Organizers of Nebraska's medical marijuana ballot measure are pushing back against the state's election official for questioning nearly 100,000 signatures, which they say threatens “the very initiative.” I am doing it.
Secretary of State Bob Evnen and Attorney General Mike Hilgers filed court filings questioning the validity of approximately 49,000 signatures on each of the two medical marijuana petitions. They claimed that more than half involved “notary misconduct.” Evnen asked the court to determine the actual number of valid signatures and to invalidate the election results if there are not enough signatures.
Lawyers for three sponsors of the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Association said Monday that Evnen has not alleged any “intentional misconduct” as required by law, and that “he has lost the right to vote to tens of thousands of Nebraska voters.” “In an effort to deprive the government of the law, it ignores past precedent.”
“Worse still, Nebraska’s top election officials are promoting a burden-shifting framework that threatens to completely undermine and eliminate leadership,” the organizers’ brief states.
On September 13, Evnen certified two of the movement's measures to legalize and regulate medical drugs for a November 5 vote. Evnen confirmed that each cannabis petition had approximately 90,000 valid signatures. This campaign needs at least 86,499 valid signatures. Early voting has already begun.
On September 12, former state senator and former state health commissioner John Kuhn filed a lawsuit challenging the legal sufficiency of the ballot measure. Kuhn named Evenen and three campaign sponsors in the lawsuit.
Lancaster County District Judge Susan Strong limited Mr. Kuehn's case to about 17,000 signatures per petition because it defines “clerical and technical errors” rather than actual invalidity, but Mr. Evenen and allowed Mr. Kuhn's appeal to proceed.
On the same day that Evenen certified the November vote, Hilgers announced a statewide investigation specifically looking into fraud, illegal activity and “misconduct” regarding cannabis petitions.
As a result of the investigation, a paid circular worker from Grand Island and a notary public from York were charged. In a legal filing last week, Hilgers said further charges could be filed, specifically implicating 10 more circulating officers or notaries, including one of the voting sponsors. He said there was.
Although there are four other measures on the Nov. 5 ballot, Hilgers only released research on the medical marijuana measure.
A brief from the Nebraska Attorney General's Office in support of Mr. Evnen states that the legal concept of “continuation of the trial,” or whether there is a controversy for a case to proceed in court, “Keeps both parties in their proper lanes.”
Mr. Hilgers and his office echoed Mr. Kuehn's lawyers' argument that Mr. Evnen's duties would be changed if the measures were legally or constitutionally insufficient. Hilgers' office continues that any uncertainty “prevents the Secretary from properly performing and administering his duties.”
“Concluding that the Secretary has no standing would unreasonably limit his ability to carry out his constitutional role and do what election law requires,” the brief states.
Mr. Kuehn and his attorneys defended Mr. Evenen's ability to file amendment requests against ballot sponsors, pointing to the Nebraska Constitution's citizen-initiated petition clause.
Mr. Kuehn's lawyers argued that the Constitution is “self-executing,” and that no state law could change or preclude Mr. Evenen's constitutional obligation to prevent the certification of legally insufficient voting measures. I wrote that I can't do it. If Evenen receives new information involving the Hilgers investigation, the Constitution requires Evenen to act.
“This obligation is clearly a legal interest in the subject matter of this case,” Kuehn's brief states.
If Judge Strong rejected Mr. Evenen's claim for lack of “standing,” Mr. Kuehn's lawyers asked him for permission to add the challenged signature to the set of challenges.
Lawyers for ballot sponsors argue that no Nebraska court has ever invalidated a petition signature based on an alleged error by a third-party notary. They point out that while the Nebraska Supreme Court in 1919 upheld the invalidation of signatures based on widespread circular fraud, the case had never been extended to notaries.
“It makes little sense to punish voters who allegedly made a mistake after signing a petition for which they had no responsibility or control,” attorneys for poll organizers wrote.
The lawyers argue that Mr. Evenen's argument is that “a single mistake, for whatever reason, amounts to widespread and widespread fraud.”
They argued that Mr. Evenen does not have the authority under state law or regulation to seek such “mass invalidity” relief, and that Mr. Evenen's role is to verify signature requirements before taking action on ballots and to ensure election results. It is claimed that the purpose is to confirm the
In their argument, lawyers for the sponsors pointed to a 2022 North Dakota case in which the Secretary of State invalidated 15,740 otherwise valid signatures because they came from a particular notary public. There is. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the lawsuit and declined to invalidate more petitions.
“Part of protecting this precious lead is to ensure that political opponents cannot push voters through legal legislation based on commonplace claims of technical errors,” said a lawyer for the poll organizers. “This is especially true if the political opponent is the state’s top election official, the same person who has already certified the efforts he is currently attacking.”
The Nebraska Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by a coalition of grants and donors as a 501c(3) public charity. The Nebraska Examiner maintains editorial independence. If you have any questions, please contact editor Cate Folsom at info@nebraskaexaminer.com. Follow Nebraska Examiner on Facebook and X.
