LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — On the first day of the 2026 legislative session, Nebraska lawmakers were asked Wednesday to consider a motion to expel a fellow senator accused of making a sexually-charged comment to a legislative staffer and touching her inappropriately during a session-end party last year.

If lawmakers vote next week to expel the 59-year-old Sen. Dan McKeon, a Republican in the officially nonpartisan Nebraska Legislature, it will be the first time the body has ever done so.

The unprecedented move follows a complaint from the staffer that McKeon said she should “get laid” on her vacation and patted her on her buttocks last May during a party at the Lincoln Country Club attended by state lawmakers, staffers and lobbyists.

More attention has focused on sexual harassment within state legislatures nationwide. At least 156 state lawmakers across 44 states have been accused of sexual harassment or misconduct since 2017, when The Associated Press began tracking such incidents amid the #MeToo movement. Of those, 56 have resigned or been expelled from office. A nearly equal number have faced some other type of repercussion, such as losing committee or party leadership positions.

A report on the Nebraska complaint was compiled by an outside law firm at the request of the Legislature's Executive Board and released Wednesday. It found that McKeon has “a reputation for making jokes and that some of those jokes are unprofessional and/or inappropriate for the workplace.”

The report determined that McKeon's conduct did not rise to a level of sexual harassment or retaliation that is actionable under state or federal discrimination law, but that didn't mean it was acceptable. It said McKeon's conduct did violate the Nebraska Legislature's workplace harassment policy, and that lawmakers “may, in their discretion, censure, reprimand or expel the senator for his conduct and comments.”

After interviewing the woman, McKeon and others, the attorney who wrote the report found that the woman, McKeon and another staffer had been discussing vacation plans at the May 29 party when McKeon asked whether the woman was “going to Hawaii to get laid,” she said. McKeon characterized the remark as a joke in which he said he hoped she would get a Hawaiian lei while in Hawaii.

“Complainant was not vacationing in Hawaii so this comment was inconsistent with the discussion of vacation plans,” the report said.

The staffer also said McKeon patted her behind. McKeon initially denied touching the woman, the report said, but later said he may have touched her back or lower back “or even rear end,” but insisted it was not intended to be sexual.

The report also said that following the complaint, McKeon was instructed by Sen. Ben Hansen, chairman of the Executive Board, on June 2 not to attend social gatherings where staffers would be present. Despite this, McKeon attended another party that night also attended by staffers — including the woman who filed the complaint against him — according to the report.

Nearly a month later, urged by Hansen to “accept responsibility for what he was alleged to have done” McKeon sent the woman a note telling her she should find it within herself to forgive him “because that is what the Bible instructs people to do,” the report said.

Then, in August, McKeon texted another staffer who shares an office with the woman, saying she “seems to be difficult to work with,” the report found.

An investigation by the Nebraska State Patrol ultimately led to McKeon being charged with a misdemeanor count of disturbing the peace. McKeon has pleaded not guilty.

McKeon, who attended Wednesday's opening session, declined to comment on the report itself. But his remarks on the complaint against him and the possibility of being expelled were in line with the report's findings, falling back on religious references by saying that his name, Daniel, means “just” in Hebrew and remarking “we're all sinners” when asked about accusations that he's often made inappropriate jokes in the workplace.

He said he has no plans to step down, despite calls from leaders of his own party — including Republican Gov. Jim Pillen — to resign. But he seemed ready to accept that he might be forced out, saying he expects any vote in the full Legislature to “be pretty close.”

“It is what it is,” he said. “I'm not going to cry about it or anything.”

The Legislature's Executive Board will hold a hearing Monday on the resolution to expel McKeon. If it's voted out of committee, the full Legislature could debate it as soon as Tuesday and would need 33 votes to pass.

If McKeon is expelled, he would be the nation's 57th state lawmaker accused of sexual misconduct to have left office via expulsion or resignation since 2017.

Trump’s 'beautiful' new law means states have big decisions this year on Medicaid, SNAP and taxes

States have major decisions to make in 2026 about the social safety net and taxes in the aftermath of a sweeping law President Donald Trump signed last year.

The federal government is shifting more responsibilities to states over the next few years, and states must prepare for greater costs in the Medicaid health care and SNAP food aid programs. They also must decide whether to offset upcoming federal funding cuts with state tax dollars. And they must weigh whether to cut state taxes on tips, overtime wages and other items to remain in line with Trump's big bill.

