Senators debate striking small Secretary of State appropriation after transfer of Nebraska voter file to DOJ
Loading...
Summary
Senators debated floor amendment FA 10‑36 to remove two small appropriations to the Nebraska Secretary of State, centering on criticism that the office turned over the state voter file to the U.S. Department of Justice while related litigation was pending; opponents said the dollars were needed for staff health insurance.
Senators opened general‑file debate on LB 10‑71, the committee’s budget adjustment bill, with a focused fight over floor amendment FA 10‑36, which would strike two small appropriations for the Nebraska Secretary of State’s office.
Senator Conrad, who offered the amendment, said she and other senators had received constituent complaints after the Secretary of State shared Nebraska’s voter registration file with the U.S. Department of Justice while a state legal challenge was unresolved. “We’re not gonna be appropriating any additional funds to this office,” Conrad said, framing the amendment as both a policy rebuke and an oversight step.
Supporters described the specific cuts: Senator Mikaela Kavanaugh noted FA 10‑36 would strike section 9 (about $70,000 this year and $173,333 in cash funds referenced in AM 21‑62) and section 10 (small general‑fund amounts for records management) and urged scrutiny of why the office shared voter data. “If he’s doing things like that, I think we should actually audit the office,” she said.
Opponents said the sections let the office cover rising employee health‑insurance costs. Senator Clements said the language allows the Secretary of State to spend about $249,000 to cover health insurance increases and that the agency has funds for those costs and had offered transfers to help the general fund. “He has the funds for it. He just needs the appropriation,” Clements said.
Other senators pressed separate oversight and legal questions. Senator Hunt said the transferred file included county, voter identification numbers, registration status, full names, addresses, dates of birth and the last four digits of Social Security numbers, and argued that once the data leave state control “the bell can’t be unrung.” Senator Kautz countered that the Nebraska Supreme Court had denied a motion to pause compliance and the attorney general evaluated the DOJ request as lawful, calling the characterization that the court had not weighed in “factually inaccurate.”
No final action on FA 10‑36 is recorded in the transcript excerpt. Debate tied the narrow fiscal change to larger questions about data privacy, separation of powers and budget priorities as senators moved on to other amendments and line‑item questions in AM 21‑62.
What’s next: FA 10‑36 was debated on the floor; the committee and full body will decide whether to adopt the amendment or leave the small appropriations in place as LB 10‑71 proceeds through the general‑file process.