Al Davis (Nebraska)
Al Davis was a member of the Nebraska State Senate, representing District 43. He assumed office on January 9, 2013. He left office in 2017.
Davis (Democratic Party) ran for election for Lieutenant Governor of Nebraska. He lost in the general election on November 8, 2022.
Committee assignments
2015 legislative session
At the beginning of the 2015 legislative session, Davis served on the following committees:
| Nebraska committee assignments, 2015 |
|---|
| • Nebraska Retirement Systems, Vice Chair |
| • Revenue |
| • Transportation and Telecommunications |
2013-2014
In the 2013-2014 legislative session, Davis served on the following committees:
| Nebraska committee assignments, 2013 |
|---|
| • Education |
| • Judiciary |
| • Nebraska Retirement Systems, Vice Chair |
Sponsored legislation
The following table lists bills this person sponsored as a legislator, according to BillTrack50 and sorted by action history. Bills are sorted by the date of their last action. The following list may not be comprehensive. To see all bills this legislator sponsored, click on the legislator's name in the title of the table.
Elections
2022
See also: Nebraska gubernatorial and lieutenant gubernatorial election, 2022
General election
General election for Lieutenant Governor of Nebraska
Joe Kelly defeated Al Davis and Jason Blumenthal in the general election for Lieutenant Governor of Nebraska on November 8, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Joe Kelly (R) | 59.2 | 398,334 |
 | Al Davis (D) | 36.0 | 242,006 | |
 | Jason Blumenthal (L) | 3.9 | 26,455 | |
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.9 | 5,798 | ||
| Total votes: 672,593 | |||
 = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
2016
- See also: Nebraska State Senate elections, 2016
Elections for the Nebraska State Senate were held in 2016. The primary election took place on May 10, 2016. The general election was held on November 8, 2016. The candidate filing deadline was February 16, 2016, for incumbents. Challengers were required to file by March 1, 2016.[1]
Tom Brewer defeated incumbent Al Davis in the Nebraska State Senate District 43 general election.[2][3]
| Nebraska State Senate, District 43 General Election, 2016 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Vote % | Votes |
 Tom Brewer |
52.26% | 9,169 |
| Al Davis Incumbent | 47.74% | 8,376 |
| Total Votes | 17,545 | |
| Source: Nebraska Secretary of State | ||
Incumbent Al Davis and Tom Brewer were unopposed in the Nebraska State Senate District 43 primary.[4][5]
| Nebraska State Senate, District 43 Primary, 2016 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | ||
| Al Davis Incumbent | ||
| Tom Brewer | ||
2012
- See also: Nebraska State Senate elections, 2012
Davis won election in the 2012 election for Nebraska State Senate District 43. Davis advanced past the May 15 primary election and defeated John Ravenscroft in the general election, which took place on November 6, 2012.[6][7]
| Party | Candidate | Vote % | Votes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nonpartisan | Al Davis |
51.8% | 8,750 | |
| Nonpartisan | John Ravenscroft | 48.2% | 8,137 | |
| Total Votes | 16,887 | |||
| Candidate | Vote % | Votes |
|---|---|---|
|
John W. Ravenscroft Incumbent |
38.6% | 3,210 |
| Al Davis |
21.6% | 1,801 |
| Cash Ostrander | 21% | 1,747 |
| Earl M. Jones | 8.9% | 740 |
| Jack Andersen | 6.6% | 550 |
| Ernest R. Fellows | 2% | 166 |
| Michael Jacobson | 1.3% | 108 |
| Total Votes | 8,322 | |
Campaign themes
2022
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
Al Davis did not complete Ballotpedia's 2022 Candidate Connection survey.
Campaign website
Davis' campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
PROSPERITY FOR ALL NEBRASKANS Nebraskans need to know the truth about the history of our property taxes over the last two decades. I want to be transparent about these issues and start working on solutions to fix these problems starting with unfunded and underfunded mandates and fully fund our schools. The Big Lie on Property Taxes We can grow our state and economy with the goal of attracting and retaining talent – particularly those in the 18 to 34 age range – who will drive our state’s economy for years and help build generational wealth for the greater good for all. I vow to listen to the collaborative voices of many, not the privileged few or special interest groups.
