Jim Pillen
“The public outcry made a difference. Fortunately, enough of our lawmakers sided with voters today. Those state senators have our gratitude, and that is particularly true for those who made the case against LB 3 on the floor today. The bottom line is that Nebraskans with very different politics agree and appreciate that our system gives us all a more direct say on the outcome of presidential elections. Today’s vote preserves an approach that has encouraged turnout for more than 30 years, and hopefully will continue to do so for many years to come. We will keep working with partners, supporters and allies in the Legislature to make sure all of our state senators fully understand the importance of putting voters’ voices over partisan politics.”
Mindy Rush Chipman - ACLU of Nebraska Executive Director
With Tuesday’s failed cloture vote, it’s likely the bill won’t appear in the legislature again this year. LR24CA is a constitutional amendment that would ask voters to end the split electoral vote system, and that made it out of committee but lacks a priority designation, making it unlikely it will be up for debate this year.
Click here To sign up for our KSNB Local4 daily digest and breaking news notifications sent directly to your email.