Nebraska Republican Party v. Evnen

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 08/26/2026 03:32 PM CDT - 79 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports NEBRASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY v. EVNEN Cite as 322 Neb. 79 Nebraska Republican Party, appellant, v. Robert B. Evnen, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State of Nebraska, et al., appellees. Nebraska Democratic Party and Working Families Party, appellants, v. Robert B. Evnen, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State of Nebraska, et al., appellees. ___ N.W.3d ___ Filed August 26, 2026. Nos. S-26-687, S-26-689. 1. Statutes: Judgments: Appeal and Error. The meaning and interpreta- tion of a statute are questions of law for which an appellate court has an obligation to reach a conclusion independent from the conclusion made below. 2. Legislature: Intent. Legislative intention is to be determined from a general consideration of the whole act with reference to the subject mat- ter to which it applies and the particular topic under which the language in question is found, and the intent as deduced from the whole will prevail over that of a particular part considered separately. 3. Statutes. Because statutes relating to the same subject are in pari mate- ria, they should be construed together. 4. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to inter- pretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous. 5. Statutes. A statute is ambiguous when the language used cannot be adequately understood, because it is susceptible of more than one rea- sonable interpretation, either from the plain meaning of the statute or when considered in pari materia with any related statutes. 6. Statutes: Legislature: Intent. The fundamental objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and carry out the Legislature’s intent.  - 80 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports NEBRASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY v. EVNEN Cite as 322 Neb. 79 7. Constitutional Law: Statutes: Voting. In construing the Nebraska election statutes, it is the duty of the courts to do so in light of the con- stitutional principle that all elections shall be free and that there shall be no hindrance or impediment to the right of the qualified voter to exercise the elective franchise. 8. Statutes: Voting. Statutes relating to election law must be liberally con- strued so as to promote, rather than defeat, candidacy for election. 9. Voting: Limitations of Actions. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32‑624 (Supp. 2025) sets forth the procedure for objecting to the party name used in petitions to establish a new political party for a ballot position in an upcoming election. This procedure includes a strict 7‑day limitation period for filing an objection, which period commences upon the appli- cable deadline set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32‑716(1) (Supp. 2025) for filing with the Secretary of State the signed petitions to form a new political party. 10. ____: ____. If a written objection under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32‑624 (Supp. 2025) to a new political party name is not filed within the 7‑day limitation period from the deadline for filing the signed new‑party petitions, the use of the new political party name in the election shall be deemed valid as a matter of law with respect to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32‑716(2) (Supp. 2025), though the Secretary of State must still carry out the ministerial duties of determining the validity and sufficiency of the signed petitions as set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32‑717 (Supp. 2025). 11. Statues: Voting. The strict statutory deadlines of the Nebraska elec- tion statutes were enacted to protect the qualified voter’s right to exercise the elective franchise by safeguarding against uncertainty and disruption. 12. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Under the canon of superfluity, appellate courts will attempt to reconcile different provisions so they are consist­ ent, harmonious, and sensible and will avoid rejecting as superfluous or meaningless any word, clause, or sentence, to give effect to all parts of a statute. 13. Statutes: Voting. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32‑716(2) (Supp. 2025) does not encompass a challenge that the name of a new political party overlaps with a slogan or ideals of a different political party in existence at the time of the new‑party‑formation petition. 14. Statutes. Under the legal principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the others), an expressed object of a statute’s operation excludes the statute’s operation on all other objects unmentioned by the statute.  - 81 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports NEBRASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY v. EVNEN Cite as 322 Neb. 79 15. Courts: Statutes. Although courts can consider the purpose of a statute when deciding between multiple textually permissible readings of a stat- ute, courts are merely to give effect to the text when the meaning of the text is plain, direct, and unambiguous. Appeals from the District Court for Lancaster County: Darla S. Ideus, Judge. Affirmed. Andrew La Grone and Julie Slama, of La Grone Slama, L.L.C., for appellant Nebraska Republican Party. Robert W. Futhey, of Guinan O’Siochain Law Group, and Aria C. Branch, Christopher D. Dodge, Harleen K. Gambhir, and Walker McKusick, pro hac vice, of Elias Law Group, L.L.P., and Alex Rabb, of Movement Building Law Project, P.C., pro hac vice, for appellant Nebraska Democratic Party. Michael T. Hilgers, Attorney General, Cody S. Barnett, and Zachary B. Pohlman for appellee Robert B. Evnen. Jason W. Grams, of Grams Law, L.L.C., for appellees John Cartier and America First Party. Dallas Jones, Jr., of Baylor Evnen Wolfe & Tannehill, L.L.P., for appellees Robin Richards and Nebraska Working People Party. Funke, C.J., Cassel, Stacy, Papik, Freudenberg, Bergevin, and Vaughn, JJ. Per Curiam. INTRODUCTION In these two appeals from orders of the district court for Lancaster County, we consider an objection by the Nebraska Republican Party to the use of the name “America First Party” and an objection by the Nebraska Democratic Party and the Working Families Party (Democratic Parties) to the use of the name “Nebraska Working People Party.” Both objections  - 82 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports NEBRASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY v. EVNEN Cite as 322 Neb. 79 fall under Nebraska’s Election Act. 1 We hold that the objec- tion to the “Nebraska Working People Party” is untimely and that the objection to the “America First Party” is merit- less. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders that denied relief to both the Nebraska Republican Party and the Democratic Parties. BACKGROUND A first step in forming a new political party in Nebraska is to gather, through petitions, registered voter signatures total- ing not less than 1 percent of the total votes cast for Governor at the most recent general election. 2 Such petitions shall be filed with the Secretary of State on or before July 15 of that year “[i]f the new political party desires to be established and have ballot position for the general election and not in the pri- mary election of that year.” A different new‑party‑formation petition filing deadline applies if the new political party wishes to be entitled to have a ballot position in the primary election of that year. Petition to Form “Nebraska Working People Party” On June 24, 2026, Robin Richards filed with the Secretary of State an affidavit declaring her intent to sponsor and circu- late a petition to form a new political party bearing the name “Nebraska Working People Party.” Along with her affidavit, Richards filed with the Secretary of State, as is required by § 32‑716, a sample copy of the petitions for formation of a new political party. Section 32‑716(2) requires that the petition shall, among other things, “state its purpose and the name of the party to be formed.” The purpose of the “Nebraska Working People Party,” 1 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 32‑101 to 32‑1552 (Reissue 2016, Cum. Supp. 2024 & Supp. 2025). 2 § 32‑716.  - 83 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports NEBRASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY v. EVNEN Cite as 322 Neb. 79 as set forth in the affidavit and the sample petitions, was as follows: [T]o provide Nebraska voters with a political organization dedicated to advancing the interests of working families, middle‑class Nebraskans, rural communities, small busi- nesses, farmers, ranchers, and individuals seeking practi- cal solutions to improve economic opportunity, strengthen communities, and promote responsive and accountable government. The Secretary of State did not raise any issues with the sample copy of the petitions, which were thereafter circulated to the public for registered voter signatures. Upon obtaining sufficient signatures, on July 14, 2026, all petition papers com- prising a new political party petition in support of establish- ing the “Nebraska Working People Party” were filed with the Secretary of State for signature verification, 3 thereby meeting the deadline for a ballot position for the 2026 general election. Petition to Form “American First Party” On June 30, 2026, John Cartier filed with the Secretary of State an affidavit declaring his intent to sponsor the forma- tion of a new political party bearing the name “America First Party.” In the submitted sample copy of the petitions and in his affidavit, the purpose of the “America First Party” was set forth as follows: To provide voters with a political organization committed to putting Americans and Nebraskans ahead of all others by cracking down on out‑of‑control government spending and wasteful foreign aid, getting tough on illegal immi- grants, standing up against abortion, and rigidly defend- ing the Second Amendment. The Secretary of State did not raise any issues with the sample copy of the petitions, which were thereafter circulated to the public for registered voter signatures. On July 15, 2026, 3 See § 32‑716.  - 84 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports NEBRASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY v. EVNEN Cite as 322 Neb. 79 all petition papers comprising a new political party petition in support of establishing the “America First Party” were submit- ted to the Secretary of State for signature verification, thereby also meeting the deadline for a ballot position for the 2026 general election. Nebraska Republican Party’s and Nebraska Democratic Parties’ Objections to Secretary of State Section 32‑624 describes the process for making objections to the Secretary of State. It sets forth that “[a] candidate fil- ing form filed for the primary or general election pursuant to section 32‑606 shall be deemed to be valid unless objec- tions are made in writing within seven days after the filing deadline” and that “[o]bjections to the use of the name of a political party may also be made and passed upon in the same manner as objections to a candidate filing form or other acceptance of nomination.” On July 22, 2026, the Nebraska Republican Party filed a written objection with the Secretary of State regarding the “America First Party.” The Democratic Parties similarly filed a written objection with the Secretary of State regarding the “Nebraska Working People Party.” The Democratic Parties’ objection was not filed until August 9. The Nebraska Republican Party objected to the use of the name “America First Party” and asked that the Secretary of State decline to issue certification of the “America First Party” name and, alternatively, reject any candidate filing forms associated with the “America First Party.” While the Nebraska Republican Party asserted such objection was expressly autho- rized by § 32‑624, it expressed uncertainty regarding the event triggering the objection deadline. The Nebraska Republican Party asked, “[o]ut of an abundance of caution,” that the Secretary of State treat its letter as a timely objection to any party formation petitions or certification documents to  - 85 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports NEBRASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY v. EVNEN Cite as 322 Neb. 79 establish the “America First Party” and to any future candidate filing forms to appear on the ballot under that designation. Asserting tension between the sponsor’s “record of leftist activism” and connotations to the words “America First,” the Nebraska Republican Party argued that using the name “America First Party” was an attempt to create ballot con- fusion. It relied on § 32‑716(2) as support for its position that such potential ballot confusion was grounds to prohibit use of the name “America First Party.” Section 32‑716(2) provides: (2) The petition shall conform to the requirements of sections 32‑628 and 32‑716.01. The Secretary of State shall prescribe the form of the petition for the formation of a new political party. The petition shall be addressed to and filed with the Secretary of State and shall state its purpose and the name of the party to be formed. Such name shall not be or include the name of any political party then in existence or any word form- ing any part of the name of any political party then in existence, and in order to avoid confusion regard- ing party affiliation of a candidate or registered voter, the name of the party to be formed shall not include the word “independent” or “nonpartisan”. On July 28, 2026, the Secretary of State responded to the Nebraska Republican Party, stating that although he agreed that the name “America First Party” was misleading, it “d[id] not run afoul” of § 32‑716(2). The Secretary of State explained that there is no political party recognized in Nebraska with a name that includes the words “America” or “First” and that the proposed “America First Party” did not include the words “independent” or “nonpartisan.” Therefore, he concluded that he lacked the authority to disqualify the use of the name “America First Party.” The Nebraska Democratic Parties’ objection to the Secretary of State was similar. They also alleged that use of the new party name “Nebraska Working People Party” violated  - 86 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports NEBRASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY v. EVNEN Cite as 322 Neb. 79 § 32‑716(2). They asked that the Secretary of State decline to certify the “Nebraska Working People Party” and, alterna- tively, reject any candidate filing forms associated with the “Nebraska Working People Party.” The Democratic Parties alleged that the “Nebraska Working People Party” was backed by “Republican interests” and designed to mislead voters into thinking it is aligned with the Democratic Party, the Nebraska Working Families Party, and the candidates they support. The Nebraska Democratic Parties noted that the party name “Nebraska Working People Party” overlapped with a U.S. Senate candidate’s messaging and slogan. The Nebraska Democratic Parties’ primary objection, however, was that the “Nebraska Working People Party” name violated the express mandate in § 32‑716(2) that no word over- lap with the name of a preexisting political party—in this case, the word “working” of the “Working Families Party.” The Secretary of State responded to the objection the day after it was filed. By then, the Democratic Parties had already filed an application and alternative complaints in district court. The Secretary of State explained that “[u]nless and until a court of competent jurisdiction timely holds otherwise, . . . I will not disqualify the use of the name “‘Working People Party.’” August 7, 2026, Announcement by Secretary of State On August 7, 2026, after the Nebraska Republican Party had made its objection with the Secretary of State but before the Democratic Parties had made theirs, the Secretary of State announced that both the “Nebraska Working People Party” and the “America First Party” met the necessary verified signature threshold for political party formation. Relying upon § 32‑717, the Secretary of State said he would issue a certification establishing the new parties so long as the requisite paperwork, which includes a party constitution, bylaws, and list of officers, is submitted by August 27, 2026.  - 87 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports NEBRASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY v. EVNEN Cite as 322 Neb. 79 Section 32‑717(2) provides that “[u]pon receipt of the consti- tution and bylaws of such party, the Secretary of State shall issue a certification establishing the new political party,” but “no certification shall be issued and the party shall not be considered properly established” if the constitution and bylaws of a new political party are not filed within 20 days after the Secretary of State’s notification. The record before us does not suggest that either the “America First Party” or the “Nebraska Working People Party” has yet submitted to the Secretary of State its constitution, bylaws, or names of officers. Nor has either submitted candi- date filing forms, which, pursuant to § 32‑621, must be filed no later than September 1 prior to the general election. District Court Applications/Complaints In case No. CI 26‑2972, the Nebraska Republican Party filed in the district court for Lancaster County a verified application for leave to commence a special summary review proceeding and, in the alternative, a complaint for declaratory and injunc- tive relief. The Republican Party named as defendants Evnen, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State of Nebraska; Cartier; and America First Party. In case No. CI 26‑3002, the Democratic Parties filed in the district court for Lancaster County a verified application for leave to commence a special summary review proceed- ing and alternative complaints for declaratory and injunctive relief or for a petition for a writ of mandamus. The Democratic Parties named as defendants Evnen, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State of Nebraska; Richards; and Nebraska Working People Party. The Nebraska Republican Party asked the district court to declare that the Secretary of State possesses the legal authority, under Nebraska law, including, but not limited to, §§ 32‑716(2) and 32‑624, to sustain its objection to the use of the name “America First Party.” Reprising arguments  - 88 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports NEBRASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY v. EVNEN Cite as 322 Neb. 79 made to the Secretary of State, the Nebraska Republican Party argued that using the name “America First Party” was a “calculated” and “malicious[]” effort to confuse and “hijack[]” Republican Party voters. The Democratic Parties similarly asked for an order requir- ing that the Secretary of State deny use of the name “Nebraska Working People Party.” Alternatively, they sought a declaratory judgment, 4 asked for an injunction, and sought a writ of man- damus. 5 Reiterating the factual allegations of its objection to the Secretary of State, the Nebraska Democratic Parties argued that using the name “Nebraska Working People Party” was “an attempt to sabotage the Nebraska Democratic Party by mislead- ing its members and supporters and detracting votes from its preferred candidates.” Further, the Democratic Parties asserted that allowing use of the name would harm the Working Families Party by keeping it from ever registering in Nebraska, because the “Nebraska Working People Party” would have taken the word “working.” The Working Families Party does not currently maintain a chapter in Nebraska. District Court’s Decisions After a hearing in case No. CI 26‑3002, in which exhibits were received without objection, the court issued an order denying all three alternative claims by the Democratic Parties for relief, which the court summarized as asking the court to prohibit the Secretary of State from certifying the “Nebraska Working People Party” as a political party. The court reasoned that the Democratic Parties had failed to make their objection within the 7‑day objection period set forth in § 32‑624(1), which the court said began to run from the July 15 filing deadline for a new political party wishing to have a ballot position for the general election of that year. 4 Neb Rev. Stat. §§ 25‑21,149 to 25‑24‑164 (Reissue 2016). 5 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25‑2156 (Reissue 2016).  - 89 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports NEBRASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY v. EVNEN Cite as 322 Neb. 79 The court rejected the Democratic Parties’ argument that the sentence of § 32‑624(1)—stating that “[o]bjections to the use of the name of a political party may also be made and passed upon in the same manner as objections to a candidate filing form or other acceptance of nomination”—refers to only a candidate’s “use” of a new political party name in a candi- date filing form and therefore runs from the candidate filing form deadline, which had not yet passed. The district court concluded that such a narrow reading of § 32‑624(1) would render the sentence referring to the name of a political party unnecessarily duplicative of the prior sentence of the statute referring to objections to the validity of a candidate filing form. The court found that permitting declaratory relief or a writ of mandamus would render the deadlines of the Nebraska election statutes meaningless. Thus, it denied the Democratic Parties’ application for leave to commence a special summary review proceeding and dismissed the alternative complaints for declaratory and injunctive relief and mandamus. After a hearing in case No. CI 26‑2972, the court also denied the Nebraska Republican Party’s application for leave to com- mence a special summary review proceeding, and it dismissed the alternative claim for declaratory and injunctive relief. The court received exhibits over objections, stating the case turned on the meaning of the relevant statutes and not questions of fact, so the court would give the exhibits the “consideration and weight that they are due.” The court determined the Nebraska Republican Party’s challenge fell under § 32‑624 and the Nebraska Republican Party had timely made its objection, but that using the name “America First Party” did not violate § 32‑716. The court rejected the Nebraska Republican Party’s argument that § 32‑716 offers mere examples of names that the Secretary of State may reject and “gestures at the Secretary’s broader, implied power to stop parties from using names that might cause voter confusion.” The court said this was contrary to  - 90 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports NEBRASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY v. EVNEN Cite as 322 Neb. 79 the canon that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of other objects unmentioned by the statute. The court also was unpersuaded by the Nebraska Republican Party’s argument that Porter v. Flick, 6 a decision from 1900 under a different version of the Nebraska election statutes, indicated that the Secretary of State had implied powers to prevent the kind of confusion the Nebraska Republican Party alleged, explaining that the facts of Porter were distinguishable and “the Secretary has the power to enforce the law, but not to enforce what he thinks should be the law.” Appeals The Nebraska Republican Party and the Democratic Parties timely appealed from the district court’s orders. In both appeals, we granted bypass and expedited briefing. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR The Democratic Parties assign, consolidated and restated, that the district court erred by concluding that the objection procedure of § 32‑624 applies to challenges to a new political party’s name, with a strict 7‑day objection period commencing on the deadline for filing with the Secretary of State the signed new‑party petitions, and that the Democratic Parties’ failure to object within 7 days of that deadline precluded their declara- tory judgment action. They also assign that the district court erred by “failing to determine whether the Secretary’s enforce- ment of an ex post facto objection deadline violated [the Democratic Parties’] due process rights, despite the Secretary’s own concession that Section 32‑624 fails to give clear warning of any exhaustion requirement or requisite deadline for object- ing.” (Emphasis omitted.) The Nebraska Republican Party assigns, consolidated and restated, that the district court erred by (1) limiting its objection to voter confusion about the “America First Party” sponsor’s 6 Porter v. Flick, 60 Neb. 773, 84 N.W. 262 (1900).  - 91 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports NEBRASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY v. EVNEN Cite as 322 Neb. 79 affiliation, rather than affiliation of “America First Party” candidates; (2) determining that the Secretary of State lacked authority to grant the objection; (3) receiving evidence; and (4) to the degree the district court made a factual determination, not deferring to the Secretary of State’s finding of fact that the “America First Party” name would confuse voters. STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] The meaning and interpretation of a statute are questions of law for which an appellate court has an obligation to reach a conclusion independent from the conclusion made below. 7 ANALYSIS These appeals present issues of statutory interpretation, for which we must adhere to well‑established principles of statu- tory construction. [2,3] Legislative intention is to be determined from a gen- eral consideration of the whole act with reference to the sub- ject matter to which it applies and the particular topic under which the language in question is found, and the intent as deduced from the whole will prevail over that of a particular part considered separately. 8 Because statutes relating to the same subject are in pari materia, they should be construed together. 