Unfunded and underfunded mandates are a persistent and growing problem for cities, counties, and school districts. As a member of the Government, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee and former city council member, I am aware of the tasks, services, and office space that the state requires cities and counties to provide — often with little to no reimbursement for the costs associated with these services and programs. As a candidate for the 2022 Nebraska governor’s race, I’ve promised to share little-known information about issues that keep your property taxes high — issues that have easy fixes but are never properly addressed at the state level. I’m going to be sharing several blogs on this topic. I’ll be using Sarpy County for many of my examples because that is where I live and the area with which I am most familiar. However, all counties, municipalities, and schools experience these unfunded/underfunded mandates. As I walk you through this long list of unfunded/underfunded mandates, it’s important to understand that counties are creatures of the state. Therefore property taxes are the only avenue available to address these costs. This is particularly true because state aid to political subdivisions, such as counties, was eliminated in 2011 with the promise that it would one day be reinstated when the state budget got back on its feet. Further limits continue to be proposed and are not compatible with the cost-shifting that the legislature has done and continues to do in terms of unfunded mandates. In 2014, the Government, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee released a report on LR 582 regarding the size and scope of unfunded mandates to counties. Senator Sue Crawford, who introduced the resolution, worked with committee counsel, the Nebraska Association of County Officials, and others to research the issue and publish the results of their findings. In 2019, Senator Wayne introduced LR 149, which updated Senator Crawford’s earlier study regarding unfunded mandates to counties and the funding source used by counties to pay for these unfunded mandates. The 2014 report, which is still available on nebraskalegislature.gov under Standing Committee reports, detailed 16 actionable steps the legislature could take to address some of the most pressing unfunded mandates to counties from Arthur to Douglas. These include:
In the years since the publication of the LR 582 report, Nebraska has made little to no progress on these unfunded mandates and has even added new ones. Meanwhile, the state continues to point to local government as the reason your property taxes are high, while each year adding to the financial burdens with new mandates and with other issues I’ll address in later blog posts. In 2018, Sarpy County taxpayers paid over $8.1 million in costs directly associated with unfunded mandates. It will be millions more in 2021. Mandates and Public Safety LB 605, the criminal justice reform package the legislature passed in 2015, is one such example. The legislature originally set aside $500,000 for reimbursement for costs incurred by counties. Because of the bill, a reimbursement fund was created and operated by the Crime Commission. LB 605 required the commission to establish criteria for counties to qualify for reimbursement through a demonstration that the increased county jail costs were a direct result of LB 605. The sentiment of most senators at the time was that counties would not see an increase in jail costs as a direct result of LB 605. Unfortunately, that has not been Sarpy County’s experience. Sarpy County has seen a significant increase in county jail costs as a direct result of LB 605. In 2019 alone, using the definitions and criteria established by the Crime Commission, Sarpy County incurred a total cost of $241,368 and only received $68,160 in aid, a difference of $173,208. Moving forward to the passage of a newer bill, LB 383, Sarpy County no longer receives any reimbursement for the housing of state prisoners. For Sarpy County taxpayers, the true cost of holding a state prisoner as calculated in the County’s Indirect Cost Allocation Plan for the 2020 Fiscal Year is $136.63 per day. The 11,172 prisoner days multiplied by a daily rate of $136.63 equals an annual cost to local taxpayers of $1,526,430. The total prisoner days for the 2020 Fiscal Year was 59,376. Did you know that your district court judges are state employees? Sarpy County is required to pay for the bailiff (personal secretary) for each judge and for a law clerk who is shared by all three judges. Personnel costs are $321,633, not including health and dental insurance. Sarpy County also pays for expenses such as court-appointed counsel, law library costs, supplies, computers, and furniture. Sarpy County juvenile court judges are also state employees. The county is required to pay for a bailiff for each judge, as well as a file clerk and a part-time receptionist. Personnel costs are $22,847. Sarpy County also pays for court-appointed attorneys, evaluations, and supplies. Legislation regarding court-appointed attorney and guardian ad litem fees caused attorney fees in the current budget to increase from $292,657 in 2015 to $476,853 in 2021. Let’s not forget the courtrooms. Sarpy County is required to provide courtrooms for each county, juvenile, and district court, including custodial services and utilities. At a square foot cost of $20, the annual cost of these spaces are estimated as follows:
