Debate begins on returning Nebraska to winner-take-all presidential voting

Voter turnout, partisanship, and how much attention presidential candidates pay to Nebraska were all discussed Monday as the Legislature began debating how to award the state’s electoral votes.

Nebraska is one of only two states – the other is Maine – that gives some of its electoral votes to whichever candidate carries each of the state’s congressional districts. That has only made a difference once since Nebraska passed its law in 1993. That was in 2008, when Democrat Barack Obama got one vote for winning in the Omaha-area Second Congressional District. Republican John McCain captured the other four votes, for winning the other two congressional districts and the state as a whole. Omaha Sen. Beau McCoy, a registered Republican in the officially nonpartisan Legislature, wants to return to the winner-take-all system. He said supporters of the district system have claimed it produced a record turnout in 2008. But McCoy said that’s not supported by historic data on presidential elections. He said said 1952, 1956 and 1960 had the highest voter turnouts, with 2008 in fourth place, and 1992 less than one percentage point behind in fifth, based on a study of votes cast as a percentage of the population.

McCoy also objected that the current system rewards candidates who talk about issues that might affect only part of the state. "I think that a presidential candidate who wants to get one electoral vote in Nebraska ought to have to work for all five, because we all matter. Every Nebraskan matters, no matter where you are -- from Scottsbluff to Omaha, from Valentine to Beatrice," he said.

"That’s the whole point of this bill. It’s not partisan," McCoy added.

Sen. Sue Crawford of Bellevue, a registered Democrat, opposed changing back to winner-take all. Crawford said the effort made by the Obama campaign in 2008 showed the value of awarding electoral votes by district. "We had a presidential campaign spending money in Nebraska. Spending time in Nebraska. We had a presidential campaign for the first time in my memory coming to Creighton University to recruit students to walk in neighborhoods in Nebraska," Crawford said.

And Sen. Paul Schumacher of Columbus, a registered Republican, mocked the idea that the effort to return to winner-take-all was not partisan. Schumacher read from a resolution adopted by the Nebraska Republican Party’s State Central Committee. "Be it resolved by the Nebraska Republican Party that will not support in any manner, financial or otherwise any state senator who opposes the return of the state to the winner-takes-all electoral vote plan, either by failing to vote for such in committee or on the floor of the Legislature," Schumacher read, adding sarcastically, "There you have it. Debate over."

That resolution was adopted in September, 2011, under former Republican Party Chairman Mark Fahleson. Fahleson was succeeded by current chairman J.L. Spray in 2013.

GOP Executive Director Bud Synhorst said Monday the resolution has not been repealed, but that in last year’s elections, the party did not base either financial support or endorsements on candidates’ positions on winner-take all.

Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers, the only member of the Legislature not registered as a voter in a political party, said McCoy’s proposal is clearly motivated by politics. "This has to do with silencing the Democrats. And I’m not a Democrat – wouldn’t be one. You couldn’t pay me to be one. You couldn’t pay me to be a member of either political party," Chambers said.

Opponents have promised to filibuster against the bill. If all the registered Democrats in the Legislature and Chambers oppose the measure, it would take only two more Republican opponents like Schumacher to stop it.

By legislative tradition, a vote on whether or not to break the filibuster and vote on the bill can take place only after a cumulative eight hours of debate. Considering the Legislature’s schedule, and with McCoy saying he has to be absent Thursday and Friday to attend a family event out of state, that vote might not take place until next week.