Pick v. Nelson

Decision Date03 March 1995
Docket NumberNo. S-94-014,S-94-014
Citation247 Neb. 487,528 N.W.2d 309
PartiesGus PICK and Wm. D. Dendinger, Appellants, v. E. Benjamin NELSON, Governor of Nebraska, et al., Appellees.
CourtNebraska Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. Constitutional Law: Declaratory Judgments: Statutes. An action to declare a statute unconstitutional is more akin to relief through an equity action than to relief through a law action.

2. Equity: Appeal and Error. On appeal from an equity action, the appellate court tries factual questions de novo on the record and, as to questions of both fact and law, is obligated to reach a conclusion independent from the conclusion reached by the trial court.

3. Constitutional Law: Statutes: Proof. One claiming that a statute is unconstitutional has the burden to show that the questioned statute is unconstitutional.

4. Constitutional Law: Statutes: Presumptions. A statute is presumed to be constitutional, and all reasonable doubts will be resolved in favor of its constitutionality.

5. Constitutional Law: Statutes: Proof. Unconstitutionality must be clearly established before a statute will be declared void.

6. Constitutional Law: Statutes: Special Legislation. A legislative act violates Neb. Const. art. III, § 18, as special legislation in one of two ways: (1) by creating a totally arbitrary and unreasonable method of classification or (2) by creating a permanently closed class.

7. Constitutional Law: Statutes: Special Legislation. The test for a statute challenged under the special laws prohibitions of Neb. Const. art. III, § 18, is whether it bears a reasonable and substantial relation to the legitimate objectives and purposes of the legislation.

8. Constitutional Law: Due Process: Notice. There is no constitutional due process requirement of notice and hearing applicable to legislative matters.

9. Constitutional Law. The constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech is the same under both the Nebraska and the U.S. Constitutions.

10. Constitutional Law: Statutes. In analyzing 1st and 14th Amendment challenges to specific provisions of state election 11. Constitutional Law. The right to run for elective office is not a fundamental right.

laws, a court must first consider the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate. It then must identify and evaluate the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule. In passing judgment, the court must not only determine the legitimacy and strength of each of those interests, it also must consider the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff's rights. Only after weighing all these factors is the reviewing court in a position to decide whether the challenged provision is unconstitutional.

12. Constitutional Law: Voting. Although certain rights of voters are fundamental, not all restrictions on voting impose constitutionally suspect burdens upon voters' rights.

13. Constitutional Law: Equal Protection: Statutes: Presumptions. Where a statute is challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, the general rule is that legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. There are two narrow exceptions to this rule. Statutes which classify by race, alienage, or national origin will be sustained only if they are suitably tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Likewise, statutes which classify by gender or illegitimacy must be substantially related to, respectively, either a sufficiently important governmental interest or a legitimate state interest.

14. Constitutional Law: Equal Protection. The Nebraska Constitution and the U.S. Constitution have identical requirements for equal protection challenges.

15. Constitutional Law: Equal Protection. Classifications that do not involve a suspect class or fundamental right are tested for rational basis.

16. Constitutional Law: Equal Protection: Statutes: Proof. A party attacking a statute as violative of equal protection under the state and federal Constitutions has the burden to prove that there was no rational basis for the classification.

17. Constitutional Law: Equal Protection: Voting. Redistricting serves the interests of equal protection as expressed in the "one person, one vote" principle, an essential element of the representative process.

18. Constitutional Law: Statutes: Contracts. In analyzing federal Contract Clause questions, the threshold inquiry is whether the state law has operated as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship. If the state regulation constitutes a substantial impairment, the State, in justification, must have a significant and legitimate public purpose behind the regulation. Once a legitimate public purpose has been identified, the next inquiry is whether the adjustment of the rights and responsibilities of contracting parties is based upon reasonable conditions and is of a character appropriate to the public purpose justifying the legislation's adoption.

