Nebraska Republicans said Monday they continue to oppose changes to how the state’s electoral votes are apportioned, effectively blocking an attempt by President Donald Trump and his allies to change the system in a bid to win additional electoral votes this fall.
Allies of President Trump have been urging the Republican-controlled Legislature to call a special legislative session to change Nebraska’s electoral votes to a winner-take-all system rather than apportioning them by district.
“After careful consideration, it is clear that with 43 days until Election Day, now is not the time to make this change,” state Sen. Mike McDonnell wrote in the letter obtained by NBC News.
Nebraska Sen. Lauren Lippincott, a Republican who introduced a bill to move Nebraska to a winner-take-all electoral system, said Monday that McDonnell’s position means there is no prospect of a special session being held this fall to consider the bill.
In response to questions about McDonnell’s statement, Lippincott emailed NBC News a draft of a weekly op-ed that will appear in the local paper, which reads, “Governor Pillen did not want to call a special session unless he could get a commitment from 33 senators to vote in favor of the bill. That effort was unsuccessful. There will not be a special session to debate the winner-take-all bill. I intend to reintroduce the bill in the next legislative session.”
Lippincott said in an email that he had not heard directly from Governor Pillen but expected the governor to comment later this week.
“The time has come. If you just look at what the governor has said, I don’t see a path forward on this,” said Sen. Marv Reap, R-Nebraska, who discussed the effort with Sen. Lindsey Graham and Trump last week.
Leap told NBC News that while he initially had concerns about changing the law so close to the election, he didn’t intend to stand in the way of Republican lawmakers moving forward with the change.
Leape said Nebraska’s electoral college system was first changed in 1992 in hopes of drawing more media attention and money to the presidential election in Omaha. “You have some senators who say, ‘Well, we’ll wait until next year,'” he said. “And then you’re like, ‘Are you crazy?’ It makes no sense because you’re going to wait until ’28. So basically it’s now or else don’t worry too much about it.”
McDonnell represents an Omaha-area state senate district and is reportedly considering a run for mayor of Omaha after switching to the Republican Party in April following a rebuke from the state Democratic Party.
The development appears to bring to an end months of deliberations by Nebraska lawmakers over whether they can change the way the state’s electoral votes are allocated in favor of President Trump.
Nebraska apportions its electors by district, and the battleground district around Omaha has twice favored Democrats in recent years, while Democrats, like other states, have won one electoral vote from a heavily Republican state.
But if lawmakers change that to a winner-take-all system, Trump would almost certainly win all of Nebraska’s electoral votes.
And there’s a plausible scenario that it could determine who the next president will be.
For example, if Vice President Kamala Harris wins Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin but loses all other battleground states, Trump would win Nebraska under winner-take-all rules, and Harris and Trump would be tied with 269 electoral votes.
In this scenario, the presidential election would be decided in the US House of Representatives, with each state’s delegation getting one vote for president. Republicans hold a majority in the delegation and are likely to keep it, although the House majority could change hands after the November election.
But if Nebraska doesn’t change its apportionment formula and Harris wins Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin but loses all the other battleground states, she would win 270 electoral votes and win the presidential election.
Nebraska Democrats praised McDonnell’s announcement.
“Nebraska prides itself on its long and proud tradition of independence, and our election system reflects that by ensuring that election results are free from interference and truly reflect the will of the people,” said Jane Cleave, chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party.
“Senator McDonnell has stood firm against enormous pressure from interests outside our state to protect Nebraskans’ right to a voice in our democracy. In this election and in future elections, Nebraskans will continue to lead the way by electing leaders at all levels who will stand up for Nebraskans and honor our independent spirit,” Cleave added.
Governor Graham, a close ally of President Trump, met with Governor Pillen and about 20 Republican lawmakers last week to discuss how the state’s electoral votes will be allocated, according to a source with direct knowledge of the visit.
Graham, acting on behalf of the Trump campaign, had been lobbying Governor Pillen to call a special legislative session in which lawmakers could consider reapportioning the state’s electoral votes, sources told NBC News.
Winner-take-all supporters would need 33 votes in the state Senate to overcome a filibuster and move forward with the changes. The state’s unicameral Legislature is technically nonpartisan, but Republicans hold a 33-seat majority due to McDonnell’s recent party switch. But the slim margin means Republicans cannot move forward without him.
Pillen said he has yet to receive “any concrete, public indication that the 33 (state) senators will vote in favor of winner-take-all.”
State lawmakers told the Nebraska Examiner last week they estimated the change had the support of 30 to 31 state senators, meaning they were two or three votes short. McDonnell was one of them. State Sen. Marv Riepe was also thought to be one of them. The Washington Post reported last week that Riepe now supports a change to winner-take-all.
The renewed interest in Nebraska’s electoral votes comes months after Republicans tried and failed to change them this spring. At the time, a pressure campaign backed by Pillen, Trump and Trump ally Charlie Kirk failed on procedural grounds because it didn’t have the support of enough senators to overcome a filibuster.
Since Nebraska changed the way it allocates its electoral votes more than 30 years ago, lawmakers have tried multiple times to revert to allocating all of Nebraska’s votes to the statewide winner. One attempt passed in 1995 but was vetoed by the governor. Another attempt in 2016 fell just one vote short.
Maine is the only state without a winner-take-all electoral vote system, but Maine Democrats have discussed changing their system in response if Nebraska does so, but time appears to be running out for a counter move ahead of 2024.
