Jump to content

Talk:Pete Ricketts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion/Merge

[edit]

Removing prod because US senate race is not Non-notable. Nebraska United States Senate election, 2006 has its own article. - Jc37 13:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although that's true, political candidates are generally non-notable to begin with. The race is noteworthy, but the candidates are not until they win. This article should therefore be merged into the race's page. Vectro 03:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • shouldn't you place a "merge from" tag in the destination article as well? Also, shouldn't the previous comment go on the talk page of the destination article? I placed a comment on the discussion, but it looks strange sitting there by itself when there are no merge tags sitting on that page. Alienmercy 16:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The guy gets 75,000+ hits on Google and is the former COO of Ameritrade. Either way, he's notable in his own right. 1ne 19:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Petericketts.gif

[edit]

Image:Petericketts.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pete Ricketts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, these two archived URLs didn't work. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Pete Ricketts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, these didn't work. I don't know what the exact issue is. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pete Ricketts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome of petition lawsuit

[edit]

Urutine32 and I differ on the account of the outcome of a lawsuit that sought to kill the 2015 restore-capital-punishment petition drive on the grounds that Ricketts, who had been a major contributor to the drive, should have been included in the list of petition sponsors required by Nebraska law. Our different descriptions are shown in this diff, wherein Urutine reverted my version. We're both relying on the same two stories in major Nebraska newspapers: [1] and [2], cited at the end of the paragraph in question.

I think that Urutine is discounting the critical part of Judge Maret's ruling: that requiring major supporters, financial and otherwise, of a petition to be listed as sponsors would have "a potentially chilling effect" [Maret's words] on people's participation in referendum efforts. (This is in the 7th-last paragraph of the Omaha World-Herald story, and the 14th paragraph of the Lincoln Journal Star piece.) Maret is saying that such support does not equate to sponsorship, and thus does not make supporters liable for the actions of petition organizers.

