What it does

Currently, a landlord can decline to rent to a person based on their income source, which tends to be an issue when people receive government assistance, such as Section 8 housing vouchers. 

If the ballot measures passes, landlords would be barred from rejecting those prospective tenants, even if their source of income requires additional reporting and work, as Section 8 does. Other forms of legal income that would be covered include disability payments, pension disbursements, annuities, alimony, child support and foster care subsidies.

The measure would empower the city’s Commission on Human Rights to investigate potential cases of discrimination.

Supporters and opponents

More than a dozen organizations came together to get the question on the ballot, including Nebraska Appleseed, Civic Nebraska, the League of Women Voters of Lincoln/Lancaster, the Nebraska Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence and others. The coalition has advocated for the protections since 2019.

There does not appear to be any organized opposition. Elsewhere, landlord groups have opposed such efforts. A similar proposal in the Nebraska Legislature earlier this year drew opposition from the Apartment Association of Nebraska, Nebraska Realtors Association, the Home Builders Association of Lincoln and the Metro Omaha Builders Association Coalition, as well as landlords and property management companies.

Arguments for

Supporters of the measure say it will help remove a significant barrier to housing for some of the city’s most vulnerable residents, who face housing instability, unsafe living conditions and homelessness. 

While resources like Section 8 vouchers could help reduce these scenarios, landlords are reluctant to accept those tenants. A Flatwater Free Press analysis in 2024 found that almost 1 in 3 people who applied for a voucher in Lincoln could not find a place that would accept the voucher before it expired.

Supporters say this disproportionately hurts seniors, single mothers, people with disabilities and people of color. Banning discrimination is the right thing to do, supporters say, while noting that source-of-income discrimination has been banned in more than 20 states and over 100 cities.

Arguments against

Opponents of these bans say they trample on property owners’ rights by, in the case of Section 8, forcing them to enter into an agreement and adhere to burdensome regulations. Some have raised constitutional concerns about essentially mandating property owners accept Section 8.

The ballot measure, if passed, would act as a deterrent for property owners to participate in the rental market, particularly smaller outfits who may not have the resources to comply with Section 8 regulations, opponents argue.

Some also pointed to complications and delays receiving housing assistance funds in a timely manner, which can be distressing for smaller landlords.

And some opponents contend these measures complicate the home-selling process, particularly for those selling their first home.