Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment upholding an initiative petition to expand Medicaid coverage. The court held that the petition complied with the single-subject rule and that its listed sponsors satisfied Nebraska law, despite a nonprofit organization’s ownership of a service mark used by a named political committee. The court also held that challenges concerning unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority and appropriations were not ripe for review before voter approval.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the initiative violated article III, section 2, of the Nebraska Constitution by containing more than one subject.
- Whether Nebraska Revised Statutes section 32-1405(1) required Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest to be listed as a sponsor of the initiative petition.
- Whether preelection challenges alleging unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority and failure to satisfy statutory appropriation criteria were ripe for judicial review.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding an unsuccessful Medicaid-expansion bill and fiscal analyst notes as irrelevant evidence.
Holdings
- The sworn-statement requirement is mandatory, but a petition sponsor is a person or entity that assumes legal responsibility for the initiative or referendum petition process. A person or entity that finances or promotes a petition, or owns a service mark used by a named political committee, is not necessarily a sponsor. Appleseed therefore was not required to be listed.
- The initiative did not violate article III, section 2, because Medicaid expansion and maximizing federal funding for that expansion have a natural and necessary connection and constitute a single general subject.
- The challenges alleging unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority and failure to satisfy appropriation requirements were substantive challenges to a proposed initiative and were not ripe for judicial review before voter adoption.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding exhibit 3 as irrelevant because the appropriation challenge to which the exhibit related was not ripe.
Key quotations
“The sworn statement provision of § 32-1405(1) is mandatory.” (301 Neb. 28)
“A non-named person or entity’s motivation to decline to be a named sponsor is irrelevant to the question of who must be listed pursuant to § 32-1405(1).” (301 Neb. 31)
“The controlling consideration in determining the singleness of a subject for purposes of article III, § 2, of the Nebraska Constitution is its singleness of purpose and relationship of the details to the general subject, not the strict necessity of any given detail to carry out the general subject.” (301 Neb. 35)
“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.” (301 Neb. 36)
Factual background
An initiative petition proposed expanding Medicaid eligibility to adults ages 19 through 64 with incomes at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level and directing state officials to maximize federal financial participation. The sworn sponsor statement named Sarah Amanda Gershon, Kathy Campbell, Rowen Zetterman, and Insure the Good Life. Insure the Good Life was a political committee and a service mark registered by Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest, which had contributed to and promoted the committee's activities but was not listed as a sponsor. The initiative had received enough signatures to appear on the November 2018 ballot.
Procedural history
Christensen and Brasch sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the petition sponsors and the Secretary of State, alleging violations of the Nebraska Constitution's single-subject rule, the statutory sponsor-disclosure requirement, separation of powers, and appropriation requirements. The district court treated the motions to dismiss and the plaintiffs' alternative motion as motions for summary judgment, entered judgment for the defendants, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.