S-24-0901 John Kuehn (Appellant/Cross-Appellee) v. Robert Evnen, in his official capacity as Nebraska Secretary of State (Appellee/Cross-Appellant) v. Anna Wishart, Crista Eggers, and Adam Morfeld (Appellees/Cross-Appellees).
Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County, Judge Susan I. Strong
Attorneys: Steven E. Guenzel (Johnson Floodman Gunzel & Wasserburger, LLP for Appellant/Cross-Appellee) and Andrew La Grone (La Grone Law, LLC) for Appellant/Cross-Appellee); Michael T. Hilgers, Zachary A. Viglianco, Zachary B. Pohlman, and Lincoln J. Korell (Nebraska Attorney General’s Office and Solicitor General’s Office) for Appellee/Cross-Appellant); Daniel J. Gutman, Alexander S. Arkfeld, Sydney Hayes, Kaitlin A. Madsen (Gutman Law Group) for Appellees/Cross-Appellees
Civil: Injunctive relief
Proceedings below: John Kuehn alleged notary malfeasance regarding the signatures obtained for ballot initiative measures 437 and 438 in the November 2024 election, and he challenged the sufficiency of these measures. The district court dismissed the suit after it found that these ballot initiatives contained enough legally sufficient signatures. On its own motion, the Nebraska Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Nebraska Court of Appeals to its docket.
Issues: Appellant/Cross-Appellee assigns the following errors: 1) The district court erred when it determined that proven notary malfeasance may never be imputed to other material acts by that individual; 2) The district court erred when it determined that a negative inference may never be drawn from any individual’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil matter; 3) The district court erred when it determined that Eggers’ proven notary malfeasance should not be imputed to her other material acts; 4) The district court erred when it determined that Connely’s proven notary malfeasance should not be imputed to his other material acts; 5) The district court erred when it determined that Todd did not commit notary malfeasance, and his notarizations retain a presumption of validity; 6) The district court erred when it determined that Lawlor’s proven notary and circulator malfeasance should not be imputed to her other material acts; 7) The district court erred when it determined that Coryell did not commit notary or circulator malfeasance, and her material acts as a notary and circulator retain a presumption of validity; 8) The district court erred when it determined that Vodehnal’s circulator malfeasance should not be imputed to her other material acts; 9) The district court erred when it determined that the Petitions had sufficient signatures to satisfy the seven percent requirement for ballot placement; and 10) The district court erred when it determined that Appellant was not entitled to amend his complaint to conform to the evidence.
Appellee/Cross-Appellant assigns the following errors on cross-appeal: 1) The district court erred by not applying the burden-shifting rule of Barkley v. Pool to dishonest notaries; 2) The district court erred by not applying the burden-shifting rule of Barkley v. Pool to four dishonest notaries here; and 3) The district court erred by finding no general practice of rule breaking by the campaign’s notaries.