Let’s take a second to reset.

The next bill will be LB 764.

And we will invite Senator Lippincott to the chair.

Loren, L-O-R-E-N. Lippincott is L-I-P-P-I-N-C-O-T-T. And I represent district number 34 in the Nebraska legislature. I’m here to introduce LB 764 to return Nebraska to the winner-take-all system for electing the president and vice president of the United States.

I’m sure everyone in the room is aware that only Nebraska and Maine split their electoral votes.

The best policy decision for Nebraska is to return to voting for president and vice president of the United States as a whole state. Thank you for your time. And I’d be happy to answer any questions.

All right. Thank you for your testimony.

We’ll reset for LB 364.

— the committee moved on to the next bill, and nothing happened. Lippincott’s proposal didn’t get voted out of committee. It just sat there — until a week ago —

What if I told you that Nebraska could deliver a single electoral vote to Trump in the next couple of weeks? It’s completely in their hands. Let’s do it. Let’s act.

If they do not fix this in Nebraska, and Donald Trump wins Nevada, and he wins Arizona, and he wins Georgia, and he wins Ohio, and he wins Iowa, and he wins Florida, Joe Biden becomes president by one electoral vote.

We need every single Nebraska patriot, and heck, any patriot around the country, to contact Governor Palin’s office and to demand that this Republican conservative governor of the great state of Nebraska gets their act into gear and fixes this.

This shouldn’t be this hard. It shouldn’t take a 30-year-old talk show host and organizer who lives in Arizona to have to fly out to Nebraska, but you know what? Let’s just get it done. Enough complaining.

Good evening, colleagues, and good evening, Nebraskans. Today, I stand before you, as many of our colleagues do, to discuss one of the cornerstones of our democratic process here in Nebraska, our unique system of apportioning electoral college votes by congressional district.

What we do in splitting the electoral votes in Nebraska is, we create a greater opportunity for our constituents across the state to have their voice heard in the presidential process. And that is a really cool thing.

It’s been a thing of pride for a lot of Nebraskans, especially those in Congressional District 2. Just so, you know, we’ve had a part in the presidential elections, you know? That’s something — that’s what motivates people to get out to vote, and especially people from my community. It’s hard, honestly, to get people to vote because, a lot of times, people don’t feel as though their votes matter, or their votes are going to change things because for so long, things really don’t change. And things —

We don’t have to bend over as a legislative body, a serious deliberative body, the only deliberative body in the state, because an incel tween tweeted something.

Senator Slama, you are recognized to open on your amendment.

Thank you, Mr. President, and good evening, colleagues.

I want to take this to a vote. There are a lot of people on both the state and national level saying we should do this. And there are a bunch of my colleagues who argue that we should do this, but when the rubber meets the road, where do you stand? Republicans all too often can talk the talk, but they can’t walk the walk and actually get the thing they’re seeking achieved. Well, here, we have an opportunity to do it now.

Just know this vote, this is where you can walk the walk, instead of just talking the talk. Thank you, Mr. President.

There’s been a request for a roll call vote. Reverse order, Mr. Clerk.

Senator Wishart. Voting no. Senator Wayne. Voting no. Senator Walz. Voting no. Senator Von Gillern. Voting no. Senator Vargas.

Motion to overrule the chair fails. Mr. Clerk.

Please welcome to the stage, Turning Point Action founder and president Charlie Kirk!

You guys have the power in this state. And I am confident that the governor is going to call into special session. And then we’re going to have to work the members, and we’re going to have to do all. We’ll get to that. And the eyes of the nation are on this beautiful state. Get this done, or else.

If there is just radio silence out of nowhere, we’ll do the next event on the steps of the Capitol, just like you guys did with the vaccine mandates. If we have to —

Hello?

Hi, my name is Astead Herndon. I’m a reporter with “The New York Times.” I was looking for DiAnna.

This is she.

Hey, thank you for picking up.

Is this Ernie Chambers?

Yes, it is.

Thank you so much for picking up. How’s your day going?

Oh, very well. Look, at my age, when you’re conscious, it’s a good day.

[CHUCKLES]:

But I’m a little more than just conscious today.

