In Kuehn v. Evnen, 322 Neb. 161, decided on September 4, 2026, the Nebraska Supreme Court unanimously upheld the validity of two voter-approved medical cannabis ballot initiatives from the 2024 general election. Chief Justice Jeffrey Funke authored the 7-0 opinion, affirming the lower court’s ruling that the petitions contained a legally sufficient number of valid signatures to preserve the laws. [1, 2, 3, 4]
📋 Case Background
In September 2024, former Nebraska State Senator John Kuehn filed a lawsuit to enjoin Secretary of State Robert B. Evnen from placing two medical cannabis initiatives (Initiative Measures 437 and 438) on the ballot. While Evnen originally certified the measures, he and Attorney General Mike Hilgers later aligned with Kuehn to challenge the numerical sufficiency of the signatures, alleging widespread “notarial malfeasance” and petition fraud. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Despite the litigation, the measures proceeded to the ballot and were overwhelmingly approved by voters in November 2024. The Lancaster County District Court subsequently dismissed the legal challenges, finding that even after excluding certain problematic signatures, the petitions still maintained enough valid signatures to meet the state requirement of 86,499 signatures per petition. Kuehn and Evnen appealed to the state supreme court. [1, 2, 3]
⚖️ Core Legal Issues & Holdings
The Nebraska Supreme Court focused on two main legal contentions raised by the challengers: [1]
- Imputation of Notarial Defects (Extension of Barkley v. Pool):
- The Challenge: Kuehn argued that under the historic precedent Barkley v. Pool, if a petition notary was caught improperly notarizing one page, a blanket “imputation” should apply, stripping the presumption of validity from all pages stamped by that notary.
- The Holding: The Court rejected the extension of Barkley v. Pool to notaries. It ruled that while a circulator’s widespread fraud can taint an entire batch, a notary’s role is strictly to witness signatures. Therefore, challengers must prove fraudulent or improper notarization on a page-by-page basis rather than disqualifying an entire portfolio due to isolated mistakes. [1]
- Fifth Amendment Adverse Inferences:
- The Challenge: Several campaign workers and witnesses invoked their Fifth Amendment rights during the trial due to concurrent criminal investigations. Kuehn argued the civil court was required to draw negative/adverse inferences from these silence-invoking witnesses.
- The Holding: The Court ruled that the district court acted entirely within its discretion by declining to draw adverse inferences, particularly given the complexity of parallel criminal investigations. [1, 2, 3]
📉 Ultimate Outcome
Because the high court refused to broadly invalidate entire swathes of signatures based on the challengers’ imputation theory, the math favored the sponsors. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order, solidifying the medical cannabis petitions as valid, voter-enacted state law. [1, 2, 3, 4]
