State Senator Blocks GOP Push to Secure All of Nebraska’s Electoral Votes for Trump

Efforts by Nebraska Republicans to shift the state’s allocation of electoral votes to a winner-take-all system faced a setback recently when key support was withdrawn. GOP Senator Mike McDonnell of Omaha publicly declared his opposition to changing Nebraska’s unique method of awarding its electoral votes ahead of the upcoming election.

Currently, Nebraska awards two electoral votes to the candidate who wins the overall state vote and one electoral vote to the winner in each of its three congressional districts. This system allows for a more complex distribution of electoral votes compared to the straightforward winner-take-all method used by most states.

Senator McDonnell’s stance means that Republicans will not be able to secure the necessary two-thirds majority in the state’s unicameral Legislature to implement the change. The Legislature is not in session and is set to reconvene in January, which means any legislative changes would require a special session called by Governor Jim Pillen. McDonnell indicated he communicated to the governor that he would not support this change.

He remarked, “After deep consideration, it is clear to me that right now, 43 days from Election Day, is not the moment to make this change.” McDonnell, who is term-limited and leaving office in January, has encouraged a broader approach to electoral vote allocation in the following year, suggesting a constitutional amendment that would allow voters to decide how Nebraska awards its electoral votes.

The backdrop to this controversy is the importance of Nebraska’s electoral votes in the context of the upcoming presidential election. Historically, Nebraska has been a Republican bastion, supporting GOP candidates in every presidential election since 1964. However, the state hasn’t followed a winner-take-all rule since 1991.

In 2020, Democrat Joe Biden captured the vote in the 2nd Congressional District, located in the Omaha area. This has led to varying strategies among candidates vying for the presidency, as every electoral vote counts towards the total needed to secure a victory in the Electoral College. A candidate needs 270 out of 538 electoral votes to win the presidency. This situation opens the door for potential scenarios where individual electoral votes could play a critical role in determining the outcome of the election.

For example, if Vice President Kamala Harris wins key battleground states while former President Donald Trump secures victories in the remaining states, the electoral vote tally could lead to a tie. In such a scenario, which could involve Nebraska’s electoral votes, the decision would ultimately fall to the U.S. House of Representatives, favoring a candidate like Trump. Such dynamics underscore the significance of Nebraska’s electoral votes in the broader election landscape.

Supporters of a return to the winner-take-all model argue that it would ensure all electoral votes align with the overall winner in the state. There has been consistent pressure from Trump’s allies to rally support for this change among Nebraska Republicans. Despite self-identifying as a nonpartisan Legislature, Republicans make up 33 of the 49 seats, reflecting a supermajority dynamic that could potentially facilitate this legislative shift.

Critically, however, McDonnell represents a district where nearly 45 percent of registered voters are Democrats, making the proposal politically sensitive. His decision to oppose the change signals a commitment to let the voters of Nebraska, rather than political forces, determine how electoral votes are allocated. “Nebraska voters, not politicians of either party, should have the final say on how we pick a President,” he stated.

Continuing the debate is the historical context of Nebraska’s electoral vote allocation. Back in 1991, lawmakers believed that a proportional system would better reflect voter sentiments and encourage candidates to pay more attention to the state. The decision was made under the then-Democratic Governor Ben Nelson, and the state has retained this system since then. The political consensus to revert to winner take all has remained elusive, with significant opposition from Democrats and uncertainties regarding the necessary support within the Legislature.

Ultimately, the recent developments in Nebraska highlight the complexities of electoral vote allocation and the influence of individual lawmakers on broader partisan ambitions. As the election draws closer, the fate of Nebraska’s electoral votes remains uncertain, with the potential for future legislative discussions paving the way for a more permanent resolution.

Source: AP