Sarpy County is also required to provide security for these courtrooms. This includes sworn deputies, civilian security officers, and various security equipment. The actual cost for the support services for fiscal year 2021 was $2,838,908. At least 60% of this cost was for court security. Since we are talking about the costs of crime to our counties, it shouldn’t surprise you to know that because of insufficient state funding for the Nebraska LETC (Law Enforcement Training Center), there is a significant backlog for recruit training positions. Because of the delay in enrolling recruits at the LETC, my county and several other jurisdictions have been compelled to start their own Law Enforcement Training Academy at county and city expense. The county’s contribution is $20,000 per year plus the cost of county staff provided as instructors. To be fair, these costs are offset somewhat by not having to pay for mileage to Grand Island and for meals at the LETC. There are additional expenses for the Sarpy County municipalities who participate as well. As a result of these concerns, I have asked for an interim study to be held this month. This is a public safety issue as well as an underfunded mandate issue and needs to be addressed before it becomes much worse. Nebraska statute requires an autopsy and grand jury hearing for anyone who dies in state custody, including state prisoners who die in state prisons. Since 2002, the costs to Johnson County, in Senator Slama’s district, have amounted to $150,859.97 alone. Legislation to address this issue has been introduced repeatedly in 2015, 2017, 2018, and 2019 with no bills advancing from the committee. The county, once again, gets stuck with the expense. This is especially burdensome for our counties with smaller populations and should be a red flag to our farmers and ranchers who pay massive amounts of property taxes. Office Space and Mandated Fees I’d like to next address the costs to counties to provide the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Probation, and other state offices space and maintenance costs free of charge. This is an issue that everyone from former state Senator Deb Fischer to Senator Anna Wishart has tried to tackle, with no relief. Beginning in 1983, in exchange for the state taking over many of the health and human services functions previously provided by counties, counties were required to maintain — at no additional cost to DHHS — facilities used for the administration of public assistance programs. This might seem like a great idea until you see the costs. The net value of the space provided to DHHS in Sarpy County is approximately $1.3 million. Housing DHHS employees in county courthouses also limits the amount of space available for services directly supporting court functions, such as probation officers. In 2014, Hall County appropriated $600,000 to purchase an office building just to house all its probation officers, who are state employees. In Lancaster County, lease and equipment costs for probation (adult and juvenile) and DHHS topped $725,000 in 2018-19. Adult and juvenile probation costs in Sarpy County total almost $358,000. We should also discuss fees set by state statute. Most civil process fees have not changed since 1981. These fees include serving a search warrant, subpoena, or summons. Other inadequate fees include marriage licenses, permits, and registrations. The Sarpy County Register of Deeds office does most of the work required to file land records in the county, yet is required to send over $3.2 million of the documentary stamp tax collection to the state in fiscal year 2021. Almost all the fees charged by county offices are set by state statute. Many of these fees fall short of generating sufficient revenues to cover the cost of providing the required services. Elections and Mandates Elections and election law take up quite a bit of our time in the Government, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee, so I am keenly aware of the costs to counties for printing ballots, ballot space for elections of statewide office, constitutional amendments, and referendums. Current state law requires counties to conduct elections at all levels of government. It also allows counties to prorate the costs of elections and bill some of these costs to political subdivisions. For example, in 2010, Lancaster County was able to recoup approximately 1/3 of its costs of the election from political subdivisions based on a formula that includes ballot space and number of precincts. There is no provision to allow counties to bill the state for constitutional amendments, judicial retention, or ballot initiatives. In Sarpy County, state and federal races, for which there are no reimbursement methods, cost the county $54,000 during the 2014 election, which represented 62% of the Sarpy County Election Commissioner’s costs for that election cycle. In 2016 and 2018, 50% and 70% of the general election costs were not reimbursable and attributable to state and federal candidate costs. Mandates for Schools I’d also like to discuss unfunded mandates to school districts, another entity that relies on property taxes to provide public education and related services to students and their families. This time, I am going to focus on bills introduced in a recent session to give you an idea of how large and pervasive this issue is. First, a word about definitions. For school districts, an unfunded mandate is defined as additional work without new funding. These bills include changes to worker’s compensation benefits, which are mandated without funding to cover increased costs, to mandates regarding curriculum and activities that result in costs associated with in-classroom teaching, professional training, and running parent involvement curriculum. Changes in curriculum require expenditures for school districts’ curriculum