Michigan judge orders Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to stay on Nov. 5 ballot

On September 3, a judge in Michigan ruled that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. must remain on the state’s ballot for the general election scheduled for November 5. This decision came after Kennedy made a last-minute attempt to withdraw his candidacy.

Kennedy, who is 70 years old, had been campaigning as an independent presidential candidate. However, he suspended his campaign on August 23 after months of efforts that resulted in his name appearing on nearly two dozen ballots.

Upon withdrawing, he publicly endorsed Republican nominee Donald Trump and announced that he would be removing his name from the ballots in ten key battleground states.

In Michigan, Kennedy had secured his position on the ballot as the nominee of the Natural Law Party. Following his withdrawal, he requested that his name be removed from consideration, but this request was denied by Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, who cited state law as the reason for her decision.

With his appeal rejected, Kennedy sought intervention from the court. Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher Yates ultimately sided with Benson, reinforcing her stance. “Elections are not just games; the Secretary of State (SOS) is not obligated to honor the whims of candidates for public office,” Yates stated in a four-page order that was subsequently reported by Michigan Public Radio.

Judge Yates explained that Kennedy’s last-minute appeal was an attempt to circumvent the law. He emphasized that the SOS acted appropriately by denying Kennedy’s request, citing that the law does not require the SOS to remove his name from the ballot after the deadlines had passed.

In his arguments, Kennedy asserted that he had met the state’s legal timeframe for withdrawal. However, Yates referenced another state law specifically indicating that candidates nominated by minor parties are not allowed to withdraw. This legal clause exists to prevent disruption to the party that nominated them.

Yates elaborated on the implications of allowing such withdrawals, noting that it could leave the nominating party without a candidate on the general election ballot. “Permitting a candidate to unilaterally withdraw after the August primary election date leaves the party without a candidate on the general-election ballot,” Yates explained. He described Kennedy’s request as a self-serving act that would disadvantage the party.

Furthermore, the judge underscored the importance of balancing Kennedy’s desire to step down as a candidate against the rights of the party that endorsed him. He stated that if Kennedy had qualified for the ballot under his own name, he would have had the ability to withdraw. However, as a nominee of a party, he was bound by the rules that govern minor party candidates.

“The Court must deny relief to plaintiff because ‘[c]andidates so nominated and certified [by a minor party] shall not be permitted to withdraw,’” Yates affirmed, citing statutory text.

Adding to the complexity, election officials in Wisconsin similarly stated last week that Kennedy could not be removed from the ballot there, pointing towards state regulations that also prevent such withdrawals.

Kennedy has also taken legal action against the North Carolina State Board of Elections after they denied his request to exit the ballot as a third-party candidate. Despite these attempts, he has successfully withdrawn his candidacy from other states, including Arizona, based on communications from that state’s Secretary of State.

As the election approaches, the focus on Kennedy’s status continues, revealing the intricacies of election law and the challenges faced by candidates navigating their withdrawal from ballots.

Source: UPI