Though most states still have ample rainy day funds, the extra burdens are coming as many states face their tightest budgets since the early days of the coronavirus pandemic.

“There’s a big storm coming for state budgets — the radar is clear — and it’s going to hit almost every state,” said Tim Storey, CEO of the National Conference of State Legislatures. “It’s going to mean some hard choices.”

In most states, those determinations will begin in January, when legislatures convene and governors lay out their agendas.

Food aid will become a bigger expense for states

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is used by 42 million Americans to help buy groceries, is going to become more expensive for states to run and harder for some people to qualify for assistance.

Currently, the federal government picks up the full cost of benefits — around $94 billion in the fiscal year that ended in September 2024 — and splits the administrative costs with the states, which run the program. The federal share of administrative costs for 2024 was about $6 billion.

Starting Oct. 1, states will have to pay three-fourths of the cost to run the program. And starting in late 2027, some states that make errors in more than 6% of payments — often for paying a household more than it's supposed to get after its income rises — will have to start paying some of the costs of benefits.

California already has allocated $84 million to try to reduce SNAP errors, plus additional money to help counties implement other new requirements.

The shift in administrative costs could come to around $50 million a year in Florida, said Sky Beard, the Florida director for No Kid Hungry. Paying for some SNAP benefits, if the state is forced to, could be in the neighborhood of $1 billion a year. She said that’s a reason lawmakers have a lot of questions about the details of error rates.

Other states are weighing whether to put more money into SNAP.

New Jersey Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, a Democrat, said the state has an obligation to help people access health care and food. But he said the magnitude of federal cuts — as much as a $36 billion reduction for New Jersey over the next decade for Medicaid alone, according to KFF, an organization that researches health policy — could make it hard to keep all the state’s social programs unchanged.

“What there will be is a commitment to doing our level best to make sure that all of the people’s needs get covered,” Coughlin said.

States could consider scaling back Medicaid

The federal law signed by Trump imposes work requirements for some adults on Medicaid, the joint federal-state health insurance program for low-income people. Most states must start those work mandates by January 2027, which means they must be accounted for in their next state budgets.

But states can start sooner if they desire.

Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen announced that his state will launch Medicaid work requirements in May. The Republican said the state could handle the change without hiring more government employees and that the work mandate “can have a gigantic impact in helping lift people up.”

But many states face tens of millions of dollars of costs merely to prepare for the new Medicaid requirements.

The Missouri Department of Social Services has requested about $33 million in the next budget for technology improvements needed to comply with Medicaid work checks and more frequent eligibility reviews. It's seeking more than $12 million to hire the equivalent of about 120 people to carry out the tasks.

The work requirement applies to people with slightly higher incomes who are eligible for Medicaid under a voluntary expansion included in President Barack Obama's 2010 health insurance overhaul. Forty states and the District of Columbia took up the offer. The states that didn't agree to the expansion all have legislatures controlled by Republicans.

The work requirement is the biggest piece in a series of Medicaid changes that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecasts will reduce Medicaid spending by $911 billion through 2034 and leave 10 million more Americans uninsured over that time frame.

States could respond by narrowing who is eligible for Medicaid, as the District of Columbia did in a policy that kicked in Jan 1. Or they could follow Colorado and Idaho and cut Medicaid reimbursements to medical providers.

Liz Williams, who analyzes Medicaid at KFF, said home care, dental benefits and coverage of GLP-1 drugs often used for weight loss, also could face restrictions in some states.

Some changes are expected to hit rural hospitals especially hard. The federal law seeks to partly offset that by spending $50 billion over the next five years. States will have to decide how to use their share of that money.

States also face decisions on tax cuts

The federal law temporarily halts federal income taxes on tips and overtime pay, provides new tax deductions for seniors and some people with auto loans, and enacts numerous new corporate tax breaks.

States can decide whether to incorporate those tax cuts into their own income tax codes.

Some states have income tax laws that automatically conform with changes to federal tax laws. But officials in other states have to decide whether to link up — and whether to do so partially or fully.

Michigan is the only state so far to vote to opt in to the tax breaks on tips and overtime. Those provisions automatically carry over to state income taxes in about a half-dozen other states.

Officials in Arizona are among those planning to conform to the federal tax cuts when their legislative session begins in January. Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs said embracing the tax breaks can help “ease the cost of living crisis” and provide certainty to taxpayers. Republican legislative leaders say they stand ready to give their approval.