Elections and politics suddenly became more real to Aaron Pettes this summer when he learned that for the first time in his life he was eligible to vote.
The 44-year-old former felon in Omaha is one of an estimated 7,000 Nebraskans who would become immediately eligible to vote just in time for the 2024 presidential election under a law passed by the legislature this spring.
Pettes, who was sentenced to 17 years for bank robbery but got out two years early for good behavior, began researching the candidates, excited to study their policy positions and accomplishments before making a choice.
Then two days before the law took effect in July, Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, a Republican, issued an opinion declaring unconstitutional under the state constitution not only the new law, but also the 2005 law it was based on. That earlier law had already restored the right to vote to more than 90,000 felons over the past 19 years. Secretary of State Bob Evnen, a Republican, soon followed with an order instructing county election officials to reject the registration of any voter with a felony in their past….
Now the Nebraska Supreme Court is weighing whether the state attorney general acted properly when he unilaterally declared that the two state laws were unconstitutional less than four months before Election Day. Advocates who have pushed to restore the vote for felons say they are worried that even if they win this disproportionately Black group of voters will not turn out this year out of fear of casting an illegal ballot….
In a 30-minute oral argument Wednesday, the seven members of the Nebraska Supreme Court asked why the attorney general didn’t bring his own suit questioning the constitutionality of the new law and quizzed attorneys on both sides about precedent, but didn’t send strong signals about leaning toward a particular ruling.
The court could choose to resolve just whether the attorney general and secretary of state followed the proper procedure in striking down the laws, or could also address whether the underlying laws are constitutional.
University of Nebraska-Lincoln assistant law professor Danielle Jefferis said she expects the court will address both in an attempt to avoid further confusion.
“Unless the court issues a clear, definitive ruling on the underlying constitutionality, I think we continue to live in a land of uncertainty, which is not good for the election,” she said.
The court prioritized hearing the case, and advocates hope that means a speedy decision as well, perhaps by mid to late September….