My grandmother was as particular about her work at the cemetery as she was about her house – meticulous. We pulled and sprayed for weeds, trimmed back overgrown grass, used brushes to remove dust lodged in marble crevices, scraped off what the birds so disrespectfully left behind on headstones, and even shined up some with Windex. Once cleared and cleaned, we wired down wreaths and floral arrangements so the wind wouldn’t blow them away. My grandmother’s goal each year, never missed that I can recall, was to have this work completed by Sunday, so, when visitors came to the cemetery, many from out of town, the family graves were looking their best.

While this tradition only included me for several years at the beginning through the sheer coincidence of my being there, my grandmother came to count on my help. Of course, children love to be needed by the adults who care for them, so questions about exactly why we always took on this project each year and in the manner described, didn’t occur to me until I was approaching my teens. But by the time such questions occurred, I also realized many of the answers on my own. Also by then, I’d learned some history (not much, unfortunately), but had some vague idea that this holiday weekend had something actually to do with lost members of the military. And I began to notice there were a number of graves in that small town cemetery which had an extra stone placed in the ground on the grave site, noting the military service of the deceased gentleman who was buried there. Each year, I’d notice more and more of them, in fact, and I’d pause and contemplate a bit about each, noting that many of the local farmers had served in and survived two World Wars and some, Korea and Vietnam. Over the years, I did see some graves where the headstone and military marker indicated the person had died in combat.

I know some people mark Memorial Day as the kick off of their summer fun. It’s a three day weekend – time to hit the golf course, the campgrounds, or dust off the barbeque grill for the first time. Those summer kick-off ceremonies and even my grandmother’s cemetery project, which have both become part of this weekend tradition, seemed to have obscured the focus.

It wasn’t until this Memorial Day weekend that I finally wondered: Why did my grandmother call this holiday Decoration Day? In discussing the email Linda had forwarded with a number of images, including the two above, we discovered we’d both grown up hearing this holiday referred to in the same way. And neither of us knew why.

The term Decoration Day would’ve become common for my grandmother, actually, through her parents, who, in turn, would have learned it from theirs. The tradition of decorating fallen soldiers’ graves, Wikipedia reports, although predating the Civil War, actually became common throughout America in the several years following that war, particularly after a number of official ceremonies and events that occurred in 1868.

Near the turn of the twentieth century, the term Memorial Day came into use, but the official national holiday name was not actually changed until 1967.

Perhaps my grandmother’s parents, or one of their families before them, began the practice of visiting the cemetery to decorate a loved one’s grave who had fallen in the war, and that’s how the tradition ultimately grew. Obviously, my grandmother’s family was not alone. And to be sure, care and decoration of a loved one’s grave is a sign of respect. It’s a lesson I certainly learned in my many years of helping to care for extended family members’ graves alongside my grandmother.

I am just sorry that the original meaning of the whole exercise got lost along the way. All of this makes me wonder…have I done a good enough job of teaching my children about this day? It’s probably a good idea to have a chat about the whole subject when the Dawdy family sits down for our traditional Memorial Day meal – cooked – yes, on the grill.

Certainly, many of these have been seen before – they have been much forwarded around on email. Impossible, though, to say we’ve all seen them too many times.

“It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” ~ The Gettysburg Address, 1863

~  All gave some, some gave all  ~

If you have not as yet signed the referendum petition, would like to, and have not been able to find a circulator, you may want to put in a request to have someone bring you a petition TODAY.

While the deadline is Monday at 5pm, the scarcity of notaries on weekends and holidays means that most circulators will likely have returned their forms by NOON on Monday.

Linda and I will be turning in our forms in this afternoon. IF any of the volunteer circulators who contacted us plan on waiting until Monday morning to turn in their forms (or if they can somehow get their forms notarized later, Monday afternoon), and are available to take petitions to anyone, we will leave the request form available. But please do not count on this.

Click HERE to request that someone bring you a petition to sign.

AND

Since we’re on the subject of the “Fairness” ordinance generally, I wanted to take the opportunity to call for a toast to three Lincolnites who wrote Letters to the Editor since the Council’s May 14 vote. Each of the letters covered a different aspect of the problems with the ordinance and the process by which it was passed – one of them we’ve not raised here before (the third of the three).

I recommend giving each of these letters a full read – all are written and none of them are long. Click the images to read each on the LJS website.

“Tyranny by ordinance”

Click to read the Letter to the Editor on the Journal Star's website

“Anger at council members”

Click to read on the Journal Star website

“Unfair hearing”

Click to read on the Journal Star website

A great deal has been said in the pages of the Lincoln Journal Star and elsewhere about the Lincoln City Council’s decision to expand the definition of protected classes within the Municipal Code to include sexuality and gender identity. Readers may support or oppose the ordinance for any number of reasons. It is a great mistake, however, to say that the process by which the City Council amended this city ordinance does not matter. It matters a great deal. In fact, the process is arguably of more lasting importance to each and every citizen of Lincoln than the immediate result is to those who seek recognition of self-described LGBT persons as a new protected class within the city and beyond.

Our system of government at every level is based upon the rule of law. Rule of law means that everyone, including public officials, are subject to the law and must obey it. In addition, as F. A. Hayek put it, rule of law “means that a government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand — rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances, and to plan one’s individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge.”¹

The rule of law is responsible for three aspects of our government that Americans tend to take for granted. First, rule of law limits the power of government to act in an arbitrary manner or otherwise abuse its power. In so doing and in the long run, rule of law makes government more rational and its policies more intelligible. Second, rule of law ensures equality before the law. Finally, rule of law results in procedural justice, essentially the “due process” provided for under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to our U.S. Constitution.

With their May 14th vote, the Lincoln City Council willfully subverted the rule of law. Lincoln is governed by a home rule charter, and, therefore, is independent of state law with respect to strictly local matters. But, as to matters of state concern, state law prevails over provisions of the city’s charter. In this respect, a city’s charter and its ordinances function in relation to state government similar to the way state constitutions and statutes function within our federal constitutional system.

Lincoln’s Charter enumerates the powers of the City Council, expressly describing and limiting what the Council can and cannot control through legislation. Article X, Section 1, of the City Charter does not give the Council the power to legislate with respect to LGBT persons or to add them as a protected class under the Municipal Code. In order for the City to obtain that power, it is necessary for city officials to seek amendment of the Charter. That requires a vote of the people.

But under state law, civil rights are not strictly a local matter. The state has a system of statutes already in place that defines what is and what is not a protected class. Sexuality and gender identity are not included within that definition. In fact, they are expressly excluded from coverage by the Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act.  Because state law trumps any conflicting provisions contained in a city charter, it is a virtual certainty that, even if Lincoln’s charter amendment was approved by a vote of the people, the amendment would still be invalid because of its variance from state law regarding what is, and what is not, a protected class under state law.

In sum, by voting to amend the Lincoln Municipal Code’s civil rights provisions to create protection for LGBT persons, the Council exercised a power it does not have under its own Charter and, at the same time, enacted an ordinance which conflicts with current state law regarding the matter in question. The rule of law is turned on its head. Five Council members seized a power refused them by the people rather than appeal to the people for permission to act. This is both arbitrary and an abuse of governmental authority. As a result, one group of people have been favored with preferential treatment by the Council, and the regular and established hierarchy of governmental authority between the city and the state has been violated.

And what are the arguments marshaled in defense of this intentional disregard of rule of law, a concept which is so vitally fundamental to our legal system?  To reduce the justification offered by everyone from our Mayor to the editorial staff of the local paper to one succinct statement, they contend this is the right thing — indeed, the moral thing — to do and, therefore, a vote of the people is not required.  The newspaper’s editorial actually went so far as to say:

“The Journal Star believes it is not incumbent upon elected representatives to put matters of right and wrong up to a communitywide vote.”

