logo
Defenders of Nebraska's ‘blue dot' come out in force against winner-take-all at hearing

Defenders of Nebraska's ‘blue dot' come out in force against winner-take-all at hearing

Yahoo30-01-2025
A crowd of testifiers waits to speak to the Legislature's Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee Thursday about proposals to shift how the state awards its Electoral College votes. (Courtesy of Tom Becka)
LINCOLN — Nebraskans came out in big numbers Thursday to criticize — but mostly to defend — the state's unusual system of awarding Electoral College votes for president by congressional district.
State Sen. Rita Sanders of Bellevue, chair of the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, anticipated overflow crowds and made space for them in an adjacent room and hall.
But many would-be testifiers left before speaking, with some expressing frustration about long lines. Many of those who stayed represented political parties or civic groups.
Differences were palpable in the first public hearing on the issue without the urgency of 2024 election-related pressure from President Donald Trump or his campaign surrogates.
Chief among Thursday's differences was the makeup of testifiers: More people spoke this time in support of preserving the current district method of awarding electoral votes than testified against it.
Last year, Trump spoke with Nebraska state senators, as did local consultants helping his campaign. That was when both parties worried the Omaha area might break a national tie in the Electoral College.
Trump was still a factor this week, with fears of the president's displeasure motivating Gov. Jim Pillen before a possible 2026 GOP primary race with a top Trump donor, Charles Herbster.
Legislative Bill 3 by State Sen. Loren Lippincott of Central City would shift Nebraska to awarding all five of the state's electoral votes to the statewide winner of the presidential popular vote.
Nebraska and Maine, uniquely among states, award a single electoral vote to the winner of the presidential popular vote in each congressional district. The other 48 states award all electoral votes to the statewide winner, which is often called 'winner-take-all.'
Legislative Resolution 24CA, a proposed constitutional amendment from State Sen. Myron Dorn of Adams, would have voters consider a similar change.
Pillen's policy research director, Kenny Zoeller, testified in support of Lippincott's LB 3. He argued Nebraskans should move to winner-take-all and need to retain the flexibility to change again in the future, which Zoeller said a constitutional amendment like Dorn's LR 24CA wouldn't allow.
'The promised benefits of the current system have been exaggerated or just not met,' Zoeller said.
Most Republicans who spoke backed the Nebraska Republican Party's decades-long push to shift to winner-take-all.
Most Democrats backed the Nebraska Democratic Party's change from the 1990s under former Gov. Ben Nelson that split the state's electoral votes.
And some Nebraskans bucked party and geography, including Warren Phelps, chair of the Cheyenne County GOP who said he wants to keep the district system so rural Republicans in the 3rd Congressional District always have a voice.
He said the GOP majority in the officially nonpartisan Legislature should consider the changing demographics in the state and the population growth in the Omaha and Lincoln areas.
He said Republicans might one day appreciate having the district system if the state blues up over time. He said he and other rural Republicans do not 'want to be drowned out.'
'Competition makes everybody better,' Phelps said, adding that the GOP should compete for Omaha votes. 'It forces candidates to come up with ideas. Ideas that … help the whole country.'
Ron Cunningham, who described himself as a longtime Republican, argued that no Nebraskan should want other people's votes to count less and that the district system works.
'Republicans continue to talk about and promote unity and fairness, but they don't want those votes to count,' Cunningham said.
Michael Tiedeman, a Sarpy County Republican, said the state GOP wants the change to reduce the amount of outside spending on Nebraska elections, including the presidential race.
He said keeping the so-called 'blue dot' would lead to greater competition during redistricting to gerrymander the Omaha-based 2nd Congressional District that's been up for grabs.
He pointed to suburban, exurban and rural Washington County as an example of what could happen. That county has been in all three of the state's U.S. House districts in recent decades.
'This district was a political experiment that did not make sense in the 1990s, and it does not make sense in 2025,' Tiedeman said. 'Please get this bill out of committee.'
Jeanne Reigle, a former legislative candidate from Madison who is government relations director of the Nebraska GOP, said the outside spending concentrates more money and power in the east.
She said small rural communities and their needs too often get drowned out by the national and local focus on reporting from the up-for-grabs 2nd Congressional District.
'They're hurting,' Reigle said. 'They're dwindling. There are very few rural senators left. And very few left involved with agriculture.'
Liz Abel, who lives in 'blue dot' territory in Omaha, said she supports winner-take-all. The Republican said dividing Nebraska's electoral votes 'splinters our electorate' and adds to divisions between rural and urban Nebraska.
She also said she would like to receive less campaign mail from Democrats like former President Joe Biden or nonpartisans like former U.S. Senate candidate Dan Osborn. She said she hoped getting rid of the district system in ruby red Republican Nebraska might lead Democrats to spend their money elsewhere.
'I believe having a split vote diminishes our state's influence,' Abel said.
Preston Love Jr., a civil rights activist in North Omaha who ran for U.S. Senate as a Democrat, said the move by the majority feels to him and others like voter suppression.
He echoed statements from the campaign trail where he said black and brown Nebraskans already vote in lower numbers and getting rid of district-level electoral votes would depress turnout.
Democrats and Republicans split the past five presidential elections in the 2nd District, with Democrats winning the district in 2024, 2020 and 2008 and Republicans winning it in 2016 and 2012.
Republicans won statewide each time.
'Listen to a segment of your community, your state, a whole congressional district to let our votes count,' Love said. 'I think everyone in Congressional District 2 feels that way.
'Are you just ignoring us?'
Melina Arroyo, who said it was her first time speaking to a legislative committee, told senators Nebraska should not change what makes it stand apart in a good way from others.
She said voters benefit from the attention being paid to a state that in no other way would qualify as a swing state. Republicans outnumber Democrats more than 2 to 1, with nonpartisans growing.
She said the district system 'ensures that the voices of all Nebraskans are heard.' Arroyo argued that voters of every political persuasion feel more involved here.
'It shows that we value diversity and fairness in how votes are cast and counted,' she said.
Lippincott, a Republican, said he was encouraged to see the turnout, that it showed a government for the people. He argued that 'having winner-take-all is unifying.'
Dorn said he would support Lippincott's bill but that his proposed constitutional amendment should be treated as a fallback position in case LB 3 stalls.
State Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha, a Democrat, said there was nothing unifying about wanting to 'diminish the value of the votes of these people.'
The Government Committee still must vote on whether to move the measures to the legislative floor. That vote could come as early as Friday.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump tells Schumer to ‘GO TO HELL' over Senate nominee deal after negotiations blow up
Trump tells Schumer to ‘GO TO HELL' over Senate nominee deal after negotiations blow up