At what age is that? How old are you, Ernie?

86.

OK, well, thank you for picking up.

I read that for most of your career, Ernie, you were the only person in the legislature who wasn’t white. That’s true?

That’s true. And the way I was able to make it — and it infuriated my colleagues, or I should say it endeared me. It depends on your point of view. I would tell them, when they were doing their worst against me, if Alibaba can handle 40 thieves, certainly I can handle 48 white people.

[LAUGHS]:

When Nebraska was getting its split vote system in 1991, do you remember how that came to be? What exactly was the story there?

Well, there was a female senator named DiAnna Schimek, for whom I had great respect, but she had argued that with a winner-take-all situation — and Nebraska was considered red through and through — no other candidate from any party would come to Nebraska to campaign because it meant nothing. So to prevent Nebraska from being a fly-over state, why don’t we try something different?

I entered the legislature in ‘89, so I had only been in the legislature a couple of years when I introduced The Bill. I use a capital T and a capital B when I say “The Bill” because it’s sure gotten a lot of attention.

Well, I wanted to ask about what happened in 1991. You were the original sponsor of the legislation to make Nebraska a split-vote state, right? Can you tell me how that came to be?

I had gone to a conference somewhere. I don’t even remember what it was. It was a legislators’ conference. And I understood that some states were looking at this idea, and that Maine already had the split electoral vote scheme. And so, it sounded very intriguing to me. And I came back and looked into it and finally decided to introduce it.

Well, I guess, why did you think it was a good idea? What made, after you were at the conference and heard what Maine did, what attracted you specifically to the split vote idea?

Well, it seemed to me to be a fair system. And it seemed to me that people ought to be able to vote for the one they thought represented their area the best. Also, I thought it would get voters more involved if they thought they actually had a chance of voting for somebody who might become president. And then, finally, I think I thought that it would bring more candidates to the state. They would be willing to come if there was an electoral vote or two up for grabs.

If the only thing that would happen in this state is that whichever candidate got the most votes would get all the electoral votes, then when it came to a presidential election, Black people and poor white people and the progressive white people need not vote at all because the Republican is always going to win. There’d be no point in participating in the presidential aspect of the election, only the locals.

But when you have the opportunity to give a candidate of your choice one electoral vote, then it’s worth the effort of trying to get people to vote. And for me, it would bring them to the polls, and they’ll vote in greater numbers at the local level also.

What have you thought about the latest Republican effort to undo it?

Well, since that bill passed originally in ‘91, there have been multiple bills introduced in the legislature to repeal that passage. It’s been a constant in my life.

I think the people like it, frankly.

Do you think more states — I mean, you did this initially because you thought it was more fair. Did you expect more states to adopt this system? Do you wish more states adopted the system in Nebraska?

Well, of course. And I had a lot of inquiries over the years. And the problem that most states have is, they have two houses.

You kind of changed history in your state in a big way, a way that I think a lot of people have just accepted the electoral college and presidential voting system to be what it is. You changed it in your state and thus, like, the electoral college overall. Looking back, how does that feel? And what do you think the lasting impact is?

Well, I think the lasting impact will be if it stays on the books and if it continues to be a part of our system. That will be the lasting impact because I think it’s had real positive results here in Nebraska.

There’s lots of speculation about a scenario in which the vote is tied, except for there’s one vote still hanging out there, and it’s Nebraska that makes the decision.

Thank you so much for your time. I appreciate you chatting with us today.

Thank you very much, Astead.

OK, I appreciate you calling me.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Well, can I just first have you introduce yourself and tell me what you do?

Well, my first name is Merv, M-E-R-V, like Merv Griffin. And my last name is Riepe, and that’s R-I-E-P-E.

We specifically wanted to talk to you because you are one of the people who voted for this winner-take-all measure, a bill that would change the way that Nebraska elects presidents. Can you tell me about that bill and why you ended up supporting it?

Well, I’m a big fan of voting by legislative districts and awarding electoral college votes by district if states other than Nebraska and Maine would do likewise. If everyone would play by the same rules, I think it would be a great enhancement to our legislative process.