Seriously?  This from progressives who routinely dismiss social issues from the political sphere — at least, those with which they disagree (e.g., abortion) — as impossible attempts to “legislate morality”?  The very same progressives who contend that personal character doesn’t matter in the selection and retention of our elected officials now argue that our representative republican form of government empowers those very same officials to determine what is morally right and morally wrong on our behalf?  Neat trick, that.  I think it’s called talking out of both sides of one’s mouth.

As I read the editorial opinion and the so-called news reports published in the Lincoln Journal Star supporting the Council’s action, I was reminded of two pop culture references which may help to carry my argument better than further written words at this point.  The first is a song by Stories, a band that was something of a one or two-hit wonder when I was in high school.  The title of the number was If it Feels Good, Do It, and it seems to me to summarize the City Council’s smug and superior attitude regarding this ordinance, their authority, and the rule of law generally.  Have a listen and see what you think:

The second is a comment made by Star Wars’ Senator Padme Amidala as she watched Palpatine “elected” emperor of the soon-to-be former Republic by acclamation, “So this is how liberty dies . . . with thunderous applause.”

Email subscribers, click HERE to visit the site and watch the included videos.

Image Credit & Copyright Notice

Rule of Law flow chart found at Coalition for the Rule of Law: “About Us, Objectives”

“Equality Before the Law (turned on its head): Lincoln ‘Fairness’ Ordinance” GiN original graphic with “scales of Justice” image found at EQ Consulting

Footnotes, References & Citations

Elected officials are equally subject to the law

As many Lincolnites know, a referendum petition effort has been organized by Nebraska Family Council and Family First in response to the Lincoln City Council’s vote on Monday, May 14 to create protection for a new class of persons based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Members of the City Council subverted the rule of law in multiple ways.

Click to download and print flyer

At an organizational meeting May 15, materials distributed described the effects of the ordinance on Lincolnites’ work, church, and business lives. Some circulators may wish they had a handout or reference document about the problems with the process.

With that in mind, we’ve detailed the process problem, raised a few additional points that might be of interest, and provided suggestions for countering arguments made by people who support the ordinance and who haven’t thought about whether or not the City Council’s actions were improper.

We have created an abbreviated summary of this information in a printable flyer format. Click the image, above, to download to your computer. Click HERE to view the flyer on Scribd (or download and print if you have an account).

================================================================

Even Lincolnites who support the idea of a City ordinance like the one passed should be outraged by the conduct of City officials and, therefore, should support the proper process for such ordinance amendments, and should sign the referendum petition – available through May 28.

Click HERE for all other printable documents relating to the ordinance

HERE to make arrangements with a petition circulator to sign a petition

COUNCIL MEMBERS IGNORED THE LAW

• An Attorney General’s opinion¹ detailed why ordinances like those passed in Omaha and Lincoln cannot be enacted through the process utilized by both City Councils.

• Although Lincoln has a Home Rule Charter, which grants considerable independence to a city in Nebraska, legislation by City of Lincoln still must be in pursuance of the Nebraska Constitution and not in conflict with State laws.

• Lincoln’s City Charter² does not give the power to the City Council to legislate regarding a class of persons defined by their sexual orientation or gender identity OR to add them to the list of protected classes.

• Nebraska law requires City officials to seek an amendment to the City’s Charter³, which in turn, requires placement on the ballot and a vote by the citizens.

• The City Council violated a provision in State law which specifically prohibits sexuality and/or gender identity from being used as a basis for defining protected classes under State civil rights provisions⁴.

• The City Council based their May 14 action and attempted to legitimize it solely on their own attorney’s opinion, which is in direct conflict with the opinions of current and former Attorney General staff attorneys and a former Lincoln City Attorney, some of whom have direct past experience with the very same type of proposed ordinance. Current Lincoln City Attorney Rod Confer’s opinions should be viewed with considerable skepticism considering his evolving legal explanations regarding Occupy Lincoln⁵ and public admissions that some Lincoln ordinances known to violate the U.S. Constitution were unchanged for eighteen months and counting⁶. The City has expressly refused to make Confer’s opinion on the current issue available for review by the public.

• City Council members ignored admonitions from many attorneys regarding what are a number of serious problems with the ordinance’s language. Concerned attorneys point out that the language is too ambiguous, lacks some definitions altogether – particularly regarding the definitions of “gender identity” and “religious group”, and is overly broad.

• Civil rights legislation historically has provided protection for classes of people based on immutable characteristics (involuntary and unchangeable). A 2006 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on an amendment to the Nebraska Constitution noted (pg. 6), “But the Supreme Court has never ruled sexual orientation is suspect classification for equal protection purposes.”

Regarding City authority under the Nebraska Constitution:

As set forth in the U.S. Constitution, state laws that conflict with that document, federal laws made in pursuance of it, or any treaties made under the authority of the United States, are invalid⁷.  The same is true of city ordinances that conflict with the constitution or laws of the state in which it is located, only more so.  The individual states were not the creations of the federal government, quite the reverse, in fact.  In contrast, cities owe their very existence to the state in which they are located.  Consequently, their right to any degree of self-government, even as to local matters, is solely at the discretion of the state and any action taken by a city must be “consistent with and subject to the constitution and the laws of the state (Nebraska Constitution, Article XI, Sec. 2).”

COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ACTIONS COULD ULTIMATELY COST TAXPAYERS

• As one attorney testifying before the Council on May 7 noted, “There is a lot of fodder, a lot of potential income for attorneys” in the language chosen by the Council. The poor wording could cost taxpayers.

• Since the Council’s actions are in violation of state law, if the proper process is not followed through a vote by the citizens of Lincoln, there is a high probability of legal challenges which would require taxpayer funds to defend.

• Should anyone’s rights be violated by the improperly passed ordinance, the City of Lincoln may be responsible for damages, which would be paid for by taxpayers, not the Council members who passed the ordinance.

• Lincoln taxpayers have seen several rounds of tax increases in recent years, recent news reports indicated new taxes are under consideration, the City has considerable debt, and a costly unfinished project to complete. Can taxpayers afford court battles and/or lawsuit payouts?

A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT – FOR EVERYONE

• Some have attempted to argue that past Lincoln City Councils (and Omaha’s) have voted on similar ordinance amendments in the same manner, with no objections made⁸. Such logic is utterly absurd and equivalent to the following scenarios…

A driver, clocked by a patrol officer as driving 90 mph in a 65 mph zone – speed limit signs clearly posted – is issued a speeding ticket. The driver objects, stammering, “But officer, I go through here this fast everyday. You can’t give me a ticket now!”

At an arraignment hearing in a murder case, when asked for his plea, the defendant states, “Judge, you can’t charge me with a crime! I’ve killed ten other people and gotten away with it.”

• Today the issue is an amended ordinance to create a protected class based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Supporters should ask themselves: might a future Council, following the lead of those currently in office, follow the same path on an issue with which they disagree? Currently, what is preventing such a turn of events?

• No supporter of the rule of law should ignore their elected officials’ subversion of it, regardless of the issue. Council members should be shown that Lincolnites believe that no one is above the law, including – especially – elected officials.

COUNCIL MEMBERS IMPOSED THEIR OWN BELIEFS ON LINCOLNITES

• If Council members do not listen to voters who show up for public input before the Council votes, then what is the purpose of those sessions?

• Member Doug Emery defiantly described his unwillingness to put the matter on the ballot to be voted on by citizens as reflecting “representative government”, but principled representatives should listen to their constituents when they are simply urging them to ABIDE BY THE LAW, in this case by properly putting the proposed ordinance to a vote.

• By voting in a way that was totally out of alignment with the clear message sent by constituents, Council members decided that City policy should reflect the values of five Council members, the mayor, and the City Attorney.

• Council members apparently believe they can impose their will and their philosophical beliefs on all of the citizens.

