The Nebraska Supreme Court heard oral argu­ment on May 25 in a chal­lenge to the pro­posed November ref­er­en­dum that could reverse the state leg­is­la­ture’s 2015 repeal of the death penal­ty (vote results pic­tured left). Christy and Richard Hargesheimer, who oppose the death penal­ty, are chal­leng­ing the doc­u­ments sub­mit­ted by Nebraskans for the Death Penalty, the orga­ni­za­tion sup­port­ing the ref­er­en­dum, on the grounds that the group vio­lat­ed state law when they failed to list Governor Pete Ricketts as a spon­sor of the ref­er­en­dum. Nebraska state law requires pro­po­nents of a bal­lot ini­tia­tive to dis­close all of the spon­sors of the pro­posed ref­er­en­dum. Ricketts vetoed the leg­is­la­ture’s 2015 repeal of the death penal­ty, but the leg­is­la­ture vot­ed 30 – 19 to over­ride his veto. Ricketts then per­son­al­ly con­tributed $200,000 and, in com­bi­na­tion, he and his father donat­ed approx­i­mate­ly one-third of all the mon­ey raised by Nebraskans for the Death Penalty to gath­er the sig­na­tures need­ed to place the ref­er­en­dum on the bal­lot. Much of the argu­ment Wednesday focused on the def­i­n­i­tion of who is a ​“spon­sor” for the pur­pos­es of a ref­er­en­dum cam­paign. Alan Peterson, an attor­ney for the Hargesheimers, said the spon­sor is the pri­ma­ry ini­ti­at­ing force, ​“the ini­tia­tor, the insti­ga­tor.” Attorneys for Nebraskans for the Death Penalty argued that the spon­sor is some­one will­ing to take legal respon­si­bil­i­ty for the peti­tion paper­work and said Peterson’s def­i­n­i­tion was ​“unwork­able and would chill involve­ment in the demo­c­ra­t­ic process.” Peterson also argued that a key doc­u­ment required to place the ref­er­en­dum on the November bal­lot had been filed improp­er­ly because it was not an affi­davit or sworn state­ment, as required by Nebraska law. A tri­al court ruled in February in favor of Nebraskans for the Death Penalty, lead­ing to the Hargesheimer’s appeal. [UPDATE: On July 8, 2016, the Nebraska Supreme Court that Governor Ricketts’ finan­cial and oth­er sup­port for the peti­tion dri­ve did not make him a ​“spon­sor” of the ref­er­en­dum, and there­fore pro­po­nents’ of the ref­er­en­dum did not have to dis­close his involve­ment in the peti­tion dri­ve. The court reject­ed the Hargesheimers’ efforts to remove the ref­er­en­dum from the ballot.] 

(J. Duggan, ​“Nebraska Supreme Court hears argu­ments over whether bal­lot ini­tia­tive to rein­state death penal­ty is valid,” Omaha World-Herald, May 26, 2016; L. Pilger, ​“Attorneys bat­tle over whether death penal­ty should end up on November bal­lot,” Lincoln Journal Star, May 26, 2016.) See Recent Legislative Activity. [Read the Nebraska Supreme Court deci­sion in Hargesheimer v. Gale here.]

Citation Guide