Two Nebraska Republicans have asked Attorney General Mike Hilgers to investigate whether a pair of candidates seeking the U.S. Senate seat held by Republican Pete Ricketts are legitimate contenders or merely political placeholders whose candidacies could influence the outcome of the race.
The complaints, filed this week by a former Republican state senator and a defeated GOP legislative candidate, concern Democrat Cindy Burbank and Legal Marijuana NOW candidate Mike Marvin. Both filings argue that the candidates may not qualify as “good faith” contenders under Nebraska law because they allegedly do not intend to serve if elected, according to a new report.
The accusers contend that Burbank and Marvin made false statements under oath when filing for office, potentially violating state laws governing election falsification, perjury, or related offenses.
Derek Schwartz, a La Vista police officer who lost his bid for a Nebraska Legislature seat earlier this year, filed the complaint concerning Marvin. Lydia Brasch, who represented West Point in the Nebraska Legislature from 2011 to 2019, submitted the complaint targeting Burbank.
“I believe election integrity in Nebraska, not just this cycle, but in all cycles going forward is a paramount priority, and that manipulation of Nebraska’s election laws through strategic withdrawals and bad-faith candidacies is an unlawful practice that authorities should take steps to stop,” Brasch wrote in her complaint.
Neither Marvin nor Burbank immediately responded to requests for comment Thursday evening.
The complaints represent the latest development in an increasingly contentious Senate race shaped by allegations that candidates have been strategically placed on the ballot to benefit either Ricketts or independent candidate Dan Osborn. The campaigns involved have rejected those accusations.
The filings also revive arguments raised earlier by Secretary of State Bob Evnen, who briefly removed Burbank from the ballot before she successfully sued to restore her candidacy. The Nebraska Republican Party previously submitted similar objections to Evnen, arguing that Burbank had no genuine interest in serving in the Senate.
Brandon J. Johnson, an assistant professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law who specializes in election law, reviewed the complaints and questioned whether they presented a strong legal case.
“In terms of what the oath requires, right, is a willingness to serve if elected, which doesn’t seem to require running an active campaign … you’d probably run into some significant First Amendment problems if you required a primary candidate to run, no matter what,” Johnson said.
Burbank’s attorneys advanced comparable arguments during her successful court challenge this spring.
The oath signed by candidates when they file for office states: “I hereby swear that I will abide by the laws of the State of Nebraska regarding the results of the primary and general elections, that I am a registered voter and qualified to be elected, and that I will serve if elected.”
Johnson said the complaints appear to misread certain provisions of Nebraska law. As of Thursday evening, the Attorney General’s Office had taken no action and offered no immediate comment on the filings.
The complaints arrive shortly after Hilgers confirmed that the Secretary of State’s Office had requested his input on whether Burbank could be removed from the November ballot if she seeks to withdraw after formal certification on June 8.
The legal dispute reflects a broader political struggle surrounding the Senate contest, with rival camps accusing one another of attempting to manipulate the field through strategic candidacies and withdrawals. Johnson cautioned against transforming those political suspicions into legal claims without a clear statutory basis. Democrats, of course, simply say that lying about their “independent” candidate is just “defending democracy.”
[Read More: Liberal Changes Mind On CECOT After Seeing Why Prisoners Are There]
