On August 31, the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion in Eggers v Evnen, 22-2268. This is the case over the Nebraska county distribution requirement for statewide initiatives. By a 2-1 vote, the panel reversed the U.S. District Court and said the law is likely constitutional. Therefore it dissolved the injunctive relief that had been granted by the U.S. District Court. The initiative proponents who had filed the case had been trying to qualify an initiative related to marijuana.
Here is the opinion. The majority consists of Judge Raymond Gruender, a Bush Jr. appointee; and Judge David Stras, a Trump appointee. The dissent is by Judge Jane L. Kelly, an Obama appointee.
The majority says initiatives aren’t created by the U.S. Constitution, so states need not treat each voter equally in matters concerning the initiative process. But the dissent quite shrewdly points out that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t require the states to let the voters elect presidential electors either. Nevertheless, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down county distribution requirements for independent presidential petitions in 1969 in Moore v Ogilvie. The majority does not discuss that very powerful point.
Does this mean that the Voter ID ballot initiative that recently ran in Nebraska failed to qualify for the ballot?
I recall that a county distribution requirement for ballot initiative petitions got thrown out in court in Nevada several year back. The Nevada legislature then replaced it with a congressional district distribution requirement.
On to SCOTUS —
1969 Moore — one of the very few sane SCOTUS election law ops
Richard Winger does not recognize the distinction between the Illinois distribution requirements and those in Nebraska.
He is also indifferent to the disparity in number of voters among congressional and legislative districts.
The Nebraska county distribution requirement for new party petitions was in concept identical to the Nebraska initiative distribution requirement. The Nebraska county distribution requirement for new party petitions was struck down in 1984 in Libertarian Party of Nebraska v Beerman, and the district court cited Moore v Ogilvie. So in that 1984 Nebraska federal court decision, the judge felt there is no fundamental difference between the Illinois requirement and the type of requirement Nebraska had for new parties and still has for initiatives.
@RW,
The previous decision (Beerman) did not comprehend the distinction from Illinois. It even went off on a tangent about Rhode Island.
Initiative circulators would completely ignore western Nebraska, thus depriving those citizens the power of the initiative
ALL pets –
ONE voter forms — Mail them in if not picked up
Mailing pets? Has anyone contacted the humane society about this?