Hargesheimer v. Gale

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of a complaint challenging a referendum petition concerning repeal of the state’s death penalty. The court held that “sponsoring the petition” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32-1405(1) means assuming responsibility for the initiative or referendum petition process, and that Governor Pete Ricketts’ alleged financial and other support did not make him a statutory sponsor. The court also declined to consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal.

Holdings

1. “Sponsoring the petition” means assuming responsibility for the initiative or referendum petition process. A person is not necessarily a statutory sponsor merely because the person advocates for, finances, organizes, or otherwise supports the referendum.
2. The complaint failed to state a plausible claim because, even accepting the allegations concerning Ricketts' activities as true, those activities did not establish that he assumed responsibility for the referendum petition process or was therefore a sponsor under § 32-1405(1).
3. The district court did not err by dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The Hargesheimers did not request amendment below and did not show how amendment could cure the complaint's sole theory.
4. The court would not consider the Hargesheimers' argument that the sponsor list was not a properly sworn statement because the issue was raised for the first time in the appellate reply brief and was not presented to or ruled upon by the district court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that Governor Ricketts was a sponsor required to be listed under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32-1405(1), such that his omission rendered the referendum petition legally insufficient.
2. Whether the district court erred by dismissing the complaint with prejudice rather than allowing amendment, discovery, or an evidentiary hearing.
3. Whether the appellate court should decide whether the district court improperly took judicial notice of a sponsor-list document attached to a motion to dismiss.
4. Whether the appellate court could consider the argument that the sponsor list was not a properly sworn statement when that issue was raised for the first time on appeal.

Disposition

affirmed