• Apparently council members believe they have been granted the right to promote Lincoln, Nebraska, in misleading way to the outside world – as a city which supports policies such as the one passed, whether that is an accurate portrayal of the City, or not.

WHY ARE COUNCIL MEMBERS AFRAID TO ALLOW LINCOLN CITIZENS TO VOTE ON THE ISSUE?

• Considering that the number of people who testified before the Council in support of voting on the measure and who were also opposed to the content of it, legitimate questions exists regarding whether City Council’s action reflects the people’s will.

• Are City Council members afraid that their constituents are not in agreement with them?

• Could the opposition to a citizen vote on the issue be in any way connected to the history of public votes on such questions⁹?

Answering challenges about Attorney General Jon Bruning’s opinion:

The Attorney General’s opinion has been dismissed by ordinance proponents as purely politically motivated and, in addition, that Attorney General Jon Bruning’s credibility is in question.

Ordinance proponents label the issuance of the opinion as politically motivated due to the close timing with May 15 Nebraska primary election and Bruning’s participation in a hotly contested U.S. Senate race. The increasing number of headlines in recent weeks regarding donations to Bruning’s campaign and potential connections to actions taken by Bruning as Attorney General and additional scrutiny pertaining to the accumulation of wealth by Bruning while in public office are cited as damaging to Bruning’s credibility, generally. Finally, some opponents now cite Bruning’s defeat in the GOP U.S. Senate primary as a general rejection.

Why the Attorney General’s opinion IS valid, regardless:

EVEN IF one were to accept that the Attorney General’s specific credibility has been damaged or the motivations for it’s issuance were in some way political, it is not rational to dismiss that opinion out of hand. The relevant question should be: is the opinion well researched with citations included, reasoned, and sound legally?

Further, although the Attorney General is the overall responsible party regarding all official opinions issued by his office, the opinion regarding the Omaha and Lincoln ordinances was written by members of the Attorney General’s staff with decades of legal experience. And the chief author of the opinion is generally considered to be, as stated by one former colleague, “as apolitical as it gets”.

In addition, the Attorney General office’s opinion has been reviewed by multiple attorneys, most of whom have previous experience, not only with drafting such opinions while working in the Attorney General’s office at some point in the past themselves, but they also have had direct involvement in reviewing this specific issue and understand the relevant state statutes and the City of Lincoln Charter intimately.

Footnotes, References & Citations

A referendum petition drive is underway!

Editor’s Note: There are a number of documents embedded here, so please be patient as the entire article loads up. We will be adding some additional information to this article late Wednesday, May 16 PM – early Thursday, May 17 AM, so please check back if you visit between those times.

You are probably aware that the Lincoln City Council voted on Monday, May 14th, to amend the city Municipal Code’s “Equal Opportunity” provisions, expanding the definition of the classes of people protected by that ordinance to include sexual preference and gender identity.  This action was taken in defiance of an Attorney General’s opinion that the Council lacks legal authority to take such an action under Lincoln’s Home Rule Charter and, in particular, in defiance of state law that prohibits sexual preference and gender identity from being used to qualify someone as a member of a protected class. (Click HERE for an article detailing some history regarding legal opinions on this issue.)

The purpose of a home rule charter is to enable a city to be self-governing as to matters of local concern.  Stated another way, a home rule charter city is independent of state law with respect to strictly local matters.  But, as to matters of state concern, state law controls over provisions of the city’s charter.  In this respect, a city’s charter functions with respect to state government very much the same way state constitutions function within our federal constitutional system.

 Through the charter, a city’s inhabitants set up a system of local government, enumerating and delegating to the city certain powers over matters of local concern.  If a power with respect to a matter of local concern isn’t addressed in the charter, the city simply lacks any authority respecting that matter unless and until it secures the power through amendment of its charter by a vote of the people.  But, as stated above, there is an additional limitation upon the powers a charter city may enjoy.  Any charter adopted by a city’s inhabitants must be “consistent with and subject to the constitution and laws of the state.”  (Nebraska Constitution, Article XI, Sec. 2.)

In the opinion of the Attorney General, Lincoln does not have the power to expand the protected classes identified under state law, period.  In other words, recognizing protected classes is a state, as opposed to a local, matter.  But, even if the City of Lincoln had the power to do so (even if recognizing protected classes WAS a local concern), the city could not take action without amending the city’s charter, which requires a vote of the people. Yet, the Lincoln City Council chose to substitute its own judgment for that of the people.  Those five people decided they know better than the remaining 260,000 Lincolnites.  When we heard of the vote, we recalled Nancy Pelosi’s comment when she was asked to identify where in the U.S. Constitution Congress was authorized to enact an individual insurance mandate.  She responded in a very derisive tone, “Are you serious?  Are you serious?”  By their vote, these five Council members said the same thing to all of us on Monday.  “Question our authority?  Are you serious?  Are you serious?”

Nor are the two Republican members of the Council, who abstained from voting on the ordinance, free from reproach.  They based their decision to abstain on the ground that the City Council’s lack of authority to legislate with regard to this matter deprived them, as sitting members of the Council, of any authority to vote with respect to it.  I find it interesting, however, that both of them voted to approve the AMENDMENT to the ordinance that was voted upon during the same Council session¹.

A petition drive is currently in progress to allow the people of Lincoln to vote on the ordinance, but time is of the essence.  Organizers only have 15 days from the date the ordinance was approved to secure 2500 signatures on referendum petition forms.  A very large and motivated crowd of volunteers convened at a local church on Tuesday evening, May 15th, to obtain copies of the referendum petition forms and receive some instruction in how to go about collecting signatures in compliance with the law — both state and local.  Blank petition forms can be printed out at links below.  If you intend to collect more than 10 signatures, you’ll need to print out two different pages, as noted in the Guidelines set out below.

PLEASE READ AND BE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THE GUIDELINES BEFORE YOU PRINT ANY FORMS AND ATTEMPT TO COLLECT ANY SIGNATURES.  YOUR FAILURE TO FOLLOW THESE GUIDELINES WILL INVALIDATE ANY SIGNATURES YOU COLLECT.

 GUIDELINES FOR PETITION CIRCULATORS

1. YOU, the circulator, must be a registered voter in the City of Lincoln²
2. Each petition form has two pages.  Page 1 is entitled “City of Lincoln Referendum Petition” and has space for 10 signatures and signer information.  Page 2 has space for 20 additional signatures and signer information.
3. Your name and information must appear as the FIRST signer on the FIRST page of the petition you are circulating (i.e., on Line # 1, page 1).
4. You must tell EACH petition signer: “To be eligible to sign the petition, you must be a registered voter within the City of Lincoln.”
5. You must tell EACH petition signer: “This petition is to allow the people of Lincoln to vote on the ordinance that added sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes in the city code.”
6. You must read to EACH petition signer the WARNING TO PETITION SIGNERS that appears on the first page of the petition.
7. You must make sure that EACH petition signer dates, signs, and prints their name and their birth date on the petition.
8. If you think you will collect enough signatures to fill up all the signature lines on page 1 and page 2 of a single petition form, you may make and use additional copies of a blank petition page 2, BUT the page must be copied or printed out  “AS IS” or all signatures will be declared invalid.  Any copies of either page 1 or page 2 of the petition form must be made or printed out IN COLOR to include the RED letters at the bottom.
9. You are responsible to ensure that every sheet you collect with signatures is notarized by a notary public.  Notary publics can be secured at banks, real estate agents, or legal/attorney offices.
10. You must record the sum total of ALL the signatures you have collected at the bottom of EACH PAGE of the petition when signing it before a notary.
11. You must return your petition immediately once you have finished collecting signatures so referendum drive organizers can begin tabulating.
12. Return petitions to: Nebraska Family Council, 1106 E Street, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508.

ALL PETITIONS MUST BE RETURNED BY MAY 28TH @ 5:00 P.M.

There will be individuals watching to make sure you do everything correctly, so be on your guard.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:

Can a church participate in the petition drive?

