Chaney v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 512

Background

Citizens sponsors submitted an initiative to cap annual percentage rates for delayed-deposit ("payday lender") services; Secretary of State certified the petition for the Nov. 3, 2020 ballot after county verifications.
Brian Chaney sued the Secretary and petition sponsors seeking to enjoin placement of the initiative on the ballot, alleging 188 signatories wished to withdraw and that circulators failed to read the petition object and committed fraud.
Chaney attached 188 substantially identical affidavits stating the circulator did not read the object statement and the affiant would not have signed if it had been read.
District court dismissed Chaney’s complaint: concluded withdrawal affidavits were untimely under the statutory withdrawal procedure and that fraud was not pleaded with particularity; it also refused leave to amend as futile.
Chaney appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court considered mootness, statutory interpretation of petition-circulator affidavit requirements, fraud pleading standards, and whether leave to amend was required.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness: can court still provide relief after ballot certification/printing?	Chaney sought injunctive relief under §32-1412(2) but also requested general equitable relief that could meaningfully remedy defects.	Secretary/sponsors argued Chaney’s specific relief is unavailable because ballots were certified/printed, making the case moot.	Not moot: Court can provide legal relief (e.g., order removing measure) even after physical printing; general equitable relief preserves jurisdiction.
Timeliness of signature withdrawals	The 188 affidavits show signatories wished to withdraw; that suffices to invalidate signatures.	Withdrawals must comply with §32-632 (affidavit presented prior to or on filing day); Chaney’s affidavits were signed after certification and thus untimely.	Held for defendants: withdrawals were untimely and Chaney did not allege compliance with statutory withdrawal procedure.
Whether §32-628(3) requires circulators to read petition object verbatim	Chaney: affidavit language requires the circulator to read the object statement verbatim to each signer.	Secretary/sponsors: statute requires a substantially similar affidavit; a verbatim reading is not required—summarizing is acceptable if not misleading.	Court sided with defendants: statute does not require verbatim reading; requiring it would unduly restrict initiative power.
Fraud pleading sufficiency	Chaney: circulators committed fraud by certifying they read the object when they did not; signatures therefore invalid.	Defendants: fraud allegations are conclusory and fail the heightened particularity requirement.	Held for defendants: fraud not pleaded with the required who/what/when/where/how particularity; allegations collapse into the rejected verbatim-reading theory.
Leave to amend after dismissal	Chaney: district court should have allowed amendment to cure pleading defects.	Defendants: Chaney never requested leave to amend; court cannot be deemed to have abused discretion.	Held for defendants: Chaney neither sought leave nor showed how amendment could cure the defects; denial was not error.

Key Cases Cited

Chafin v. Wisconsin Province of Society of Jesus, 301 Neb. 94, 917 N.W.2d 821 (pleading standards; accept well-pled facts on dismissal)
Kelly v. Saint Francis Med. Ctr., 295 Neb. 650, 889 N.W.2d 613 (review standard for denial of leave to amend)
J.S. v. Grand Island Public Schools, 297 Neb. 347, 899 N.W.2d 893 (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)
Nesbitt v. Frakes, 300 Neb. 1, 911 N.W.2d 598 (mootness and justiciability principles)
State ex rel. Peterson v. Ebke, 303 Neb. 637, 930 N.W.2d 551 (mootness doctrine and post-filing changes)
State ex rel. Wieland v. Beermann, 246 Neb. 808, 523 N.W.2d 518 (courts may provide relief after ballot certification)
Hargesheimer v. Gale, 294 Neb. 123, 881 N.W.2d 589 (protecting initiative power from overly strict procedural readings)
Schaeffer v. Frakes, 306 Neb. 904, 947 N.W.2d 714 (plausibility standard on motion to dismiss)
Holloway v. State, 293 Neb. 12, 875 N.W.2d 435 (courts need not accept legal conclusions as facts)
Eadie v. Leise Properties, 300 Neb. 141, 912 N.W.2d 715 (preference to grant leave to amend absent futility)