Indefinitely postponed
Change provisions relating to selection of presidential electors ↗
latest roll call: MO 1 Conrad Indefinitely Postpone pursuant to Rule 6, Sec. 3(f) MO 158 Lippincott CLOTURE HOUSE UNDER CALL · 04/08/2025 · Yea 31 · Nay 18 · Not voting/absent 0 (Vote Record)
| Sponsor | Sen. Loren Lippincott (District 34) (Introduced 01/09/2025) |
|---|---|
| Sponsor Ranking | The Nebraska Legislature is officially nonpartisan, and no published ideology measurement of its members is in our database - so none is shown. This page shows how members voted, never where anyone places them. |
| KJV verdict | NEITHER · 0 grounds ↓ |
| Committees | Government, Military and Veterans Affairs |
| Latest Action | 04/17/2026 Indefinitely postponed |
| Roll Call Votes | 1 |
| Source | view on nebraskalegislature.gov (new tab) → |
Brief (4)
If it passes, what changes
LB3 abolishes Nebraska's congressional-district method for choosing presidential electors and moves to statewide winner-take-all.
- §1 changes the state convention's selection from "one elector per congressional district and two at-large" to "five" electors selected together.
- §2 removes the pledge distinction between at-large and congressional-district electors, leaving one shared pledge tied to the statewide vote.
- §3 requires every elector's ballot to match the statewide winner; strikes the congressional-district ballot-marking rule entirely.
- §4 makes statewide highest-vote-getter win all five electors, deleting the language crediting a district winner with one elector.
- §5 repeals the original versions of §§32-710, 32-714, 32-1038, and 32-713 being amended.
Does it do what it claims
The bill's title says it changes "provisions relating to selection of presidential electors," and the operative sections match that description exactly.
- Title claims a change to elector selection; §1, §3, and §4 all substitute district-based selection with statewide-only selection.
- No provision addresses anything outside elector selection, apportionment, and canvassing -- the bill does not exceed its stated scope.
- The amendments are internally consistent: convention selection (§1), pledge (§2), ballot marking (§3), and canvassing (§4) are all updated together.
The case each way
The dispute is over whether Nebraska should allocate its five electoral votes as one statewide block or split them by district.
- For: A single statewide rule under §1 and §4 gives Nebraska's electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the state overall, matching most other states' method.
- For: §3's uniform ballot-marking rule removes the possibility of a split outcome, which supporters may see as simplifying the process.
- Against: Eliminating the congressional-district method removes the mechanism by which a district-level vote could produce a split elector outcome, as it has in past Nebraska elections.
- Against: §1's shift from "chosen" to "selected" and from named district/at-large seats to an undifferentiated slate of five changes how electors are nominated at the convention, not just how they're apportioned.
What the text cannot settle
This reading covers only what the text amends; it says nothing about timing, motive, or effect on any particular election.
- The bill text does not state which election cycle the change first applies to.
- §1 does not specify how the convention will choose among the five electors internally (no district assignment mechanism is given).
- The text does not address what happens to the two currently distinct pledge forms already in use, beyond striking the district language in §2.
- No fiscal note or effective-date section is included in the text provided, so cost and start date are unstated.
Written by claude-sonnet-5 from the Introduced of this bill on 2026-09-13, and from nothing else. It is a reading, not a source: bullets naming a section this bill does not contain are dropped before the page is built, but the prose is not otherwise checked. The verdict above does not come from it.
KJV verdict (0)
NEITHER — The KJV does not speak to this bill
This bill only changes how Nebraska picks its presidential electors, moving from one elector per congressional district plus two statewide to all five chosen by the statewide vote. The scriptures in the standard say nothing about how a state allocates electoral votes, and stretching a verse about just weights or respect of persons to cover a winner-take-all rule would go beyond its plain reading. The bill neither commands what scripture commands nor does what it forbids.
Read against the KJV standard from the Introduced text on 2026-09-13. Every quotation of the bill is checked against the bill's text and every verse is quoted from the 1769 text, not from the model.
Text (1)
- Introduced (new tab) (application/pdf)
Each link opens the legislature's own document.
