In a recent development surrounding the Nebraska Democratic Party, a judge has dismissed an attempt to compel the party to nominate a Senate candidate. This decision has highlighted the complexities of election laws and the constitutional implications of party processes.
Judge Denies Temporary Injunction
On Friday, Lancaster County District Court Judge Susan Strong ruled against William Forbes, who sought a temporary injunction to replace Cindy Burbank on the November ballot. Burbank, who previously announced her intention to withdraw, won the primary against Forbes, who received just over 10% of the vote. Despite Burbank’s withdrawal, the Nebraska Democratic Party has no plans to field a candidate against incumbent Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts and independent Dan Osborn.
The Legal Argument
Forbes’ lawsuit against the Nebraska Democratic Party claimed that state law mandates the party to fill the vacancy left by Burbank. To succeed in his case, Forbes needed to demonstrate a high likelihood of winning on the merits, which Judge Strong found lacking.
The case revolves around two Nebraska statutes. One indicates that a candidate declining a nomination “shall create a vacancy on the ballot which may be filled,” and another states that the “vacancy shall be filled by the majority vote of the proper committee of the same political party.” The Democratic Party interpreted these as a two-step process, suggesting that filling the vacancy is optional.
Constitutional Concerns
In her eight-page ruling, Strong sided with the Democratic Party’s view, noting, “The Legislature used the word ‘may,’ which the court cannot ignore or reject as meaningless.” Strong also expressed that Forbes’ interpretation posed “serious constitutional concerns” under the First Amendment, as it would impinge on a political party’s autonomy by forcing it to field a candidate.
“It would force a political party to field a candidate for a general election against that party’s will. The court considers that a significant burden on a party,” Strong wrote.
Next Steps in the Legal Process
Before the ruling, Forbes’ legal team requested an expedited case progression order with oral arguments scheduled for the week of August 24. Although the Nebraska Democratic Party did not oppose an expedited schedule, they noted unresolved factual disputes needing attention.
The party also questioned Forbes’ legal standing to sue, but Judge Strong deferred ruling on this matter, opting to await further briefs from both parties.
Later that day, Judge Strong issued an expedited progression order to advance the case. Dispositive motions, which could potentially resolve the case before trial, are due by August 17. A statement of disputed facts must be submitted by August 21, with oral arguments set for August 24.
For further details on Judge Strong’s ruling, you can read the full document here.
