Court Opinion

ID: 9677646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:56:36.368751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:57.371819
License: Public Domain

Clinton, J.,
concurring in the result.
It would appear upon initial consideration that whether a city having a home rule charter elects the members of its legislative body at large or by district is, just as a matter of common sense, one for the citizens of the community to decide. However, an examination of the decisions of this court applying Neb. Const. art. XI, §§ 2 through 5, discloses no formulation of any general principle by which one may determine whether any particular matter is of statewide or merely of local concern. Indeed, some of the decisions are impossible to reconcile on any rational basis. That examination further discloses that home rule charter provisions of the Constitution of Nebraska have, by decisions of this court, been gradually eroded until, except for the most insignificant matters, the home rule charter provisions are of no practical import except as a source of litigation.
The majority opinion adds further confusion to the subject by its lengthy discussion of deprivation of the right of suffrage. The Omaha home rule charter does not deprive anyone of the right of suffrage. L.B. 329 should be recognized for what it is, namely, a determination by the Legislature that in the city of Omaha a racial minority, most of whom live in one neighborhood, are entitled to representation on the local governing body. L.B. 329 is clearly designed as a specific remedy to a “local” problem.
Sections 2 through 5 of article XI of the Nebraska *891Constitution have slowly been dying as the judicial hatchet has chopped away the life support system. I think our opinion today “pulls the plug.” I make these separate comments in order that the demise not pass unnoticed and so that if there exists any particular interest in continuing significant home rule it can be done by a constitutional provision which somewhat precisely defines the appropriate areas of home rule rather than providing that it be “consistent with the laws of this state.” The latter phrase simply does not tell the court whether the charter provisions of the Constitution prevail unless preempted by legislative act or whether the Constitution makers intended to make some sort of distinction between matters of statewide interest and those of merely local interest, as this court has held, but which distinction it has been unable to define.
There is adequate precedent for this court’s decision. In State ex rel. City of Grand Island v. Johnson, 175 Neb. 498, 122 N.W.2d 240 (1963), we held that the percentage of votes required to issue general obligation bonds was a matter of statewide concern and the state statute requiring 60 percent approval prevailed over the charter provision requiring only majority approval. In McMaster v. Wilkinson, 145 Neb. 39, 15 N.W.2d 348 (1944), we held that an election contest involving the office of city councilman was governed not by charter provisions on the subject but by state statute. These cases seem to hold that matters pertaining to local elections are of statewide concern.