Nebraska lawmaker pushes to overhaul elections, early voting over integrity concerns
LINCOLN — State Sen. Rick Holdcroft of Bellevue says he wants to eliminate online voter registration, restrict absentee voting, provide more security for ballot boxes and require hand-counting of election results, citing election integrity concerns.
State and local election officials testified against Holdcroft's Legislative Bill 541 during its public hearing Wednesday before the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, questioning the need for changes to election law and raising concerns about possibly violating federal law and the potential costs to taxpayers.
Other bill opponents said the changes would introduce unnecessary burdens to voters and make it harder for Nebraskans to participate in elections.
Holdcroft said while he has confidence in the integrity of Nebraska elections, the bill is 'simply to give peace of mind to the electorate and our state regarding the security of our elections.'
Supporters of the bill claim it would prevent voter fraud and 'cheating' in state elections, pointing to the 2020 election, when President Donald Trump falsely claimed victory but lost to former President Joe Biden. The Nebraska proposal is being discussed as Republicans across the country ramped up unproven claims of non-citizen voting and fraud.
Deputy Nebraska Secretary of State Wayne Bena, who oversees the state's Elections Division, said state elections officials appreciated Holdcroft's interest in election integrity. He said Secretary of State Robert Evnen agrees with some provisions of LB 541, such as tightening security around ballot boxes, but said Evnen has practical concerns about hand counting and legal concerns about voter registration changes.
'[Hand] counting, which is statistically the least reliable way that you can count ballots, add significant times and add significant cost to conducting an election,' Bena said.
Tracy Overstreet, Hall County Election Commissioner, said during the hearing that the proposed changes would require her to hire more staff and violate the federal National Voting Rights Act because of the way the bill would restrict voter registration by mail. According to the bill's fiscal note, the changes Holdcroft seeks would cost the state nearly $1 million when Nebraska is facing a significant budget shortfall.
Danna Seevers, who testified in support of the bill, said the committee 'should act to honor the will of the people who overwhelmingly elected Donald Trump in 2024 and carry out his agenda,' adding that LB 541 delivers on that with 'surgical precision.'
Trump met with state governors late last month, including Gov. Jim Pillen, and urged them to modify their voting laws to implement paper ballots, one-day voting, voter ID and proof of citizenship. However, Most states, including Nebraska, already have voter ID laws and utilize paper ballots, often as backups, and only U.S. citizens are legally allowed to vote in federal elections.
'This isn't just a bill,' Seevers said. 'It's a battle cry for election integrity that echoes Trump's call to action.'
Voting advocacy groups said the bill would place unnecessary burdens on voters.
'By restricting early voting to a handful of the scenarios, voting in Nebraska will become more challenging and less convenient,' said Cesar Garcia, a Nebraska Appleseed's Community Organizer. 'As a consequence, our state will likely see lower voter turnout.'
Nebraskans passed a state constitutional amendment in 2022 requiring the Legislature to implement voter ID in Nebraska. Fewer voters were turned away under the law than in other states with similar laws. The committee took no immediate action on the bill.
Bena said the Secretary of State and the county election commissioners would implement the Holdcroft bill if the Legislature passes it.
'However, if you're asking our office [if] such a law is justified?' Bena said. 'The answer is no.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Government blocked streaming sites for public servants as a 'people management issue,' documents show
Although streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video weren't straining the government's network, federal officials decided to block them because they were perceived to be a "people management" issue, according to internal documents obtained by CBC News. Last December, the agency responsible for IT services, Shared Services Canada (SSC), blocked access to paid subscription streaming sites, including Netflix, Hulu, Apple TV+, Prime Video, Disney+ and Crave for 45 government departments and agencies. At the time, a spokesperson for SSC said "streaming services are not considered work tools and offer no business value for the Government of Canada." Documents released as part of an access to information request provide more insight on how the decision was made. In an October 2024 email, SSC president Scott Jones wrote to officials at the Treasury Board, saying he wanted to "raise a couple of issues," including the use of personal phones and streaming services among bureaucrats. He wrote about a recent meeting of deputy ministers, where they discussed the use of streaming services in federal buildings — and voiced his support to block them. "While streaming may ultimately impact the bandwidth available to the [Government of Canada], it is also more importantly a people management issue," he wrote. "In the current context and with public perception of the public service as it is … there is value in engaging [deputy ministers] on these issues and in committing SSC to take some action." Soon after, SSC moved to block the streaming services. This email and others were obtained via an access to information request made by Matt Malone, an assistant professor at the University of Ottawa, and shared with CBC News. Thousands of hours of streaming The request, which sought documents detailing the rationale behind the decision to ban streaming services on government networks, includes a report on traffic to the streaming sites in September 2024, broken down by department. The report shed a more fulsome light into how much streaming was being done on government networks, compared to the agency's official statement when the sites were banned. In a November 2024 statement, Shared Services Canada said that "network traffic monitoring shows limited traffic to these sites from government systems." The report on streaming is presented as a bar chart, showing total volume of streaming per terabyte (TB). The amount of data used depends on the quality of video streamed. As an example, Netflix offers four data usage settings — ranging from low quality to ultra-high definition. If users were streaming on standard definition, one terabyte would equal at least 1,000 hours. If they were streaming on high definition, then one terabyte equals at least 340 hours of video. The departments with the highest streaming included the Department of