The Nebraska U.S. Senate race has taken an unexpected turn after a registered Democrat with a conservative record entered the party primary, drawing accusations from state Democrats that he is an intentional Republican plant. The candidate, William Forbes, is a pastor whose public statements and past actions — including attending conservative training and voting for President Donald Trump in prior elections — have raised alarms among organizers who had hoped Democrats would not field a nominee and instead coalesce around independent Dan Osborn in the general election.
Party leaders worry the entry could split the anti-incumbent vote, giving incumbent Senator Pete Ricketts an easier path to reelection. The debate over motives has involved multiple campaigns, the Nebraska Republican Party, state election officials and the courts, and it highlights how tactical filings and ballot challenges can change the calculus of tight contests. The dispute also touches on what it means to be a good-faith candidate and on legal steps parties may take to protect a preferred path to victory.
Who is William Forbes?
William Forbes is a conservative pastor from Paxton who formally filed to run in the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate. Media reporting and campaign research have surfaced sermons and posts in which Forbes criticized what he labeled “cultural Marxism,” “radical feminism” and the “left-wing media,” while opposing Black Lives Matter and praising Republican abortion restrictions. Forbes told reporters he considers himself a lifelong Democrat and invoked figures like JFK and former Sen. Ben Nelson as models, yet he has acknowledged voting for President Trump in multiple elections and attending a January leadership training organized by the Leadership Institute, an organization known for preparing conservative activists.
Why Democrats call him a plant
State Democratic officials, led by Nebraska Democratic Party chair Jane Kleeb, assert that Forbes’ entry was timed to divide votes that might otherwise go to Dan Osborn, a nonpartisan independent whom Democrats back as their best chance to unseat Pete Ricketts. Party leaders describe the tactic as an effort to create confusion in the primary so that Democratic voters choose a nominal Democrat over a strategic write-in or support for an independent in the general election. The allegation is that a candidate with documented conservative ties cannot be a sincere partisan choice for Democrats and thus functions as a tactical interference.
Forbes rejects the accusation, saying he is a genuine Democrat and accusing opponents of orchestrating a media narrative against him. The Nebraska Republican Party has denied coordinating with Forbes, saying the Leadership Institute trainings are open to anyone and that they have no relationship with him. Senator Ricketts also denies involvement. This mixture of claims and denials has left voters and local officials trying to disentangle motive from coincidence.
Ballot moves, third-party claims and courtroom fights
The contest has included more than one contested filing. Cindy Burbank entered the Democratic primary late with the stated goal of defeating Forbes and then supporting Dan Osborn in the general election — a move Democrats encouraged but which risked legal challenges from Republicans who argue that a premature pledge to withdraw could violate safe-harbor rules for a good-faith candidate. Secretary of State Bob Evnen briefly removed Burbank from the ballot after a GOP objection; a Lancaster County judge dismissed that challenge on March 19, and an appeal restored her placement on the ballot after further review, illustrating how quickly administrative rulings can shift the race.
Other alleged plants and the broader stakes
Beyond Forbes and Burbank, other minor candidates have been accused of acting as decoys by different camps — including claims about Legal Marijuana NOW and independent filings. Meanwhile, Dan Osborn continues to seek ballot access as an independent for the general election and has a background as a Navy veteran, an industrial mechanic and a union leader who led a notable Kellogg’s strike; he previously ran in 2026 and lost by a narrow margin. Incumbent Pete Ricketts, appointed in 2026 and winner of a 2026 special election, remains the central figure Republicans hope to return to the Senate. The primary is set for May 12 and the general election is scheduled for Nov. 3, framing a timeline in which party strategy and legal rulings will matter greatly.
Legal and political implications
At stake is more than a single nomination: the controversy underscores how candidacy filings, online records and training events can be used as evidence in partisan arguments about authenticity and intent. Allegations of orchestrated entries raise questions about the limits of electoral tactics, the role of state election authorities in policing filings, and how parties can lawfully protect electability strategies without unlawfully suppressing candidacies. As Nebraska voters weigh the choices ahead, both legal outcomes and campaign narratives will shape whether the opposition to Ricketts unites behind a single challenger or remains fragmented.