Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

207 Neb. 513

300 N.W.2d 6

Cunningham v. Exon

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided December 19, 1980

Nebraska Supreme Court · decided 1980-12-19

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1994

4 state decisions

Relies on Ex Parte Tipton v. Smith · Lane v. Lukens · Opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court Given Under the Provisions of Section 3 of Article VI of the Constitution

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1980-12-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Boslaugh, J.,

¶1concurring in part and, in part, dissenting.

¶2The Constitution of Nebraska may be amended by legislative proposals approved by the electorate, but this procedure requires submission of a definite proposal for approval or rejection by the voters.

¶31976 Neb. Laws, L.B. 666, proposed two amendments to art. VII of the Constitution. Section 11 was to be amended by adding language and deleting language; and a new section to be known as § 11A was to be added to art. VII. The two proposals were submitted separately.

¶4It is unfortunate that the proposal to amend § 11, as printed on the ballot, described only a part of the proposed amendment. In such a case, it seems to me that the proposal was not fairly submitted and should be held to have failed of adoption.

¶5The question prepared by the Legislature for submission to the electorate forms no part of the amendment, and an amendment presented to the voters by means of a question which is clearly misleading is void and of no effect. Opinion of the Justices, 283 A.2d 234 (Me. 1971). The Legislature cannot propose one question and submit to the voters another. Lane v. Lukens, 48 Idaho 517, 283 P. 532 (1929). See, also, Ex parte Tipton, 229 S.C. 471, 93 S.E.2d 640 (1956).

/207/neb/513 · .json · Public domain