The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled on September 4, 2026, in the case of Kuehn v. Evnen (No. S-24-901), affirming the validity of two medical cannabis initiatives that were placed on the November 2024 ballot. The court's decision came after challenges raised by John Kuehn and Nebraska Secretary of State Robert B. Evnen, who argued that the petitions lacked sufficient valid signatures due to alleged fraud and improper notarization.
This ruling impacts the future of medical cannabis legislation in Nebraska, as it confirms that the initiatives can remain in effect following their approval by voters. The court's decision is significant for advocates of medical cannabis, as it strengthens their position and sets a precedent for future initiatives.
Background
John Kuehn filed the lawsuit against Robert B. Evnen, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, and the sponsors of the two initiatives—Anna Wishart, Crista Eggers, and Adam Morfeld. Kuehn sought to prevent the initiatives from appearing on the ballot, claiming that numerous signatures were invalid due to circulator fraud and improper notarizations.
The two initiatives in question aimed to legalize medical cannabis in Nebraska and establish a commission to regulate its distribution. To qualify for the ballot, the initiatives needed to gather signatures from at least seven percent of registered voters, distributed across a specified number of counties. The Secretary of State verified that both initiatives met these requirements, with over 89,000 valid signatures each.
After the initiatives were certified for the ballot, Kuehn filed a complaint in September 2024, seeking to enjoin the Secretary from placing them on the ballot. The Secretary also filed a cross-claim against the sponsors, questioning the validity of the signatures. The case progressed through the district court, where both Kuehn and the Secretary presented evidence of alleged misconduct by circulators and notaries involved in the petition process.
The Ruling
The Nebraska Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the district court's decision, stating that it did not err in its findings regarding the legal sufficiency of the petitions. The court ruled, "We conclude that the district court did not err as a matter of law when it declined to apply Barkley v. Pool in the manner urged by Kuehn and the Secretary." The court emphasized that the district court had adequately addressed the issues raised by Kuehn and the Secretary.
The justices, including Chief Justice Funke and Justices Cassel, Stacy, Papik, Freudenberg, and Bergevin, found that the district court's conclusions regarding the validity of the signatures were supported by the evidence presented during the trial. The court noted that while some circulators had committed fraud, it did not invalidate all signatures collected by those individuals.
Impact
This ruling has important implications for the future of medical cannabis in Nebraska. By affirming the validity of the initiatives, the court has allowed the will of the voters to stand, reinforcing the democratic process. The decision also sets a precedent for future challenges to ballot initiatives, particularly those involving allegations of fraud or misconduct in the signature-gathering process.
Furthermore, the ruling clarifies the standards for evaluating circulator fraud and improper notarization, indicating that not all instances of misconduct will automatically invalidate signatures. This nuanced approach may influence how future initiatives are crafted and challenged in Nebraska.
What's Next
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether this decision can be appealed or if there are related cases pending. However, the outcome of Kuehn v. Evnen is likely to be referenced in future legal discussions surrounding ballot initiatives in Nebraska.