holding: With the staggered terms of Nebraska legislators provided for under Article III, section 7, of the Constitution of Nebraska, it would be a practical impossibility to redistrict without this effect. The regulations regarding the exercise of the elective franchise. provided for under the Constitution of Nebraska, and as affected by L.B. 925, are reasonable, uniform, and impartial, and should not be treated as subverting or impeding the exercise of the elective franchise. L.B. 925 does not create any unconstitutional hindrance or impediment to the right of a qualified voter to exercise the elective franchise and does not violate Article I, section 22, of the Constitution of Nebraska. 179 Neb. at 636, 139 N.W.2d at 546. Accord Barnett v. Boyle, 197 Neb. 677, 250 N.W.2d 635 (1977) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, L.B. 7 does not operate to hinder
holding that board members would not be entitled to qualified immunity for their failure to respond to the ohio board inquiry because it was a ministerial act and reversing the district courts dismissal of mishlers complaint holding that a school districts policy which limited and restricted teachers speech criticizing other staff members administrators or school board members by restricting the audience to which such criticisms could  be directed was contentbased because it distinguished between favored and disfavored speech on the basis of the views expressed recognizing absolute immunity for attorneys and board members of the texas medical board holding that petitioners status as school board members does not permit them to step into the shoes of the school board and invoke its right to appeal holding that plaintiffs were not unconstitutionally disenfranchised by division of school district into districts for election of board members beginning in 1976 because plaintiffs would continue to be represented by members elected at large in 1974 and would be able to vote for members from their district in 1978