toolbox process, which involves teachers choosing and vetting materials, alignment to state standards, and development of the curriculum guide and corresponding assessment tools. This requires either paying certified staff for additional hours during the summer or providing substitutes for them during the school year, in addition to the purchase of classroom materials to fulfill the curriculum requirements. Any training required by the state requires additional funding for individuals that are part-time hourly employees like paraprofessionals, drivers, riders, food service, etc. They would be paid for the length of the training. In addition, training takes time and therefore we lose productivity which translates into additional dollars for more staff, supplemental payment for additional time, overtime, etc. In recent years, the legislature passed legislation requiring additional training or instruction that did not include additional funding or reduction in requirements for schools. This includes dating violence training, substance abuse teaching, return-to-learn protocols for students, and suicide awareness and prevention training. These are all very worthy and important issues facing students and schools, which is why legislation was introduced and passed by this body. However, the legislature has not funded these initiatives, instead relying on school districts to provide the services and training without reimbursement. Final Thoughts Nebraska has been largely unwilling to address unfunded mandates and has added new unfunded mandates each year. Legislative attempts to remedy existing unfunded mandates are repeatedly shut down or languished in committee year after year. Yet the state takes no responsibility when it comes to the role it plays in property taxes being so high across Nebraska. If we are unwilling to address unfunded mandates or curb the state’s use of them moving forward, we face leaving cities, counties, and school districts with even less funds available to address the costs we force them to incur. The next time you hear a politician say sentences like “create better transparency,” or “hold local government accountable,” be sure to take a closer look at the bill they are asking you to support. What is the price tag to your local municipalities, counties, or schools? Does it really solve a problem or is it yet another feel-good bill that does nothing but continue to add to the cost of government? It’s time we take a look at these issues and start breaking down what is necessary and what has value. If these programs have value, then the state should reconsider how they fund the programs and quit kicking the “property tax can” down the road.
Everyone wants to feel safe and have services accessible to them so they can stay well. Nebraskans should feel confident needed resources and training are available for law enforcement officers so they can respond appropiately. Our state must have enough doctors, dentists, mental health professionals, clinics, and hospitals to address the needs of all our communities. As first responders age out, we should use this opportunity to ensure the applicant pool is sufficient to meet the needs of communities served during times of unprecedented challenges. Nebraskans need to know that elected officials have their backs during natural disasters and in times of need. They need a Governor who has a plan to withstand or quickly recover from man-made or natural disasters. Nebraska needs a leader who can step up to the plate and make sure Nebraskans don’t become collateral damage to bad decisions. This is our Flint, Michigan.
We contribute to the success of our farmers and businesses when we properly maintain our bridges and roads. It’s time Nebraska stepped up to fund necessary projects by utilizing bonding as needed to move the projects forward in an expeditious manner. Our communities benefit when we create connectivity, have dependable utilities and necessary transportation options that meet our current needs, and broadband internet to connect people to opportunities. I want to address the ongoing deteriorating infrastructure that slows down our ability to compete in an increasingly global marketplace.
I support an education finance system that continues to foster quality, fairness, and equity, with the state playing a larger role in K-12 finance to reduce property tax reliance and give all stakeholders a voice. Let’s continue to grow Nebraska’s post-high school options, knowing that a 4-year degree is not always the right path for students, and address student loan debt. Young Nebraskans and our workforce will benefit with the implementation of a K-14 education allowing high school graduates the benefit of up to two years of community college. This allows young adults to enter the workforce with valuable skills and no college debt. Together we can generate a workforce that is well-rounded and capable, creating strong future employees who are encouraged to stay and succeed here in Nebraska.[8] |
” |
| —Al Davis' campaign website (2022)[9] | ||
Campaign finance summary
Note: The finance data shown here comes from the disclosures required of candidates and parties. Depending on the election or state, this may represent only a portion of all the funds spent on their behalf. Satellite spending groups may or may not have expended funds related to the candidate or politician on whose page you are reading this disclaimer. Campaign finance data from elections may be incomplete. For elections to federal offices, complete data can be found at the FEC website. Click here for more on federal campaign finance law and here for more on state campaign finance law.
