Lawmaking strategy being abused based on narrow, 1-issue viewpoint

New Nebraska laws and sausage have a lot in common this legislative session in Lincoln. Many people work hard and look forward to the end  result, but you don’t want to see it being made as unpleasant truths may emerge that make it much less appealing.
On that note, there may not be a lot of sausage coming out of the Nebraska Legislature at all this year, thanks to a filibuster strategy that is getting as much or more attention as bills being debated on the floor. It’s frustrating for taxpayers and generally thoughtful Nebraskans to watch, and has to be painful for lawmakers, elected in good faith by their constituents, trying to get things done.
At the root of the issue is a protest over a bill that would ban gender-affirming treatments for minors under the age of 19. Supporters of LB 574 say they’re trying to protect children from making body-altering decisions they may later regret. Opponents say it’s an unconstitutional overreach meant to marginalize LGBTQ+ people. Seems there is little common ground in the middle on which to compromise.
There have been numerous bills and issues in this state’s history which stirred raw and emotional debate, but the ability to conduct that debate in a thoughtful manner has faded over time. That says a lot about our modern-day society, reflecting a growing disconnect with people who don’t share your point of view on issues of the day.
Former Sen. Ernie Chambers was a master at the filibuster game, in fact bringing the Legislature to a screeching halt on numerous occasions to stop bills he opposed or gain support for bills he backed. His approach differed in that he had a way of convincing lawmakers to change their minds, and in fact he was good at it. Like him or loathe him, Chambers was an effective state senator.
Omaha Sen. Michaela Cavanaugh lacks that skill set, and in effect is weakening her position by looking at all bills and floor debate through a single lens. Just last week, for example, Cavanaugh suggested several amendments to a bill designed to create a state office to expand broadband access across the state. Her amendments, aimed at greater transparency, were denied and the bill passed 43-2, suggesting nearly unanimous support for a reasonable, well-researched concept that will benefit all Nebraskans.
Instead of recognizing that vote and extended floor debate at face value, Cavanaugh claimed that lawmakers were not supporting her amendments for personal reasons, referring to her filibustering on every bill in protest of LB 574. Her reasoning was shallow and her motives clear, not a good combination for someone hoping to earn credibility and impact future legislation.
Filibusters, by design, give those with a minority view a louder voice and opportunity to be heard, but the process is being abuse by those who simply want to stop the train unless it goes down their one very specific track. That’s not good law-making, or good for Nebraska.
-- Kurt Johnson