Research dossier · Nebraska general election

2026 Voter Guide

A source-linked, candidate-by-candidate guide using a classical-liberal / minarchist lens. Focus: individual liberty, limited government, markets, federalism, rule of law, institutional accountability and the trade-offs that do not fit neatly on a left–right line.

Last reviewed: October 22, 2026 · Election Day: November 3, 2026

Independent analysis, not an endorsementParty labels and campaign claims are separated from documented actions. Axis placements are analyst estimates—not actual 9Axes quiz results—and missing evidence is marked rather than guessed.
Start here

What matters most for your political philosophy

A classical liberal / minarchist position usually gives substantial weight to constrained state power, personal autonomy, property rights, open competition, rule of law and decentralized decision-making. It is not identical to the contemporary Republican or Democratic platform.

Where alignment is clearest

Market orientation and tax restraint: Ricketts, Pillen and some Republican candidates put more emphasis on tax cuts, markets and reduced spending. That is a point of overlap, not proof of limited government across civil or social policy.

Where civil-liberty overlap appears

Privacy, cannabis and war powers: Mike Marvin states the clearest positions against surveillance and the PATRIOT Act, and for cannabis reform and ending foreign wars. His campaign is suspended and he has urged support for Osborn.

Where party labels fail

Populism vs. minarchism: Osborn and Robin Richards emphasize anti-corruption and accountability, but also support expansive social programs and economic intervention. Independent status does not automatically mean libertarian policy.

Ballot verification: The Secretary of State's official list confirms the statewide races and measures. Local offices and judicial-retention questions can vary by the voter's exact address. Check your ballot on the Nebraska Secretary of State voter lookup before sharing or relying on this as a precinct-certified sample ballot. The guide covers the names you provided and flags where the role is a retention vote rather than a contested election.

How the 9Axes scores work

The nine pairs below use the labels and order on 9Axes. Numbers are directional estimates from the listed source material: the number is the estimated pull toward the first label; the remainder is the second label. Example: Federal 65 / Unitary 35 means more federalist than unitary. These are not the candidate's own quiz scores and do not measure how well they govern. For many local candidates and judges, broad scores would be irresponsible; all axes are shown as N/E (not enough evidence).

AxisFirst pole (0–100)Second poleWhat it roughly captures

Confidence describes the quality and breadth of evidence behind the estimate, not a statistical confidence interval. Scores are deliberately unscored where the public record is too narrow, particularly on diplomatic, religious and cultural values outside the office's remit.

Statewide and Omaha measures

Questions on the ballot

The official Nebraska pamphlet supplies the actual text and arguments for the statewide initiatives. Each recommendation below is an analysis of the liberty/governance trade-off—not an instruction to vote a particular way.

LR19CA

Change legislative term limits from two to three consecutive terms

Constitutional amendment · extends the maximum from 8 consecutive years to 12 consecutive years.

FOR: would allow an additional four-year term before the existing four-year waiting period. Supporters can argue that it preserves voter choice and institutional experience. AGAINST: keeps the current two-term limit and reduces the opportunity for legislators to become long-term incumbents.

FOR
Institutional experience and voter choice over whether to retain an incumbent.
AGAINST
Stronger anti-entrenchment rule and lower permitted tenure for state legislators.

Minarchist tension: Strict anti-entrenchment instincts lean AGAINST extending terms. A classical liberal who prioritizes voters' freedom to retain competent representatives can reasonably choose FOR; term limits are themselves a restriction on voter choice.

Bill historyOfficial ballot statementLegislative votes
Initiative 440

Authorize online sports wagering in the Nebraska Constitution

Constitutional authorization for laws permitting online sports wagers through authorized operators linked to licensed Nebraska racetracks.

FOR: changes the constitutional restriction so the Legislature can authorize this licensed online wagering model. It does not itself provide every operating detail. AGAINST: leaves the Constitution unamended in this way.

FOR
Recognizes adult choice and enables a regulated legal market, but only through the specified licensed-racetrack framework.
AGAINST
Rejects expansion of legalized online wagering and its related social and enforcement costs.

Minarchist tension: Adult-consent and legalization principles can support FOR, while the restricted license model is not a fully open market. Opponents stress addiction, advertising and sports-integrity risks. Supporters' estimate of more than $166 million in property-tax relief over ten years is an advocacy projection, not a guaranteed household rebate.

Official ballot text & arguments (pamphlet)Secretary of State elections page
Initiative 441

Enact and regulate online sports wagering

Proposed statutes to permit online sports wagers through authorized operators/platform providers and regulate those wagers.

This is the regulatory/statutory companion to 440: 440 provides constitutional permission; 441 supplies an authorization-and-regulation framework. The official ballot asks a separate FOR/AGAINST question, so read both separately.

FOR
Creates the proposed legal and regulatory framework, including limits and controls described in the initiative text.
AGAINST
Does not enact these statutes.