New York Post

time11 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Trump tells Schumer to ‘GO TO HELL' over Senate nominee deal after negotiations blow up

Hours of tense negotiations to strike a deal on President Donald Trump's nominees blew up Saturday night, and now lawmakers are headed home. Senate Republicans and Democrats were quick to point the finger at one another for the deal's demise, but it was ultimately Trump who nuked the talks. Advertisement In a lengthy post on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump accused Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., of 'demanding over One Billion Dollars in order to approve a small number of our highly qualified nominees.' 'This demand is egregious and unprecedented, and would be embarrassing to the Republican Party if it were accepted. It is political extortion, by any other name,' Trump said. 'Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL!' 'Do not accept the offer,' he continued. Advertisement 'Go home and explain to your constituents what bad people the Democrats are, and what a great job the Republicans are doing, and have done, for our Country. Have a great RECESS and, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!' Instead of finding a pathway to vote on as many as 60 of the president's nominees, all of which moved through committee with bipartisan support, lawmakers rapid-fire voted on seven before leaving Washington until September. But prior to the president's edict, both sides of the aisle believed they were on the verge of a breakthrough to both meet Trump's desire to see his nominees confirmed and leave Washington. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said that there were 'lots of offers' made between him and Schumer over the course of negotiations. Advertisement 3 President Trump called out Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Truth Social, accusing him of 'demanding over One Billion Dollars in order to approve a small number of our highly qualified nominees.' AP 'There were several different times where I think either or both sides maybe thought there was a deal in the end,' he said. Senate Democrats wanted the White House to unfreeze billions in National Institute of Health and foreign aid funding, in addition to a future agreement that no more clawback packages would come from the White House. In exchange, they would greenlight several of Trump's non-controversial nominees. Advertisement Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., accused Schumer of going 'too far' by upping the price tag on his demands. 3 Trump also said in his post, 'Go home and explain to your constituents what bad people the Democrats are, and what a great job the Republicans are doing, and have done, for our Country.' 'We've had three different deals since last night,' he said. 'And every time it's been, every time it's 'I want more,'' Mullin said of Schumer's demands. He said that Republicans weren't caught off guard by Trump's call to halt talks, and noted that the White House had been heavily involved in negotiations. 'You get to a realization that there was, it was never about making a deal,' he continued. 3 Lawmakers decided to only vote on 7 of Trump's 60 nominees for positions in his administration. AP 'They want to go out and say the President's being unrealistic, and because he can't answer to his base to make a deal like we have in every other president in history.' Advertisement Now, Republicans won't pursue recess appointments, but Mullin noted that moving ahead with a rule changes to the confirmation process when lawmakers return in September was going to happen in response. Senate Democrats, on the other hand, countered that their offer never changed, and that Republicans kept increasing the number of nominees they wanted across the line, and attempted to include in more controversial, partisan picks. 'The ask evolved on both sides quite a bit over time,' Thune said. 'But in the end, we never got to a place where we had both sides agree to lock it in.'

