The origin story of successful voting change remains unfounded • N

In less than a month, Nebraskans who vote early will cast their ballots for the next president and a host of other leaders who will make decisions that impact our lives.

We want unhindered, informed voting to be the way we do things. It does work… even if some try to overturn the results and subvert our democracy, as they did in January 2021.

Calculations should point out that the weeks between now and November 5 are a period of contemplation for the “undecideds” about civic responsibility, who apparently still have an open mind. Some believe that “indecision” is just a myth, given the noise and buzz surrounding the presidential campaign.

Whatever one thinks of late-stage political hedgers, drama is coming. Nebraska, like at least 17 other states, has changed the way we do things since 2020 (the last time we lined up all the presidential marbles).

Since circumstances have changed, I will be voting early at the county elections office. Typically, I enjoy showing up at the polls and saying hello to my neighbors who volunteer there because we are all involved in the democratic process on both sides of the polls at churches, schools, and fire halls.

The big change in Nebraska is that now, just like the May primary, voters must show a photo ID to vote regardless of the location and time of the election. New demands come from the petition process and the people’s vote. There were few problems last spring, so county election commissioners expect this fall’s election, at least in Picture ID waters, to go smoothly as well.

Thanks to a campaign by the secretary of state’s office to remind Nebraskans of the new requirements to vote, the idea was plastered on billboards and featured in television ads leading up to the primary.

None of this negates a dubious reality: The origin story of Nebraska’s photo ID requirement, its flawed conception, and the fact that its pedigree is the “big lie” that the 2020 presidential election was not free and fair made up. After buying into the false premise, what follows are petitions, proposals, and public policies that address nonexistent voting problems.

That’s why 18 states have enacted voting restrictions over the past four years despite challenges to the results of the 2020 presidential election proving to be outright lies, conspiracy mumbo jumbo or simply baseless.

Nebraska is one of those states, an unwarranted turn in our history.

With neither data to highlight problems with our voting system nor evidence of widespread voter fraud, those bent on limiting access to the ballot box have successfully peddled sketchy narratives. What they have is a story, a fable, a lie that casts doubt on the validity of the safest and most secure election in American history. The result has been photo ID requirements, elimination of ballot drop boxes, restrictions on mail-in voting (11 states), questionable voter roll purges, and more. In a country whose history includes poll taxes and literacy requirements, any potential disenfranchisement policy should prompt caution, if not protest.

However, some new voting laws also offer a glimmer of hope. Twenty states have increased mail-in voting, and others have criminalized mail-in voting or enacted laws to protect election workers from threats or harassment.

Still, no matter what, we are narrowing down the scope of the ballot box, the cornerstone of civil society and the only voice citizens have. As this space has said before, disenfranchising one voter with unnecessary restrictions is one voter too many.

And there’s more: As of this writing, the Nebraska Supreme Court is considering whether the Legislature could enact a law that would reduce the wait time for felons to register to vote after serving their sentences. An opinion from the state attorney general’s office called the law unconstitutional, and the secretary of state ordered the elections office not to register 7,000 potential voters who might be affected.

Last I checked, neither the Attorney General’s opinion nor the Chief Electoral Officer’s actions based on it constituted law. The Nebraska Supreme Court will essentially decide whether it is a matter for the Legislature and the People’s House if a felon’s debt to society includes an additional two years of disenfranchisement.

Inexplicably, we seem to be limiting eligible voters. However, we still have the right to vote. And, after we learn the lessons from January 6, 2021, this presidential election will go a long way in determining whether we keep it.

There is no hesitation about this.