Elections will be held in New Hampshire and Washington, D.C., today. Find out what's on your ballot!

Nebraska Bond Question, Amendment 1 (May 2010)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 11:07, 20 September 2012 by Bailey Ludlam (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Nebraska Constitution
Flag of Nebraska.png
The Nebraska Enterprise Revenue Bonds Question appeared on the May 11, 2010 primary election ballot in the state of Nebraska as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved.Approveda The measure, which was also known as Amendment 1, allows nonprofit agencies to use tax-free bonds for certain construction projects and equipment needs. Also, cities and counties could issue the tax-free bonds on behalf of the nonprofits seeking them. Bonds would have to be repaid by the nonprofit using them and tax money would not be able to be used to repay the bonds.[1][2]

The measure was referred to the ballot by the Nebraska Legislature. By the opinion of the Nebraska Attorney General, and by the actions of the Nebraska Secretary of State John A. Gale, the measure was later removed from the ballot. However, on March 12, 2010, the measure was again placed on the ballot, this time under a revised proposal, filed as LR 295 CA.[3][4]

Election results

Official results of the measure follow:

Amendment 1
Approveda Yes 129,018 52.5%

Results via the Nebraska Secretary of State

Text of amendment

Ballot language

The ballot language Nebraska voters saw on the ballot read:[5]

A vote FOR this amendment will authorize the Legislature to permit counties, cities, and villages to acquire, own, develop, and lease or finance real and personal property for use by nonprofit enterprises for nonsectarian, nondevotional, and nonreligious purposes and to issue revenue bonds for such purpose; will prohibit the use of condemnation for acquiring such property and operation of such property as a business by the county, city, or village; and will not authorize the county, city, or village to impose any tax to repay the obligations represented by such revenue bonds.
A vote AGAINST this amendment will not authorize the Legislature to permit counties, cities, and villages to acquire, own, develop, and lease or finance real and personal property for use by nonprofit enterprises or to issue revenue bonds for such purpose.
Bond issues on the ballot in 2010
Nevada 2010 ballot measuresUtah 2010 ballot measuresColorado Fetal Personhood, Amendment 62 (2010)New Mexico 2010 ballot measuresArizona 2010 ballot measuresMontana 2010 ballot measuresCalifornia 2010 ballot measuresOregon 2010 ballot measuresWashington 2010 ballot measuresIdaho 2010 ballot measuresOklahoma 2010 ballot measuresKansas 2010 ballot measuresNebraska 2010 ballot measuresSouth Dakota 2010 ballot measuresNorth Dakota 2010 ballot measuresIowa 2010 ballot measuresMissouri 2010 ballot measuresArkansas 2010 ballot measuresLouisiana 2010 ballot measuresAlabama 2010 ballot measuresGeorgia 2010 ballot measuresFlorida 2010 ballot measuresSouth Carolina 2010 ballot measuresIllinois 2010 ballot measuresTennessee 2010 ballot measuresNorth Carolina 2010 ballot measuresIndiana 2010 ballot measuresOhio 2010 ballot measuresMaine 2010 ballot measuresVirginia 2010 ballot measuresMaryland 2010 ballot measuresMaryland 2010 ballot measuresRhode Island 2010 ballot measuresRhode Island 2010 ballot measuresMassachusetts 2010 ballot measuresMichigan 2010 ballot measuresMichigan 2010 ballot measuresAlaska Parental Notification Initiative, Ballot Measure 2 (2010)Hawaii 2010 ballot measuresCertified, bond issues, 2010 Map.png

Constitutional changes

The measure added a new Article 13, Section 4 of the Nebraska Constitution to read:[5]

Notwithstanding any other provision in this Constitution, the Legislature may authorize any county, city, or village to acquire, own, develop, and lease or finance real and personal property, other than property used or to be used for sectarian instruction or study or as a place for devotional activities or religious worship, to be used, during the term of any revenue bonds issued, only by nonprofit enterprises as determined by law and to issue revenue bonds for the purpose of defraying the cost of acquiring and developing or financing such property by construction, purchase, or otherwise. Such bonds shall not become general obligation bonds of the governmental subdivision by which such bonds are issued, and such governmental subdivision shall have no authority to impose taxes for the payment of such bonds. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article VIII, section 2, of this Constitution, the acquisition, ownership, development, use, or financing of any real or personal property pursuant to the provisions of this section shall not affect the imposition of any taxes or the exemption therefrom by the Legislature pursuant to this Constitution. The acquiring, owning, developing, and leasing or financing of such property shall be deemed for a public purpose, but the governmental subdivision shall not have the right to acquire such property for the purposes specified in this section by condemnation. The principal of and interest on any bonds issued may be secured by a pledge of the lease and the revenue therefrom and by mortgage upon such property. No such governmental subdivision shall have the power to operate any such property as a business or in any manner except as the lessor thereof.



Supporters of the measure included the following:[6][7]


Arguments that were made in support of the measure included the following:[7]

  • If the measure passed, according to John Chapo of the Lincoln Folsom Children's Zoo, the zoo would be able to improve facilities and would be able to add exhibits. The measure would allow the zoo and other nonprofits to pair with governments to use tax-free bonds improve certain projects. Chapo stated, "Contributions are down. When contributions are down, we have to be more creative."
  • Eric Crouch, a former Heisman Trophy winner, who sells playground equipment, stated that if the measure was passed, the lower lending rate could save money for organizations, such as the YMCA. The YMCA, according to Crouch, could have saved more than $250,000 on its new facility in Lincoln.



Opposition to Amendment 1 was not as evident in newspapers, campaigns or other sources in the state of Nebraska. Some arguments that were made on blogs in the state included:[8]

  • At first glance, the measure seemed to be an expansion of government.
  • May be a way for the state government to exercise eminent domain.
  • It gave public money to let the state government decide which "non-profit" may use property.
  • The wording of the amendment was too vague in not explaining the definition of "non-profit" organizations and other terms.

Media endorsements

See also Endorsements of Nebraska ballot measures, 2010


  • The Lincoln Journal Star stated it's support of the measure in an editorial published on April 21, 2010. According to the publication, "Voters turned similar proposals down previously, some believe, because voters were worried that the loans could end up the responsibility of the taxpayers. That's not the case. This time the ballot language makes the point crystal clear, stating that the amendment "will not authorize the county, city or village to impose any tax to repay the obligations represented by such revenue bonds." If a nonprofit failed to make payments on a tax-exempt loan issued by a local government, the private investors would be the ones left holding the bag - not the taxpayers."[6]

Path to the ballot

60% of the members of the Nebraska State Legislature must vote for a proposed amendment to be placed on the ballot. Nebraska is one of nine states that allows a referred amendment to go on the ballot after a 60% supermajority vote in one session.

See also

External links

Additional reading