GOP lawyer seeks to disenfranchise ‘albino unicorn’ overseas voters

A Republican lawyer challenging a Nebraska law allowing U.S. citizens living abroad to vote in the state told a court Wednesday that the right to vote is “precious” — and that’s why it should be denied to other American citizens. 

“My vote is precious to me. It’s significant. I’m jealous about my vote. I don’t want anybody taking my vote away. I don’t want anybody adding people to dilute my vote. And that’s the attitude most voters should have,” Republican National Committee (RNC) attorney J.L. Spray argued before the Nebraska Supreme Court. “I’m here because I’m qualified to vote. Why would I want people who aren’t qualified to dilute my choice for public office or a ballot question?”

The challenge is part of a sweeping Republican push to disenfranchise overseas voters, or create additional barriers for them. The RNC has brought similar lawsuits against Michigan, North Carolina, Arizona, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Jersey.

The lawsuit challenges a Nebraska law allowing U.S. citizens who live outside the country to register and vote there, provided they are not registered to vote in another state and have at least one parent registered to vote in Nebraska. 

During Wednesday’s oral argument, Spray admitted the law affected only a few dozen voters, at most. 

“I know we’re talking about small numbers here. Potentially an albino unicorn of some kind,” Spray said. “But even one vote can make a difference. I think we all agree to that. I’ve certainly been to recounts where it’s been 32 votes, 80 votes. And so if you had 100 new voters who were all voting the same direction, it does make a difference.”

The RNC argued that the law violated the Nebraska Constitution’s residency requirement by allowing expatriates to vote in Nebraska elections. Article VI, Sec. 1 of the Nebraska Constitution limits the vote to “every citizen of the United States who… has resided within the state.”

A lower court judge tossed the lawsuit in August, finding that the party failed to show the law is unconstitutional in all of its applications.

Spray contended that an adult who was born to Nebraska residents but moved abroad before turning 18 could not say they were ever a resident of the Cornhusker state. 

“Article VI, Section 1 is the alpha and omega of the case. That portion of the Constitution sets out the qualifications to vote in Nebraska,” Spray said. “It is self-executing, and the legislature has no power to add or detract any portion of what it takes to be an eligible, qualified voter in Nebraska.”

“I call it the ‘Papa was a Rolling Stone’ standard. Where he laid his hat, that was home. It’s where you intend to return at the end of the day,” Spray argued. “The key to this is that the court has also said, once you abandon your residence, then you’ve completed the move to a new residence. [But] how can you abandon a residence you never had? On the face of the statute, you’ve never resided in the United States.”

Defending the law on behalf of Sec. of State Robert Evnen (R), Zachary Pullman countered that, under decades-old Nebraska case law, residency has a broad definition. 

“This court long ago held that ‘residence’ means ‘domicile,’ and plaintiffs agree that physical presence is not required to establish a Nebraska domicile,” Pullman said.  

Nebraska lawmakers enacted the challenged provision in 2005 to extend voting rights to the children of voters covered by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, known as UOCAVA, a federal law that protects ballot access for military and overseas voters.

Yunior Rivas contributed to this report.