The Supreme Court on Friday left in place a ruling by the Nevada Supreme Court that keeps the Green Party off the state’s ballot for the 2024 general election. The party’s candidate for president, Jill Stein, will not appear on the ballot in Nevada, a state where former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris are running closely in the polls. The Green Party had asked the justices to vacate the ruling while it appealed that decision, but in a brief unsigned order, the justices declined to do so.
Under Nevada law, the Green Party needed to collect just over 10,000 valid signatures to get its candidates on the ballot. However, the petition erroneously included an affidavit used for initiatives and referenda, not the one required for ballot access. This mistake was initially caused by an employee in the secretary of state’s office, who sent out the incorrect document.
The Nevada Democratic Party successfully challenged the validity of these signatures in state court, with the Nevada Supreme Court ruling that the required attestation serves an essential purpose, despite the state’s error in providing the incorrect form. The court emphasized that even though the secretary of state’s office made a mistake, the Green Party was still required to comply with the legal requirements.
The Green Party argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that excluding their candidates from the ballot violated the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses. They contended that thousands of Nevada voters who signed the petitions would be disenfranchised by the Nevada Supreme Court’s ruling. The party also pointed out that there was still time to make corrections before the ballots were finalized, referencing that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously ordered reprints of ballots as late as October 25.
However, the Nevada Democratic Party and the secretary of state countered that adding the Green Party candidates to the ballot at this late stage would disrupt the election. They cited the Purcell principle, which argues against changing election rules close to an election date to avoid voter confusion and preserve the integrity of the election process. They also noted strict deadlines for printing and mailing ballots to military and overseas voters, which had already begun.
The Supreme Court’s decision to leave the Nevada Supreme Court ruling in place eliminates a key third-party candidate from the Nevada ballot, potentially impacting the 2024 presidential election in a state decided by a narrow margin in recent cycles. More information on this decision can be found here.
This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.