STATE OF NEBRASKA EX REL. ELIZABETH CONSTANCE ET AL., RELATORS, V. ROBERT B. EVNEN, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA, RESPONDENT, AND ELIZABETH PETERSON ET AL., INTERVENORS.
No. S-24-653
Nebraska Supreme Court
September 13, 2024
317 Neb. 600
CASSEL, J.
- Constitutional Law: Justiciable Issues: Appeal and Error. Quеstions of justiciability and of constitutional interpretation that do not involve factual dispute are questions of law.
- Mandamus: Words and Phrases. Mandamus is a law action and represents an extraordinary remedy, not a writ of right.
- Mandamus. Whether to grant a writ of mandamus is within a court‘s discretion.
- Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it.
- Justiciable Issues. A justiciable issue requires a рresent, substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal interests susceptible to immediate resolution and capable of present judicial enforcement.
- Courts: Justiciable Issues. Ripeness is a justiciability doctrine that courts consider in determining whether they may properly decide a controversy.
- Courts. The fundamental principle of ripeness is that courts should avoid entangling themselves, through premature adjudication, in abstract disagrеements based on contingent future events that may not occur at all or may not occur as anticipated.
- Initiative and Referendum: Justiciable Issues. Unlike challenges to the form of a ballot measure or the procedural requirements to its placement on the ballot, which are challenges to whether the measure is legally sufficient to be submitted to the voters, substantive challenges to proposed initiatives are not justiciable before the measures are adopted by voters.
Joshua M. Livingston, of Koenig Dunne, and David Quinn Gacioch, Dana M. McSherry, and Theresa M. Babendreier, of McDermott, Will & Emery, L.L.P., pro hac vice, for relators.
Michael T. Hilgers, Attorney General, Eric J. Hamilton, and Zachary B. Pohlman, for respondent.
Robеrt M. Schafer and Jeffery W. Davis, of Smith Schafer Davis, L.L.C., and James A. Campbell, of Alliance Defending Freedom, for intervenors.
HEAVICAN, C.J., MILLER-LERMAN, CASSEL, STACY, FUNKE, PAPIK, and FREUDENBERG, JJ.
CASSEL, J.
INTRODUCTION
In State ex rel. Brooks v. Evnen,1 we rejected a preelection challenge—based primarily on the single subject limitation2—to a ballot initiative entitled “Protect the Right to Abortion.” We now do likewise in a preelection challenge to the ballot initiative entitled “Protect Women and Children.”
BACKGROUND
PARTIES
Relators in this case are 29 retired or currently practicing physicians. They are: Elizabeth Constance, Linda Collins, Courtney McLean, Claire Baker, Rachel Brock, Amy Garwood, Stephanie Gawel, Patricia Bohart, Mark R. Hutchins, Stacie Bleicher, Matthew Glathar, Julie Filips, Sharon Hammer, Deanna L. Hutchins, William Johnson, Alex Dworak, Kate Rosenberger, Brian Gallagher, Quinn Willet, Dawn Hosein, Andrew Bohart, Rachel Blake, Katherine Willet, Tracy Mak, Tara Kirkpatrick, James Nora, Erica Carlsson Buchta, Ryan Shelstad, and Kathryn Borman. Each is a registered voter and resident of Nebraska.
Respondent is Robert B. Evnen, in his official capacity as Nebraska‘s Secretary of State. In that capacity, Evnen has the duty to place a proposed initiative measure on the general election ballot if “constitutional and statutory requirements have been met” and the pеtition is “valid and sufficient.”3
Intervenors are Elizabeth Peterson, Jan Kuehn, Mark Patefield, and Maureen Bausch. They are sponsors of the initiative challenged here.
BALLOT INITIATIVES
The challenge to the first initiative was disposed in State ex rel. Brooks.4
The second initiative—now before us in this action—propоsed adding a new section in article I of the Nebraska Constitution. The new section would state: “Except when a woman seeks an abortion necessitated by a medical emergency or when the pregnancy results from sexual assault or incest, unborn children shall be protected from abortion in the second and third trimesters.”
Enough signatures were delivered to Evnen to place the initiative on the ballot. Evnen‘s office issued a news release indicating that the petition effort would appear on the ballot.
PROCEEDINGS IN NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT
We granted relators’ application for leave to commence an original action to challenge the second initiative.