19. Statutes: Legislature: Intent: Contracts: Presumptions. Absent some clear indication that the Legislature intends to bind itself contractually, the presumption is that a law is not intended to create private contractual or vested rights, but merely declares a policy to be pursued until the Legislature shall ordain otherwise.

John M. Guthery, of Perry, Guthery, Haase & Gessford, P.C., Lincoln, for appellants.

Don Stenberg, Atty. Gen., Dale A. Comer, and Charles E. Lowe, Lincoln, for appellees Nelson, Allen J. Beermann, and State of Nebraska.

HASTINGS, C.J., WHITE, CAPORALE, LANPHIER, and WRIGHT, JJ., and GRANT, J., Retired, and HOWARD, District Judge Retired.

HOWARD, District Judge, Retired.

Gus Pick and William D. Dendinger (appellants), registered electors and taxpayers in Cedar County, appeal the Lancaster County District Court's dismissal of their lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of 1992 Neb.Laws We affirm the order of the district court.

L.B. 7, an amendment to 1991 Neb.Laws, L.B. 614, those statutes being codified at Neb.Rev.Stat. § 50-1101 et seq. (Reissue 1993). The district court found that L.B. 7, which altered the boundaries of certain legislative districts, was constitutional and dismissed the case.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

An action to declare a statute unconstitutional "is more akin to relief through an equity action than to relief through a law action." State v. Nebraska Assn. of Pub. Employees, 239 Neb. 653, 657, 477 N.W.2d 577, 581 (1991). Accord, Robotham v. State, 241 Neb. 379, 488 N.W.2d 533 (1992); Day v. Nelson, 240 Neb. 997, 485 N.W.2d 583 (1992). On appeal from an equity action, the appellate court tries factual questions de novo on the record and, as to questions of both fact and law, is obligated to reach a conclusion independent from the conclusion reached by the trial court. See, Robotham v. State, supra; Day v. Nelson, supra; State v. Nebraska Assn. of Pub. Employees, supra.

FACTS

This case arises from a statewide legislative redistricting following the 1990 decennial census. The redistricting was accomplished pursuant to L.B. 614. Based on the state's 1990 census population, the Legislature's Committee on Government, Military, and Veterans' Affairs had determined the optimum number of persons for each of the state's 49 legislative districts to be 32,212, plus or minus 2 percent. Madison County's population fell within that range. Nonetheless, L.B. 614 divided Madison County and placed it into districts 18 and 40, each of which contained all or portions of other counties as well. District 19, located generally north of Madison County, contained all or parts of five counties.

Residents of Madison County challenged the constitutionality of the division of that county into two districts. See Day v. Nelson, supra. In Day, this court held L.B. 614 to be unconstitutional as to Madison County because the Legislature had failed to follow the Madison County lines for the boundaries of one single legislative district even though it was practical to do so.

The Legislature, in special session, enacted L.B. 7 on August 12, 1992, in response to Day. The bill, which contained an emergency clause, was signed into law by the Governor on August 14 and went into effect immediately. As a result of L.B. 7, Madison County was redistricted to constitute legislative district 19, and the former district 19 was divided and added to the remaining portions of districts 18 and 40.

Appellant Pick had received the second highest number of votes in the May 1992 primary in the former district 19 and had received a certificate of nomination from the state board of canvassers. The Day decision, filed on July 2, and the enacting of L.B. 7 on August 12 followed the primary, but were prior to the November 1992 general election. Pick's residence following the enacting of L.B. 7 was in the new district 18, rather than in the old district 19, and Pick was no longer eligible to run for state legislator in the November election because only odd-numbered districts held elections for state legislator in November 1992.

The candidate who received the most votes in the former district 19 primary, De Carlson, is not a party to this case. Carlson filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska raising many of the same constitutional questions which Pick raises and seeking injunctive relief. That court denied Carlson injunctive relief. See Carlson v. Nelson, case No. 4:CV92-3300 (D.Neb. Sept. 3, 1992).

