LINCOLN, Neb.—A Lancaster County District judge heard arguments Wednesday about the ballot language on a measure to ban many types of affirmative action in Nebraska.
As the secretary of state counts signatures to see if the issue will appear on the November ballot, opponents told Judge Steven Burns that the language voters would see is confusing and unfair.
Jeff Hall, a student at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, filed a lawsuit against Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, who decides how ballot measures are worded.
The proposed constitutional amendment never uses the words “affirmative action.” But it would prohibit state and local governments from giving preferential treatment to people on the basis of race and sex.
Opponents argue that people don’t know that they’re voting to get rid of affirmative action.
But supporters say the lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt to keep voters from being allowed to decide the issue.
Doug Tietz, executive director of Nebraska Civil Rights, said opponents are “scared to go to the ballot box,” because they know the measure will pass.
“From here on out, we’re going to see this same thing over and over,” Tietz said.
The supporters are part of group called the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, which is affiliated with those pushing similar measures in Colorado and Arizona. The ballot measures are all funded largely by California businessman Ward Connerly, who has prevailed with similar measures in California, Michigan and Washington.
In Nebraska, supporters want voters to be asked if the state constitution should say the state “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, individuals or groups based upon race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin” in public hiring, education and contracting.
Hall’s attorney, J.L. Spray of Lincoln, criticized the “convoluted fashion in which the ballot title is written,” saying it leaves out important information voters need to understand what they’re voting on.
Opponents of the measure have formed a group called Nebraskans United, which has vowed to keep the measure off the ballot by any means necessary. Hall is a member of the group, and his lawsuit offers their alternative language.
They want voters to be asked if the state constitution should “ban state and local programs designed to improve opportunities for and eliminate discrimination against women and minorities in public education, employment and contracting.”
Dale Comer, assistant attorney general, said it’s “not credible” to assume Nebraska voters won’t understand the language as it’s written. The attorney general’s goal, he said, is to express the purpose of the amendment, not describe what the effects might be.
The judge has to make a decision by Sept. 1, and he could write new language himself. The secretary of state’s office should know whether supporters got enough signatures by the end of this week. Supporters said they turned in more than 167,000, and roughly 112,000 are required.
In other states, the measure has come across similar complaints about its wording, which is complicated even before it’s boiled down to a few sentences.
And earlier this year, a judge in Missouri rewrote the ballot language for a similar proposal, striking down the version originally crafted by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan as unfair.
In that case, it was supporters of the measure who complained. The measure didn’t garner enough signatures to make it on the ballot.
———
On the Net:
Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative:
Nebraskans United:
