State ex rel. Lemon v. Gale

721 N.W.2d 347 (2006)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

State ex rel. Lemon v. Gale

Nebraska Supreme Court
721 N.W.2d 347 (2006)

JC

Facts

Greg Lemon was a Nebraska resident who wished to place three ballot initiatives on the 2006 Nebraska general election ballot. One measure, the 3 Casinos Initiative, would have allowed a casino in each of Nebraska’s three congressional districts. Another, the K-12 Initiative, would have directed the tax proceeds from casino gambling mostly toward K-12 education. The third initiative was withdrawn. Nebraska Secretary of State John Gale (defendant) refused to process the petitions for the initiatives, finding that each initiative violated a Nebraska Constitution provision stating that the same matter, either in form or substance, could not be submitted by petition more often than once every three years. Gale asserted that substantially similar measures had been placed on the ballot in 2004, which mandated that they be excluded from voting in 2006. The 2004 initiative regarding casinos would have allowed previously barred legalized games of chance, including those utilized by casinos. The 2004 initiative regarding taxation of gambling was approved and directed taxation of games of chance at casinos and other locations. After the 2006 initiatives were rejected, Lemon filed suit, and the trial court found that the K-12 Initiative was barred by the resubmission language but that the 3 Casinos Initiative was not barred. Both parties appealed. At issue was whether the resubmission rule was reserved for instances of two nearly identical initiatives being offered with synonymous language, as Lemon argued. On the other hand, Gale argued that the inquiry should consider the substance of the proposed initiatives and should more broadly bar anything on the same essential subject from reconsideration. Lemon also argued that allowing the bar to resubmission would violate the First Amendment by burdening his freedom of speech and political association by giving the state too much administrative discretion.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership