*Refers to the latest 2 years of journalstar.com stories. Cancel anytime.
Welcome to E-Edition Plus.
This content is unavailable. Please contact customer service for more information.
Already a subscriber? Login or Activate your account.
You've reached the end of the standard E-Edition.
This content is unavailable. Please contact customer service for more information.
5 THINGS TO KNOW
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Paper ballots
Almost all of the roughly 160 million ballots that will be cast in this year’s election will be made of paper. And almost all will be counted by machine. Election officials say without such machines, counting those ballots by hand would take much longer, cost taxpayers far more and result in errors that would then take even more time and money to fix. “Human beings are really bad at tedious things, and counting ballots is among the most tedious things we could do,†said Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Charles Stewart. “Computers are very good at tedious things. They can count very quickly and very accurately.†Still, the desire to have humans involved in the process lingers. Officials in Georgia passed a rule in September requiring poll workers to count paper ballots by hand, but on Oct. 15 a judge blocked its enforcement, citing it as “too much, too late.â€
‘Too close to call’
At The Associated Press, a race is “too early to call†if election officials are still tabulating votes and there is no clear winner. Regardless of how tight the margin may be between the leading candidates, AP won’t say a race is “too close to call†unless election officials have tallied all outstanding ballots — save for provisional ballots and late-arriving mail and absentee votes — and the winner still remains unclear. In those cases, it’s likely AP won’t be able to say who has won until election officials certify the results — a process that may take up to several weeks after Election Day.
R±ð³¦´Ç³Ü²Ô³Ù²õ
Here’s the thing about recounts: They might be required by law; they might be requested by a candidate; they might be ordered by a court. But they’re not very likely to do anything but drag out the inevitable. “Recounts are shifting a very small number of votes,†said Deb Otis of the nonpartisan organization Fair Vote. “We’re going to see recounts in 2024 that are not going to change the outcome.†They almost never do. In the 36 recounts of a statewide general election since America’s most famous recount in 2000, none moved the margin by more than a few hundred votes. The average change? Just 0.03 percentage points. The biggest? A move of 0.11 points in the 2006 race for Vermont state auditor — a rare race that did flip as a 137-vote lead in the initial count for Republican Randy Brock became a 102-vote recount win by Democrat Thomas Salmon.
Estimated vote
Looking for “precincts reporting†when watching as results are reported in this year’s election? Chances are, you’ll find an estimate of “expected vote†instead. The Associated Press and other news organizations have moved away from precincts reporting as a measure of election turnout for several reasons — the fact that well more than half of voters no longer cast their ballot in person at a neighborhood “precinct†on Election Day chief among them. Instead, AP will estimate how much of the vote election officials have counted — and how many ballots they have left to count — based on a number of data points, including details on advance ballots cast, registration statistics and turnout in recent elections. Those estimates will change as votes are counted and more information about the exact number of ballots cast becomes available.
When we’ll know
More often than not, in a nation as evenly divided as the United States, not on Election Day — or, at the least, not on Election Day on the East Coast. Since it took 36 days for George W. Bush’s win in the 2000 presidential race to play out in Florida and before the Supreme Court, only in Barack Obama’s two victories has AP declared a White House winner before midnight Eastern Time. Donald Trump didn’t win until 2:29 a.m. ET in 2016, and he didn’t lose in 2020 until the Saturday morning after Election Day — that’s how long it took for Joe Biden to claim 270 electoral votes by emerging as the clear winner in Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, the sheer number of U.S. representatives from California — a state where officials will be counting mail ballots for weeks — could make for a long wait to know which party will control the House.
Crime-courts
Top Story
State Supreme Court says Nebraskans with felony convictions are eligible to vote in November election
Lori Pilger
Jason Kotas (right) who was previously incarcerated, speaks to
Douglas County Election Commissioner Brian Kruse (left) as Kotas
waits in line to register to vote in Omaha, on Wednesday. The
Nebraska Supreme Court issued an order Wednesday that allows people
with felony convictions to register to vote in the November general
election.
LIZ RYMAREV, OMAHA WORLD-HERALD
The state's high court ordered Secretary of State Bob Evnen
on Wednesday to rescind any direction to county election
commissioners to not register voters who had been convicted of
felonies.
