Lawyers argued Wednesday over the ballot language of a proposed ban on some forms of affirmative action.

At issue is whether the language proposed by Attorney General Jon Bruning — which asks voters whether to amend Nebraska’s constitution to ban preferential treatment based on race, gender and ethnicity — is fair.

One side says it isn’t.

“What the attorney general’s done in this case is fill in some gaps,” J.L. Spray, lawyer for University of Nebraska-Lincoln student Jeff Hall, said during Wednesday’s hearing before Lancaster County District Court Judge Steven Burns.

Hall is suing Bruning and Secretary of State John Gale, contending the ballot language as written is misleading. Hall’s lawsuit says the ballot language should explicitly tell voters they’re being asked to eliminate programs that provide opportunities for and reduce discrimination against women and racial minorities.

But the other side says Bruning’s language is accurate.

Nebraskans United, the pro-affirmative action group of which Hall is a member, “believes Nebraskans can’t understand simple language,” said Doug Tietz, executive director of the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, which is sponsoring the affirmative-action ban.

“The language is clear.”

The ban will be on the November ballot if Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative allies gathered about 115,000 valid petition signatures. The Secretary of State’s office expects a verdict on those signatures this week or early next week.

Burns said he will rule on Hall’s lawsuit by Sept. 1.

Tietz has called the lawsuit a last-ditch move by those who support preferential treatment based on race and gender. Most Nebraskans support ending preferences, Tietz says.

“Nebraskans United is scared to go to the ballot box,” he said.

David Kramer, campaign lawyer for Nebraskans United, called that assertion “a bunch of baloney.”

“If this thing is going to be on the ballot, the language should at least tell folks what it’s going to do,” Kramer said. “(As it stands), it doesn’t give a reasonable idea of what it’s going to do. It doesn’t tell you that it eliminates programs.”

Dale Comer, representing the state, argued Bruning’s language explains the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative as accurately as possible in the 100 words or less required by state law.

Similar initiatives with similar language already have passed in California, Washington and Michigan and are alive in Arizona and Colorado. Efforts failed this year in Oklahoma and Missouri.

Reach Melissa Lee at 473-2682 or mlee@journalstar.com.