Senate heads home with no deal to speed confirmations as irate Trump tells Schumer to ‘go to hell'
Senate heads home with no deal to speed confirmations as irate Trump tells Schumer to ‘go to hell'

Boston Globe

time11 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Senate heads home with no deal to speed confirmations as irate Trump tells Schumer to ‘go to hell'

Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Schumer said a rules change would be a 'huge mistake,' especially as Senate Republicans will need Democratic votes to pass spending bills and other legislation moving forward. Advertisement 'Donald Trump tried to bully us, go around us, threaten us, call us names, but he got nothing,' Schumer said. The latest standoff comes as Democrats and Republicans have gradually escalated their obstruction of the other party's executive branch and judicial nominees over the last two decades, and as Senate leaders have incrementally changed Senate rules to speed up confirmations — and make them less bipartisan. Advertisement In 2013, Democrats changed Senate rules for lower court judicial nominees to remove the 60-vote threshold for confirmations as Republicans blocked President Barack Obama's judicial picks. In 2017, Republicans did the same for Supreme Court nominees as Democrats tried to block Trump's nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (center) during a news conference after a policy luncheon at the Capitol on Tuesday. Mariam Zuhaib/Associated Press Trump has been pressuring Senate Republicans for weeks to cancel the August recess and grind through dozens of his nominations as Democrats have slowed the process. But Republicans hoped to make a deal with Democrats instead, and came close several times over the last few days as the two parties and the White House negotiated over moving a large tranche of nominees in exchange for reversing some of the Trump administration's spending cuts on foreign aid, among other issues. The Senate held a rare weekend session on Saturday as Republicans held votes on nominee after nominee and as the two parties tried to work out the final details of a deal. But it was clear that there would be no agreement when Trump attacked Schumer on social media Saturday evening and told Republicans to pack it up and go home. 'Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL!' Trump posted on Truth Social. 'Do not accept the offer, go home and explain to your constituents what bad people the Democrats are, and what a great job the Republicans are doing, and have done, for our Country.' Thune said afterward that there were 'several different times' when the two sides thought they had a deal, but in the end 'we didn't close it out.' It's the first time in recent history that the minority party hasn't allowed at least some quick confirmations. Thune has already kept the Senate in session for more days, and with longer hours, this year to try and confirm as many of Trump's nominees as possible. Advertisement But Democrats had little desire to give in without the spending cut reversals or some other incentive, even though they too were eager to skip town after several long months of work and bitter partisan fights over legislation. 'We have never seen nominees as flawed, as compromised, as unqualified as we have right now,' Schumer said.

Trump trade adviser: President has ‘real concerns' about jobs data after BLS firing
Trump trade adviser: President has ‘real concerns' about jobs data after BLS firing

The Hill

time11 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump trade adviser: President has ‘real concerns' about jobs data after BLS firing

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer weighed in on President Trump's decision to fire the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) commissioner Erika McEntarfer, saying the commander-in-chief has 'real concerns' about the jobs numbers that extend beyond the dismal Friday report. 'Even last year during the campaign, there were enormous swings in the jobs numbers, and so sounds to me like the President has real concerns. You know, not just based on today's but everything we saw last year,' Greer said during his Friday appearance on CBS News' 'Face The Nation.' 'You want to be able to have somewhat reliable numbers. There are always revisions, but sometimes you see these revisions go in really extreme ways. And it's, you know, the President is the President. He can choose who works in the executive branch,' Greer, one of Trump's top tariff negotiators, told host Margaret Brennan. Trump fired McEntarfer after a Friday morning jobs report from the Labor Department showed the U.S. added 258,000 fewer jobs in May and June than what was previously reported. The report also said the country added 73,000 jobs in July. Trump axed the BLS chief Friday afternoon, accusing her of manipulating data to make him and Republicans look bad. 'She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified. Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can't be manipulated for political purposes,' Trump wrote Friday on Truth Social. The firing of McEntarfer was met with criticism from Democrats, but also by William Beach, who was appointed as BLS head during Trump's first term. Greer said on Friday that the nation will see a 'big' increase in the number of manufacturing jobs now that Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' was signed into law.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store