The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled on September 10, 2026, that the Nebraska Democratic Party is not legally obligated to nominate a replacement candidate after a primary candidate withdraws. This decision affects party members and candidates in future elections, clarifying the party's discretion in such situations.
The case arose when William Forbes filed a lawsuit against the Nebraska Democratic Party after Cindy Burbank, who defeated him in the party's 2026 U.S. Senate primary election, withdrew from the race. Forbes argued that, according to Nebraska law, the party had to replace Burbank on the ballot. The district court ruled against Forbes, stating that the party had the option to choose whether to nominate a replacement candidate, leading to Forbes' appeal.
Forbes and Burbank were the only candidates in the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate. After Burbank's victory, she submitted paperwork to the Secretary of State, officially declining the nomination. As a result, her name was removed from the ballot. Forbes claimed that statements from party representatives indicated they would not nominate another candidate, which he argued was against Nebraska law. He cited a statute stating that if a vacancy arises, it must be filled by a majority vote of the party's committee.
In his lawsuit, Forbes sought a court order to compel the Democratic Party to nominate a replacement candidate and requested an expedited hearing. The district court agreed to this expedited schedule. During the proceedings, the Democratic Party contended that Forbes lacked standing to bring the lawsuit and that the law did not compel them to nominate a candidate. The court denied Forbes' request for a temporary injunction.
As the case progressed, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The district court received evidence, including Forbes' affidavit, which stated his long-term affiliation with the Democratic Party and his desire to vote for a Democratic candidate. However, the court ultimately ruled in favor of the Democratic Party, determining that Forbes did not have standing to compel the party to nominate a replacement candidate. The court explained that while the word "shall" indicates mandatory action, the word "may" indicates discretion, allowing the party to choose whether to fill the vacancy.
Forbes appealed the district court's decision, leading to the Nebraska Supreme Court's review of the case. The court analyzed the issue of standing first, determining that Forbes had a personal stake in the outcome due to his status as a registered Democratic voter. The court stated, "Forbes has identified a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation that warrants an exercise of a court’s jurisdiction on his behalf."
On the merits of the case, the Nebraska Supreme Court focused on the interpretation of two key statutes: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32-623 and § 32-627. The court noted that the language in these statutes created a conflict regarding the party's obligation to fill a vacancy. The court ultimately sided with the Democratic Party's interpretation, stating that the statutes provided the party with discretion to decide whether to nominate a replacement candidate.
The court concluded, "The plain language of the relevant statutes is most naturally interpreted to give political parties discretion as to whether to replace a candidate who has withdrawn." This ruling affirmed the district court's decision that the Democratic Party was not obligated to nominate a replacement candidate.
This ruling has significant implications for political parties in Nebraska. It clarifies that parties have the discretion to decide whether to fill vacancies created by candidate withdrawals, which could influence future election strategies and candidate nominations. The decision also reinforces the importance of statutory interpretation in understanding the legal obligations of political parties.
As for what’s next, there is no indication that Forbes plans to appeal this decision further. The ruling stands as a precedent for similar cases in the future, potentially affecting how political parties handle candidate withdrawals and nominations.