Note also that this is an article about Pete Ricketts, not about the initiative-and-referendum process in Nebraska. This was the case with Maret's ruling, as well: to the best of my knowledge, it only addresses this particular case, and doesn't establish any kind of precedent that might bind judges in similar cases. Maret notes that "sponsor" is not well defined in the letter of the law, or by any ruling of the Nebraska Supreme Court; she cites a concurring opinion in a 2003 Supreme Court case rather than an opinion of the full court. In view of this, I think that my original language, which was specifically about Ricketts and not about Nebraska petition law in general, is to be preferred. — Ammodramus (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your writing gives the plaintiff's definition of a sponsor, but you remove the judge's definition. Why ? I believe the judge's définition is equally relevant, if not more. Urutine32 (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have neither the plaintiff's definition of a sponsor nor the judge's. In paragraph 8 of the Journal-Star story, it's expressly stated that the plaintiffs didn't suggest a definition of the term; they only say that the extent of Ricketts's support for the petition made him one. Nor do we have anything stating that Maret attempted to define it: she only said that the inclusion of a list of people willing to accept statutory responsibility satisfied the sponsor-list requirement, and that major financial backers were not necessarily sponsors. Per the World-Herald piece, "She rejected what she saw as the primary argument by death penalty opponents: that anyone who strongly advocates or financially supports a petition drive is a sponsor." This negative statement is all that we can safely report about the definition of the term.
Moreover, this is an article about Pete Ricketts, not about the initiative-and-referendum process in Nebraska. It's appropriate to say how the ruling applies to Ricketts, but we shouldn't generalize beyond that, especially in view of the fact that Maret's ruling presumably doesn't create a precedent that would bind judges in other petition cases.
I've tried to find the text of Maret's ruling online, but my Googling powers apparently aren't equal to the task. The closest I can come is Nebraska Trial Courts Case Online Search, which will charge me $15 for a search; then, if I want to read the court document, I apparently have to shell out an additional fifty-bucks-per-annum subscription fee. — Ammodramus (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is basically "they haven't given a definition, they only say a sponsor is ...". Bad faith. And no matter the ruling "doesn't create a precedent", it is still more important than the plaintiff's arguments you haven't removed. It is also more important with respect to Ricketts.
Indeed the source says : "'Sponsor,' he said, refers to those who assume statutory responsibility for the referendum once the petition begins. In an 11-page order, Maret said she was persuaded by the argument". Urutine32 (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My writing itself in the article doesn't use the word "definition". It merely repeats respective arguments from the plaintiff and the judge. And you, you remove the judge's arguments, but not the plaintiff's ones. Why ? Urutine32 (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the claim of "bad faith" is justified. It's possible to say "X is a sponsor" without giving a strict definition of sponsorship; I think that the plaintiffs would say that Ricketts's level of support satisfied a sufficient condition for sponsorship, whereas a definition would also need to include a necessary condition (e.g., the minimum amount of support that it takes to make someone a sponsor).
We need to give a brief explanation of the plaintiff's argument so that readers will know what the suit had to do with Ricketts. We don't need to discuss the respondent's arguments for what a sponsor is, because they don't bear directly on Ricketts. It suffices to say that the judge rejected the plaintiff's argument re. Ricketts. More detail about the petition process is tangential to an article about Ricketts, and should be avoided in the interest of succinctness. — Ammodramus (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The judge's argument will always be more important with respect to Ricketts than the plaintiff's argument. That's all. Urutine32 (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either we remove the two arguments or we maintain both. Urutine32 (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In your writing, the description of the judge's ruling is even an occasion to write a second time the plaintiff's argument, and you call this a compromise to avoid being "tangential" ! So yes, bad faith. Urutine32 (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to present both sides of the lawsuit, which was directed primarily at the capital-punishment petition. It suffices to say how the lawsuit related to Ricketts, which was via the plaintiffs' argument, and to note that the judge rejected this argument. The details I'm removing would be acceptable in an article on capital punishment in Nebraska, or in one on the initiative-and-referendum process in Nebraska. However, in an article on Ricketts, they're only a distraction. — Ammodramus (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The judge's argument will always be more important with respect to Ricketts than the plaintiff's argument. That's all. Your whole argument in the contrary sense is mere petitio principii. Urutine32 (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the text of the ruling, linked from the World-Herald article, and I've added a citation to it. I don't know if I managed to overlook it on my previous reads through the article, or if the World-Herald added it very recently. I'd like to believe the latter, but...
The judge makes at least three different arguments in the ruling:
  • Following the concurring opinion by the chief justice in Loontjer v. Robinson: the requirement for a sworn list of sponsors exists so that those legally responsible for the petition can be identified and contacted.
  • An earlier version of the law in question required that financial supporters of a petition be reported to the Secretary of State; the legislature eliminated this requirement and replaced it with a report to the state Accountability and Disclosure Commission.
  • Adopting the plaintiffs' interpretation of the law would tend to dissuade citizen participation in referendum efforts, since supporters and financial contributors would "risk being caught within the ambit of the sponsorship provision" and stuck with statutory responsibilities that they neither sought nor expected, and that they were unwilling to assume.
The third of these seems the most relevant to Ricketts; the second explains why the law apparently doesn't require the names of supporters like Ricketts to be filed with the Secretary of State. The first explains why the petition's organizers have satisfied the legal requirement, which would be very relevant to an article on initiative and referendum in Nebraska, but is tangential to an article on Ricketts, who was not a party to the lawsuit.
I don't see a need to explain the outcome in this much detail, again because the article is about Ricketts and not about capital punishment in Nebraska or about the initiative-and-referendum process in the state. It suffices to give a brief explanation of the plaintiffs' argument (necessaary, since that explains the connection to Ricketts), and to state that the judge found their interpretation of the law erroneous. I've added a quote from the judge to that effect. — Ammodramus (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, this argument has very much to do with Ricketts, because it answer the plaintiff argument (that you haven't removed) and explain why Ricketts hasn't violated any law: he does not assume statutory responsibility for the referendum. Urutine32 (talk) 08:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of outside readers newly arrived at this discussion: I've offered a number of alternative constructions, none of which Urutine32 has found acceptable. My latest is at this diff.
No one has suggested that Ricketts violated the law. He is not named in the suit: the defendants are the Nebraska secretary of state, Nebraskans for the Death Penalty, and the three individuals whose names appeared on the sworn list of sponsors filed with the secretary of state, none of whom is Ricketts.
I'm perplexed by Urutine's insistence that we remove the plaintiffs' argument, since that's the only thing that connects the suit to Ricketts. I do not believe that NPOV requires us to describe the defendants' argument; it suffices to say that the judge found the plaintiffs' interpretation of the law "erroneous", which we've done by including a quote from the ruling. Moreover, as I've noted in my comment immediately before this one, the judge put forth three arguments against the plaintiffs' interpretation. While I think that the inclusion of any of them would be a digression from the subject of this article, Urutine seems to favor the one that has the least connection to Ricketts. — Ammodramus (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not merely the defendant argument, it is the judge argument; and it answer the plaintiff one and will always be more important. Saying that it doesn't relate to Ricketts because it also relate to other subjects is a logical fallacy. The sole issue of the suit was whether Ricketts was a sponsor or not. Urutine32 (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You say "He is not named in the suit", but to the contrary "Governor Ricketts" appear many times in the ruling. Urutine32 (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By "not named in the suit", I meant "not named as a defendant", in response to Urutine's argument that we need to "explain why Ricketts hasn't violated any law". I apologize for not phrasing this more clearly.

