Court Opinion

ID: 9579975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:00:34.934831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:56.486991
License: Public Domain

White, J.,
concurring in part, and in part dissenting.
I agree with the dissent of Justice Wright and its conclusion that the explanatory statements were timely delivered. However, I agree with the majority that Legislative Resolution 2CA should nevertheless not be submitted to the electorate at the November 8, 1994, general election for the reasons following:
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32-707.01 (Reissue 1993) requires that the Legislature submit a statement explaining a vote for and a vote against the proposed amendment, and that the explanatory statement must be worded so as not to be intentionally argumentative or likely to create prejudice either for or against the proposal. L.R. 2CA proposes to amend Neb. Const, art I, § 13, which states that “[a]ll courts shall be open, and every person, for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have a remedy by due course of law, and justice administered without denial or delay.”
L.R. 2CA adds new language to the very end of the above section, stating that “except that the Legislature may provide for the enforcement of mediation, binding arbitration agreements, and other forms of dispute resolution which are *818entered into voluntarily and which are not revocable other than upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”
The explanatory statement for L.R. 2CA submitted by the Legislature states as follows:
A vote FOR this proposal would add a provision authorizing the Legislature to provide for the enforcement of mediation, binding arbitration agreements, and other forms of dispute resolution voluntarily entered into, and which are not revocable other than upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.
A vote AGAINST this proposal would not add the new language referred to above authorizing the Legislature to enforce other forms of dispute resolution, including binding arbitration agreements voluntarily entered into.
The explanatory statement recites the exact language of the amendment itself and does not explain the effect a vote for or against the amendment will have, as required by § 32-707.01. The explanatory statement insufficiently conveys the consequences of a vote for or against L.R. 2CA. It does not explain that if a voter casts a vote for an amendment allowing binding arbitration and the resolution passes, the voter effectively waives the right to a jury trial as guaranteed by Neb. Const, art. I, § 6, and the right to appeal as guaranteed by Neb. Const, art. I, § 24. The voter also waives the protection and use of Nebraska’s rules of evidence and rules of civil procedure.
The failure of L.R. 2CA to adequately advise voters of the effect that a vote for the passage of the amendment will have on their constitutional rights necessarily results in an explanatory statement that does not fairly present the consequences of the vote, in violation of § 32-707.01.
The voting public is entitled to be told that a vote in favor of a proposed amendment to the state’s Constitution allows the elimination of the protection afforded by the judicial branch of government in the resolution of civil disputes arising out of a contract where an arbitration provision is inserted. A waiver of constitutional rights should not be inferred from a silent record.
This court as a guardian of this state’s Constitution should not permit the surrender of constitutional rights without *819assuring itself that those rights are surrendered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.
Hastings, C. J., and Wright, J., join in this concurrence and dissent.