Nebraskans with felony convictions may register to vote after the state’s highest court ruled Wednesday that a top election official had no authority to deem a law restoring those rights unconstitutional.
The Nebraska Supreme Court ordered election officials to expeditiously put the law in effect, which will restore the voting rights of thousands of Nebraskans who have finished serving their felony convictions. The decision could have resounding implications for the upcoming election.
“Because the requisite number of judges have not found that the statutory amendments are unconstitutional, we issue a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the Secretary and the election commissioners to implement the statutory amendments immediately,” the court order reads.
In July, Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen said county election officials should not accept the voter registrations of people with felony convictions after the state’s attorney general issued an opinion deeming the law unconstitutional.
Since 2005, Nebraskans with felony convictions could register to vote two years after completing all the terms of their sentence. A bipartisan majority of state senators ended the two-year waiting period in April, making it so people previously convicted of felonies could immediately register to vote after finishing their sentence.
Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers’s opinion invalidating the law was issued just two days before it was set to go into effect. He argued that only Nebraska’s Board of Pardons — made up of himself, Evnen and Gov. Jim Pillen, all Republicans — were empowered to restore voting rights.
The Nebraska Supreme Court rejected the contention that the state’s pardon board has sole authority to restore such rights.
“Because the parties agree that the two persons having unpardoned felony convictions before us in this case have completed their sentences, I cannot say that the respondent Secretary of State has met the high burden here. Thus, I concur in the judgment,” Judge William Cassel wrote in a concurring opinion.
“But I caution that any attempt by the Legislature to restore rights at some earlier time is likely to collide directly with the pardon power conferred upon the Board of Pardons,” he said.
Because the secretary of state’s directive came in close proximity to the election, the Nebraska Supreme Court agreed to hear the case directly, before lower courts weighed in.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which litigated the case on behalf of two Nebraskans seeking ballot access — a Republican and an independent — and the nonprofit Civic Nebraska, said the order could have kept 7,000 or more residents from voting this November.
Jeremy Jonak, one of the plaintiffs, called the ruling a “weight off my shoulders.”
“And not just because of what it means for me,” he said in a statement, shared by the ACLU. “Over the years, so many of us have earned a second chance. We live in every part of the state, and the truth is most of us are just trying to live our lives and leave the past behind us. Thanks to this decision, we get to have a say as part of our communities.”
Jonathan Topaz, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, called the decision a “victory for Nebraskans, democracy and the rule of law.”
Nebraska is traditionally a deep-red state, but Republicans have seen multiple races narrow there in recent weeks, including the reelection bid of Sen. Deb Fischer, who is facing a surprisingly strong challenge from independent candidate Dan Osborn.
