A Nebraska judge on Thursday upheld the state’s ban on affirmative action, rejecting a lawsuit that claimed those gathering signatures to put it on the ballot broke the law.

Voters approved the initiative in November, after opponents of the effort filed the lawsuit in Lancaster County District Court.

“It’s a big victory. This is the law of the land,” said Doug Tietz, executive director of the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative. The group has ties to the American Civil Rights Coalition, which has bankrolled similar campaigns across the country.

The constitutional amendment never uses the words “affirmative action.” But it prohibits state and local governments from giving preferential treatment to people on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity or national origin.

The lawsuit challenged the validity of petition signatures, saying some were gathered using a “pattern of fraud and illegality.”

Opponents presented “a breadth of evidence,” including video evidence of circulators leaving petitions unattended, or failing to read the entire object statement to signers, said David Kramer, spokesman for the opposition group Nebraskans United.

But Judge Karen Flowers rejected the arguments, saying that the right to the initiative process “should not be circumscribed by a narrow and strict interpretation of the statutes pertaining to its exercise.”

“While one could argue that ’irregularities’ occurred, the evidence presented by the plaintiffs does not permit me to find that any substantial number of signatures, let alone more than 24,000, should be discounted,” Flowers wrote in her judgment.

Secretary of State John Gale determined that the initiative had 24,000 more valid signatures that it needed to make it on the November ballot. The measure won 58 percent of the vote.

If the lawsuit had been successful, it could have invalidated the law.

The measure was part of a multistate effort by California businessman Ward Connerly. Similar bans have passed in California, Michigan and Washington. It made it to Colorado’s ballot last year but failed.

Kramer said they were considering whether to appeal. He said he was especially troubled by Flowers’ conclusion that it wasn’t a violation of the law when circulators did not read the entire object statement of the petition to each person who signed.

Flowers said some circulators summarized the purpose of the petition, and that was sufficient.

Kramer hinted it might be a topic of appeal — or something the Legislature should clear up in the law.

“If they don’t have to read the whole thing, then what is sufficient?” Kramer said.

Gale said that part of Flowers’ ruling was puzzling. He interprets the law as requiring the entire object statement be read.

Allowing a circulator to summarize “opens the door to lack of uniformity and interpretation by each circulator,” he said.

While some might argue it’s cumbersome to read the object statement over and over, Gale said, “our goal is to give each signer time to reflect.”

“If it’s a very rushed process with a quick, flippant summary, that is not an informed process,” he said.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of University of Nebraska-Lincoln student Jeff Hall.

Named as defendants were Gale and the election commissioners for Lancaster, Hall, Sarpy and Douglas counties.