National Defence at over three terabytes, Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) with almost three terabytes and the Privy Council Office with about 1.5 terabytes of volume per month. The report includes the "top 10" departments with highest traffic to streaming websites in September 2024, including Global Affairs Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (East), Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat, Canada Revenue Agency and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. All of those departments reported about 0.75 TB of streaming volume in one month. Given the number of civil servants employed by the government, this volume is fairly minimal. For instance, PSPC alone has about 19,000 employees. Cybersecurity expert Eric Parent says the numbers presented just by volume of data don't paint a full picture. "The metric we're missing is how many users, how many users are actively on [streaming] and for how long," he said. The report also shows almost 10 TB of streaming done on the federal government's guest Wi-Fi. In a letter to colleagues, a director with SSC said the streaming numbers across the government could have been relatively low in part because they used a program that throttles the speed of streaming to prioritize different internet traffic on government networks.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Threatens Washington Commanders' RFK Stadium Deal Over Team Name
A Washington Commanders jersey displaying President Donald Trump's name sits in the Oval Office of the White House on May 5, 2025, as Trump announced Washington, D.C., would host the 2027 NFL Draft. Credit - Jim Lo Scalzo—EPA/Bloomberg/Getty Images 'Our country has far bigger problems! FOCUS on them, not nonsense,' Donald Trump tweeted in 2013. Then-President Barack Obama, Trump said, 'should not be telling' Washington, D.C.'s NFL team 'to change their name.' But now, there is a need to focus on the nonsense, it seems. As President Trump continues to try to turn attention away from scrutinizing his relationship with the late alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, he posted twice on his Truth Social platform on Sunday about the name of the football franchise in the nation's capital as well as that of the MLB team in Cleveland, Ohio. 'The Washington 'Whatever's' should IMMEDIATELY change their name back to the Washington Redskins Football Team,' he posted. 'There is a big clamoring for this. Likewise, the Cleveland Indians, one of the six original baseball teams, with a storied past. Our great Indian people, in massive numbers, want this to happen. Their heritage and prestige is systematically being taken away from them. Times are different now than they were three or four years ago. We are a Country of passion and common sense. OWNERS, GET IT DONE!!!' In a follow-up, Trump added: 'I may put a restriction on them that if they don't change the name back to the original 'Washington Redskins,' and get rid of the ridiculous moniker, 'Washington Commanders,' I won't make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington. The Team would be much more valuable, and the Deal would be more exciting for everyone. Cleveland should do the same with the Cleveland Indians. The Owner of the Cleveland Baseball Team, Matt Dolan, who is very political, has lost three Elections in a row because of that ridiculous name change. What he doesn't understand is that if he changed the name back to the Cleveland Indians, he might actually win an Election. Indians are being treated very unfairly. MAKE INDIANS GREAT AGAIN (MIGA)!' (Dolan, a Republican who served five years in the Ohio House of Representatives and eight years in the state senate and whose father purchased the Cleveland baseball team in 2000, ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate in 2022 and 2024.) Amid widespread concern about social injustices across the U.S. in 2020, both the Washington Redskins and Cleveland Indians decided to change their controversial names out of respect for Native Americans. Washington became the Washington Football Team that year, and in 2022 adopted the name the Washington Commanders, while the Cleveland Indians transitioned to its current name, the Cleveland Guardians, in 2021. Read More: A Linguist's Analysis of the Redskins Defense Trump was never a fan of the name changes, tweeting in 2020: 'They name teams out of STRENGTH, not weakness, but now the Washington Redskins & Cleveland Indians, two fabled sports franchises, look like they are going to be changing their names in order to be politically correct. Indians, like Elizabeth Warren, must be very angry right now!' (Sen. Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, has been mocked by Trump and other Republicans for her claims of Cherokee ancestry.) Trump's urging of the sports organizations to reverse their rebrandings comes as his second-term Administration has targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in both the public and private sector. Speaking to reporters Sunday, Guardians' president of baseball operations Chris Antonetti said, 'We understand there are different perspectives on the decision we made a few years ago but obviously it's a decision we made. We've got the opportunity to build a brand as the Guardians over the last 4 years and are excited about the future.' The Commanders did not immediately issue a statement, but earlier this year, controlling owner Josh Harris said his team had no plans to change its name again. 'In this building, the name Commanders means something,' Harris said during a February press conference. 'It's about players who love football, are great at football, hit hard, mentally tough, great teammates.' It's unclear whether Trump has the authority to upend a deal that the Commanders and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser announced in April to return the team in 2030 to its former home at the capital's Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium after having moved to Landover, Md., in 1997. Amid years of discussions about redeveloping the storied-but-defunct sports and events campus, Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, signed into law in January a bill that transferred the land of the RFK Stadium from federal to local control for the next 99 years. Still, earlier this month, as some members of the D.C. Council expressed skepticism about the timeline and financing of the mayor's deal with the Commanders, Trump suggested he could intervene if the council doesn't approve it. 'It's a very important piece of property. It's a great piece of property,' Trump said, referring to the RFK Stadium site, 'You know, ultimately we control that. The federal government ultimately controls it, so we'll see what happens.' Contact us at letters@
USA Today
20 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump is racking up GOP wins no one else could. What do Never Trumpers say now?
