317 Neb. 581
Neb.2024Background
- Two consolidated original actions (Brooks and LaGreca) challenged a ballot initiative to amend the Nebraska Constitution to provide a right to abortion.
- Plaintiffs sought writs of mandamus to compel the Nebraska Secretary of State to withhold the initiative from the November 2024 ballot, alleging it violated the Nebraska Constitution’s single subject rule for initiatives (Art. III, § 2).
- Brooks additionally argued the initiative's language was confusing and misleading, invoking a common-law rule from Drummond v. City of Columbus.
- LaGreca sought both mandamus and a declaratory judgment that the initiative violated the single subject rule.
- The Secretary of State did not take a position but allowed initiative sponsors to intervene and defend the initiative.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court denied both writs, holding the initiative satisfied constitutional requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the initiative violate the single subject rule? | Initiative includes multiple unrelated rights, definitions, and restrictions. | Initiative contains one subject—creation of a right to abortion, with limitations and definitions. | Initiative contains a single subject; no violation. |
| Is the initiative language confusing/misleading (Brooks)? | Initiative uses vague and confusing terms, misleading voters. | Language definitions are necessary clarifications of the right. | Common-law standard for municipal initiatives does not apply to constitutional initiatives; analyzed only under single subject rule. |
| Is declaratory judgment appropriate (LaGreca)? | Seeks judicial declaration that initiative violates single subject rule. | Mandamus is adequate and exclusive remedy. | Declaratory judgment unavailable where mandamus suffices. |
| Does the initiative amount to impermissible logrolling? | Packages dissimilar provisions, forcing voters to accept/reject all. | Provisions are facets of the single right to abortion, not separate subjects. | No logrolling; all provisions relate to a single subject. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Wagner v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 142 (whether to grant writ of mandamus is within the court’s discretion)
- Christensen v. Gale, 301 Neb. 19 (standards for the single subject rule and its relation to logrolling)
- State ex rel. McNally v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 103 (application and interpretation of the "natural and necessary connection" test for single subject rule)
- Hargesheimer v. Gale, 294 Neb. 123 (initiative right is to be preserved and liberally construed)
- Stewart v. Advanced Gaming Tech., 272 Neb. 471 (initiative process to be interpreted to remain effectual)
- State ex rel. Stenberg v. Moore, 258 Neb. 199 (court does not judge the wisdom of an initiative amendment)
- City of North Platte v. Tilgner, 282 Neb. 328 (nature and limits of single subject and municipal initiative provisions)