Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 12 — PROHIBITED ELECTION PRACTICES
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 12.05 (2026)

False representations affecting elections

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
12.0512.05 False representations affecting elections. No person may knowingly make or publish, or cause to be made or published, a false representation pertaining to a candidate or referendum which is intended or tends to affect voting at an election.
12.05 HistoryHistory: 1973 c. 334; 1993 a. 175.
12.05 AnnotationA violation of this section does not constitute defamation per se. Tatur v. Solsrud, 174 Wis. 2d 735, 498 N.W.2d 232 (1993).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1916–2021 · leading case: City of Milwaukee Post No. 2874 Vets. of Foreign Wars of the United States v. Redevelopment Auth. of Milwaukee, 2009 WI 84 (Wis. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Milwaukee Post No. 2874 Vets. of Foreign Wars of the United States v. Redevelopment Auth. of Milwaukee, 2009 WI 84 (Wis. 2009). · cites it 7× “See 4 Nichols, supra note 3, § 12.05[2] (contrasting the "rule of separate valuation" to the unit rule (also sometimes referred to as the undivided fee rule)); John D.”
Tatur v. Solsrud, 498 N.W.2d 232 (Wis. 1993). · cites it 4× “The plaintiffs complained to the Rusk County District Attorney that the defendants' misrepresentations violated sec. 12.05, Stats. 1987-88, 2 which carries a penalty of not more than $1,000, or imprisonment not more than six months or both.”
Tatur v. Solsrud, 481 N.W.2d 657 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 8× “[6, 7] The candidates further argue that the violation of sec. 12.05, Stats., which makes it a criminal offense to *272 publish false representations pertaining to a candidate, should constitute defamation per se.”
Sharkey's, Inc. v. City of Waukesha, 265 F. Supp. 2d 984 (E.D. Wis. 2003). · cites it 4× “surrounding neighborhood,” and under section 12.05(1) the noise must tend “to unreasonably disturb the peace and quiet of persons in the vicinity.”
Rickert v. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, 161 Wash. 2d 843 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 2× “§ 3-8-11 (LexisNexis); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 12.05 (West), while two require that the false statements also be defamatory or constitute fighting words, see Miss.”
Sauk Cnty. v. Gumz, 2003 WI App 165 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “04(1); the forty-five-day processing time period, SCO § 12.05; the prohibition against advertising, promoting, and selling tickets before a license is issued, SCO § 12.”
State v. 119 Vote No! Comm., 957 P.2d 691 (Wash. 1998). “…representation pertaining to a candidate or referendum which is intended or tends to affect voting at an election.” Wis. Stat. Ann. § 12.05 (West 1996).”
Smith v. Colvin, 9 F. Supp. 3d 875 (E.D. Wis. 2014). “1 § 12.05; Mendez v. Barnhart, 439 F.3d 360, 362 (7th Cir.”
Rickert v. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, 129 Wash. App. 450 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Code § 3-8 -ll(e) (2005); Wis. Stat. § 12.05 (2004). The PDC does not rely on the statement of legislative intent that the act was intended to protect candidates — this is not a compelling state interest, it is a private interest wherein the candidate is protected by the law…”
Rickert v. State, Pub. Disclosure Com'n, 119 P.3d 379 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Code § 3-8-11(c) (2005); Wis. Stat. § 12.05 (2004). [6] The PDC does not rely on the statement of legislative intent that the act was intended to protect candidates — this is not a compelling state interest, it is a private interest wherein the candidate is protected by the law…”
Magray v. Shalala, 880 F. Supp. 1278 (E.D. Wis. 1995). · cites it 12× “The crux of the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and the portion with which the Secretary takes issue, is her installation of a legal standard which an administrative law judge must apply when evaluating whether a particular claimant should be declared disabled under section…”
POST NO. 2874 VFW. v. Redevelopment Auth., 2009 WI 84 (Wis. 2009). · cites it 7× “"[The] rule exists for the protection of the condemnor," as it ensures that the aggregate value of the separate interests in the property cannot exceed the property's value as an unencumbered whole. Id., § 13.08[2]. "Ordinarily no difficulty (or apparent injustice) arises from…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 12.05(1) — 1 case
Sharkey's, Inc. v. City of Waukesha, 265 F. Supp. 2d 984 (E.D. Wis. 2003). “surrounding neighborhood,” and under section 12.05(1) the noise must tend “to unreasonably disturb the peace and quiet of persons in the vicinity.”
— Wis. Stat. § 12.05(10) — 1 case
Sharkey's, Inc. v. City of Waukesha, 265 F. Supp. 2d 984 (E.D. Wis. 2003). “surrounding neighborhood,” and under section 12.05(1) the noise must tend “to unreasonably disturb the peace and quiet of persons in the vicinity.”
— Wis. Stat. § 12.05(A) — 1 case
Anderson, James v. Saul, Andrew (W.D. Wis. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 12.05(C) — 1 case
Magray v. Shalala, 880 F. Supp. 1278 (E.D. Wis. 1995). “The crux of the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and the portion with which the Secretary takes issue, is her installation of a legal standard which an administrative law judge must apply when evaluating whether a particular claimant should be declared disabled under section…”
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.