All Actions (17)
| Date | Actor | All Actions |
|---|---|---|
| 04/17/2026 | Indefinitely postponed | |
| 01/07/2026 | Title printed. Carryover bill | |
| 04/08/2025 | Conrad MO1 pending | |
| 04/08/2025 | Lippincott MO158 failed | |
| 04/08/2025 | Lippincott MO158 Invoke cloture pursuant to Rule 7, Sec. 10 filed | |
| 04/08/2025 | Conrad MO1 pending | |
| 03/11/2025 | Placed on General File | |
| 03/06/2025 | Lippincott priority bill | |
| 01/23/2025 | Andersen name added | |
| 01/23/2025 | Notice of hearing for January 30, 2025 | |
| 01/21/2025 | Clements name added | |
| 01/13/2025 | Storm name added | |
| 01/13/2025 | Conrad MO3 Recommit to the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee filed | |
| 01/13/2025 | Conrad MO2 Bracket until June 9, 2025 filed | |
| 01/13/2025 | Conrad MO1 Indefinitely postpone pursuant to Rule 6, Sec. 3(f) filed | |
| 01/13/2025 | Referred to Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee | |
| 01/09/2025 | Date of introduction |
Votes (1)
04/08/2025 · MO 1 Conrad Indefinitely Postpone pursuant to Rule 6, Sec. 3(f) MO 158 Lippincott CLOTURE HOUSE UNDER CALL · 31-18-0
Yea (31): Andersen, Ibach, Arch, Jacobson, Armendariz, Ballard, Kauth, Bosn, Lippincott, Lonowski, Brandt, McKeon, Meyer, Clements, Moser, Clouse, Murman, DeKay, Dorn, Dover, Sanders, Sorrentino, Hallstrom, Storer, Hansen, Storm, Hardin, Strommen, Holdcroft, von Gillern, Hughes
Nay (18): Juarez, Bostar, Cavanaugh, J., McKinney, Cavanaugh, M., Conrad, Prokop, DeBoer, Quick, Raybould, Riepe, Rountree, Dungan, Fredrickson, Guereca, Spivey, Wordekemper, Hunt
Every roll call as the legislature recorded it, with each member's vote by name.
Sponsors (4)
- Sen. Loren Lippincott [District 34] — primary sponsor
- Sen. Bob Andersen [District 49] — cosponsor (01/23/2025)
- Sen. Robert Clements [District 2] — cosponsor (01/21/2025)
- Sen. Jared Storm [District 23] — cosponsor (01/13/2025)
Committees (1)
| Committee | Activity | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Government, Military and Veterans Affairs | Referred | 01/13/2025 |
Amendments (4)
Fiscal Notes & Statements (4)
- Fiscal Note (new tab)
- Committee Statement (new tab)
- Non Testifiers (new tab)
- Statement of Intent (new tab)
The legislature's own companion documents; each link opens the official copy.
Related Bills (0)
No related bill information was received.
How this was worked out (1)
1. What was read
| version | Introduced |
| file | 01-introduced.pdf |
| sha256 | 339ac937ba7328a2378e119a0a2eb829 |
| characters | 8,403 |
2. What it was read against
| the standard | bills/kjv_prompt.txt, sha256 79671b42553a40fe28a8ac9c8ce9e60a |
| model | claude-fable-5-1 |
| read on | 2026-09-13 |
| the model was shown | the standard -- the verses of the 1769 text, quoted in full -- and the bill's words, and nothing else |
3. The grounds (0)
| none -- the standard does not speak to what this bill does |
4. How the verdict follows
| FAIL grounds | 0 |
| PASS grounds | 0 |
| the rule | any FAIL ground fails the bill -- even one, even beside good provisions (1 Corinthians 5:6), even for a good end (Romans 3:8); PASS grounds alone pass it; no grounds, no verdict. No counting, no weighing, nothing added up. |
| verdict | NEITHER — The KJV does not speak to this bill |
5. What this cannot tell you
Every ground above quotes the bill and quotes the verse, so each can be checked. What the model did not raise cannot be checked the same way: a provision it passed over looks exactly like one that is not there. How often a ground is wrong, and how often one is missing, are not known.
Bill data comes from the Nebraska Legislature's own website, scraped and stored by our own pipeline; titles, sponsors, actions and vote tallies are shown as the Legislature published them. Nothing is generated. Nebraska's Legislature is unicameral and officially nonpartisan; its members carry no party label here because they carry none there. No published ideology measurement is in our database, so no bill or member on this site is placed on a left-right axis: every meter is a roll-call tally, labeled (Vote Record).