Lawmakers vote to limit ‘soft nos’ during final stage of debate on Nebraska bills

LINCOLN — Lawmakers can no longer give a “soft no” against ending debate or passing legislation during the Nebraska Legislature’s third and final stage of debate, unless they have a conflict of interest.
Most senators in the officially nonpartisan Legislature’s Republican majority backed a pared-down rules change Thursday from State Sen. Kathleen Kauth of Omaha, passing it 31-17, but the measure had one Democratic backer: State Sen. Wendy DeBoer of Omaha, vice chair of the Rules Committee. She helped Kauth draft her amended proposal.

All but three Republicans supported Kauth’s proposal. Republican State Sens. Tom Brandt of Plymouth, Merv Riepe of Ralston and Dave “Woody” Wordekemper of Fremont opposed the change.
The narrow change adopted Wednesday will prevent senators from being “present, not voting” on procedural cloture motions to shut off extended filibusters during final reading, as well as after during the last votes on whether to send legislation to the governor for approval.
“A ‘no’ is still a ‘no,’ even if it makes you feel a little bit better about it,” Kauth said Thursday.
‘Present, not voting’
“Present, not voting” refers to a senator who refuses to vote “aye” or “nay” — yes or no — on a bill or a senator who is at the Nebraska State Capitol but is off the debate floor during a vote, such as talking with constituents.
Under current rules, all senators must remain in the legislative chamber or adjacent rooms during final reading, instead of how it is during other stages of debate, when they can go to their offices or step off the floor to talk with constituents.

A senator could still be “present, not voting” during final reading if they have declared a conflict of interest with the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission and Legislature.
Kauth had initially sought to add a “penalty” for “present, not voting” at all stages of debate. Her proposal would have introduced a sliding scale to the number of votes needed to invoke cloture, currently at two-thirds of the 49-member Legislature, so 33 votes, potentially making it easier to pass controversial bills.
If a senator refused to take a position or was absent, they would not count as part of the 49-member body. For example, four absent or “present, not voting” senators could pass a cloture motion with 30 votes. Multiple bills in recent years have stalled by just one to three votes on cloture.
‘Actual fiction’
State Sen. George Dungan of Lincoln, a Democrat, criticized Kauth’s goal as part of an “increased creep of partisanship and politics into our process.”
However, Kauth and her supporters said the change boosts accountability and transparency for constituents, assuring them that senators are doing their jobs and taking hard votes.

DeBoer said she didn’t see the same detriments that others did and listened to senators who said the change would be important to their constituents.
Opponents argued the change could compel the speech of senators or lead to inaccurate legislative records, both in possible violation of the Nebraska Constitution.
“It does not cause any sort of accountability or transparency problem,” State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln said. “To implement an actual fiction as to what happened is just wrong.”
Brandt, a Republican, said he gets “beat up just as much for ‘yes’ or ‘no’ [as] for ‘PNV’” but said that’s the goal, for constituents who disagree with their senator’s vote or votes to reach out.
‘Constituents deserve better’
Freshman State Sen. Bob Andersen of Omaha echoed Kauth that the change would help Nebraskans and that modifications to the Legislature’s rules are positive.
“It shows the continual evolution of a society when you make changes to the current norms, and I think that’s exactly what this is,” Andersen said. “I believe that ‘present, not voting’ shows a lack of accountability and a lack of transparency. And I think for that reason, our constituents deserve better.”

State Sen. Dan Quick of Grand Island pointed to how the Legislature runs committees, allowing Nebraskans to be proponents, opponents or neutral during public hearings. He said senators have that same structure through “present, not voting,” which lawmakers might need one day.
Quick, who returned to the Legislature this year after serving a four-year term between 2017 and 2021, said as an example that he used “present, not voting” between his personal views and those of his constituents on legislation related to the death penalty during his first term in office.
The Grand Island senator said he had told his constituents, who voted to reinstate the death penalty in November 2016, that he “wouldn’t stand in the way of their vote.”
“You just have to be honest with your constituents and upfront, and a lot of times you can do that before that vote even comes up,” Quick said.

Wordekemper, a freshman senator, said he agreed with the goal of accountability but was concerned about how constituents would understand the “no” by means of “present, not voting.”
He asked if that position could be differentiated from whether a senator physically pushes the “no” button.
Kauth said the Clerk of the Legislature’s Office could put an asterisk — a “no*” — noting senators if they were “present, not voting” on cloture or passage on final reading.
Other adopted changes
Lawmakers on Wednesday also voted for two other rules changes to:
- Allow more gubernatorial appointments other than department or agency heads to be consolidated into single committee reports, if the committee’s recommendation is the same. It passed 39-7.
- Require statements of intent for legislation to be filed sooner each session, beginning in 2026. It passed 41-2.
Debate on the Legislature’s rules continues Friday. Lawmakers will consider whether to remove a 20-bill cap on legislation that senators can introduce each session and whether to cap the number of bills that the governor can ask to have introduced on his behalf, excluding budget bills.