9 [4,5] Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to interpreta- tion to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous. 10 A statute is ambiguous when 7 See, e.g., Nebraska Republican Party v. Shively, 311 Neb. 160, 971 N.W.2d 128 (2022); Adair Asset Mgmt. v. Terry’s Legacy, 293 Neb. 32, 875 N.W.2d 421 (2016). 8 Khaitov v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 319 Neb. 932, 25 N.W.3d 739 (2025). 9 See Adair Asset Mgmt. v. Terry’s Legacy, supra note 7. 10 Heist v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 312 Neb. 480, 979 N.W.2d 772 (2022).  - 92 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports NEBRASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY v. EVNEN Cite as 322 Neb. 79 the language used cannot be adequately understood, because it is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, either from the plain meaning of the statute or when consid- ered in pari materia with any related statutes. 11 [6-8] The fundamental objective of statutory interpreta- tion is to ascertain and carry out the Legislature’s intent. 12 In construing the Nebraska election statutes, it is the duty of the courts to do so in light of the constitutional principle that “all elections shall be free; and there shall be no hindrance or impediment to the right of the qualified voter to exercise the elective franchise.” 13 Statutes relating to election law must be liberally construed so as to promote, rather than defeat, candi- dacy for election. 14 Democratic Parties’ Objection Was Untimely [9,10] In case No. CI 26-3002, we hold that § 32-624 sets forth the procedure for objecting to the party name used in petitions to establish a new political party for a ballot posi- tion in an upcoming election. This procedure includes a strict 7-day limitation period for filing an objection, which period commences upon the applicable deadline set forth in § 32-716(1) for filing with the Secretary of State the signed petitions to form a new political party. If a written objection under § 32-624 to a new political party name is not filed within the 7-day limitation period from the deadline for filing the signed new-party petitions, the use of the new political party name in the election shall be deemed valid as a matter of law with respect to § 32-716(2), though the Secretary of State must still carry out the ministerial duties of determining 11 See Mullins v. Box Butte County, 317 Neb. 937, 13 N.W.3d 67 (2024). 12 Khaitov v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., supra note 8. 13 See Nebraska Republican Party v. Shively, supra note 7, 311 Neb. at 177, 971 N.W.2d at 142 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accord, Davis v. Gale, 299 Neb. 377, 908 N.W.2d 618 (2018); Morrissey v. Wait, 92 Neb. 271, 138 N.W. 186 (1912). See, also, Neb. Const. art. I, 22. 14 See Nebraska Republican Party v. Shively, supra note 7.  - 93 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports NEBRASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY v. EVNEN Cite as 322 Neb. 79 the validity and sufficiency of the signed petitions as set forth in § 32-717. [11] The strict statutory deadlines of the Nebraska election statutes were enacted to protect the qualified voter’s right to exercise the elective franchise by safeguarding against uncertainty and disruption. 15 We disagree with the Democratic Parties’ arguments that the requirement in § 32-624 that writ- ten objections must be made “within seven days after the filing deadline” does not apply to challenges to the use of a political party name that violates § 32-716(2), but instead applies only to the subsequent “use” of a new party name when filing the proposed new party’s constitution and bylaws in order to be certified or when filing a subsequent candidate filing form. While it is true that the substantive rules govern- ing new party formation are found in article 7 of the election statutes and not in article 6 where the 7-day limitation period is found, there is no provision in article 7 for challenging the new party’s name. As the letters to the Secretary of State and the applications to the district court recognized, the only statute providing for objections to use of a party name is § 32-624. And § 32-624 states that “[o]bjections to the use of the name of a political party may also be made and passed upon in the same manner as objections to a candidate filing form or other acceptance of nomination.” [12] If we construe the phrase “use of the name of a politi- cal party” as narrowly referring only to its use in a candidate filing form, it would violate both the plain language of the statute and the canon of superfluity, under which we will attempt to reconcile different provisions so they are consistent, harmonious, and sensible and will avoid rejecting as super- fluous or meaningless any word, clause, or sentence, to give effect to all parts of a statute. 16 Elsewhere in § 32-624(1), the 15 See Nebraska Republican Party v. Gale, 283 Neb. 596, 812 N.W.2d 273 (2012). 16 See MLB Advanced Media v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 321 Neb. 515, 36 N.W.3d 165 (2026).  - 94 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports NEBRASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY v. EVNEN Cite as 322 Neb. 79 Legislature describes objections to “[a] candidate filing form.” When § 32-624(1) later states that “[o]bjections to the use of the name of a political party may also be made and passed upon in the same manner as objections to a candidate filing form or other acceptance of nomination,” the use of the word “also” and the phrase “in the same manner as” plainly refers to the fact that “objections to the use of the name of a political party” are something different from “[o]bjections to a candi- date filing form.” (Emphasis supplied.) Reading the election statutes in pari materia, the phrase “objections to the use of the name of a political party” must be understood together with the only other statute governing a new party name, which is the provision in § 32-716(2). Section 32-716(2) describes, as part of the requirements for petitions to form a new political party, requirements of “the name of the party to be formed.” We have previously quoted the full statute. Regarding the new party’s name, § 32-716(2) mandates: Such name shall not be or include the name of any polit- ical party then in existence or any word forming any part of the name of any political party then in existence, and in order to avoid confusion regarding party affiliation of a candidate or registered voter, the name of the party to be formed shall not include the word “independent” or “nonpartisan”. Reading the statutes together, a challenge to the name in the petition for formation of a new political party is a challenge to the “use of the name of a political party.” The name of the new political party is being “used” in the new party forma- tion petitions. And it stands to reason that “the filing deadline” in § 32-624 for the name of a party in new-party-formation petitions is the deadline for submission of such signed petitions for the Secretary of State to determine their validity and sufficiency. Section 32-716 states: “If the new political party desires to be established and have ballot position for the general election  - 95 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports NEBRASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY v. EVNEN Cite as 322 Neb. 79 and not in the primary election of that year, the petitions shall be filed with the Secretary of State on or before July 15 of that year.” Further, § 32-716 states: The sponsor or sponsors of the petition shall file, as one instrument, all petition papers comprising a new political party petition for signature verification with the Secretary of State. All signed petitions in circulation but not filed with the Secretary of State shall become invalid after July 15 in the year of the statewide general election. Just as an objection to the name of a proposed political party is distinct from an objection to a candidate filing form, the deadline for filing a candidate filing form is distinct from the deadline for filing, as one instrument, all petition papers com- prising a new political party petition. Again, § 32-624(1) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] candidate filing form filed for the primary or general elec- tion pursuant to section § 32-606 shall be deemed to be valid unless objections are made in writing within seven days after the filing deadline”; “[o]bjections to the use of the name of a political party may also be made and passed upon in the same manner as objections to a candidate filing form or other accept­ance of nomination.” (Emphasis supplied.) Reading these two sentences together, an objection to the “filing dead- line” for a “candidate filing form” is clearly the date that commences the 7-day period to object to the candidate filing form. But by not explicitly stating, “the candidate filing form deadline,” the Legislature was able to incorporate, by stating the objection to use of a party name shall be made “in the same manner,” the applicable filing deadline for use of a new party name. And, indeed, the candidate filing deadline more specifically applicable to a new political party is not § 32-606, but, rather, § 32-621, which states: When a new political party has been properly estab- lished under section 32-716 prior to the general election and after the primary election of the same year, all can- didates except candidates for President or Vice President  - 96 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports NEBRASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY v. EVNEN Cite as 322 Neb. 79 of the United States shall pay the filing fee as provided in section 32-608, file a candidate filing form with the filing officer as provided in section 32-607 no later than September 1 prior to the general election accompanied by a petition of nomination containing the names of not less than twenty-five registered voters of the politi- cal party obtained from the appropriate jurisdiction, and comply with the Nebraska Political Accountability and Disclosure Act. The petition of nomination shall conform to the requirements of sections 32-617.01 and 32-628. If the filing officer verifies signatures in excess of one hundred ten percent of the number necessary to place the candidate upon the ballot, the filing officer may stop verifying signatures and consider the petition sufficient and valid. We find no merit to the idea that the 7-day limitation period at issue does not