But because they don’t, it puts Nebraska and Maine at a disadvantage by putting at risk. And in Nebraska, it primarily puts the risk of Omaha, which is the second district — and it has been. It was lost to President Obama and was lost to candidate Joe Biden. It’s known as the blue dot in the election world, and there was fear that it might get down to that one particular vote, which could determine who would be the next president of the United States.

And so, it was honorable on Nebraska’s side. And I think they did the right thing when they went to each district, getting one vote, and then they had two at large. But no one else saw the virtue of that. And so, it was a well-meaning effort that put us at a disadvantage, in my opinion.

What do you mean there by “risk“? Like, I get what you’re saying that it does create the possibility that this one congressional district could, as it did last cycle, back someone different than the state overall. But why is that necessarily all that bad?

Well, Nebraska is a conservative state. If it makes a difference in who gets elected president, that’s an incredibly big difference.

You’re saying that because of the possibility that this district could have outsized impact and because this district trends less conservative than the state overall, then what? I guess I don’t get what the end of that sentence is. Like, why isn’t it just that the people of that district are having their voices heard or whatever they say?

Well, let’s turn it on its heels. In California, if you took it by district, California is not going to get all Democrats unless —

Definitely.

So, same story here. The Omaha area is what I would call a very purple district. And so, that one vote could swing the entire election. And if the other states aren’t going to play by the same rules, Nebraska shouldn’t either.

We had heard some possibility about the governor maybe calling a special session. Do you think he has the votes?

Well, he stands a very good chance of having those votes. Now, it depends upon how strong he feels about it. And quite frankly, to call a special session, the story that I have heard is that it’s about $100,000 to call a special session. So whether he wants to spend $100,000 that way or not, I do not know.

I wanted to ask, to be clear, at this point, you want Nebraska to change to a winner-take-all system. But overall, you are supportive of a proportional vote system if other states have it.

Exactly right. If other states would go to the same system that Nebraska and Maine have, I think it would be a better system because I am not a fan of the popular vote. I think the electoral college has merit, but I think it would be better served and closer to the people if they had it however the district went. That is, what would dictate, in every state, how the electoral college vote would go for that district.

So your problem in terms of Nebraska system isn’t the proportional vote, it seems to be partially because of how Omaha is voting, the fact that that might give an electoral vote to a Democrat. Is that the issue?

Well, I just think mine is consistency, regardless of — it’s just unfair for Nebraska whether — because there’s no guarantee that the Democrats, in this case, Biden, will get that electoral vote. We’ll know that right after the election. But it will be a close one in the second district.

But let’s say this election does, for some crazy reason, come down to the second congressional district in Nebraska. I guess I’m wondering, why is that so bad? Like, that’s literally the rules, right?

Well, it all comes down to making a sports analogy here. We all need for playing soccer, and we all need to work by the soccer rules, and not have two states, Maine and Nebraska, that are playing by some other rules that are just inconsistent. Now, do I want a national legislation that says all states will go by congressional districts? Yeah, I would certainly entertain that. But it’s not going to happen, I don’t believe. But all I want to do is, I just want a fair deal.

In learning about this story, I think about Nebraska’s unique unicameral state legislature. I think about this unique proportional vote system. And it seems as if both of those were kind of born out of an idea that folks should have a kind of local democracy work together, direct democracy implications. Is that why these things came to be in the first place? Am I reading that right?

I think that you’re reading that right. I think people thought that this was more representative. They’ve got it down to the local district. For example, the western part of Nebraska is very rural. We lightly say that Omaha is the East Coast of Nebraska. And so if it wasn’t, Omaha and Lincoln, as the two urban centers, would totally dominate the whole thing. And so it was trying to give more representation. It was probably somewhat related to the unicameral.

So, I guess, my last question would be like, if you all were to change it, would any of you be kind of sad? Or does that lose anything about the democratic, lower d, nature of politics? There’s something lost. It is unique that some Nebraskans actually do have a more direct representation of vote when it comes to the president. Would anything be lost by taking that away?

Well, if it’s lost, it’s lost to 48 other states who don’t recognize it as having merit. For the state of Nebraska, I think probably the response would be, we gave it one heck of a try, and now it’s time to move on. As they say, very few things last forever.

