A person shall be guilty of election falsification if, orally or in writing, he or she purposely states a falsehood under oath lawfully administered or in a statement made under penalty of election falsification (1) as to a material matter relating to an election in a proceeding before a court, tribunal, or public official or (2) in a matter in relation to which an oath or statement under penalty of election falsification is authorized by law, including a statement required for verifying or filing a voter registration application or voting early or a statement required by a new or former resident to enable him or her to vote for President or Vice President of the United States. Any person committing election falsification shall be guilty of a Class IV felony.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case:
Hargesheimer v. Gale, 881 N.W.2d 589 (Neb. 2016).
Hargesheimer v. Gale, 881 N.W.2d 589 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 2× “” In Loontjer, the majority of this court stated that the requirement of a sworn list of sponsors under § 32-1405(1) “serves several important purposes,” which include the following: (1) to prevent fraud in the petition process, because “sponsors take responsibility for the…”
Loontjer v. Robinson, 670 N.W.2d 301 (Neb. 2003).
· cites it 4× “See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 32-1502 (Reissue 1998) (making election falsification under oath Class IV felony).”
Christensen v. Gale, 301 Neb. 19 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 2× “12 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32-1502 (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Divis (Neb. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 5× “BACKGROUND The State filed an information charging Divis with election falsification, a Class IV felony, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32-1502 (Reissue 2016).”
Christensen v. Gale, 301 Neb. 19 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 2× “13 The initiative petition statutes impose several responsibilities upon named sponsors once the initia- tive process has commenced, and we indicated that the primary purpose of the “sworn statement containing the names and street addresses of every person, corporation, or…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.