If you listened closely Wednesday during legislative debate to impeach Regent David Hergert, you heard an argument that had more to do with right and wrong than it did with constitutional interpretations or legal definitions.

BY MATTHEW HANSEN | Lincoln Journal Star

I’m not a lawyer.

Nebraska’s state senators kept stepping to their microphones and repeating that statement, over and over again, as complex legal arguments swirled around the Legislature Wednesday.

On one side, legal experts Sen. Chris Beutler of Lincoln and Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha argued that University of Nebraska Regent David Hergert should be impeached.

On the other flank, legal minds Sen. Kermit Brashear and Sen. Pat Bourne, both of Omaha, argued Hergert’s campaign finance wrongdoing didn’t merit impeachment.

The two sides debated campaign finance law and analyzed the Nebraska Constitution.

They even parsed the definition of the term, “in office” two different ways as morning turned to afternoon and the other senators downed cup after cup of coffee. 

But if you listened closely to the non-legal minds, you heard an argument that had more to do with right and wrong than it did with constitutional interpretations or legal definitions.

“He has shamed and disgraced the university,” said Sen. Mick Mines of Blair. “And he has shamed and disgraced this state.” 

Some of the 25 state senators who voted to impeach Hergert described him at various points as  dishonest and lacking the integrity necessary to lead the University of Nebraska system as a regent.

Several portrayed him as a man who believed he could buy his 2004 election to the board and then buy his way out of any trouble afterward.

“I’m sorry, but my conscience won’t let me go there,” said Sen. Ed Shrock of Elm Creek, responding to one of Brashear’s legal arguments against impeachment.

“The message I see is the rich people don’t have to abide by laws and poor people do.

“That’s what this is.”

Some of the 22 impeachment opponents had their own moral arguments for letting Hergert off the hook.

They asked: Why did the Legislature seem dead set on impeaching Hergert when they’d never considered impeaching Regent Drew Miller, who also violated campaign finance law?

Why were state senators so disturbed by the allegation that Hergert unfairly swayed  western Nebraska voters by breaking campaign finance law?

Don’t politicians unfairly sway voters all the time?

How is going after Hergert fair?

“Where have you been all your life?” asked Sen. LeRoy Louden of Ellsworth early during the debate, mentioning that the character of a former colleague, Curt Bromm, had been unfairly smeared during Bromm’s run at Congress.

“This is what campaigning is all about.”

Later, Brashear accused Beutler and Chambers of playing politics. with Hergert’s impeachment. They shot the accusation right back.

Bourne read a part of a Minnesota Supreme Court decision that he said showed Hergert shouldn’t be impeached.

Beutler responded with a Florida court decision he said showed  Hergert could be impeached.

Everyone drank more coffee, not exactly ignoring the legal arguments, but not entirely grasping them, either.

Time and time again, senators rose and pointed out that they were not lawyers.

Over and over, the businessmen,  farmers and nurses who serve in the Legislature asked each other this question: If Hergert were a University of Nebraska student who cheated, wouldn’t he get an failing grade?

Wouldn’t he get booted out of school?

“Dave Hergert is a liar,” Chambers said. “We all know that.”

Reach Matthew Hansen at 473-7245 or mhansen@journalstar.com.