Four constitutional amendments are on the ballot (PDF) tomorrow. Here's my quick summary of each.
Amendment 1 would allow public officials to be impeached for illegal activity undertaken as part of their strategy to win the office. Currently a person could break every election law on the books, get elected, but escape impeachment because the actions didn't occur while in office. You might call this the Dave Hergert amendment. I haven't yet heard any good arguments against this amendment. I encourage you to vote "Yes".
Amendment 2 is the "right to hunt" amendment. It would protect hunting and fishing in the state constitution. Not that hunting and fishing are threatened in Nebraska. Amendment 2 strikes me as a solution in search of a problem. Worse, I have an uneasy feeling that there will be unintended consequences; it's an abstract feeling, but nagging enough to really bother me. I encourage you to vote "No".
I've made no secret about my disgust for term limits in the Unicameral. Amendment 3 would extend the present limit from two to three terms. I'm all for it. A constant rotation of two-term legislators is bad for the Unicameral's long-term health. Inexperience and discontinuity weaken the body overall. Three terms -- twelve years -- is a reasonable compromise between encouraging turnover and building experience and expertise. I encourage you to vote "Yes".
Speaking of the Unicameral, Amendment 4 would increase legislators' pay from $12,000 to $22,500 annually. I have for years condemned their pathetic excuse for a paycheck. $22,500 is nowhere near where the salary should be -- I'd place it closer to $36,000 -- but it's better than nothing. Amendment 4 won't allow us to pay Senators their due, but it's a step in the right direction. I encourage you to vote "Yes".
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
Thank you for posts like this, Mr. Wilson. I want to make educated votes tomorrow, and your information and opinions are helpful.
I’m glad to see someone else is voting “no” on Amendment 2. I agree it is unnecessary. Anyone who tried to outlaw hunting and fishing in Nebraska would be quickly shot down (yeah, bad pun). I don’t like the idea of tinkering with our Constitution simply because a special interest group perceives someone may try to limit their hobby in the future.
I think the first two will pass. Not sure the second two will.
Do they deserve more pay? Yes. Will they get it by jumping to almost double in a down economy? I am not so sure. Most people can’t relate to that jump, even at the amounts we are talking.
I guess I’m more put off that they would ask for one at a time when we are all struggling financially. Change a couple factors (unemployment rate and over all state budget deficit) I would have happily of voted yes.
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.