KENNETH FERRIERA, Journal Star file photo
Less than three weeks from Election Day, the Nebraska Supreme Court is directing the secretary of state and election commissioners to "comply in all respects with the provisions of LB20," a law passed by the Legislature this year to restore voting rights to people with felony convictions who have completed their sentences.
In a rare move, the court issued a 90-page decision Wednesday where each of the justices gave separate opinions, just two — Justice Jeffrey Funke and John Freudenberg — dissented.
To find the law unconstitutional, a supermajority of the justices — five of the seven — would have had to have agreed.
Here, only Funke and Freudenberg said they would have found the law unconstitutional.
The state's high court ordered election commissioners to begin registering to vote those who complete the registration application and directed Bob Evnen, the secretary of state, to rescind any direction to election commissioners that said otherwise.
A CLU of Nebraska attorney Jane Seu
Omaha World-Herald file photo
"This is justice," ACLU of Nebraska attorney Jane Seu said Wednesday. "Given the sheer scale of disenfranchisement that this decision corrects, there is no question that it will be remembered as one of our state’s most consequential voting rights decisions."
She said that for Nebraskans who have been caught up in the mess, the key takeaway is this: "If you are done with all terms of your sentence, you are eligible to vote, and there is now a court decision backing that up. Now is the time to know your rights, get registered and make a plan to vote.â€
At a news conference Wednesday held by several advocacy organizations, Jason Kotas spoke on behalf of RISE, a Nebraska nonprofit that supports those leaving prison. He also spoke as someone who spent most of his adult life behind bars for crimes committed while addicted to drugs and alcohol.
“So, I'm 50 years old, and this is the first time in my life I'll be able to register to vote,†Kotas said minutes before walking into the Douglas County Election Commission Office in Omaha to register. “This is a really big deal. I think people who have never lost this right — I don't even think you really understand how important this is.â€
Jasmine Harris (left), program manager of RISE, helps Jason
Kotas, who was previously incarcerated, fill out a document in line
at the Douglas County Election Commission in Omaha on Wednesday.
The Nebraska Supreme Court issued an order Wednesday that allows
people with felony convictions to register to vote in the November
general election.
LIZ RYMAREV, OMAHA WORLD-HERALD
Civic Nebraska, a nonprofit that advocates for voter protections, called it a "big win for democracy in our state."
Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, whose office argued the law was unconstitutional, said he appreciated the Supreme Court’s consideration of the important issue "and (we) are grateful that the court provided clarity before the election.â€
By mid-afternoon, Evnen said he had directed county clerks and election commissioners to immediately begin allowing those with felony convictions who have completed their sentences to register to vote in accordance with the law.
"The Supreme Court has resolved this issue and we are following the requirements of the decision. With our counties across the state, we are working to ensure that those who were made eligible to register to vote under LB20 may now do so," he said in a statement.
Separation of powers
The case largely came down to an argument over separation of powers.
This spring, state lawmakers passed LB20, restoring voting rights to thousands of Nebraskans who have been convicted of a felony and completed their sentences.
But in July, two days before LB20 was set to take effect, Hilgers issued a nonbinding opinion that it and the 2005 law both were unconstitutional, saying the power to restore voting rights to Nebraskans with felony convictions lies exclusively in the Board of Pardons, part of the executive branch.
The same day, Evnen directed local elections offices to refuse voter registrations for anyone with a felony record if the voter had not been pardoned, in line with the opinion.
The ACLU of Nebraska lawsuit followed.
In it, the group petitioned the state's high court on behalf of three men — two from Omaha and one from Wood River — and Civic Nebraska, seeking to block Evnen from automatically disqualifying convicted felons from the voter rolls if they hadn't been pardoned.
Represented by the Attorney General's Office, Evnen's sole defense was that he believed LB20 to be unconstitutional, so he would be violating the law if he followed it.
Expedited timeline
Working on an expedited timeline, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in August, after taking it as a direct filing rather than it first being heard by a district court judge.
Chief Justice Michael Heavican expressed concerns about the relatively short time frame between the case being submitted to the court and the onset of deadlines related to this year's general election.
Early voting started Oct. 7. The deadline to register to vote online or by mail is Friday, and the deadline to register in person is Oct. 25. The election itself is Nov. 5, just 20 days away.
"We recognize the importance of the issue this case presents, but under the circumstances, I am not confident that we have given, or were able to give, this important issue the attention and consideration it deserves in advance of the deadlines for voter registration," he wrote.
