King v. Evnen

The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Nebraska, and Faegre Drinker LLP filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Nebraska Supreme Court, challenging a directive from the Secretary of State that seeks to reinstate permanent felony disenfranchisement and re-disenfranchise thousands of Nebraska citizens less than four months out from the November 2024 presidential election. We represent three individual plaintiffs and Civic Nebraska, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group.

Since 2005, Nebraskans with past felony convictions have been legally able to vote two years after completing all terms of their felony sentence. This year, the Nebraska legislature passed L.B. 20, a law that removed the two-year wait. This new law restores the right to vote to an estimated 7,000 Nebraskans, in addition to the tens of thousands who have had their rights restored since 2005. Yet just before L.B. 20 was set to go into effect, the Attorney General published a non-binding opinion declaring not just that L.B. 20 is unconstitutional, but in fact that it is unconstitutional for anyone with a felony offense to vote in Nebraska absent a pardon from the state Board of Pardons. Immediately thereafter, the Secretary of State released a directive stating that the Attorney General’s opinion has the force of law.

The Nebraska Constitution is clear: Only courts can overturn a law as unconstitutional. Yet the Secretary’s directive attempts to do just that, undermining the will of the voters and lawlessly reinstating permanent felony disenfranchisement by executive fiat. It would overturn a law passed by the democratically elected legislature, re-disenfranchise thousands of Nebraska citizens, and upend two decades of rights restoration law mere months out from a landmark election. It cannot stand. The legal groups ask the Nebraska Supreme Court to invalidate the Secretary’s directive and require him to enforce state law.