Yes.  This petition drive doesn’t endorse a candidate and is non-partisan.  This petition simply asks that the ordinance go to a public vote.   Therefore, churches and non-profits can collect signatures if they have petition circulators present the petition.

Can I sign the petition if I have not voted?

Yes.  You must be a registered voter in the City of Lincoln, but it is not necessary to have voted.

Can I have an assistant help me collect signatures?

No.  Allowing someone else to present the petition to signers will render all signatures invalid.

Do I have to support or oppose the ordinance to sign the petition?

No.  The petition is simply about letting Lincoln voters decide the issue instead of the City Council.

What do I do if a signer makes a mistake when he or she is signing the form?

If a signer makes an error in signing the petition form (e.g., by misspelling a name or street address or by writing an incorrect birth date or house number), have the signer

• draw a line through the entire signature line on which the mistake occurred (much like you would void a check you’ve written in error);
• place his or her initials next to the entire signature line that has just been crossed out; and
• then sign and complete the petition information accurately on the line immediately below the one where the error occurred.

Can I collect signatures outside a store or shopping center?

If you want to collect signatures on the private property of any business, which includes the parking lot and the approach to the business’ doors as well as inside the business itself, you must first ask and secure the business’ permission to do so.  Please politely accept NO for an answer, if that is the answer you receive in response.  If you obtain permission to collect signatures at a business:

• DO NOT obstruct the entry to and exit from the business,
• DO NOT persist in efforts to obtain a signature from someone who is unwilling to engage in discussion with you and/or sign the petition
• DO NOT otherwise annoy, unnecessarily detain, or argue with customers or employees of the business

DOWNLOADABLE / PRINTABLE DOCUMENTS:

NOTE: The embedded PDF versions you see here have been uploaded to our account on Scribd.com. If you do not have a Scribd.com account you may not be able to print them, so if you don’t have an account, use the DIRECT DOWNLOAD links provided.

PETITION CIRCULATORS GUIDELINES – *VERY IMPORTANT*

Guidelines for Petition Circulators (updated as of May 17)

Direct download HERE

PETITION FORMS

CITY OF LINCOLN REFERENDUM PETITION – PAGE 1

Direct download HERE

CITY OF LINCOLN REFERENDUM PETITION – PAGE 2

Direct download HERE

Effects of the new ordinance, handouts:

Since these document embeds really slow the page down, we’re only including one embed of the three handouts about the effects of the ordinance here. Rather than an embed for the other two, a link to the document on Scribd has been provided.

Effects on Work

Direct download HERE

Effects on Business

Direct download HERE

View on Scribd

Effects on Church

Direct download HERE

View on Scribd

LIST OF LINKS INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE, ABOVE:

Note that all of the links, below, lead to PDF documents. We will be uploading these items to the Scribd account as well for people who don’t have their computer / browser set up to open PDFs on their screen without downloading. Once they are uploading, we will update this article.

Ordinance language

Amendment to ordinance language

Attorney  General Opinion regarding such ordinances

Home Rule Charter – Chapter 14 of Nebraska Statutes

City of Lincoln City Charter

Constitution of the State of Nebraska

WANT TO SIGN A PETITION BUT NEED SOMEONE TO BRING IT TO YOU?

VOLUNTEERS WANTED:

IF you are considering circulating petitions and can volunteer to do some signature collecting by taking the petition TO people, please use the contact form below to let us know that you are willing.

Footnotes, References & Citations

You head off to your usual local polling place (a school), turn into the parking lot and, seeing few cars, you head for the first parking spots right in front of the school building, thinking, “Hey, great! Right up front and I’ll be and out of here in no time.”

You see some of those orange cones in the distance, figuring you’ll check it out when you get closer:

You find that there is some kind of sign on them:

The first cone you see is in Spanish, so, you look at the next cone…and the next cone…and the next cone. They’re all in Spanish:

You no hablo espanol…so…you park your vehicle elsewhere.

—– pause for contemplation ——

So, you can imagine what you’d be thinking if you were at the beginning of your voting experience.

For the record, the actual voter who had this experience did not take a wrong turn at the local Fluff ‘N Stuff and keep driving until he hit Tijuana. Nope. He was in the parking lot of Saratoga Elementary School in Lincoln, Nebraska, United States. He decided to register a complaint and to notify the Secretary of State, whose responsibilities include supervision of elections. He copied me on the email to Secretary John Gale and included pictures (some of which are featured here):

“Secretary Gale,

I went to vote today and in the parking lot of my polling place were traffic cones with instructions printed on them. I could not read them because the instructions were in Spanish on every cone.

When I complained about not being able to read the cones I was told by a woman who was working the polling place that I needed to learn a second language. I was also informed that the signs indicated that those parking spots were reserved for voters, but I parked elsewhere because I don’t read Spanish.

I read English which according to the Nebraska State Constitution is the official language. I could understand it if a few of the cones were in Spanish to comply with Federal regulations, but ALL of them?

I’m tired of being discriminated against by all this political correctness, how about we follow some laws?”

The voter is referring, of course, to this section of the Constitution of Nebraska:

“Article II, Sec. 27. English to be official. The English language is hereby declared to be the official language of this state, and all official proceedings, records, and publications, shall be in such language, and the common school branches shall be taught in said language in public, private, denominational and parochial schools.“

My armchair lawyerin’ under Linda’s tutelage does not extend to understanding the disconnects that exist between Nebraska’s English-only provision and case law, but I can say that I keep seeing similar questions crop up, typically, as the voter noted in his email to Secretary Gale, having to do with requirements in some federal program if funds are accepted.

I don’t know if traffic cones with signs qualify as “official publications” or not, and if so, again, what the judicial history tells us about the disconnect, either about those orange cones or anything else.

Regardless of such lingering questions, I can report that the voter who copied me on his note was not the only one to take note and complain. Another registered voter in the same precinct called in to the Crash Davis radio show on KFAB to report the event. Since Mr. Davis had already received the pictures, he decided to post the close up shot on his website.

He also informed:

“Translation: Sadie and her high school Spanish education translated this to be ‘Not for parking! Only for voters!’”

This whole string of events occurred on Tuesday afternoon, with my receipt of the email timestamped at 3:44pm.

Late Tuesday night, I received another email from the voter, with new photos, taken at 6:30pm. An election worker – actually a District Inspector, no less – was in the process of making new signs for some of the cones:

And some cones remained en espanol

And I’m including this last one ’cause it’s just a well done shot…

(My daughter is a photographer…what can I say?…she’s taught her mother some art appreciation. It gets high marks for the lines, the perspective and the focus.)

Finally, the voter reported that he’d received a call from an individual in the Secretary of State’s office who explained that the principal of the school had had the janitor make the signs, and that’s why the mistake.

Wow. That’s a loaded statement. I think I’ll just tie my hands together and stop writing for now. But, again…wow.

In addition to kudos for the awesome photography, the voter gets a 5 Star Vigilance rating, too.

OH – and it just occurs to me, a not-often used GiN feature.

We propose a toast to this voter for taking action, for getting the word out, and for sharing the results of his efforts.

Things have gotten curiouser and curiouser this election season, and in Nebraska’s U.S. Senate race in particular. Our article, “Following the Jon Bruning Money Trail”, included some of the curious elements in the Senate race, although they may have not been detected by many. There was a lot of information to digest.

In that Bruning article, we included a number of images from Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission (NADC) reports and FollowtheMoney.org images from filings for Bruning for Attorney General, the campaign committee, and two political action committees (PACs), for which Jon Bruning was listed as a controlling individual on the original Statement of Organization. We noted:

“…the reports…constitute only a representative sampling, [and] raise a lot of questions, some of which pertain to Nebraska’s state laws on campaign and PAC contributions and expenditures, some about other elective office holders in Nebraska, and still others about news media and lack of investigative reporting.”