Heavican said he declined to reach the conclusion that the provisions of LB20 are unconstitutional based on the record before him and the other justices.
Justice Lindsey Miller-Lerman said she wrote separately, at the risk of seeming impolite, because of her belief that the separation of powers issue in the case "includes not only the obvious tension between the executive and legislative branches, but also the tension between the executive and judicial branches."
"I believe the true separation of powers story of this case is ultimately the preservation of the judiciary’s power, including the power to declare what statutes are constitutional," she wrote in an opinion agreeing with the majority decision but dissenting in how they arrived at it.
Miller-Lerman said the restoration of voting rights by the Legislature wasn't a full restoration of civil rights or a full pardon, which is reserved to Nebraska’s Board of Pardons in the executive branch.
"An opinion that would find the statutes unconstitutional would not protect separation of powers, but contrary to the constitution, would enable consolidation of power in the executive branch. If the statutes were declared unconstitutional as urged by some members of the court, the elected officials would choose their voters instead of the other way around," she wrote.
Miller-Lerman also questioned the timing of the attorney general's nonbinding opinion and Evnen's directive to reject voter registrations, which came two days before LB20 would have gone into effect and nearly two decades after LB53 was passed in 2005 providing those with felony convictions a two-year waiting period before restoring their right to vote.
"Why now? Why not take the opportunity to challenge the laws long ago with available remedies, rather than creating uncertainty at this time? Why did the court enable the tardiness by expanding mandamus?" she asked.
Constitutional challenge
Justice Stephanie Stacy pointed out that statutes governing felon reenfranchisement have existed in Nebraska in one form or another for more than 150 years. But this case was the first to raise a separation of powers challenge to the constitutionality.
In his dissent, Justice Funke said, assuming the statutes could have been challenged at some earlier time, he didn't see the legal relevance.
He said he would've found the reenfranchisement provisions of LB20 unconstitutional.
Funke said all members of the court are "cognizant of the importance of the right to vote and the implications of our decision upon the potential ability of Nebraskans to exercise that right. "
He said the issue didn't hinge upon their views as to the merits of reenfranchisement, but instead on constitutional interpretation.
Funke said that by giving the power to grant pardons to the Board of Pardons, the Nebraska Constitution granted them the power to eliminate legal consequences of convictions "and, more specifically, the power to restore felons’ right to vote."
He said he would find that the separation of powers prohibits the Legislature from exercising the same power.
Freundenberg said it was the second time this year the court "has failed to protect the Nebraska Constitution's separation of powers," citing a decision in March involving a motion for a deferred sentence.
"I unfortunately find myself again dissenting in a case where this court is empowering the Legislature to exercise the pardon power exclusively granted by our constitution to the executive branch. I believe that our duty to protect and preserve the separation of powers mandated by the Nebraska Constitution demands better," he wrote.
On Wednesday, Sen. Justin Wayne of Omaha, the bill's sponsor, said the ruling reinforced the fundamental principle that nobody is above the law, and the secretary of state isn't free to disregard laws passed by the Legislature.Â
“The Attorney General’s opinion is just that — an opinion. It is non-binding, and the Legislature, as the body representing the people of Nebraska, must maintain its independence and ensure that laws passed by the people’s representatives are respected and upheld,†Wayne stated.
The Nebraska Voting Rights Restoration Coalition said its partners were gearing up to help register voters whose rights have been in limbo.
"From now until 6 p.m. Oct. 25 — the very last moment Nebraskans can register to vote in the Nov. 5 general election — our partners are committed to reversing the harm and confusion resulting from the attorney general’s opinion and the secretary of state’s directive,†the group said in a press release.
Jeremy Jonak, an Omaha man named in the lawsuit, said he was ecstatic about the ruling.
"For so long, I was uncertain if my voice would truly count under this law. Today’s decision reaffirms the fundamental principle that every vote matters. It’s a victory not just for me, but for thousands of Nebraskans who can now exercise their right to vote with confidence,†he said.
The Nebraska Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Aug. 28, 2024 in a case that will determine if people convicted of felonies lose their righ…
Trump would be the oldest person to become president. He's not sharing health details
STEVE PEOPLES and LAURAN NEERGAARD
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — If he wins next month's election, Donald Trump would be the oldest person in U.S. history to be elected president. Yet the 78-year-old Republican nominee refuses to disclose new details about his physical or mental well-being, breaking decades of precedent.