Appellant Dendinger, a voter in the former district 19, was denied the opportunity to vote for legislator in the November 1992 general election because he resided in the new district 18 after L.B. 7 was enacted.

Appellants filed in the district court for Lancaster County a declaratory judgment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Gourley v. METHODIST HEALTH SYSTEM
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 16 Mayo 2003
    ...of equal protection has the burden to prove that the classification violates the Equal Protection Clause. See Pick v. Nelson, 247 Neb. 487, 528 N.W.2d 309 (1995). The Equal Protection Clause does not forbid classifications; it simply keeps governmental decisionmakers from treating different......
  • Pony Lake School Dist. v. State Committee
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 3 Marzo 2006
    ...art. I, § 22, to extend beyond issues involving the right to participate in representative government. See, e.g., Pick v. Nelson, 247 Neb. 487, 528 N.W.2d 309 (1995); Carpenter v. State, 179 Neb. 628, 139 N.W.2d 541 (1966); Baker v. Moorhead, 103 Neb. 811, 174 N.W. 430 (1919); State, ex rel......
  • Ponderosa Ridge LLC v. Banner County
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 18 Octubre 1996
    ...... The unconstitutionality of a statute must be clearly demonstrated before a court can declare the statute unconstitutional. Swanson, supra; Pick v. Nelson, 247 Neb. 487, 528 N.W.2d 309 (1995); Hlava v. Nelson, 247 Neb. 482, 528 N.W.2d 306 (1995). The burden of establishing the ......
  • Pfizer Inc. v. LANCASTER COUNTY BD.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 25 Agosto 2000
    ...fact that other schemes could have been selected does not mean that the scheme chosen is constitutionally infirm. See Pick v. Nelson, 247 Neb. 487, 528 N.W.2d 309 (1995). As long as the classification scheme chosen by the Legislature rationally advances a reasonable and identifiable governm......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Judicial Review Standards in Unicameral Legislative Systems: a Positive Theoretic and Historical Analysis
    • United States
    • Creighton University Creighton Law Review No. 33, 1999
    • Invalid date
    ...Constitution and the U.S. Constitution have identical requirements for equal protection challenges." Pick v. Nelson, 247 Neb. 487, 498, 528 N.W.2d 309, 318 (1995) (citations omitted). The equal protection provisions (or their equivalent) in many other state constitutions have been held to b......
  • Judicial Review Standards in Unicameral Legislative Systems: a Positive Theoretic and Historical Analysis
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 33, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...Constitution and the U.S. Constitution have identical requirements for equal protection challenges." Pick v. Nelson, 247 Neb. 487, 498, 528 N.W.2d 309, 318 (1995) (citations omitted). The equal protection provisions (or their equivalent) in many other state constitutions have been held to b......
  • The Frequency of Redistricting in Nebraska and the Balance Between One Person, One Vote and Electoral Stability: How Often Is Too Often?
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 82, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...or even reliable predictive data, could be used). 102. See, e.g.,Hlava v Nelson, 247 Neb. 482, 528 N.W.2d 306 (1995); Dendinger v. Nelson, 247 Neb. 487, 528 N.W.2d 309 (1995); Day v Nelson, 240 Neb. 997, 485 N.W.2d 583 (1992); Carpenter v State, 179 Neb. 628, 139 N.W.2d 541 (1966). 103. The......
  • Redistricting: a Municipal Perspective
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 31-1, January 2002
    • Invalid date
    ...County v. Ashmore, 635 S.W.2d 417, 423 (Tex. 1982), cert. denied, Ashmore v. Tarrant County, 459 U.S. 1038 (1982). 46. Pick v. Nelson, 528 N.W.2d 309, 316 (Neb. 47. See White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973), and later cases relying on Regester. 48. CRS § 24-6-402(2)(b). 49. CRS § 31-4-104.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT