Nebraska GOP Backs Mini-Electorial College Rigging Plan

By Ian Millhiser/Think Progress

Nebraska is one of just two states which allocates its Electoral College votes by congressional district — a fact that enabled President Obama to win one electoral vote in the state despite losing the state as a whole in 2008. The Nebraska Republican Party, however, just voted to twist its own lawmaker’s arms to prevent this from happening again in 2012:

[T]he [Republican state central] committee approved a resolution that woulddeny party support to any Republican state senator who fails to support legislation returning Nebraska to a winner-take-all presidential electoral vote system.

An ancillary effect of that action, primarily designed to wipe out any Democratic opportunity to pick up the 2nd Congressional District electoral vote for the second presidential election in a row, could be depression of Democratic activity in the Omaha district to [Sen. Ben] Nelson’s disadvantage.

As a matter of electoral fairness, there is no reason why Nebraska should use a different system than any other state — and, indeed, it would undermine the legitimacy of a second Obama term if the only reason Obama won reelection was a bizarre quirk in one state’s law. Nevertheless, the timing of the Nebraska GOP’s decision to eliminate this quirk before a hotly contested election suggests that it has little to do with preserving the legitimacy of 2012′s winner and everything to do with manipulating the state’s law to the GOP’s advantage.

Moreover, the GOP’s plan to make a solid red state a winner-take-all state stands in stark contrast to their plan to force blue Pennsylvania to give away as many of a dozen of its electoral votes to whoever wins the Republican presidential primary. As Alexander Burns explains, “a voter could be forgiven for thinking lawmakers are trying to tinker with the rules of the 2012 race for purely partisan reasons.”

Nebraska may permit ‘justifiable homicide’ in defense of the unborn

By Sahil Kapur

Legislation introduced in Nebraska includes a "justifiable homicide" clause that could be used in defense of a fetus, potentially offering legal cover for the killing of abortion providers.

The bill, LB 232, was put forth by Nebraska state Sen. Mark Christensen, who fiercely opposes abortion even in cases of rape, as Mother Jones first reported. It would allow any third party the chance to use self-defense as a legal justification for killing someone believed to be threatening the life of a fetus.

Although it may not have been Christensen's intent, critics fear that the language it could make way for legalized killings of abortion doctors, who are already frequent targets of death threats from anti-abortion activists.

"I think it opens the door to something unintended," said state Sen. Steve Lathrop (D), according to Mother Jones.

"I don't think you came in here intending to make those who provide abortions a target of the use of force," he was quoted as telling Christensen, "but I think it may unintentionally do that or at least provide somebody with an argument that they were justified in that."

"It is very disturbing that lawmakers who target abortion providers are again making national headlines," said Nancy Keenan, president of the pro-abortion-rights group NARAL. "Nebraska lawmakers have the moral obligation to protect reproductive-health care professionals who are providing legal medical services to women. We call upon the bill's sponsor to insert language that explicitly protects abortion providers from violence."

Republicans in Iowa have introduced a similar measure, the Iowa Independent reports.

These episode are the latest in a series of controversial anti-abortion legislation Republicans have pushed in several states and on a national level. A similar but somewhat narrower measure wasintroduced in South Dakota recently, only to be stripped after controversy erupted.

House Republicans have also come under fire in recent weeks for proposing national legislation that would redefine rape as it relates to abortion coverage (the language was later amended), as well as a bill that could allow hospitals to refuse abortions to a woman even if her life was in danger.

The House last week approved a measure that would strip government-sponsored family planning funds from Planned Parenthood, which provides a variety of health care services, including abortion.