Hargesheimer v. Gale, 294 Neb. 123

Background

In 2015 the Nebraska Legislature repealed the death penalty (L.B. 268); Governor Ricketts vetoed but the Legislature overrode the veto. A referendum petition seeking to refer repeal to the 2016 ballot was filed with the Secretary of State on June 1, 2015.
A "Sworn List of Sponsors" filed with the petition named Nebraskans For the Death Penalty, Inc., and three individuals (Glasburner, Melton, Evnen); Governor Ricketts was not listed.
Plaintiffs Christy and Richard Hargesheimer sued the Secretary of State and the named sponsors to enjoin placement of the referendum on the ballot, alleging the petition was legally insufficient because § 32-1405(1) requires a sworn list containing every person "sponsoring the petition," and Ricketts actually sponsored it.
The complaint alleged Ricketts engaged in warning of a referendum, recruiting organizers, fundraising (including large personal donations), soliciting contributors, and helping manage the campaign.
The district court granted motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that "sponsoring the petition" means assuming statutory responsibility for the petition process (i.e., agreeing to be a sponsor of record), not merely advocating for or funding it; it dismissed with prejudice.
On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, adopting the definition that sponsors are those who assume responsibility for the initiative or referendum petition process, and held Ricketts’ alleged activities did not require listing him as a sponsor under § 32-1405(1).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Meaning of "sponsoring the petition" in § 32-1405(1)	Ricketts’ substantial role (recruiting, funding, organizing) made him a sponsor who had to be listed	Sponsor means those who formally assume statutory responsibility (the named sponsors did so by filing)	Sponsor means one who assumes responsibility for the petition process; advocacy or contributions alone do not make one a sponsor
Whether omission of Ricketts from sponsors list invalidated petition	Omission was "material and fatal" and renders petition legally insufficient	Listing of those who assumed responsibility satisfied § 32-1405(1); omission of supporters/contributors does not invalidate petition	Omission of Ricketts did not render petition insufficient because he was not a sponsor as defined under the statute
Dismissal with prejudice and denial of opportunity to amend	Plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend, conduct discovery, or hold evidentiary hearing	Complaint failed as a matter of law; amendment would not cure the sole claim	Dismissal with prejudice proper; plaintiffs did not request amendment and could not plausibly plead a different claim
Judicial notice of the filed "Sworn List of Sponsors" attached to motion to dismiss	Court improperly relied on that document to resolve sufficiency	Consideration unnecessary to disposition; the sponsor-definition ruling controls	Taking judicial notice (or reliance) was unnecessary; court’s disposition rests on statutory interpretation, so the question is not reached

Key Cases Cited

Loontjer v. Robinson, 266 Neb. 902 (2003) (defines sponsor as one who assumes responsibility for petition process and explains purposes of sponsor list)
Rafert v. Meyer, 290 Neb. 219 (2015) (motion to dismiss de novo review and plausibility standard)
White v. Kohout, 286 Neb. 700 (2013) (pleading standards: accept well-pled facts, not conclusions)
Shurigar v. Nebraska State Patrol, 293 Neb. 606 (2016) (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed independently)
City of North Platte v. Tilgner, 282 Neb. 328 (2011) (initiative/referendum principles applied to preserve democratic process)
Stewart v. Advanced Gaming Tech., 272 Neb. 471 (2006) (initiative power to be liberally construed to effectuate people’s legislative power)