For all the hand-wringing over Donald Trump in the past decade, I think his detractors on the right need to take a moment and consider what this president has accomplished. He'll destroy the Republican Party. He'll end democracy. He's not a conservative. He's a bad guy who can't be trusted. For all the hand-wringing over Donald Trump in the past decade, I think his detractors on the right need to take a moment and consider what this president has accomplished. He's racking up huge conservative wins that no other Republican president in modern history has come close to matching. What others only talked about, Trump is doing. I'll walk you through some of the biggest wins. Trump assassination attempt: Trump almost died a year ago. That moment changed the direction of America. | Opinion Taxpayers are now free from funding liberal NPR. Hallelujah. I've advocated for ending taxpayer funding of NPR and PBS for years. So it came as welcome news that Congress last week finally rescinded funding for these progressive outlets. From the start of his second term, Trump made it clear this was a priority for him. And he worked with the slim GOP majority in Congress to make it happen. House Republicans made it official on July 18, voting to axe about $1 billion in federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which allocates the funds to stations across the country. 'This vote is an unwarranted dismantling of beloved local civic institutions, and an act of Congress that disregards the public will,' Katherine Maher, president and CEO of NPR, complained. Here's the thing. If the stations are so beloved by their local communities, then local residents and businesses are more than welcome to donate to the cause. NPR has a right to exist. That doesn't mean it has a right to my tax dollars. | Opinion But there is not a First Amendment requirement for the government (taxpayers) to fund any specific outlet – especially one that so glaringly ignores the perspectives of half the country. This has been a purported Republican goal for years, but squishy conservatives facing reelection didn't want to be the ones to pull the plug on Big Bird. In fact, according to PBS, every Republican administration (save for Gerald Ford) has sought to cut funding for CPB since its inception in 1967. Only Trump succeeded. Finally! Penn will erase trans athlete's records. But are they just biding time? | Opinion Trump is dismantling the Education Department, like Reagan wanted to do As he promised, Trump is also working to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, a behemoth of bureaucracy that has done nothing to improve education in the country. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court greenlighted his efforts to slash the department's workforce in half, an action that began in March with an executive order. Trump celebrated the victory on social media, saying his administration can follow through with his goal of giving 'the Power back to the PEOPLE' in regard to education. Betsy DeVos, who served as education secretary during Trump's first term, has told me that she is 100% on board with closing the Education Department and empowering the states, which should be the level of government that oversees public schools. Much of the work the department does could easily transfer to other branches of government, as it was done before the Education Department's creation in 1979 under Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Since that time, Republicans have regularly advocated for doing away with the department. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. President Ronald Reagan, the darling of conservatives, talked about doing this in the 1980s, although he didn't follow through. In 1996, the Republican Party platform included abolishing the department and ending 'federal meddling in our schools' and promoting school choice. Yet, it took Trump to get the job done. He's also taken a strong lead in expanding education options for families. The 'big, beautiful bill' he just signed into law creates the first federal private school choice tax credit program. Education system is failing: Trump trusts parents to know what's best for their kids. What a concept! | Opinion As the American Enterprise Institute's Nat Malkus told CNN, 'Trump's big changes in education are the federal retreat many conservatives have long called for, with some new attacks added in for good measure.' And don't forget about Roe v. Wade Last but not least, Trump is the one to thank for the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. Since 1973, when the Supreme Court fashioned a constitutional 'right' to abortion, conservatives had fought hard to overturn it. During his first term, Trump had the exceptional opportunity to appoint three Supreme Court justices, which effectively sealed the court's conservative majority for years to come. His excellent choices of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett paved the way for the groundbreaking decision that gave abortion regulation back to the states, where it belongs. The Never Trumpers have told us Trump is bad news for the Republican Party. Those of us who line up on the right can't look at these significant conservative wins, however, and not be thoroughly impressed. Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@ or on X, formerly Twitter: @Ingrid_Jacques You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
