S-26-0685 Republican National Committee, Jack Riggins, and Pamela Dingman (Appellants) v. Robert B. Evnen, Secretary of State of the State of Nebraska, in his official capacity (Appellee).
Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County, Judge Ryan S. Post
Attorneys: Stephen D. Mossman, J.L. Spray, and Jacob Garbison (Mattson Ricketts Law Firm, LLP for Appellants), Zachary B. Pohlman (Nebraska Attorney General’s Office for Appellee), and Daniel J. Gutman (Gutman Law Group as amicus curiae for the Democratic National Committee).
Civil: Elections and declaratory judgment that statute is unconstitutional
Proceedings below: Appellants brought a declaratory judgment action and sought a determination that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32-939(2) is unconstitutional pursuant to Neb. Const. art. VI, § 1. Additionally, they sought an injunction to prohibit the Secretary of State from providing ballots to individuals who are eligible to vote under that statute. The district court sustained the Secretary of State’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. 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: Appellants filed a notice of constitutional question, and they assign the following errors: 1) The district court erred in granting the Secretary of State’s Motion for summary judgment; 2) The district court erred in denying Appellants’ motion for summary judgment; 3) The district court erred to the extent it determined that an indispensable party was absent; 4) If any indispensable party was absent, the district court erred by failing to enter an order requiring their inclusion under Neb. Rev. State. § 25- 323; 5) If any indispensable party was absent, the district court erred by entering judgment on the merits of the parties’ claims; 6) The district court erred in finding that Appellants failed to state a facial challenge to Neb. Rev. State. § 32-939(2); and 7) The district court erred by declining to hold Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32-939(2) invalid as an unconstitutional expansion of the franchise under Neb. Const. art. VI, § 1.