The judge's acceptance of the defendants' definition of "sponsor" justifies her conclusion that the petition's managers had satisfied the law's sponsor-list requirement. Her judgement that major financial contributors and supporters, such as Ricketts, should not automatically be considered sponsors for purposes of the law rests on other arguments: the "chilling effect" on citizen participation in refendum drives, and the fact that the legislature had removed the requirement that financial contributions be reported to the secretary of state. I do not believe that we need to explain the decision in that much detail, and that it's enough to say that the judge rejected the interpretation of the law put forth by the plaintiffs; but if it were appropriate to go into more detail, these two arguments, which bear directly on Ricketts's situation, matter more than the definition of sponsorship, which applies chiefly to the question of whether the petition's managers had complied with the law in question. — Ammodramus (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Her judgement that major financial contributors and supporters, such as Ricketts, should not automatically be considered sponsors for purposes of the law rests on other arguments" but that also true for the plaintiff, they also say that it is the "purpose" of the statute to disclose major financial contributors, for example.
And to the contrary, the first argument bear more on Ricketts situation than the two others, because it explains why Ricketts is not a sponsor, while the two others relate to initiative and referendum (an issue yourself called "tangential" to this article) and legislative history. Urutine32 (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a third opinion here. Urutine and I both appear to be repeating ourselves. My position is that Ricketts was a target of opportunity in the lawsuit in question, and that we don't need to discuss the law and the suit in detail; we only need to say that the plaintiffs put forth an interpretation of the law whereunder Ricketts had to be listed as a sponsor, and the judge found their interpretation erroneous. I think that this is best accomplished by the quote from the judge's ruling that I've inserted.
Urutine's reasoning is less clear to me: s/he's repeatedly said that the definition of "sponsor" put forth by some of the defendants and found convincing by the judge is critical to the Ricketts article, but hasn't really offered a reason for it: just the repeated assertion. I also get the impression that s/he thinks that NPOV calls for us to include these defendants' interpretation of the law along with the plaintiffs'. I disagree: the suit is not the subject of the article; Ricketts was not one of the defendants and, as far as I've been able to discover, no brief was filed on his behalf. It's also not necessary for readers to make up their minds on the merits of the suit, since the judge explicitly ruled against the plaintiffs' interpretation. This negative fact seems to have more bearing on Ricketts than whatever definition of "sponsor" the courts might finally adopt.
Urutine, could you look at WP:3O and see if this is a reasonable course to follow? It looks like this is just the sort of situation in which it would be applicable: there're only two of us participating in this discussion, and we've both discussed it at considerable length and reached what appears to be an impasse. If you're willing to abide by a third opinion thus solicited, leave a note here and I'll launch the process. — Ammodramus (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to me, you didn't awaited 10 days being unreplied before reverting me.
You provided no convincing explanation of why the judge definition is less revelant with respect to Ricketts than the plaintiff one. The only effect of your writing is to favor the latter.
Yes, I support a third option. Urutine32 (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added our disagreement to the list at WP:3O. — Ammodramus (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Without the judge definition, people will ask themselves "why this judge says it's erroneous despite that Ricketts has so much contributed?" Urutine32 (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I won't add anything further to this discussion until a third opinion arrives, or until we're dropped from the third-opinion list; we've already given our hoped-for third-opinion provider plenty to read through. — Ammodramus (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No bites at WP:3O; I've re-listed it. — Ammodramus (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
Here's my understanding of the case. The plaintiffs argue that the petition is invalid: they say Ricketts is a sponsor but his name doesn't appear on the sworn statement. If so, that'd contravene the statute. The defendants move to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs have founded their case on the wrong interpretation of "sponsor". Justice Maret finds that a sponsor is one who is willing to assume statutory duties once the initiative begins. Since the plaintiffs have effectively used the wrong meaning of "sponsor", no amount of facts could possibly rectify this legal defect. The defendants' motion to dismiss is thus successful.