There have been limited snapshots of Trump's health over the last year. After he survived an attempted assassination in July, Texas Rep. Ronny Jackson, a staunch supporter who served as his White House physician, wrote a memo describing a gunshot wound to Trump's right ear. And last November, Trump's personal physician, Dr. Bruce Aronwald, wrote a letter describing him as being in "excellent" health with "exceptional" cognitive exams. He noted that "cardiovascular studies are all normal and cancer screening tests" were negative. Trump had also "reduced his weight."
But those communications didn't address more fundamental questions about Trump's health, including his blood pressure, exact weight or whether he has continued using previously prescribed medication for high cholesterol — or even what testing he underwent. His campaign has also not disclosed whether Trump has been diagnosed with any diseases or received any mental health care after the assassination attempt.
That's giving his political adversaries, including Democratic rival Kamala Harris, an opportunity to raise questions about his age and ability to execute the duties of the presidency into his 80s.
"It makes you wonder: Why does his staff want him to hide away?" Harris asked recently as she needled Trump for withholding medical records, opting against another debate and skipping an interview with CBS' "60 Minutes." "One must question: Are they afraid that people will see that he is too weak and unstable to lead America?
Trump's doctors have long been opaque about his health, such as when his team at the White House initially downplayed the severity of his 2020 hospitalization for COVID-19.
His representatives ignored multiple requests from The Associated Press to provide more detailed information about his status for this story.
In an effort to draw a contrast with Trump, Harris released a letter from her doctor on Saturday that went into far more detail about her medical history, including a list of exams and the results. The letter said she has no heart, lung or neurological disorders, is at low risk for heart disease and up-to-date on cancer screenings. She takes medication for allergies and hives. She wears contact lenses, and her only surgery occurred at age 3, when her appendix was removed during an intestinal-related procedure.
While the letter didn't specify her weight, the 59-year-old vice president was declared to be in "excellent health" and to possess "the physical and mental resiliency" required to serve as president.
Still, it's unclear that age will be a significant factor for voters. Polls found that voters were significantly less concerned about Trump's mental capacity and physical health than they were about President Joe Biden's when he was still in the race. Since Harris replaced Biden on the ticket, Trump's advantage on the issue has diminished.
The dynamic is ironic for Trump, who spent years assailing the 81-year-old Biden's age, depicting him as frail and unable to manage the challenges of the presidency. After a disastrous debate performance in June, Biden's fellow Democrats began openly raising similar concerns, ultimately prompting his decision to withdraw from the race and back Harris.
There's no requirement that candidates release health data. But presidential nominees traditionally disclose medical records voluntarily given the demands of the job, particularly if there are concerns about their age.
In 2008, Republican nominee John McCain opened more than 1,000 pages of medical documents for the public to examine. At 72, he would have been the oldest president elected to a first term. Facing scrutiny over his advanced age in 2019, the then-77-year-old Biden released a three-page note from his doctor.
The last thorough report on Trump's health came in 2019, when he was still president. That checkup classified him as obese with a weight of 243 pounds and a body mass index of 30.4, which raises the risk of heart disease, diabetes and other problems. That report also revealed increased dosages of medication for high cholesterol. While Trump doesn't drink alcohol or smoke, he has long avoided exercise other than golf and loves fast food.
As for his family history, his father had Alzheimer's disease late in life, one potential risk factor.
Trump's allies point to his active public lifestyle as evidence that he's not on the decline.
Trump is a frequent golfer and an engaged host during social functions. He takes questions from the press far more often than Harris. He often speaks for more than 90 minutes at his rallies, standing the entire time and often ignoring the teleprompter.
Still, Trump's public appearances are often marked by rambling. He regularly confuses timelines, events and people.
Trump has confused Republican rival Nikki Haley with former Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He confused the location of a major military base. He mistakenly said that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán led Turkey.
Trump regularly acknowledges questions about his age and health during public appearances. On Sunday in Arizona, Trump mocked critics who declare him "cognitively impaired" because he "mispronounced a word."
"They say, He's cognitively impaired!" Trump teased. "No, I'll let you know when I will be. I will be someday — we all will be someday. I'll be the first to let you know."
Click and hold your mouse button on the page to select the area you wish to save or print.
You can click and drag the clipping box to move it or click and drag in the bottom right corner to resize it.
When you're happy with your selection, click the checkmark icon next to the clipping area to continue.