In a landmark decision on October 16, 2024, the Nebraska Supreme Court took a significant step toward expanding voter rights in the state. The court ruled that individuals with felony convictions who have completed their sentences—including any prison time, probation, and parole—are now eligible to register and vote. This ruling overturned a directive from Nebraska’s Secretary of State, Robert Evnen, which had previously barred individuals with felony records from voter registration.
The court’s decision not only reaffirms the state’s progressive legislation but also reflects a growing national trend towards restoring voting rights for those with criminal backgrounds. By doing so, Nebraska joins other states in recognizing that civic participation is an essential part of reintegrating individuals into society after serving their sentences.
The Supreme Court’s ruling provides immediate voting rights restoration for individuals with felony convictions, with several key takeaways:
Immediate Restoration of Voting Rights: The ruling ensures that as soon as individuals complete their sentence, they are allowed to register and vote. This includes fulfilling all aspects of their conviction, from imprisonment to parole.
Rejection of Constitutional Challenges: The court dismissed claims by the state’s attorney general that only the Nebraska Board of Pardons had the authority to restore voting rights to felons. The court found that the legislation, known as L.B. 20, was within constitutional boundaries, allowing automatic restoration upon sentence completion.
Bipartisan Legislative Support: The bill that led to this ruling, L.B. 20, passed with strong bipartisan support earlier in the year. This consensus reflects a wider national conversation about criminal justice reform and voting rights restoration.
This decision is expected to impact over 7,000 Nebraska residents, enabling them to participate in the upcoming November 2024 elections. Given the state’s unique Electoral College system, which distributes its votes by congressional district, these newly enfranchised voters could play a pivotal role in close elections.
The Nebraska Supreme Court’s ruling aligns with a broader movement across the United States to reform voter disenfranchisement laws, particularly those affecting individuals with criminal backgrounds. Over the past decade, more states have adopted policies to reintegrate former felons into the democratic process, reflecting a shift in the national perspective on criminal justice, civic engagement, and rehabilitation.
For Nebraska, the immediate practical implications of this ruling are significant. With the deadline for online voter registration set for October 18, 2024, and in-person registration open until October 25, 2024, eligible Nebraskans with felony records now have the chance to make their voices heard in the 2024 elections.
The journey toward this ruling has been long and fraught with setbacks. Nebraska had historically imposed a two-year waiting period before former felons could regain the right to vote—a law passed in 2005. Advocacy groups worked for years to remove this waiting period, citing its detrimental effects on community reintegration and civic engagement.
In 2017, the Nebraska Legislature voted to remove the waiting period, but then-Governor Pete Ricketts vetoed the bill. Undeterred, advocates and lawmakers continued to push for change. Their efforts culminated in the passage of L.B. 20 in April 2024, with the bill passing Nebraska’s Republican-led, unicameral legislature by a vote of 38-6. Although current Governor Jim Pillen did not sign the bill, he allowed it to become law without his signature, signaling a growing recognition of the need for reform.
Like any issue with significant social and political ramifications, restoring voting rights for former felons has been a topic of heated debate. The ruling, while lauded by voting rights advocates, has its critics. Below are some of the key arguments from both sides.
Proving Reformation: Opponents argue that individuals with felony convictions should first demonstrate that they have reformed before having their voting rights restored. They believe voting is a privilege that should be earned after proving rehabilitation.
Punishment and Consequence: Some argue that part of a felony conviction includes the loss of certain civil rights, such as voting. According to this perspective, voting is a right that should be permanently or temporarily restricted as part of the punishment for serious crimes.
Respect for the Law: Critics also argue that individuals who have broken the law should not be allowed to influence the law through voting. The idea is that committing a felony shows a lack of respect for legal structures, and restoring voting rights undermines the rule of law.
Public Opinion: Polling shows that a majority of Americans are hesitant to support full voting rights restoration for individuals who have been convicted of serious crimes. Public opinion remains divided, with some concerned about the integrity of the democratic process being influenced by individuals with criminal records.
On the other hand, many advocates argue that restoring voting rights is a necessary step for rehabilitation and reintegration.
Rehabilitation and Reduced Recidivism: Research has shown that civic engagement, such as voting, is linked to lower recidivism rates. Giving individuals the opportunity to participate in democracy can foster a sense of responsibility and belonging, contributing to their successful reintegration into society.
Fundamental Right to Vote: Voting is seen as a fundamental right under the Constitution. Advocates argue that once someone has served their sentence, they have “paid their debt” to society and should have their full rights restored, including the right to vote..
Taxation and Representation: Many argue that it’s unjust to deny voting rights to individuals who pay taxes and are counted for representation purposes in the census. If they are contributing to society, they should have a say in how it is governed.
Community Re-entry and Civic Engagement: Allowing former felons to vote helps rebuild their identity as responsible citizens. It offers them a tangible way to engage with their communities, which can strengthen their ties to society and reduce the likelihood of reoffending.
The implications of restoring voting rights to former felons extend beyond the individual to broader social and democratic benefits:
Improved Public Safety: Studies indicate that individuals who vote are less likely to be rearrested. Restoring voting rights contributes to public safety by fostering civic engagement and reducing recidivism rates.
Civic Participation: Voting gives individuals a sense of belonging and purpose. When people feel they have a stake in the system, they are more likely to follow the laws and contribute positively to their communities.
Strengthened Democracy: Including more voices in the democratic process results in more representative government. Policies are more likely to reflect the needs and perspectives of all citizens, including marginalized groups.
Economic Benefits: Successful reintegration, which includes voting, can lead to long-term economic gains. Former felons who reintegrate are more likely to secure stable employment and contribute to the economy, reducing costs related to re-incarceration and social services.
Nebraska’s recent Supreme Court ruling is a victory for voting rights advocates and a crucial step toward a more inclusive democratic process. Restoring the right to vote for individuals who have completed their sentences reflects a shift in how society views criminal justice, rehabilitation, and civic participation. As the national conversation continues to evolve, Nebraska’s decision could serve as a model for other states considering similar reforms.
While the debate over restoring voting rights for felons continues, the benefits—both for individuals and society—are becoming increasingly clear. Civic participation is an essential part of rehabilitation, helping to rebuild lives, strengthen communities, and create a more representative democracy.
