Most
civil
servants
are
dedicated
professionals.
Some
are
lazy
jerks
dragging
down
the
reputation
of
the
whole
field.
Marge
Simpson’s
sisters
Patty
and
Selma
have
served
as
avatars
for
the
worst
tinpot
dictatorial
bureaucrats
for
the
last
three
decades.
Now
they’ve
found
their
way
into
a
Nebraska
Supreme
Court
opinion
as
Justice
Lindsey
Miller-Lerman
invoked
the
pair
in
her
concurrence
after
the
court
forcefully
benchslapped
the
state’s
attorney
general
and
secretary
of
state
for
attempting
to
steal
back
voting
rights.
The
case,
State
Ex
Rel.
Spung
v.
Evnen,
arose
from
an
effort
by
state
executive
officials
to
circumvent
a
2024
statutory
amendment
that
restored
voting
rights
to
convicted
felons
after
they
have
fully
paid
their
debt
to
society
immediately.
Prior
to
this
amendment,
state
law
still
returned
the
right
to
vote,
but
required
an
additional
two
years
after
the
completion
of
the
sentence.
Secretary
of
State
Evnen
didn’t
want
to
follow
the
law,
so
he
asked
for
and
secured
an
advisory
opinion
from
Attorney
General
Mike
Hilgers
declaring
the
law
unconstitutional
based
on
a
flimsy
claim
that
it
infringed
upon
the
state’s
executive
branch
pardon
process
—
even
though
voting
rights
are
not,
in
fact,
pardons.
The
state
Supreme
Court
wasn’t
amused.
And
Justice
Miller-Lerman
took
it
further.
As
flagged
by
Tim
Royers,
president
of
the
Nebraska
State
Education
Association:
For
a
statute
to
be
declared
unconstitutional,
the
Nebraska
Constitution
requires
the
vote
of
five
justices
of
the
Nebraska
Supreme
Court.
Neb.
Const.
art.
V,
§
2.
Only
the
Nebraska
Supreme
Court
declares
statutes
unconstitutional.
The
supermajority
requirement
is
also
well
known.
Patty
and
Selma
at
the
Department
of
Motor
Vehicles
may
not
be
constitutional
scholars,
but
they
know
that
they
are
expected
to
follow
the
law.
In
fairness,
there
are
some
judges
that
aren’t
living
up
to
that
“constitutional
scholar”
bar
right
now
either.
As
an
aside,
it
seems
the
governor
filed
an
amicus
in
this
case
written
by
the
daughter-in-law
of
notably
ABA
not
qualified
Eighth
Circuit
judge
Steven
Grasz.
Small
world!
But
the
point
remains
that
if
the
power
to
make
constitutional
proclamations
exists
anywhere,
it’s
not
at
the
DMV.
Just
like
it
wasn’t
the
county
marriage
license
clerk.
And
it’s
not
the
AG
either.
Do
we
want
to
live
in
a
world
where
every
state
employee
who
has
a
hunch
a
statute
is
flawed
gets
to
ignore
it?
State
officers
who
take
the
oath
to
follow
the
constitution
are
expected
to
follow
that
oath
and
not
disregard
their
sworn
duty
to
abide
by
the
Nebraska
Constitution,
including
its
dictate
in
article
V,
§
2,
that
it
is
the
Nebraska
Supreme
Court,
not
the
Attorney
General,
who
declares
laws
unconstitutional.
Marbury
v.
Madison called.
But
the
partisan
chicanery
runs
deeper,
because
if
the
constitutional
problem
is
“returning
the
right
to
vote”
and
not
“eliminating
the
two
year
waiting
period,”
then
it’s
an
argument
coming
a
couple
decades
too
late.
Way
back
in
time,
on
March
18,
1996,
the
Attorney
General’s
office
issued
an
opinion
to
“Lisa
M.
Perry,
Administrative
Assistant
Nebraska
Board
of
Pardons,”
in
connection
with
Neb.
Rev.
Stat.
§§
29-2264
(Cum.
Supp.
1994)
and
83-1,118
(Reissue
1994),
in
which
it
opined
that
the
restoration
of
various
civil
rights,
including
the
right
to
serve
as
a
juror,
serve
as
an
elector,
possess
firearms,
possess
brass
or
iron
knuckles,
and
hold
certain
licenses,
could
only
be
done
by
the
Board
of
Pardons.
See
Att’y
Gen.
Op.
No.
96023
(Mar.
18,
1996).
So
every
day
since
1996,
and
while
§
84-215
was
simultaneously
in
effect,
the
Attorney
General’s
office
had
the
opportunity
to
test
the
constitutionality
of
restoring
certain
rights
by
statute.
L.B.
53
became
effective
in
2005,
but
I
am
not
aware
of
an
opinion
of
this
court
or
lawsuit
challenging
it.
In
sum,
despite
the
existence
of
the
procedure
to
do
so
via
§
84-215,
and
other
remedies,
the
Attorney
General
waited
nearly
two
decades
to
challenge
L.B.
53
during
the
election
season
of
2024.
Almost
as
though
no
one
really
had
strong
feelings
about
this
until
someone
did
some
polling
on
the
chances
that
Kamala
Harris
(or
Joe
Biden
at
the
time)
snags
an
electoral
vote
from
Nebraska’s
district-based
electoral
allocation
regime
and
decided
to
suppress
votes
in
Omaha
at
all
costs.
Not
that
a
Republican
public
official
would
attempt
to
abuse
their
office
like
that
or
anything!
On
that
note,
despite
the
fact
that
the
court
ruled
per
curiam
in
favor
of
the
statute’s
constitutionality,
Justice
Miller-Lerman
also
noted
that
the
court
could’ve
issued
that
opinion
long
ago
but
instead
dragged
it
out
until
days
before
registration
closed,
functionally
dissuading
legally
eligible
voters
from
attempting
to
register
while
the
case
lingered
on
the
docket.
Per
Bolts
(h/t
Election
Law
Blog)
The
timing
of
the
court’s
decision
gives
advocates
little
opportunity
to
help
people
who
might
be
confused
about
their
voting
rights
because
of
Evnen
and
Hilgers:
It
came
just
two
days
before
the
Oct.
18
deadline
to
register
to
vote
online.
The
cutoff
for
people
to
register
in
person
is
next
week,
Oct.
25.
Surely
another
coincidence.
(Opinion
on
the
next
page…)