I argue for a balance: If rights-based litigation continues, advocates need to seek targeted, focused relief that could actually make a difference. And rather than “green amendments,” we should push for state constitutional amendments that entrench good environmental policy.

Rights-based litigation won’t and can’t produce discrete policy outcomes as it takes place today—as litigants seek unmanageable and society-altering judicial remedies. It’s also a massive strategic error to empower juristocracy by demanding more judicial involvement in policy.

100x as many people see the social headline as read the body of the story! it's *more* important to get it right

Not much is known at this point, but depending on how this plays out, this could be yet another effort by Republicans to undermine direct democracy—and abortion rights specifically.

But if there is no conflict and both measures come into effect, then it seems possible that the anti-abortion amendment's existence could persuade courts to narrowly construe the abortion-rights measure.

Based on an utterly implausible reading of a statute, the Nebraska Secretary of State seems to believe that the Governor has the power to determine whether there is a conflict—which could give Governor Jim Pillen the power to say that there *isn't* a conflict.

In Nebraska, if two conflicting amendments pass at the same election, the one receiving the most affirmative votes controls. But that's never happened before, so how would the existence of a conflict be determined?

I sooooo want to watch it, but my efforts so far to stream it have failed. How do you access it?

It’s so hard to watch in the states, but the Australian show The Hollowmen is in the same spirit as The Thick of It and it’s excellent.

so kind of you!!