Petition predicament: From paid circulators to the single-subject rule, a look at Nebraska’s complicated petition history
By Fred Knapp , Senior Reporter/Producer Nebraska Public Media
Oct. 26, 2026, 6 a.m. ·
Following charges of fraud in this year’s signature-gathering effort to put issues on the ballot, officials are proposing changing Nebraska’s petition laws. But this is just the latest chapter in the turbulent saga of the state’s initiative and referendum process.
It’s a story that dates back to at least 1912, when Nebraska voters approved their ability to put proposed laws and constitutional amendments on the ballot if they gathered enough petition signatures. Before then, it had been up to the Legislature to put questions to the voters.
Since then, the initiative, to try and create laws and constitutional amendments, and referendum, to try and repeal them, have been used nearly 100 times, letting voters decide on state issues ranging from women’s suffrage and establishing the Unicameral to ending Prohibition and restoring the death penalty. Voters can also decide on local issues, like recalling elected officials or setting term limits.
In at least one of the early efforts, the 1934 effort to establish a unicameral legislature, petition circulators were paid a nickel per signature, Sen. George Norris, who spearheaded the campaign, wrote in his autobiography.
But in 1969, following a petition drive seeking to prevent the state from using an income tax, the Legislature passed a law forbidding the payment of petition circulators.
In 1988, in Meyer v. Grant, a case out of Colorado, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that banning the payment of petition circulators was unconstitutional, and since then, Nebraska campaigns have relied heavily on paid circulators.
This year, officials say they found fraudulent signatures on some of the initiative petitions. So far, seven people, all from out of state, have been arrested. And in a news conference last month (September 3), Secretary of State Bob Evnen identified what he sees as a source of the problem.
“The bounty system has to come to an end. This is pay-per- signature, and that just has to come to an end. It creates a lot of incentives that we've seen come to fruition,” he said.
In other words, the argument goes, paying petition circulators for each signature they gather gives them an incentive to fake signatures to increase their pay.
At the same news conference, Gov. Jim Pillen added some historical perspective.
“This isn't a new fight. Way back in 2008…18 years ago, a bipartisan majority of Nebraska lawmakers took a firm stand against out-of-state special interests attempting to buy ballot access, overriding a gubernatorial veto to institute statutory safeguards against commercialized petition drives,” Pillen said.
He was referring to legislation sponsored by former state Sen. DiAnna Schimek that banned paying petition circulators by the number of signatures collected.
That ban followed controversy over petition drives in 2006 to legalize gambling and limit state spending. Those drives were accompanied by accusations that petition circulators were rushing people to sign without explaining the petitions, and they also produced the phenomenon of “blockers” – people standing near circulators, trying to persuade people not to sign.
Supporters of the ban on payment-per-signature said it would remove incentives for circulators to pressure voters to sign in a hurry without explaining the petitions. Opponents said it would reduce the chances of initiatives getting enough signatures to make the ballot, by paying people a flat rate for not collecting many signatures, and driving the best petition circulators elsewhere.
Seven years later, in 2015, the Legislature reversed that ban. The bill to undo it was sponsored by former Sen. Mike Groene, who had lead the effort to limit state spending almost a decade earlier. Groene said the ban hurt grassroots efforts at reform and favored powerful special interests who found it easier to control the Legislature than to thwart popular citizen initiatives.
Now that there’s talk of reinstating the ban, Groene hasn’t changed his opinion.
“It will limit my access to sign a petition. That's all I care about is making sure (there’s) the guy on the street corner — as many as possible — to get that petition signed. They are trying to limit access to petition. That's the only reason that they're doing it,” Groene said in a recent interview.
It’s an argument that has taken place across the country. Of the 24 states that have the initiative and referendum process, 10 ban paying by the signature, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Such bans have frequently been challenged in court, and have been overturned in Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, Washington and Ohio, while being upheld in North Dakota, Oregon, and Arizona.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not weighed in on the issue.
Among those who have dealt with the issue in Nebraska, opinions are mixed. John Gale was secretary of state, overseeing elections, from 2000 to 2019, spanning the time when the per-signature ban was passed and when it was repealed. Gale said he’s still watching the issue play out today.
“Clearly, I've been following this recent controversy that's come up on the issue, and I think it's a very legitimate thing that needs to be discussed and debated. But I don't know that it needs to be banned if it can't be corrected with some legitimate rules and regulations,” he said.
Allen Beermann, secretary of state from 1971 to 1995, laments the evolution of the initiative and referendum process away from volunteer efforts.
“I always came down on the side of the ballot measure — what they're trying to do — should be important enough that they don't have to buy themselves in. But you know, the cat's out of the bag, as we say. And the Supreme Court made it possible to at least have circulators paid for their time,” he said.
But given that, should Nebraska at least return to banning petition circulators being paid by the number of signatures they collect?
“You know, I don't know. I could really stand in front of a podium and make an argument both ways,” Beermann said.
It’s an argument that’s likely to receive a lot of attention in the coming session, as the Legislature debates what changes, if any, to make in Nebraska’s initiative and petition laws.