justus15vote

By JustUs15Vote

Since 2005 via LB 53 (restoration of voting rights after two-years of completion of a felony
sentence), more than 90,000 Nebraskans already had their right to vote restored over the past 19 years. With the passage of LB 20 (automatic voting restoration upon completion of a felony sentence) in 2024, those numbers will continue to increase.
The Missouri bill mentioned in the article proposes that convicted felons should be allowed to run for public office, using the case of Donald Trump—who, despite facing legal challenges, is allowed to run for and become president—as a key argument. This can’t just be an exception for Trump. Applying this reality to Nebraska, if Trump can, we certainly should be able to as well. Nebraskans convicted of a felon should be allowed to hold public office and serve on jury for
several reasons:

1. Equal Rights Under the Law: The argument that Trump is entitled to run for and become president, despite legal challenges, highlights the principle that individuals,
regardless of their past actions, keep certain fundamental rights. If a person who has been
convicted of a crime has served their sentence and completed their legal obligations, they
should not be further deprived of their civil rights. These rights include the ability to take
part in democratic processes, such as running for office or serving on a jury. Denying
these rights suggests a perpetual punishment beyond the original sentence, which goes against the idea of rehabilitation.

2. Rehabilitation and Reintegration into Society: Allowing convicted felons to hold public office or serving on juries supports the principle of rehabilitation. By enabling
citizens convicted of a felony to take part in these civic duties, the state sends a message
that individuals can change and contribute positively to society. Their experience and
perspective could enrich public service, making decisions that are more reflective of the
full diversity of the community.

3. Precedent Set by High-Profile Figures: The case of Donald Trump, as cited in the
Missouri bill, serves as a precedent. If a high-profile individual facing legal challenges can still take part in the political process, why should an ordinary citizen who has paid
their debt to society be denied the same opportunity? This could be interpreted as a
contradiction in how the law treats different individuals, and a fair and consistent
application of rights would support allowing citizens convicted of a felony in Nebraska to hold office and serve on juries.

4. Second Chances and Democracy: A functioning democracy is one that offers second chances. Allowing citizens convicted of a felony to run for office and serve on juries
provides them with an opportunity to prove they are habilitated and trustworthy members of the community. This aligns with the principles of democratic inclusion and redemption, where the past should not indefinitely prevent someone from taking part in
society’s important decisions.

5. Voter and Jury Representation: Citizens convicted of a felony, as a significant demographic, can offer valuable perspectives in decision-making roles. In many instances, they may be marginalized groups whose experiences are often
underrepresented in political discourse and jury pools. Allowing citizens convicted of a
felony to serve in these roles ensures that government decisions and legal outcomes better reflect the diverse reality of the population.
By citing the obvious example of Trump in Missouri, the argument can be made that citizens convicted of a felony in Nebraska should be allowed to run for office and serve on juries, not only as a matter of fairness but also as a way to strengthen the democratic process by fostering inclusion, rehabilitation, and equal treatment for all citizens.

See source article:

https://missouriindependent.com/2024/12/09/missouri-gop-lawmaker-
invokes-trump-in-bill-to-allow-felons-to-run-for-office/

Nebraska currently utilizes a system known as the congressional district method for awarding its five electoral votes. This system allocates one electoral vote to the winner of each of the state’s three congressional districts, with the remaining two electoral votes going to the candidate who wins the overall popular vote in the state. This approach is often seen as more reflective of Nebraska’s diverse political landscape compared to the winner-take-all (WTA) method used by most other states. Nebraska and Maine are the only states without a WTA method.

Here is the hit list of reasons why Nebraska should not adopt a winner-take-all (WTA) approach for awarding electoral votes:

Disenfranchises Minority Voters
Adopting a WTA system would undermine the principle of fair representation for all voters in Nebraska. In a state like Nebraska, where political views can vary significantly between urban and rural areas, a WTA system would amplify the voice of whichever party wins the overall popular vote, leaving voters in the minority without meaningful electoral representation. For example, if a candidate wins by a slim margin in the state, they will receive all five electoral votes, even though nearly half of the state’s voters may have cast their ballots for the opposing candidate.
This results in a winner-takes-all outcome where voters in areas that supported the losing candidate are effectively ignored in the final electoral tally, undermining the concept of “one person, one vote” and diminishing the significance of local political diversity.
Increases Partisanship and Polarization
One of the current benefits of Nebraska’s congressional district method is that it incentivizes candidates to compete in all parts of the state. Under a WTA system, however, candidates would likely focus exclusively on the major population centers and ignore the more rural, less populous areas. This could increase political polarization, as urban and rural interests would be even more sharply divided. In a state like Nebraska, with a significant divide between its more liberal cities (like Omaha) and conservative rural areas, a WTA system would intensify the focus on just a few battleground areas, often ignoring the concerns of a large portion of the electorate.