There is ONE ISSUE to note about state laws and campaign finance: Since the Nebraska Legislature makes the laws, which the Governor must sign or veto, it is a fact that the politicians make up the rules under which they all operate. Yep. Can’t imagine why it is the mess that it is.

Beyond that, the issues of interest, we think, for the primary election, require a second look at a couple of the report images we first published in our “Bruning…Money Trail” article. This time, I’ve highlighted a few things.

Statement of Organization for Nebraskans for a Better Tomorrow in 2008 listing the controlling individuals

Nebraskans for a Better Tomorrow PAC Controlling Individuals:

Sam Fischer

Brian Buescher

David Heineman

Jon Bruning

Does anyone else’s eyebrows go up at that the thought of the Governor and the Attorney General as controlling individuals on a Political Action Committee?

MINE DO

For those wondering who Sam Fischer and Brian Buescher are, the first point to note is that I can’t state, definitely, whether there is any familial relationship between Sam Fischer and Deb Fischer, outgoing State Senator and GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate. Her husband’s name is Bruce, so any relationship would extend beyond her immediate family.

Sam Fischer is the Managing Partner of Meridian Central Public Affairs, LLC, which, the company’s website reports on its About Us page, “We develop winning strategies for political and public affairs campaigns through a combination of comprehensive research, strategic planning and precision execution.” See footnotes regarding the client list ¹

Brian Buescher is an attorney for the law firm, Kutak, Rock; has run for office in Omaha, at least once, for City Council; and as the Lincoln Journal Star reported, April 9, 2012, will be the next Nebraska Republican Party Chairman. Mark Fahelson is running (unopposed, it appears) to be the NEGOP’s National Committeeman – Pete Ricketts is stepping down from that post.

It’s been said that from time to time here on GiN, we’re a little too subtle, or, even, “not very clear”. We tend to think of this as putting the dots out there and letting readers make up their own minds as to whether they connect…or not.

In this instance, I’ll connect the dots, even draw the picture – in other words, be as subtle as a heart attack…

Four obviously powerful politicos in Nebraska decided to put together a PAC in 2008 and call it by a vague name. So, what did Governor Dave, the Attorney General, a high-powered political strategy guy, and a lawyer/future NEGOP chair plan on doing with their PAC? Obviously, by definition (see language on the  Statement of Organization form, above), PACs exist for the purpose of supporting or opposing candidates for election. This PAC reported it intended to do these activities for the November 2008 election. So, four high-powered politicos decided to influence elections in Nebraska.

As part of this picture, one dot will remain unconnected – readers can decide whether it belongs in the picture or not. The political junkie crowd and, even, credible, more disinterested sources accept as a “given” the fact that there is “no love lost” between Dave Heineman and Jon Bruning, especially following the 2006 election. The credible sources to whom I reported the formation of the PAC by Heineman and Bruning reacted in one of two ways: speechlessness or disbelief. So, I’d recommend, filing this unconnected dot, for now, under “things that make you go…hmmm”.

In order to carry out their intended election activities, money was required. As reported in the “Bruning…Money Trail” article there was an initial round of contributions paid into Nebraskans for a Better Tomorrow in 2008, and it’s reasonable to call that the “seed money” for the PAC.

I have outlined Governor Dave’s, Jon Bruning’s, AND State Senator Deb Fischer’s contributions to this PAC. (Note that in addition to the $2,000 noted here – the “seed money” – Deb Fischer contributed $1,000 to Nebraskans for a Better Tomorrow on 9/20/2008. Contributors highlighted in green were State Senators at the time their donations were made.) Really, for the purposes of absolute accuracy I should say, I outlined the contributions to the PAC made from each of these individuals’ CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE funds.

Mike Friend was a legislator at the time, but he is highlighted in purple along with Mr. Pete Ricketts because both are otherwise influential in Nebraska politics, and, at least for a period, they joined in an effort beyond the PAC. As we have reported before, it seems to be common knowledge that Mr. Ricketts is a benefactor of the Nebraska chapter of Americans for Prosperity. Mike Friend was State Director of AFP-NE for about a year, beginning in January 2011².

So, returning to connecting the dots, drawing the picture…

It was not just the Governor, the Attorney General, and the two influential fellows noted who decided to form a PAC for the purposes of influencing Nebraska elections, it was also a list of Nebraska State Senators, a former State Treasurer, and a gentleman known to donate significant sums of money throughout the GOP spectrum including practically, or it seems like anyway, every GOP candidate, a think tank, a nationally networked watchdog “news” site, and the state chapter of a political organization calling itself grassroots with headquarters in D.C. Need it be said? Nebraskans for a Better Tomorrow is one powerhouse of a PAC. Is it a weird Nebraska version of a “Super-PAC”?

As we wrote in the “Bruning…Money Trail” article, voters will have to decide whether or not contributors to individual candidates’ campaign funds are or would be just fine and dandy with those bucks being passed on and bundled to provide seed money for a PAC. Was this fact disclosed to the original donors? Should it have been?

Here is the report of expenditures by Nebraskans for a Better Tomorrow, for 2008:

The highlighted names are the two Senators who won their seats. The only reason for the differences in color is to note that Senator Dennis Utter passed away this year. Beau McCoy is up for re-election to his District 39 seat.

Several things come to mind regarding the list of candidates who received the funds. What is less interesting than the success and failure rate, I think, are answers to questions similar to those already asked:

• Did contributors to Deb Fischer, Dave Heineman, Jon Bruning, and all the others listed, know their money was to be spent in this way?

AND / OR

• Did the original donors even support any of the candidates who received money from Nebraskans for a Better Tomorrow PAC?

An additional point of interest pertains to the way the contribution to this PAC was reported on Governor Heineman Committee’s NADC expenditure report:

It is impossible to call the report from the Governor accurate, considering how the Nebraskans for a Better Tomorrow PAC expended its funds. Is there some reason the Governor used what I’ve realized is the catch-all expenditure on a candidate committee report of “ticketed event” or “event tickets” to provide political cover for his part in seeding the PAC?

In addition to the way the Governor reported his contribution to the power PAC, I found that Deb Fischer likewise reported her “seed money” contributed to the PAC as some kind of “tickets” expenditure:

Deb Fischer, report of expenditures 2008: Click to view on the NADC website

Do the Governor, Jon Bruning, and others who decided to put Nebraskans for a Better Tomorrow together and fund it, including Deb Fischer, work in coordination in other ways regarding elections?

To answer that question, we need to review a couple of points we’ve already made:

• We’ve already pointed out, GOP candidates run by turn, not by merit. Jon Bruning had already run for U.S. Senate in 2007 and stepped aside because it was Mike Johanns’ turn.  Consequently, this election cycle it would actually be hard to turn Bruning down, or dissuade him, considering his fundraising prowess

• The timing of the announcements by Dave Heineman and Jon Bruning, immediately following Election Day 2010 regarding the Senate race, standing alone, indicates some degree of coordination

And add something new:

• We have not yet reported the astonishing amount of money contributed to the Nebraska Republican Party by a particular list of Nebraska’s politicians.

“Coincidentally”, several of the politicians noted here already – specifically, Heineman, Bruning, and Deb Fischer – all appear on the list, below, which is one page of contributions by candidate committees in Nebraska to the Nebraska Republican Party for the 2010 Election cycle:

Click to view full NEGOP 2010 Contributors list on FollowtheMoney.org

FollowtheMoney.org reports that for that 2010 cycle, Dave Heineman contributed a total of $118,642, Jon Bruning’s PAC, Citizens for a Better Nebraska, $22,000. Readers will note that State Senator Deb Fischer appears on that list donating $1,200 (actually paid in 2009³).

Heineman and Bruning campaign and PAC payments to the NEGOP are not limited to the 2010 election: see the “Bruning…Money Trail” for significant funds in 2006, and Heineman contributions in 2011 (not an election year), by clicking HERE.

