The content of these pages is developed and maintained by, and is the sole responsibility of, the individual senator's office and may not reflect the views of the Nebraska Legislature. Questions and comments about the content should be directed to the senator's office at email@example.com
This past week, the Speaker of the Legislature announced the 25 bills that he selected as speaker priority bills. I was fortunate that two bills that I introduced were on his list.
LB 47, chosen as a speaker priority bill, requires applicants for drivers’ licenses to answer the question regarding whether to place their name on the Donor Registry and donate their organs and tissues. Currently this question on the application is optional. I introduced this bill in an attempt to increase the number of donors in Nebraska, by joining the 25 states and the District of Columbia that already have a mandatory question on their license application. Nearby states, where the question is mandatory, have experienced higher participation rates than in Nebraska. At any given time, there are approximately 500 Nebraskans waiting for an organ or tissue transplant. This legislation does not require an applicant for a license to become a donor, but only requires them to answer yes or no to the question.
My second bill selected as a speaker priority was LB 539. This bill seeks to provide necessary tools to the two separate auditing arms of state government – the Auditor of Public Accounts and the Legislative Audit Office. The legislation establishes deadlines that agencies must meet in responding to requests for information. It also prohibits and penalizes retaliatory personnel action against employees who cooperate with auditors.
This past week marked the end of the public hearing process. Legislators will now meet in full day sessions to discuss bills that have been given priority status. The Appropriations Committee, of which I am a member, will continue to meet after the Legislature adjourns each day. We are working to finalize the budget bills that must be presented to the Legislature by the 70th legislative day, which falls on April 28th this year.
The Legislature started out this past week discussing LB 10, which would return Nebraska to a winner-take-all presidential electoral vote system. Currently, we are one of only two states that have a system in which one presidential elector is chosen from each congressional district and two are chosen at large.
If a bill is filibustered, a motion to invoke cloture can be made after sufficient debate, which is generally considered 8 hours at the first stage of debate and 4 hours at the second stage of debate. This immediately ends debate and allows for a vote on the advancement of the bill. During the first round of debate on LB 10, the cloture motion was successful, garnering 33 votes. However, during the second round of debate earlier this week, the cloture motion only received 31 votes, 2 votes shy of the required number. An unsuccessful cloture motion generally means that the issue will not be taken up again.
In the 24 years since the current system was adopted, a dozen attempts have been made to reinstate the winner-take-all system. Two times, in the 1990s, legislation was passed, only to be vetoed by Governor Ben Nelson, who signed the law creating our current system in 1991. During this time, only once has the presidential electoral votes been divided, with one vote in 2008 going to Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama from the 2nd congressional district.
The Legislature gave first-round approval to LB 367, introduced by North Platte Senator Mike Groene, on a 38-0 vote. This legislation would once again allow circulators of petitions to be paid based on the number of signatures they collect. In 2008, after reports of problems with petition drives, lawmakers passed the pay-per-signature ban, along with other restrictions on petition circulators. Supporters of the bill cited a study showing the prohibition reduced the number of petitions in affected states by 45%. Furthermore, they say it makes petition drives more expensive, as the productivity of circulators is reduced when they are paid by the hour rather than by the signature.
The Legislature is in the process of discussing LB 31, which as introduced, would repeal the motorcycle helmet requirement. The Transportation and Telecommunications committee amendments to LB 31 exempt only persons who are 21 years of age or older. The committee amendments also require the motorcycle operator to wear eye protection. Our current motorcycle helmet law was passed in 1988. There are 19 states and the District of Columbia that still require all riders to wear helmets. Another 28 states require helmet use for certain groups, typically those under age 21 or age 18.
If you would like to voice your opinion on these or other issues before the Legislature, I encourage you to contact me. I can be reached at District #1, P.O. Box 94604, State Capitol, Lincoln, NE 68509. My telephone number is (402) 471-2733 and my email address is firstname.lastname@example.org.