I'd like to summarize what I think are the main points you've both raised. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Ammodramus, do you think that the application of of the ratio decidendi to Ricketts is the most important thing to report? Put another way, is it your preference that the sentence at issue state judge dismisses suit, finding that Ricketts' financial support doesn't amount to sponsorship?

Urutine32, do you think the ratio itself is the most important thing to report? In other words, is it your preference that the sentence state judge dismisses suit, finding that only those who actually accept responsibility for the initiative must add their name to the statement?

I'd like to make sure these skeletons are reasonably accurate before offering my opinion. Thanks! /wiae /tlk 01:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe the ratio is important to report, because otherwise the reader will not understand why the suit was dismissed. Urutine32 (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wiae, thanks for coming in and helping us resolve this. Your brief summary of my position is fairly accurate. — Ammodramus (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ammodramus and Urutine32: Here're my opinions:
  1. the section should explain the plaintiffs' position, which it does reasonably well right now. (Without this explanation, readers might think that the lawsuit is only relevant because it involves a subject that Ricketts vetoed, when in fact the lawsuit hinges on Ricketts' possible "sponsorship".)
  2. the defendants' arguments ("to construe the statute to encompass all supporters, contributors and political leaders would put petition drives in a state of perpetual uncertainty") are interesting, but I don't think such policy arguments are necessary for readers to understand the case and its connection to Ricketts.
  3. when explaining the outcome of this case, which involves a living person, we should also look to what the reliable sources say. The Omaha World-Herald says "the governor’s support of the petition drive did not make him a sponsor by default". The Star Journal spends more time discussing the nuts and bolts of the sponsorship question ("because Glasburner, Melton and Evnen identified themselves as willing to assume the statutory responsibilities once the petition process commenced, Ricketts was not required to be listed as a sponsor"). My preference tends toward an Omaha-style formulation that directly references Ricketts, like judge dismisses suit, holding that Ricketts' mere financial support isn't ipso facto sponsorship. It is simple, easy to understand, and explicitly ties the decision back to Ricketts.
3O is only an informal dispute resolution mechanism, so if this doesn't help resolve the issue, there are more robust tools available like WP:DRN. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 15:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks once again for taking the time to read through our rather lengthy discussion and the various sources. I've rewritten the passage along the lines that you've suggested. — Ammodramus (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence

[edit]

An IP editor, who's apparently using several different IP addresses, and I are in disagreement about the lead sentence in this article. This diff is his/her latest edit.

Unfortunately, IP isn't adding edit summaries or notes on this talk page, and hasn't responded to a request to participate in discussion, so I'm not sure what the reason is for his/her objection to my preferred phrasing. It certainly seems reasonable to me to identify Ricketts as a politician; and since not all WP readers are from the United States, it seems equally reasonable to mention where Nebraska is, rather than forcing non-US readers (and perhaps some US readers with weak geography skills) to follow a Wikilink.

