Governor Pillen Vetoes Bill to End Lifetime SNAP Ban for Some Drug Offenders in Nebraska

LINCOLN—Late Wednesday night, Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen vetoed a bill that had been passed just hours before. The bill would have lifted a lifetime ban on SNAP benefits for some Nebraskans.

While State Sen. Victor Rountree of Bellevue vetoed Legislative Bill 319, it would have kept the law in place that says people who have been convicted of selling or distributing a controlled drug can’t get Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. People who have been convicted of three or more felonies for drug possession or use are also not qualified.

Nebraskans with one or two drug possession or use charges can get SNAP as long as they have finished a licensed and approved treatment program.

With LB 319, people who have finished their punishment or are on parole, probation, or post-release supervision would be able to get SNAP faster.

Under Rountree’s bill, someone with three or more felony convictions for drug possession or use could only get SNAP if they were in or had finished a licensed and accredited treatment program, unless a health care provider said they didn’t need substance abuse treatment.

Pillen said that would make it possible for “habitual offenders” to avoid treatment by opening up “loopholes.”

Pillen said in his one-page veto letter, “People who distribute or sell illegal drugs should not be able to get benefits paid for by taxpayers.” “People who use illegal drugs should have to go through treatment before they can get their third felony conviction.”

Food shouldn’t be used as a “bargaining chip.”

Changes to LB 319 have been stopped before. The most recent one was led by State Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha. LB 319 was approved by a vote of 32 to 17. Rountree said that the veto wasn’t a surprise. To overturn a veto, you need 30 votes, but senators sometimes give in when the governor puts pressure on them.

Rountree, a minister who is on the Judiciary Committee of the Legislature, said that the bill is about making things right and forgiving people. He said that food shouldn’t be used as a “bargaining chip” and that people should be able to get food after they’ve done their time.

“SNAP is a chance for them to get back on their feet,” he said. “I don’t think people want to stay on SNAP forever, even though that’s how the story is often told.”

Rountree said that law officers also agreed with the bill. He said that helping Nebraskans who have been convicted of felony drug crimes can help them regain their honor and have better relationships with police. Only the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services spoke out against the plan at its hearing.

Rountree said the changes would also help keep families together. He said this because, as a replacement teacher, he knew how important food was for young kids.

“This makes a difference.”

People who supported the bill, like Derrick Martinez, who had been kicked off of SNAP before, asked Pillen to sign it right after it was passed. Martinez said in a statement that LB 319 “proves that years of work for change can pay off.”

Martinez said, “This moves the needle in a good direction for not only me but for our state as it works to reduce drug crime.” “This means less of a struggle, less stress, and less overall pressure for me and other people who can’t use SNAP because of past convictions.”

Jasmine Harris, director of public policy and advocacy for RISE, a nonprofit that works on reentry support and habilitative programs, said that the bill would get rid of “another unnecessary barrier to help people meet their basic needs after incarceration.”

An official from Nebraska Appleseed named Eric Savaiano said that LB 319 was also a “huge win” for people in Nebraska who were affected by the “failed” War on Drugs in the 1990s.

He said that extra food aid would help more than 1,000 Nebraskans “better support themselves and their households, helping them better meet their needs and not fall back into bad habits out of desperation.”

For those who are affected by the bill, Rountree said it would show them that “their life has value and meaning.”

Second change to the SNAP bill

Also on Wednesday, lawmakers agreed to change a different SNAP bill with a “unfriendly amendment” that had been defeated before but was brought back to life.

LB 192, which was presented by State Sen. Dan Quick of Grand Island, wants to keep current SNAP income levels in place. If they aren’t extended, they will go back to lower levels from before the pandemic in October.

LB 192 was the most important bill for Nebraska State Sen. John Cavanaugh this term. The program’s manager, DHHS, thinks that more than 4,000 families might not be able to get help because they make too much money if the old eligibility bar is brought back.

The main idea of LB 192 stayed the same, but State Sen. Bob Anderson of Sarpy County was able to bring back an amendment that is very similar to his LB 656. This amendment would stop DHHS from trying to get what he called “blanket” waivers that make exceptions to SNAP work requirements, like living in areas with high unemployment.

This time, Andersen’s amendment won with a vote of 28 to 8. Last month, it failed with a vote of 22 to 14. It had to get at least 25 votes.

After being changed, LB 192 was sent back to final reading by voice vote.

New requirements at work?

During the discussion, Quick said that Andersen’s amendment was “unfriendly.” He was against it and told Andersen that he could have talked to Quick about it earlier if he wanted to help “strengthen” it, which is what Andersen said was his goal.

Quick said that the change “puts barriers” in the way of SNAP recipients who already meet the work standards.

Andersen said that his change still lets six specific groups of people not have to work. It is aimed at the 20,000 able-bodied Nebraskans who are currently not required to work or go to school.

He said that his proposal would “train and hire” people.

At one point, Lincoln, Nebraska, state senator George Dungan said the change would cost $2.2 million in the first year and even more in the second. He said that a new estimate of the cost brought it down to zero because it doesn’t say that DHHS has to help SNAP recipients find work, it just says that the department “may” do so.

Cavanaugh didn’t agree with the amendment and called the “permissive language” “another sneaky way to leave the books blank and unbalance our budget without telling anyone.”

State Sen. Tom Brandt of Plymouth said he wasn’t against strict work standards, but he did not agree with Andersen’s change to the law at the last minute.

Ben Hansen, a senator from Blair, was in favor of the change and said it could help healthy people go back to work faster. He also said about the extra costs, “If the resources aren’t there, they (DHHS) aren’t going to do it.”

About The Author