Not the best quality, as I had to record this myself, but our government doesn't like transparency, so they bury the recordings of hearings that take place in the capitol and only livestream them. Blink and you'll miss it--and they hope that you do.

I would like to clarify one thing that I said in my comments regarding how it was that Voter ID came to be on the ballot. I said that it didn't happen because of Nebraskans. In no way do I mean to diminish the efforts of Nebraskans who did work tirelessly to try to get initiatives (this one or any others) on the ballot. I myself was one of those people. What I am highlighting is the fact that we need more people like those who are willing to put forth the effort, and the sad fact is that we don't have enough people in our "Second House" who are willing to engage in the process. That is why the only two initiatives which got enough signatures to get on the ballot are the ones that were funded by people who flooded our state with out-of-state paid circulators. They had to do it, because it was never going to get done solely on the efforts of the people. But, for political reasons, they wanted to prioritize Voter ID so that they could claim to be "doing something" with regard to concerns people have about our elections.

Voter ID is a no-brainer measure which we should have had in place long ago; however, it serves more as a deterrent to fraud. In no way is it enough to secure our elections. What people want to see addressed is the use of corruptible software that is being used in our elections. But instead of moving us away from the use of software, our Unicameral instead voted in April to amend the definition of "voting system" in our state to now permit "any software or service" to be used in our elections. Why would they do this? And despite the NEGOP acknowledging that "corrupt software" is being used in our elections, they somehow failed to include in their Legislative Plan for 2023 any legislative goals to work toward getting the software removed from our elections. One would think that if they believe that we are using "corrupt software" (their words) in our elections, they might have prioritized that in their Legislative Plan. Why didn't they? And why did the NEGOP praise then-Senator Mike Flood for proposing the change to amend our definition of "voting system" to now include "any software or service?"

I believe those are some questions to which conservatives deserve answers.

If you are interested, I share more of my thoughts regarding my public comments at the Voter ID hearings here:

* The email will not be published on the website.