If IP would explain his/her reasons for reverting my edit, I'd be glad to consider them. That failing, I'd welcome suggestions from other editors. Ammodramus (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reverting and re-reverting continues. Unfortunately, the IP editor is using a different address each time, so a message at their talk page would probably not be read. I am at a loss for what to do in this situation. I don't want to be part of an edit war, and would be glad to discuss my fellow editor's thoughts on the article, but so far s/he's shown no willingness to participate in discussion. Apart from this behavior, most of his/her edits have been constructive; and in any case, a block or other sanction would probably be ineffective, given the changing IP addresses. Suggestions, anyone? Ammodramus (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My IP colleague has used the same address for a couple of days in a row, so I've left a message at User talk:67.44.192.158 urging him/her to join the discussion. Ammodramus (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pete Ricketts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death Penalty/Cardinal Dulles Mention?

[edit]

I see the article currently states "Cardinal Dulles notes that "the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment", which is confusing, as it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Pete Ricketts, nor his public position on the death penalty, and this article isn't about the death penalty itself. Why is an anecdotal cardinal in support randomly mentioned in this section in an article about Pete Ricketts? 68.110.29.138 (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request Updated Tenure

[edit]
  • Specific text to be added or removed: Expanding on Tenure Accomplishments as Governor. Added section about the COE to be added somewhere in the Tenure Section.
Center of Operational Excellence
[edit]

The Center of Operational Excellence serves as the training center for continuous process improvement across all state agencies. Ricketts established the COE in May of 2016 COE currently certify White, Yellow, Green Belts, Executive Green Belts, Black Belts, and Certified Lean Leaders in Lean Six Sigma. The goal of the COE is to help agencies simplify processes, resulting in a more effective, efficient, and customer-focused government. The COE has a Kaizen room, located in the State Capitol, used for training events and process improvement meetings.

2017 session

[edit]

In its 2017 session, the Ricketts administration merged two agencies. The Department of Transportation was formed from the merging of the Department of Roads and Department of Aeronautics. This merger was lead by Senator Friesen. Senator Murante led the merger of the Nebraska Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Division of Veterans' Homes into the Nebraska Department of Veterans' Affairs. Ricketts signed both merger bills into law in the spring of 2017.[64]

Ricketts signed various bills designed to strengthen Nebraska communities. LB 518 created various grants to counties to construct workforce housing. The legislature also passed 2 anti-abortion bills, the first in his tenure. LB46 created a "Choose Life" license plate, and LB506 provided information about perinatal hospice care to pregnant women diagnosed with a lethal fetal anomaly.[65]

2018 session

[edit]

In the start of the 2018 to 2019 biannual session, Ricketts highlighted various bills as his key priorities. In 2018 Ricketts signed LB 1040, which creates commemorative certificates of nonviable birth for miscarriages. Ricketts used this bill to point out that it "affirms the pre-born baby's dignity, [and] it also provides closure to mothers, fathers, and families who are grappling with the pain and heartache of losing a child."[66] Ricketts goes on to highlight various property and tax relief bills that he signed during the session. Ricketts vetoed a notable bill, LB350, which would've set aside criminal convictions for murders, human trafficking, and other violent criminals. Ricketts said, "This bill sends the wrong message to victims of crime and society. It represents poor public policy."[67]

2019 session

[edit]

During the legislature's 2019 session, Ricketts approved various budgets and tax cuts. LB 103 stopped automatic property tax increases. Ricketts also spearheaded the project to increase the Property Tax Credit Relief Fund by $51 million for a total of $550 million in direct property tax relief from 2019 to 2021. Ricketts merged two state agencies, the Department of Environment and the Department of Energy, into one, the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy.[68]

2020 session

[edit]

In 2020, Ricketts signed numerous laws passed by the legislature, including property and veterans tax relief bills, dismemberment abortion bans, and flood and pandemic relief. In 2020, Ricketts was able to accomplish some State workforce reforms, providing a new partnership between Peru State College and the Nebraska Department of Corrections, to provide a path for students to go from the classroom into Corrections workforce. Ricketts also accomplished an infrastructure bill, allowing for funding to repair the Gering-Fort Laramie Irrigation Canal after it collapsed in 2019.