Thank you so much, senator. I appreciate your time, and thanks for chatting with us.

Thank you. Bye.

I always have been in favor of winner-take-all. We changed this several decades ago. And I thought it was a mistake then, and I still do now. And so that was the reason that I voted to change it back. If the majority of the people in the state vote one way, that’s the way the electoral vote should go.

In some ways, I totally get what you’re saying because as you mentioned, most other states work like this, right? But one of the reasons Nebraska shifted to this was to give people more diversity of voices and a chance to actually affect the election on both sides. In advocating for it to return to winner-take-all, is there any part of you that feels like uncomfortable with the fact that would be removing maybe people’s voice and ability to affect the election?

No, not at all.

Why not?

But you asked me if I feel that way. I don’t feel that way. If the vast majority of the state voters vote one way, then I think the whole state should be the same. So I’m totally in favor of WTA. And I’m not taking into consideration that it’s not considering those other votes. I think the majority rule.

I get what you’re saying in terms of the proportional vote in the electoral college causes an artificial sense of power from the minority. I guess I’m saying, isn’t that how some folks argue government should work? Like, people in the minority should also get to have voice? I guess, I’m saying, does that come into your perspective in any way?

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, they have their voice. And once you’ve shared your opinion and then we vote and then the majority rules, that’s it. That’s plain and simple. Now, those may be your opinions. You asked what mine was, and mine is what I said it was. I’m not changing it.

Cool. I only ask, again, to push to clarity. So you’ve been clear, and I appreciate your time on that. What was your reaction when you heard Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump weigh in on this issue last week?

Well, I thought it was appropriate. I think the issue is this. If we come down to Nebraska’s one electoral vote deciding the issue, we’ve got greater problems than WTA in Nebraska.

What do you mean? Can you be more specific?

Well, I mean, if Donald Trump doesn’t win this thing hands down with a guy like Sloppy Joe, I don’t know if we’ll ever get a fair and true election again. It’s quite obvious that the country is going the wrong way. And anybody with any kind of common sense at all would say that they agree with me.

I don’t know how anybody in their right mind could vote for another four years of Joe Biden. And so, that’s my situation. That’s my opinion, is, if it comes down to this one electoral vote, we got far greater problems in this country than I thought because people don’t understand the reality of what’s happening.

So if you’re Charlie Kirk or President Trump, it seems like the pressure point now is the special session?

Yeah. Well, here’s what I think happens, all right? I think this publicity that they’re giving to WTA is important in this regard because if we have a special session, the education process and the information that they’re going to distribute is important. And so, consequently, when they come and they talk about the reasons why we need WTA, all of a sudden, that becomes front and foremost in people’s minds.

And if we get ready to do a special session, if that’s what we do, that education or that publicity is not wasted. It’s very good information to have in the public’s view, so that they understand what we’re trying to do. So even though we may not get it in these last four days, I think that still brings it to the forefront for people to consider why we’re doing it.

You’re saying it still pushes it into the consciousness, and for you, you still think that education is good.

Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah.

Thank you, senator. I really appreciate your time.

I had a guy tell me once, and I had a guy tell me once — all publicity is good publicity, even bad publicity.

Was that guy Donald Trump? It sounds like him.

No, it was [INAUDIBLE]. It was [INAUDIBLE].

Many people have asked me what my position is on abortion and abortion rights, especially since I was proudly the person responsible for the ending of something that all legal scholars both sides wanted and, in fact, demanded be ended — Roe v. Wade.

My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both. And whatever they decide must be the law of the land, in this case, the law of the state.

You must follow your heart on this issue. But remember, you must also win elections to restore our culture, and in fact, to save our country, which is currently and, very sadly, a nation in decline.

Hello, Wisconsin.

Hello, hello, hello.

Today, I’m proud to announce five major actions to continue to relieve student debt from more than 30 million Americans.

Tens of millions of people’s debt was literally about to get canceled, but then some of my Republican friends and elected officials and special interests sued us. And the Supreme Court blocked us. But that didn’t — well, that didn’t stop us.