Additionally, WTA systems tend to reward the dominant party, currently Republicans in Nebraska, and further entrench the two-party system, often making third-party candidates or independents even more unlikely to succeed. As a result, voter engagement could decline because individuals feel their votes have less impact if they know the outcome is already heavily skewed toward one of the two major parties.

Destabilizes the Electoral Process
Shifting to a WTA system could lead to an erosion of the principle of federalism that is embedded in the U.S. Electoral College system. The existing method of awarding electoral votes by district is intended to reflect the political diversity of each state and ensure that all regions have a voice in presidential elections. A WTA system would not only reduce the influence of smaller or more rural regions, but it could also encourage candidates to focus only on swing states and battleground regions – leading to an even greater concentration of campaign resources and efforts in these areas. This was certainly witnessed in the 2024 election with numerous trips to battleground states by both candidates.

This could result in less competitive elections overall, as candidates would focus only on a small subset of voters while ignoring larger parts of the country that may not be seen as “decisive.” Moreover, it would exacerbate the sense of a “nationalized” election where local concerns are subordinated to national party politics, further distorting the role of state-based electoral systems.

Gives Nebraska’s Electoral Votes Less National Weight
Nebraska is a relatively small state, with only five electoral votes. Under the current system, Nebraska’s diverse political landscape means that its electoral votes are split and therefore, more reflective of the state’s actual political makeup. This gives Nebraska an outsized influence in the presidential race, as the allocation of votes between candidates is more representative of the statewide population.

If Nebraska were to switch to a WTA system, its five electoral votes would essentially become a “winner-takes-all” prize, making it less likely that any candidate would focus on Nebraska as a key battleground state. This could lead to a situation where the state’s voters are largely ignored, as presidential candidates would spend most of their resources targeting the larger, more competitive states. In this scenario, Nebraska’s electoral votes would have less importance in the broader context of the national election.

Undermines Nebraska’s Unique Identity
Nebraska’s current system along with its unicameral provides a distinctive voice for the state in national politics. The district method encourages candidates to pay attention to various regions and constituencies across the state, rather than focusing solely on the urban core or other populous areas. By making such a shift to WTA, Nebraska would lose its unique standing as one of two states with an alternative electoral method and would likely be seen as simply following the majority, contributing to an even more “winner-take-all” oriented system.

This could diminish the state’s ability to prioritize local issues that may not receive attention in a national WTA context. It could also lessen the degree to which Nebraskans feel that their votes are directly contributing to the election outcome, reducing voter turnout and engagement.

Risk of Legal and Constitutional Challenges
Switching to a WTA system could also lead to legal challenges regarding the fairness and equality of elections, especially in terms of ensuring that all voters, regardless of location or political affiliation, are equally represented in the electoral process. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of equal protection under the law, and adopting a WTA system could lead to challenges on the grounds that it dilutes the power of the peoples votes and creates unequal representation.
This should be particularly concerning for Nebraska, which has a unique mix of conservative and liberal areas. WTA systems could exacerbate the political marginalization of voters in more liberal districts, especially if they are concentrated in fewer districts, leading to a disproportionate influence of the more conservative parts of the state.

Conclusion
I know of no competition where the winner of the contest is automatically awarded all the other points from their opponent. You win the contest based on what you earned and no more. While the idea of adopting a winner-take-all electoral system might appear appealing in terms of simplicity and reflecting a clear mandate, it carries with it numerous significant downsides that would harm Nebraska’s democracy and the electoral process.

The current congressional district method provides a more equitable distribution of power, encourages candidates to engage with a wider range of voters, and helps to ensure that the diverse political voices within the state are heard. Switching to a WTA system would undermine these benefits, disproportionately favor one side of the political spectrum, and diminish the influence of Nebraskans’ votes on the national stage. As such, it is a decision that would likely weaken, rather than strengthen, Nebraska’s role in presidential elections. If the electoral college must be used, it should never be done on a WTA method, especially in Nebraska. Nebraskans don’t let this happen, contact your state senator and request that they don’t support, entertain the idea, and certainly not vote for a WTA change in Nebraska.

By,
Shakur Abdullah (JustUs15Vote)