Fischer’s contributions to the NEGOP, since 2003, are listed, below. Note that all of these contributions are listed as “Event Tickets” or “Fundraiser Tickets” on Fischer for Legislature NADC reports:

7/6/2008: $1,000

10/28/2008: $5,000

9/20/2009: $1,200

10/18/2011: $1,000

Sarpy County Republican Party

11/11/2011: $1,000

SO: What does any / all of this mean?

• Note that not all Nebraska politicians (elected officials, candidates for offices) contribute sums to the NEGOP, at least not from examination of campaign finance filings both on the NADC website or FollowtheMoney.org, with many reaching back to 2006, some earlier.

• I’d ask…just who is calling the shots at the NEGOP? I can’t help but think of the quote, “He who holds the purse strings”.

So back to connecting those dots, drawing pictures, and NOT being subtle…

Notable names I have not seen as contributors to the NEGOP:

• Pat Flynn
• Don Stenberg

Having previously described the Nebraska political landscape, in part, by drawing Nebraska-style parallels to the American Spectator essay “America’s Ruling Class…”, it seems that if Nebraska has a ruling class, those who bring home the political donation bacon to the NEGOP are card-carrying members, those who bring it in abundance may very well have, it could be said, “platinum cards”.

For whatever the reason, Don Stenberg, has been denied issuance of even the aluminum or tin membership card in this little club. I seriously doubt Pat Flynn ever bothered to fill out the application.

Don Stenberg has a decidedly perplexing status as a candidate, which, honestly, defies coherent analysis. I’ve tried and I must report a big fat #fail. Bottom line is, every analysis of Stenberg can cut one of three ways.

Analysis #1: Has Stenberg not been issued a platinum card because he doesn’t want one? If Stenberg’s perennial losses – one of which DID result in the election of Ben Nelson – are due to his having been an actual maverick (not the faux McCain version), in other words, having not gone-along-to-get-along, then he should have run that way. He failed to detect the anti-establishment sentiment that exists across the land, even here in Huskerville. Earth to Don Stenberg… heard of Dick Lugar? Lose the tea party pose, though, Mr. Stenberg.  You can’t have started a political career when I was in grade school and get away with calling yourself a “tea party candidate” when my youngest child is now in junior high. Even the absurdly elastic definition of “tea party” does not stretch that far.

Analysis #2: Is it that Don Stenberg has always wanted a platinum card and he is like the kid who gets picked last on the playground every time and just won’t get the message, so the actual members just blow him off, automatically?

Analysis #3: Was Don Stenberg’s platinum card revoked when he had his chance in 2000 and lost the Nebraska U.S. Senate seat to Ben Nelson?

Whatever the reasons for that lack of “membership card”, what is clear about Don Stenberg is that, when he runs against Lincoln-based candidates, he is the more popular candidate in the 3rd Congressional District, and, more so than Jon Bruning, we GiN folk would wager. A review of votes, for instance, by Congressional district, in the primary election for State Treasurer in 2010 – Stenberg versus Tony Fulton – would bear that out.

What we think is not a coincidence:

Deb Fischer is from the 3rd Congressional District.

Straight up until the last half a week or so, we would’ve sworn that Deb Fischer’s existence in the race, as a faithful member of the Republican club, with her platinum card and all of that, was only in the U.S. Senate race to assure that Jon Bruning would succeed in the endeavor to claim “his turn”.

After all, truly, what in the world is up with Deb Fischer in the race? Using the de facto standards (not mine), devised by the political parties, the media, etc., etc. for candidates, Fischer doesn’t fit the criteria, except to serve, when asked by her party, as the necessary spoiler, with the benefit to her of getting her name “out there” for future purposes.

Understand that among the “curiouser” developments in this race, the chattering classes, even nationally, are reporting based on some polls that Deb Fischer has surged ahead of both Bruning and Stenberg or that she has surged ahead of Stenberg and is within the margin of error with Bruning.

The chattering classes analyze these developments as having been caused by:

• Increasingly negative stories and actual growing concerns about Jon Bruning  (what started as a whisper campaign has turned into a dull roar)

• Failure, once again, of Stenberg to razzle dazzle voters

• Endorsement of Fischer by Sarah Palin, primarily, and a few others

• A last minute surge of ads run by the Joe Ricketts (father of Pete) Super-PAC, Ending Spending

My fellow Nebraskans, this whole thing just doesn’t quite compute.

IF Deb Fischer is truly surging – and I really wonder about that – I submit it may well be a lot more like a Governor’s race I was able to observe up close in South Dakota in 2002. Here’s the shortest version I can muster: With the “800 pound gorilla” that was Governor Bill Janklow having decided to run for the state’s only U.S. Congress seat, the Governor’s seat was open. There were three candidates in the GOP primary; the Attorney General, a businessman, and, a little-known State Senator from a rural county in the middle of the state.  I got to see this whole thing up close because I lived in the southeast corner of the state where there was a growing population of Republican voters, and I was Lincoln Day Dinner Chairwoman, and sort of the right arm of the County Chair. So, it was a big deal, in other words. The Attorney General was one of the most genuinely decent people I’ve encountered in politics, the businessman literally dripped “slick”, and, I vividly recall labeling the State Senator as “pure vanilla…milk toast”. Long story short is that the slick businessman and the Attorney General engaged in a very juvenile fight over – unbelievably – theft of yard signs. State Senator Milk Toast won the primary.

The moral of the story for the purposes of dissecting the Nebraska primary is this: IF, IF State Senator Deb Fischer has actually surged ahead of Bruning and Stenberg, it may simply be due to concerns about Bruning’s ethics (or lack thereof), Stenberg’s perennial “also-ran” status in “big” races (i.e., he had his “turn” a long time ago and blew it), and just general discontent with the choices between known quantities (i.e., same-old, same-old). In short, it could be that Fischer is the sort of unknown milk toast voters would rather put in office given the two front-running alternatives.

The reason I question the Fischer surge?

Two of the three polls showing Fischer as surging were paid for by…

Joe Rickett’s Super-PAC, EndingSpending

(The third was a robo-poll, in other words not a live voice poll.)

In attempting to make any sense out of this tangle, I submit, as another dot that you, the reader, can choose to discard or connect, that the WHOLE thing is some kind of Rope-a-dope, ala Muhammad Ali. Noting the obvious tangle of relationships among the relevant parties; Heineman, Bruning, Fischer, and Ricketts, some plausible explanations come to mind. I keep mentioning Governor Heineman in this array because anyone who wants to contend that the guy who provides 1/4 of the funds for the NEGOP is not somehow involved in this tangle AND considering his coordination with Bruning going into this race, is being willfully blind.

Just WHAT, or should I say, WHO, this Rope-a-dope is, or stands to benefit, is not clear, so here’s some wild speculation:

• Fischer IS in the race to siphon votes off Stenberg; making people think Fischer has surged ahead is an attempt to create a bandwagon effect…vote for the winner folks!…Fischer splits the votes enough that Bruning carves out a win

• Heineman does not like Jon Bruning, but considering his powerhouse fundraising and, perhaps, some promise made in 2007 about 2012, the appearance of support had to be given, but the Ricketts SuperPAC ads and recent endorsements are an actual effort to undermine Bruning

• Fischer was only in the race to help siphon off Stenberg votes, but the increasingly troubling news about Bruning and the perennial dislike of Stenberg caused a last minute effort to actually hand the primary contest to Fischer

Regarding connecting those optional dots – this last one – I can’t make sense of this mess for myself, let alone draw a picture with it.

Whatever the reason Deb Fischer threw her hat in the ring, the persona she has exhibited as a candidate is likely best summed up by a comment from user, “Bobby”, on the Leavenworth Street site:

Bobby May 12, 2012 at 9:49 AM

“Can you imagine what a debate between Deb and Bob would be like? Same answers, every time.

Deb: We need to have a conversation.

Bob: I’ll work with everyone to fix these problems.

Deb: But I’m a citizen legislator, I know how to have a conversation.

Bob: I’m a decorated war hero, we worked with everyone in ‘Nam.”

Fischer’s surge, should it exist, can NOT be due to her voting record, ladies and gentleman. ‘Cause that is just plain bad. Let’s face it: She has been a State Senator in the Nebraska Unicameral. And at this point, that is ENOUGH SAID. To quote Robert DeNiro in the film Casino, “You’re either too stupid, or you’re in on it.” Remember…drawing pictures and subtle as a heart attack. I’m cranky…it’s Election Day…so sue me.

Fischer’s bone-headed support for a GAS TAX HIKE when prices were soaring in 2008 is pretty widely known

But, most readers don’t realize, just to mention a few, other important things about Fischer’s legislative career.

Fischer, as Chair of the Transportation and Telecommunications Committee…

• Introduced and successfully oversaw the passage of a resolution that repudiated the REAL ID Act of 2005 in 2007

and then later, most curiously…

• Introduced legislation that implemented REAL ID⁴

Wondered yet why your Driver’s License has to be mailed to you? It’s being processed into a national database and handled by a third party vendor, that’s why, and that’s REAL ID. Thanks, Deb Fischer.

• Introduction of legislation associated with eminent domain and pipelines⁵

• The utterly bizarre M.I.A. of Deb Fischer during the entire TransCanada Pipeline feeding frenzy. And that is truly bizarre considering that the Transportation and Telecommunication Committee in the Unicameral has listed, only in part, as included in its jurisdiction items such as the following…

• railroad equipment
• common carriers
• pipelines
• commercial vehicles
• telephones; telecommunications
• Public Service Commission

It’s downright inexplicable how the special session regarding the pipeline was overseen by the Natural Resources Committee instead of Fischer’s Transportation and Telecommunications Committee. Well, except for one thing…membership in that NE-GOP “Platinum Card” club seems to definitely have its privileges.

Regarding the Palin endorsement:

I don’t give a flying fig what a former Alaska Governor has to say about who I should vote for here in Nebraska. Literally, Sarah Palin…get outta here. I am offended – fed up with, really – the increasing acceptance, actually USE of affirmative action by Republican politicians and party elites. If voting for a black candidate just because he is black is wrong – it’s actually racist, if voting for a man just because he’s a man is wrong – it’s sexist – if voting for a Latino just because he/she is Latino is wrong – it’s actually racist, THEN, why isn’t voting for a woman, just because she’s a woman not also wrong because it is actually sexist? Please take your “I am woman, hear me roar” baloney to the Democratic Party where it actually belongs.

Just to highlight and underline the point that there are higher standards that must be applied than fashionable political party choice, color of skin, or even genitalia: the original Mama Grizzly (<— what IS that anyway?) endorsed a gal down in Oklahoma, just because she was…a gal…named Mary Fallin, a Congresswoman, in a very tight gubernatorial race in 2010. Few dispute that the Palin endorsement closed the gap. Fallin beat State Senator Randy Brogdon who had a coalition of support from, no question, the more conservative wing of the Oklahoma Republican voters. About ten seconds after she was elected, Fallin decided to take a $54.6 million dollar “early innovator” grant to implement the health care law in Oklahoma. Yep. That’s one grizzly mama, right there. It was Oklahomans who got grizzly: Fallin received so much heat for her decision that she had to reverse herself and return the grant.

And finally, regarding Fischer’s “conservative” credentials, it is long past time that the acceptance of teacher’s union money by Nebraska politicians be exposed, every time it’s found. Teacher’s union money should necessarily be considered politically radioactive. It’s fiscal suicide for conservative politicians. You will find below, the list of contributions Deb Fischer received from the NSEA, along with a couple of other union donations.

Deb Fischer NADC filings

Campaign contributions:

2004 Primary

Nebraska State Educators Association (NSEA) $1,500

2004 General

Nebraska State Educators Association (NSEA) $2,626

2006 Annual Statement

AFL-CIO $346

Nebraska State Educators Association (NSEA) $1,200

2007 Annual Statement

Nebraska State Educators Association (NSEA) $200

2008 Primary

Nebraska State Educators Association (NSEA)$1200

State Troopers Association $500

2009 Annual Statement

Nebraska State Educators Association  (NSEA) $300

‘Nuff said?  Hope you enjoy the picture I’ve painted for you and remember it as you vote today.

• Brenda Council
• Ernie Chambers

One resident in that district, in confronting such a choice when filling out her early voting ballot, recognized these two individuals constitute no choice at all for herself or other hardworking taxpayers in the district. So, she decided to take a giant step, as noted below.

Susan Smith has decided to run as a write in candidate for this Tuesday’s May 15 Primary for Nebraska Legislature District 11.

• In Nebraska primary elections, the top two vote-getters go forward onto the ballot for the General Election in November.

• Because primary voter turnout is low – a shockingly low 23% on average in Nebraska – the number of write in votes Susan needs to succeed in beating either Council or Chambers is lower than one might think, so the effort is worth attempting.

• Susan did develop a solid plan for a short-fuse write in campaign and as of 8pm Monday night, each point on that plan was in motion. She has already heard from many interested volunteers and flyers and signs were being distributed.

More help in such efforts is always needed, so again, we encourage anyone in the position to do so, to do what they can. Here’s what you can do:

• If you live in District 11 and are a registered voter, please write in Susan Smith

• Forward / send this article to as many of your friends, family, and other contacts who you know would like to see someone other than Brenda Council or Ernie Chambers in one of Nebraska’s 49 legislative seats in January 2013

• Consider helping Susan on Tuesday, especially if you are in Omaha, by contacting her to volunteer to do a sign wave or to hand out flyers

• Encourage your contacts to share the information

FLYER: Download and print

Or, click HERE to view a PDF online

Click to download and print a flyer

If you would like to know the location of District 11, the best way to truly see the district is on the hi-res PDF format version, available by clicking on the image below:

Click to download a hi-res, large map in PDF format

Susan’s campaign website:

Click to view Susan's campaign website

Campaign videos – email subscribers, click HERE to visit the site and watch the videos:

1a

2 unicameral

Why GiN is involved:

We have jumped in to help and are encouraging others to do so. Why? District 11 voters have had 40 years of representation, first by Ernie Chambers 1971 – 2009, and since 2009, Brenda Council. Truly, fellow Nebraskans, is that alone not enough reason?

Beyond that, we applaud Susan Smith’s willingness to take on this challenge, under tough circumstances in a tough district, and that’s why we’ve offered help. We do note, for the record, we do not agree 100% on policy issues and have been clear in our discussions regarding helping her that, should she make it onto the November ballot, we would like to have some conversation about a few particular issues, to have an opportunity to provide a factual basis for our position and to request she give the information due consideration. Finally, we have also noted that, should Susan win the November election and become a member of the Unicameral, we will monitor her voting record as closely as any other elected official.

Finally, however, even though we do not agree with Susan 100%, I think that our disagreements with Ernie Chambers and Brenda Council’s policy positions are likely near, if not actually, 100% opposed.

What we haven’t noted in any of our articles to date, at least not in full, is the inexplicable amount of Republican Party efforts invested in ensuring that Lee Terry retains his post as the GOP candidate and Congressman for that district. We did note in our article, Nebraska’s Ruling Class and the Perils of (Assisted) Political Suicide, that the NEGOP, particularly beginning in 2009, began making party constitution and rules changes to ensure advantages to incumbent candidates. Multiple independent sources have confirmed that some of these rules changes have been done specifically to benefit Lee Terry.

Brett Lindstrom’s campaign extended no small amount of effort to dissuade Party members from supporting any further changes to advantage incumbents, but it has been an uphill slog.

That may explain for anyone who was unaware of the challenger’s, Brett Lindstrom’s, existence in the race, the lack of coverage by mainstream media, at least.

We are not endorsing Brett Lindstrom as a group – that would require significant research, etc. We are simply encouraging voters who are looking at their options today to consider them all – check him out for yourself.

We include an image here of an ad which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald. Although we have not “vetted” Mr. Lindstrom significantly, we are impressed that his campaign chose to focus on principles, which should be the first thing considered about any candidate.

To visit Lindstrom’s website, click anywhere on the ad image, below:

Click to visit Brett Lindstrom's official campaign website

Prior articles about candidates for U.S. Senate:

• Following the Jon Bruning Money Trail 
• Profiling Jon Bruning: An Unorthodox Analysis 
• Nebraska US Senate GOP Candidate Spencer Zimmerman
• More on GOP Senate Candidates: Don Stenberg
• Senator Deb Fischer Hat in Widening GOP Ring for Nebraska’s US Senate Seat
• Jon Bruning Announces Bid For Senate – We Should Listen to Our Mommas

Check out our Election 2012 PAGE for much more information!

This article is about Pat Flynn, a former Investment Adviser (retired) from Schuyler.

Pat Flynn - photo obtained from official campaign gallery

My husband, our daughter, Tarah, a graduating high school senior at the time who knew she’d be voting for the first time in 2012, and I, had the opportunity to talk at length with Mr. Flynn about a year ago when he traveled to Lincoln. The personal visit was much appreciated. We found Mr. Flynn to be a sincere, genuine, and professional gentleman. He particularly excelled at communicating the concerns of young adult voters, like Tarah, which came as no surprise considering his many years of volunteer service starting up and running a youth ministry program. This work was likely inspired by his own problems as a young adult, about which Flynn was / is straightforward.

Pat Flynn is the only candidate in the race who has run his own successful business and who is not a career politician.  Flynn has attempted to make himself accessible by traveling throughout the state extensively, and through his participation in events organized by various groups and organizations, including all of the debates. A couple of videos have been embedded at this article as an example of the several that were convened this primary season (these and additional debate videos can be seen by clicking HERE). The bottom line: No one could accuse Mr. Flynn of lacking in work ethic, failing to visit all parts of the state, or lacking necessary organizational ability to an extent that precluded his participation in events.

In addition to having the opportunity to speak directly with Pat Flynn, I was also able to speak with the manager of his campaign a number of times. Both of those contacts, of course, helped me understand basic philosophy and strategy of the candidate and his campaign, early. I was able to observe, from time to time how it was carried out. Through the normal course of keeping in touch with contacts, I was able to somewhat track opinions about Mr. Flynn and the campaign. It did seem to me a lot of people were interested in Flynn’s candidacy, because there seems a growing “hunger” for alternatives to the usual slate of politician candidates. Over the last year and a half or so, I’ve consistently heard positive things about Mr. Flynn as in individual and that his ability to connect with a crowd has improved over time, and he always leaves seems to leave a positive impression one on one, wherever he goes.

I have not examined every aspect of Flynn’s positions on policies – readers can review them by visiting his “Issues” page on his site and viewing some of the available video.

Flynn’s candidacy may not have reached its full potential, however, despite his positive qualities, likely for the following reasons:

• Management and strategy of the campaign, overall…

• Perhaps some of the mistakes made by candidates who are new or who are not career politicians or “slick”. Two examples of which in Flynn’s case include going into debt as a campaign and the embrace of “the Fair Tax”. The FairTax seems to be regularly adopted by candidates at the beginning of their campaign – when they are attempting to get traction or near the end, if they haven’t quite caught fire. Unfortunately, the logic for endorsing the plan, too often seems to be the recognition by candidates that there are is a very energetic and loyal base of FairTax activists who come with supporting the policy (see footnote¹ for an example). Going into debt as a campaign is a big no-no if you want people to believe you will not continue driving government in the same direction.

• Despite the good intentions of both the candidate and his manager and some good and unique ideas – needed as an “outsider” candidate – it seemed that there were too many limitations on what would and would not be done for philosophical reasons, and perhaps in a few cases, specific personnel choices were not helpful

• Some minor glitches with the campaigns’ logistics, such as dissemination of information that was out of date – an email address, for instance (one literally bounced back to us that was on a printed handout). One of the campaign’s TV ads actually had an audio error that should have been detected by whoever edited it or someone responsible with the campaign should have caught

• Despite the natural ability to connect with people one and one and an always-improving public speaking presentation, there was a disparity between those kinds of interactions and his style on videos made both for the campaign website and TV ads which made Pat seem, both to my husband and myself, like a different person from the one we’d met and was regularly described, and our assessment of that persona was not positive

• Lack of insider status within the Republican Party

• It is difficult enough to run for public office in a state dominated by one political party, and one that has increasingly made running as a challenger difficult. These difficulties are only increased by a media, particularly the state’s two largest newspapers, which protect the entrenched power structure

• Obstruction by Nebraska media, particularly Nebraska’s two largest newspaper
  

• Some shortcomings – mostly considered so when compared to the expensive and slick campaigns conducted by front-runners – are to be expected from a real person, but those contrasts should be weighed and judged by voters. Apparently the brains trusts at Omaha World-Herald and Lincoln Journal Star believe they are smarter than their readers – the voters of Nebraska – and, therefore, believe it is their jobt to make these determinations on our behalf

• Omaha World-Herald literally cut Flynn out of photos from a couple of events which were attended by himself, Jon Bruning, Don Stenberg, and Deb Fischer, as shown in this forum posting. (Spencer Zimmerman has not participated in more than a couple of events throughout the campaign cycle)

• Lincoln Journal Star reportedly featured Jon Bruning, Don Stenberg, and Deb Fischer prominently, above the fold, while Pat Flynn and Spencer Zimmerman were given short shrift. Considering Flynn’s level of participation in the race, which predated Deb Fischer’s, and was at least as consistent as hers throughout, he should have received equal prominence

• As Mr. Flynn noted in an interview on KFAB in late April, he was obstructed by Omaha World-Herald from participating in their May 1 debate, because, he was told, he “had not earned his place at the podium”.  Managing Editor David Kotok, KETV reported, “Kotok noted there are six Republicans on the Nebraska ballot, but he said only three of them are actually competing for the GOP nomination.” Just WHO put David Kotok in charge of determining who is competing?

The treatment of Pat Flynn in several instances illustrates that establishment media, especially the Omaha World-Herald and Lincoln Journal Star seem hell-bent on ensuring that only career politicians are given attention. Some voters – I think in increasing numbers, actually – are questioning whether or not its time to return to the part-time citizen legislator who has had and can return to a life that doesn’t involve politics. Serve with integrity – and then, for God’s sake…go home! Now there’s a thought.

I should note that I’ve had one person report to me that due to the outrageous conduct of the Omaha World-Herald regarding the May 1 debate, they are casting their vote for Pat Flynn, and another who is thinking about it.

Biographical Data:

Ballotpedia biographical information, mostly taken from Flynn’s website biography

Project Vote Smart page

Flynn’s official campaign website

Campaign Finance

Open Secrets

Nebraska Senate Race 2012 total contributions(all candidates listed together)

Nebraska Senate Race 2012 top contributors (all candidates listed together)

Federal Election Commission

Federal Election Commission Candidacy Filings

FEC Candidate Committee List of Filings

Former run: 2008 US Senate GOP Primary

Open Secrets (see THIS Open Secrets page for additional information on the race)

Videos:

Speaking in Pat Flynn at Millard Business Association, April 9, 2012

Speaking in Wayne County, March 7, 2012

Interview with Scott Voorhees January 12, 2012

Debate Videos:

Washington County Republican Party Debate, Blair – March 27, 2012

Senate Candidate Debate in Norfolk, NE on April 11, 2012

Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom Debate, Omaha – April 15, 2012