2021 session

[edit]

Ricketts called the 2021 session "historic," as it passed multiple key priorities he highlighted in his January 2021 State of the State address. These included property and veterans tax relief, broadband infrastructure, and locking in the state's budget. The session limited budget growth to 2.4% annually. Ricketts's veterans tax relief program gave Nebraska veterans a 100% exemption on military retirement benefits. Ricketts signed legislation to support military spouses licensed in another state to obtain teaching permits after moving to Nebraska. He signed into law a bill that gives private schools $3 million in funding for textbook loans and $1 billion to support public K-12 education. Ricketts also passed career scholarship reform, giving public, private, and community colleges and universities state scholarship support.

2022 session

[edit]

In his wrap up for the 2022 legislative session, Ricketts praises the senators for passing legislation on his key priorities. Securing Nebraska's water resources through legislation was something Ricketts highlighted, as the Legislature authorized construction of a canal to protect Nebraska's legal entitlement to South Platte River flowing into the state from Colorado. Also, Ricketts was able to sign bills to further develop Nebraska's water infrastructure, construction of new marinas at Lake McConaughy and Lewis and Clark Lake, and creation of a 3,600 acre reservoir between Lincoln and Omaha.

Ricketts also prioritized controlling government spending and cut property and income tax. Ricketts also signed bills investing in rural and urban areas of Nebraska as businesses recover from the pandemic.


  • Reason for the change: Tenure Section is missing last 6 years of Accomplishments, I have a COI I guess.
  • References supporting change:

Wikipedia:Verifiability would be a better banner. That fact 


"Session Concludes | Office of Governor Pete Ricketts". governor.nebraska.gov. Retrieved May 16, 2022.
"Session Concludes | Office of Governor Pete Ricketts". governor.nebraska.gov. Retrieved May 16, 2022.
"Gov. Ricketts Signs New Pro-Life Legislation Creating Commemorative Certificates". governor.nebraska.gov. Retrieved May 20, 2022.
"Gov. Ricketts Vetoes Bill which Sets Aside Penalties for Murders, Human Trafficking". governor.nebraska.gov. Retrieved May 20, 2022.
"Gov. Ricketts Highlights Legislative Session Results". governor.nebraska.gov. Retrieved May 16, 2022

for 2020 session source - https://governor.nebraska.gov/press/gov-ricketts-state-state-address-1

for 2021 Session Source - https://governor.nebraska.gov/press/gov-ricketts-calls-2021-legislative-session-%E2%80%9Chistoric%E2%80%9D

For 2022 Session Source - https://governor.nebraska.gov/press/history-making-60-days

For COE Source - https://governor.nebraska.gov/press/gov-ricketts-highlights-operational-excellence-month


Jordis DASComm22 (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made most of these additions but they need a better source for the citations. Using the Governor’s press releases for a source is not acceptable under WP:RS policy. I’ve added citations needed tags, but the content will likely be removed without appropriate references. Please provide them as an additional COI request. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see no bias for 2022 session section as currently written. Wikipedia:Verifiability would be the appropriate banner.

Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Term as Senator

[edit]

Users has been insistently editing that Ricketts' term begins on January 12, the date on which he was announced as a senator; however, he will be sworn in before Vice President Kamala Harris on January 23. Based on previous and recent examples such as Kelly Loeffler, Jon Kyl or Martha McSally, whose term began on the date they were sworn in by Vice President Pence, not when they were announced as a replacement. Lord Maximoff (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, that'd make sense, but then surely the Wikipedia argument about the appointment of Senators & their seniority (that it begins on date of appointment, not when they are sworn in), is wrong and needs to be corrected? This argument is used for Alex Padilla, who was sworn in on January 20th, but appointed on January 18th. ~ Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 13:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/chronlist.pdf Ricketts' term started on January 12 with his appointment even if he took the oath of office on January 23. MasterPike01 (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legalize THC

[edit]

After watching PBS’s documentary on THC, it has health benefits that have been ignored for political reasons, starting with Richard Nixon. It is time to quit demonizing it. Cannabis needs to be removed as an illegal drug by the Federal Government. After all, it is legal in the District of Columbia. 97.119.246.151 (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pete_Ricketts&oldid=1256333695"