State ex rel. Constance v. Evnen, 10 N.W.3d 763

This case concerns a pre-election challenge brought by 29 Nebraska physicians (Constance et al.) against the Secretary of State, Robert B. Evnen, to remove a proposed ballot initiative titled “Protect Women and Children” from the November 2024 ballot.
The initiative would add a Nebraska constitutional provision generally prohibiting abortion in the second and third trimesters, with exceptions for medical emergencies, sexual assault, or incest.
Petitioners argued the initiative violated Nebraska’s constitutional "single subject" rule and would cause voter confusion.
A similar challenge had already failed in State ex rel. Brooks v. Evnen regarding an opposing initiative, "Protect the Right to Abortion."
Petitioners acknowledged that both initiatives should be treated consistently; if one was permitted, so should the other.
The Nebraska Supreme Court permitted intervention by the sponsors of the challenged initiative and ultimately reviewed whether the initiative should be withheld from the ballot via writ of mandamus.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Justiciability/Jurisdiction	The challenge presents a real, present controversy despite framing it conditionally.	The challenge is unripe, as it is conditional and not an actual controversy.	The case is justiciable; a real controversy exists.
Single Subject Rule	The initiative violates the single subject constitutional requirement.	The initiative contains only one subject; it is legally sufficient.	Initiative does not violate single subject rule.
Voter Confusion	The measure creates confusion and violates voter clarity standards.	Confusion is not a separate constitutional test; no confusion present.	No separate finding required; claim rejected.
Ripeness of Other Claims	Substantive pre-enactment challenges should be addressed now.	Substantive challenges are not ripe before voter adoption.	Substantive arguments not ripe for review.

State ex rel. Brooks v. Evnen, N.W.3d (Neb. 2024) (addressed pre-election single subject challenge to a similar ballot initiative)
Stewart v. Heineman, 296 Neb. 262, 892 N.W.2d 542 (Neb. 2017) (defines requirements for a justiciable controversy)
Christensen v. Gale, 301 Neb. 19, 917 N.W.2d 145 (Neb. 2018) (articulates the single subject rule's purpose; addresses voter confusion and logrolling concerns)
State ex rel. Wagner v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 142, 948 N.W.2d 244 (Neb. 2020) (mandamus standard and ripeness doctrine)
State ex rel. McNally v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 103, 948 N.W.2d 463 (Neb. 2020) (test for evaluating single subject challenges to ballot measures)