Scorecards
A scorecard evaluates a legislator’s voting record. Its purpose is to inform voters about the legislator’s political positions. Because scorecards have varying purposes and methodologies, each report should be considered on its own merits. For example, an advocacy group’s scorecard may assess a legislator’s voting record on one issue while a state newspaper’s scorecard may evaluate the voting record in its entirety.
Ballotpedia is in the process of developing an encyclopedic list of published scorecards. Some states have a limited number of available scorecards or scorecards produced only by select groups. It is Ballotpedia’s goal to incorporate all available scorecards regardless of ideology or number.
Click here for an overview of legislative scorecards in all 50 states. To contribute to the list of Nebraska scorecards, email suggestions to editor@ballotpedia.org.
2020
In 2020, the Nebraska State Legislature was in session from January 8 to August 13.
- Legislators are scored on children's issues.
- Legislators are scored on their votes on conservative issues.
2019
| To view all the scorecards we found for this legislator in 2019, click [show]. |
|---|
|
In 2019, the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature was in its 107th Legislature, 1st session from January 9 through May 31.
|
2018
| To view all the scorecards we found for this legislator in 2018, click [show]. |
|---|
|
In 2018, the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature was in its 106th Legislature, 2nd session from January 3 to April 18.
|
2017
| To view all the scorecards we found for this legislator in 2017, click [show]. |
|---|
|
In 2017, the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature was in its 105th Legislature, 1st session from January 4 to May 23.
|
2016
| To view all the scorecards we found for this legislator in 2016, click [show]. |
|---|
|
In 2016, the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature was in its 104th Legislature, 2nd session from January 6 to April 20.
|
2015
| To view all the scorecards we found for this legislator in 2015, click [show]. |
|---|
|
In 2015, the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature was in its 104th Legislature, 1st session from January 7 to May 29.
|
2014
| To view all the scorecards we found for this legislator in 2014, click [show]. |
|---|
|
In 2014, the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature was in its 103rd Legislature, 2nd session from January 8 to April 17.[10]
|
2013
| To view all the scorecards we found for this legislator in 2013, click [show]. |
|---|
|
In 2013, the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature was in its 103rd Legislature, 1st session from January 9 to June 5.
|
Endorsements
2016
In 2016, Davis' endorsements included the following:[11]
- Designated Farm Bureau Federation Friend of Agriculture
- Nebraska Right to Life
- Nebraska Professional Firefighters Association
- Nebraska Federation of Independent Businesses
- Nebraska Farmers Union
See also
2022 Elections
External links
|
Personal |
Footnotes
- ↑ Nebraska Secretary of State, "Official Election Calendar," accessed December 7, 2015
- ↑ Nebraska Secretary of State, "Statewide Candidate List for general election," accessed August 19, 2016
- ↑ Nebraska Secetary of State, "General election results, 2016," accessed December 21, 2016
- ↑ Nebraska Secretary of State, "Statewide Candidate List," accessed May 16, 2016
- ↑ Nebraska Secretary of State, "Primary Election May 10, 2016," accessed October 14, 2016
- ↑ Nebraska Secretary of State, "Statewide Candidate List," accessed February 14, 2014
- ↑ Nebraska Secretary of State, "Official Report of The Board of State Canvassers of the State of Nebraska - Primary Election, May 15, 2012," accessed May 13, 2014
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Carol Blood - Candidate for Nebraska Governor, “Key Issues,” accessed October 17, 2022
- ↑ Nebraska Legislature, "2014 Legislative Session," accessed June 27, 2014
- ↑ Davis for Legislature, "Endorsements," accessed September 29, 2016
| Political offices | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by Deb Fischer |
Nebraska State Senate District 43 2013–2017 |
Succeeded by Tom Brewer |
 |
State of Nebraska Lincoln (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
