A Republican effort to lock down all of Nebraska’s electoral votes for former President Donald Trump appeared doomed Monday when a state lawmaker denied backers his crucial support for the move.
GOP Sen. Mike McDonnell of Omaha said in a statement that he opposes awarding Nebraska’s five electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, like 48 other states do. Nebraska and Maine give two electoral votes to the candidate who wins statewide and one vote to the winner in each congressional district.
McDonnell’s position means Republicans don’t have the two-thirds majority they’d need in Nebraska’s unique, one-chamber Legislature to pull off a change ahead of the Nov. 5 election.
Here’s a look at why Trump’s allies were pushing for the change, what it would have taken to succeed and why a single state lawmaker is in the national spotlight.
Nebraska is one of nine states that Republican candidates have carried in every presidential election since 1964, but it hasn’t had a winner-take-all rule since 1991. And most times since 1991, Republican candidates still have captured all of the state’s votes.
But in 2020, Democrat Joe Biden captured the vote for the 2nd Congressional District in the Omaha area. President Barack Obama also did it in 2008.
A presidential candidate needs 270 of 538 electoral votes to win. One scenario is that Democrat Kamala Harris, the vice president, wins the battlegrounds of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, while Trump wins the other four — North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada. Harris would have 269 electoral votes to Trump’s 268, which would include four from Nebraska.
In that scenario, a Trump victory in Nebraska’s 2nd District would create a 269-269 tie and throw the final decision to the U.S. House of Representatives, where each state would have one vote, a situation that would favor Trump. If Harris carried the district, she’d be president.
In the 2nd District, Republicans have only a small voter registration advantage and 25% of its voters are unaffiliated with any party.
McDonnell said he has told Republican Gov. Jim Pillen that he won’t back a change in the Nebraska law for allocating its electoral votes ahead of this year’s election. That’s consistent with what he’s said previously.
Lawmakers are out of session and not scheduled to reconvene until January, so Pillen would have had to call them into a special session. He has said he wouldn’t do that without a clear indication that a measure could reach his desk.
“After deep consideration, it is clear to me that right now, 43 days from Election Day, is not the moment to make this change,” McDonnell said.
McDonnell is term-limited and will leave office in early January. He said he is encouraging Pillen and the Legislature to propose an amendment to the state constitution next year on how Nebraska awards its electoral votes, so that voters have the final say.
“Nebraska voters, not politicians of either party, should have the final say on how we pick a President,” McDonnell said.
Republicans in Nebraska have wanted to return to a winner-take-all rule for years but have been unable to get to a legislative supermajority.
Officially, the Nebraska Legislature is nonpartisan. However, self-identified Republicans hold 33 of 49 seats, exactly a two-thirds majority.
The GOP reached that margin in April, when McDonnell switched parties, citing the Democratic Party’s censure of him last year for supporting abortion restrictions.
The switch had Trump loyalists in the Nebraska GOP buzzing about going back to a winner-take-all system. Recently, Trump’s allies and even the former president himself have been pressuring Republican officials to try.
But in McDonnell’s 5th Legislative District, almost 45% of the voters are registered Democrats, and their party strongly opposes going back to winner take all. Fewer than 26% of the district’s voters are Republicans.
Under the Nebraska Constitution, new laws don’t take effect until three months after lawmakers adjourn — too late for the proposal to affect the Nov. 5 election.
The state constitution does allow the Legislature to add an emergency clause to have a law take effect immediately, but a bill with an emergency clause must pass with a two-thirds majority.
The Legislature’s rules also require the same two-thirds majority to end a filibuster blocking a measure.
Backers of dropping the winner-take-all rule in 1991 argued that it would better reflect voters’ views and attract candidates to a state that otherwise would be ignored.
The change narrowly passed the Legislature during then-Democratic Gov. Ben Nelson’s first year in office. Nelson was the last Democrat to win a governor’s race, when voters reelected him in 1994.
___
Hanna reported from Topeka, Kansas.
Be the first to comment