Minarchist tension: A libertarian case supports removing criminal prohibitions on consensual adult betting; a minarchist could still oppose a tightly controlled, industry-favoring license regime or conclude that gambling harms justify not creating this special framework. A YES on 440 with NO on 441 would authorize the Legislature but not enact the petition's proposed regime; the exact legal interaction should be read in the official text.

Official ballot text & arguments (pamphlet)
Initiative 442

Fairness for Girls: sex-based school and college sports categories

Constitutional amendment requiring athletic teams/sports to be designated male, female or coed/mixed based on biological sex; teams designated female would not be open to students of the male sex.

FOR: constitutionally establishes sex-based categories and bars male-sex students from teams designated for girls/women. AGAINST: does not add this specific rule to the state Constitution.

FOR
Prioritizes sex-based separation in girls' and women's sports and makes the rule statewide/constitutional.
AGAINST
Leaves more room for existing law, institutional rules and future policy deliberation without this constitutional mandate.

Classical-liberal tension: The central question is whether uniform state constitutional rules protecting sex-separated competition outweigh individual circumstances, institutional discretion and the costs of hard-coding a contested policy into the Constitution. This is not simply a “small government” issue: a YES expands a categorical mandate; supporters argue it protects fairness and opportunity for girls.

Official ballot text & arguments (pamphlet)
Omaha bond · up to $155 million

Public facility construction and renovation

General-obligation bond authorization. Principal identified purpose: proposed combined Omaha Police/Fire headquarters; authorization also allows other listed public facilities.

Supporters say existing levy capacity can fund repayment without increasing the City property-tax levy, and that current headquarters/operations have facility needs. That is a claim about the levy, not a claim that borrowing has no public cost: debt still uses future revenue capacity and carries interest.

Minarchist lens: Require a clear capital plan, lifecycle-cost estimate, alternatives analysis, procurement controls and debt-service disclosure. A strict limited-government vote could lean NO absent proof that the facilities are essential and economically superior to repair/lease/renovation alternatives; a voter prioritizing public-safety facility replacement could reasonably vote YES.

Bond committee's proposal explanation (supporter source)Chamber announcement and amounts
Omaha bond · up to $30 million

Park and recreation improvement projects

General-obligation bond authorization; the city's principal identified project is completion of the Tranquility Park athletic complex.

Supporters connect the project to 16 synthetic-turf fields, local youth sports, tournament hosting and visitor spending. Evaluate those economic forecasts as advocacy projections unless supported by independent analysis. The bond authorizes issuance over time; it is not merely an immediate cash appropriation.

Minarchist lens: Parks and recreation can be a legitimate local public good, but borrowing for tournament facilities competes with maintenance, private sports providers and other public priorities. Compare life-cycle maintenance, usage projections, private contribution, user-fee options and whether “no levy increase” depends on assumptions about existing debt retiring.

Bond committee's proposal explanation (supporter source)City ordinance for $30m parks bond

Measure sources distinguish the ballot's legal effect from supporters' and opponents' arguments. Consult the full official pamphlet before voting; the guide summarizes, it does not reproduce the full text.

Candidate research database

All candidates you listed

Open a candidate to read the evidence-based profile, its libertarian/classical-liberal trade-offs, available axis estimates and source links. The same first-pole/second-pole key applies to every score. Profiles are ordered by federal, statewide, local and judicial race.

No candidates match that search/filter.
Retention, not party election

How to approach the judicial ballot

The names below are incumbents facing an up/down retention vote. Nebraska Judicial Branch profiles explain experience and credentials; the Nebraska State Bar Association publishes biennial lawyer performance-evaluation results. A “lean R/D” label or 9Axes chart is usually inappropriate for a judge without strong, relevant evidence and risks treating legal independence as party politics.

Recommended review sequence

  1. Read each judge's official profile and review the court's role and experience.
  2. Check the latest available bar evaluation results and look at the question-specific scores, response counts and any caveats.
  3. Review well-documented appellate opinions, reversals or discipline only in context; a reversal by itself does not prove misconduct.
  4. Decide retention based on competence, impartiality, legal reasoning and ethics, rather than a party label.

Official list of all 48 judges seeking retention statewide includes more names than appear in this particular user-provided list. Check your address-specific ballot for any additional judicial questions.

Official 2026 judicial profilesNebraska State Bar Association evaluation pollNebraska Examiner overview of retention election
Research trail

Primary sources and further reading

Start with government documents and candidate questionnaires. Candidate campaign pages are useful for declared positions but are self-reported; media questionnaires add comparable questions, biographies and context. Secondary databases were used where local candidate material is sparse.

Limitations: This is a research aid, not legal advice or an official sample ballot. Candidate policies may change before Election Day; the axes are interpretive estimates; and public material for local candidates is uneven. “N/E” means not enough evidence, not a neutral ideology score.