Rеlators asserted in their verified petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment that both initiatives met the constitutional requirements for inclusion on the ballot and that voters were entitled to consider both. But because thе initiatives were structured similarly and because proponents of the second initiative had asked that we keep the first initiative off the ballot, relators argued that we should do the same with respect to the second initiative. According to relators, “The two amendments are structured similarly and either both or neither should appear on the ballot based on consistent application of the relevant constitutional principles.”
The petition set forth two “counts“: one for violation of the “single subject rule” set forth in
Subsequently, we granted intervenors’ petitiоn to intervene. Intervenors asserted as affirmative defenses that relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that this court lacked jurisdiction over the claim.
Evnen responded to our alternative writ. He asserted that the intervenors could defend their initiative‘s inclusion on the ballot.
ISSUES PRESENTED
The principal issue raised is whether a peremptory writ should issue to Evnеn. Although relators also requested relief in the form of a declaratory judgment, for the same reasons explained in State ex rel. Brooks,5 that request is subsumed in the issue of mandamus.
APPLICABLE STANDARDS
[1] Questions of justiciability and of constitutional interpretation that do not involve factual dispute arе questions of law.6
[2,3] Mandamus is a law action and represents an extraordinary remedy, not a writ of right.7 Whether to grant a writ of mandamus is within a court‘s discretion.8
ANALYSIS
JURISDICTION
[4] Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it.9 Relators seek a writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment concerning an initiative set to appear on the November 2024 ballot. The Nebraska Constitution10 and a statute11 provide this court with original jurisdiction in cases requesting a writ of mandamus. Intervenors concede that under these provisions, we generally have “original jurisdiction over these kinds of legal-sufficiency pre-election actions for a writ of mandamus.”12
Intervenors’ jurisdictional challenge focuses on the conditional nature of relators’ suit. As we discuss in more detail next, relators opine that both initiatives should appear on the ballot, but they brought this suit to address the second initiative‘s submission if we determined the first initiative should be withheld. Intervenors thus contend that “[r]elators do not raise an actual case or controversy but rather assert unripe claims dependent on uncertain contingencies.”13 We disagree.
[5] A justiciable issue requires a present, substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal interests susceptible
RELATORS’ CONCESSION
Relators have essentially conceded that the initiatives should rise or fall together. They asserted in their petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment that “either both [initiatives] or neither should appear on the ballot based on consistent application of the relevant constitutional principles.” They also asserted that “both [initiatives] meet the constitutiоnal requirement for inclusion on the ballot.”
They made similar statements in their brief. There, relators stated that “Nebraska voters are entitled to consider both amendments in November” and that the first initiative “cannot possibly violate the single subject requirement unless the [second] initiative also violates it.”15
Because we determined in State ex rel. Brooks16 that the first initiative did not violate the single subject rule, relators have effectively admitted that the second initiative also would not violate the rulе. But even without this concession, we determine, as explained below, that the second initiative does not violate the single subject rule.
SINGLE SUBJECT RULE
Regardless of relators’ concession, we reach the same result as in State ex rel. Brooks. There, we articulated the standard employed in prior single subject challenges to ballot initiatives.17 We concluded that the first initiative did not violate the single subject rule.
Applying the natural and necessary test to the secоnd initiative, we discern only one subject. The parts of the initiative all relate to the same subject. To hold otherwise would “exercise a pedantic tyranny over efforts to change the law.”18
In relators’ petition, they asserted as “Count Two” that the second initiative would create voter confusion and doubt. In their brief, they make no separate argument and recognize that avoiding voter confusion is a “core purpose[]” of the single subject rule.19 Indeed, we have identified a purpose of the single subject requirement is to “avoid voter confusion and logrolling.”20 But “we have not said that confusion or doubt are separate requirements for a legally insufficient measure or that they are required elements of the test to determine whether a measure violates the single subject requirement.”21 And because we have determined that the second initiative does not viоlate the single subject limitation, we need not say more.
OTHER ARGUMENTS
[6,7] Other arguments asserted are not ripe for review. Ripeness is a justiciability
[8] Unlike challenges to the form of a ballot measure or the procedural requirements to its placement on the ballot, which are challenges to whether the measure is lеgally sufficient to be submitted to the voters, substantive challenges to proposed initiatives are not justiciable before the measures are adopted by voters.24 Relators’ arguments premised upon the initiative‘s enаctment are not ripe for review.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that the second initiative does not violate the single subject rule. Accordingly, Evnen does not have a duty to withhold it from the general election ballot. Relators’ application for a writ of mandamus is denied. The alternative writ is thereby dissolved.
WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED.