Nebraska Rules Committee debates sweeping changes to how senators introduce bills, end debate and organize committees

The Nebraska Legislature Rules Committee heard wide-ranging testimony on two dozen proposed changes to its procedural rules, with back-and-forth on how the chamber should limit bills, end debate and structure committees.

Chair Lauren Lippincott, presiding over the hearing, opened the session noting the scope: “This committee will hear 22 rule proposals today,” and explained the hearing order and timing for testimony.

Senator Terrell McKinney, who represents District 11, proposed removing the current rule that limits each senator to introducing 20 bills per session. McKinney said the cap “effectively stifles the voice of the people, making it challenging for senators to adequately respond to constituent concerns,” and argued the limit benefits lobbyists and the governor, who is not subject to the same restriction.

Proponents of retaining limits and of alternative approaches testified in turn. Ally Bush of the grassroots group Nebraskans Against Government Overreach said the cap helps ensure senators prioritize: “If you’re presenting over 20 bills, it’s hard to believe that you’re really giving each one of them the attention and focus that they deserve.” Timothy C. Melcher, a frequent testifier at the hearing, argued the limit can be gamed and pointed to legislative drafting and the ‘‘divide the question’’ tactic as reasons the cap may not reduce legislative volume.

Cloture and the effect of senators voting “present, not voting” drew the most sustained debate. Senator Kathleen Kauth proposed treating cloture as based on members who actually vote “yay” or “nay,” so present/not voting would not count toward the denominator. Kauth described the change as a way to assign a “political price” to abstaining at the moment of a final decision, while opponents said it could create tactical problems and practical complications for timing votes and ensuring quorum. Senator Lippincott separately proposed lowering the two-thirds cloture threshold to three-fifths; opponents including Civic Nebraska and other testifiers warned such changes would make it easier to cut off debate and could disadvantage minority or rural concerns.

Several members urged caution and recommended more study or an interim review. Heidi Ewing, director of public policy at Civic Nebraska, said preserving a higher threshold allows thorough debate in a unicameral body that lacks a second chamber: “Maintaining a requirement of 33 senators to end a filibuster allows time for the minority interests to thoroughly air their concerns.”

Committee structure itself was the subject of several proposals. Senator Kathleen Kauth urged combining Natural Resources and Agriculture and creating a new standing Technology Committee to address issues such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing and the Internet of Things. She said those topics “are happening with artificial intelligence, with quantum computing, with the Internet of things, with biometrics that we don’t really have a committee that is set up well to handle.” Some testifiers and senators supported the idea of studying committee structure during the interim; others flagged overlap between existing committees and said careful definition of jurisdiction would be needed.

On appointments, Senator Ben Hansen proposed a procedural change to consolidate non-agency-head gubernatorial confirmations into a combined committee report that would be voted as a group on the floor unless a senator formally requests an item be removed. Hansen and the clerk’s office said the volume of confirmations (the clerk cited more than 100 in a recent year and hundreds over time) has made the existing process time-consuming and that the consolidated report would work like a consent calendar; senators may request removal of specific nominees for separate consideration.

Proposals to change how the chamber enforces germaneness and filibuster rules were also prominent. Senator Dan Linowski proposed procedures to allow the body to call non-germane speech during a filibuster and to limit off-topic remarks. Supporters said the change would curb time-wasting; critics said enforcing germaneness is subjective and could chill debate or be used strategically. Senator Rob Clements offered a separate rule that would narrow and restructure the process for overruling the chair to reduce delay tactics, proposing fewer speakers and a leadership-focused response when the presiding officer’s ruling is challenged.

Other notable items heard by the committee: - Rule 11 (Senator Lippincott): Eliminate secret ballots for internal leadership elections and require public voting on chairmanships. Proponents said transparency and accountability argue for open votes; opponents said private ballots protect senators from party pressure and permit more independent judgment when selecting internal leaders. Civic Nebraska and others urged retaining private ballots for internal leadership choices. - Rule 12 (Senator Lippincott): Require a vote to remove media from executive sessions rather than allowing removal by a committee majority. Media representatives and open-government advocates opposed a change they said would reduce transparency; they argued the present rule’s limited exceptions offer a balance between candor in committee deliberations and public accountability. - Rule 17 (Senator Lippincott): Strike party-based composition requirements for the redistricting committee. Opponents strongly contested this proposal, arguing bipartisan membership is a safeguard against partisan gerrymandering and noting that Nebraska’s nonpartisan tradition and mixed composition have limited litigation and served the state across prior cycles.

No formal committee votes on rule changes were recorded during the hearing. Committee members and many testifiers urged further study, interim work and refinements before any rule change would be adopted. Several senators said they plan follow-up work with clerks and staff to refine language, ask for technical fixes (for example, clarifying how a present-not-voting threshold would operate in practice), and consider an interim study on committee structure.

The hearing continued in the afternoon with testimony on additional rule proposals and procedural clarifications; the committee deferred decisions and will consider amendments or study options in the coming weeks.