RFK Jr. Removed from New York Ballot Following Judge’s Ruling

Independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been disqualified from appearing on the ballot for New York’s general election. This decision was made by a judge on Monday, who determined that Kennedy falsely claimed a New York residence on his nominating petitions, resulting in their invalidation.

Judge Christina Ryba ruled that Kennedy’s assertion of a New York address as his “place of residence” was misleading. The judge found it evident that Kennedy had no legitimate plans to return to New York, suggesting that he had listed the address solely for political advantage. This ruling, if upheld after an expected appeal by the August 15 deadline, could prevent Kennedy from appearing on the ballot in New York and could also lead to challenges in other states where he used the same New York suburban address to gather signatures.

Throughout the trial, substantial evidence indicated that Kennedy’s ties to the New York address were primarily nominal. Judge Ryba stated, “The overwhelming credible evidence introduced at trial established that Kennedy’s connections with the [New York] address existed only on paper and were maintained for the sole purpose of maintaining his voter registration and political standing in the State of New York.”

During his testimony last week, Kennedy claimed that he has considered New York his home since childhood and has plans to return. He explained that he temporarily relocated to California in 2014 to reside with his wife and mentioned that he is currently renting a room from a woman in New York.

The landlord, Barbara Moss, testified that Kennedy paid her $500 a month for the room but noted that he had only spent one night at her home. His first rental payment was made on May 20 of this year.

In response to the ruling, the Kennedy campaign criticized what they termed an “openly partisan ruling” and stated their intent to continue the legal battle. They emphasized that Kennedy is registered to vote in New York, has considered it his primary residence since 1964, pays taxes there, holds a New York driver’s license, and has a legal practice in the state, among other ties.

Senior Counsel Paul Rossi from Kennedy’s campaign stated, “We intend to pursue injunctive relief in the Southern District of New York. If state court judges are going to ignore the Constitution, the federal courts must step in to protect voters’ rights.”

Kennedy himself remarked that “Democrats are showing contempt for democracy” by attempting to block what he sees as a viable choice for voters. He pledged to appeal the decision, stating, “We will appeal, and we will win.”

The lawsuit against Kennedy is backed by Clear Choice Action, a super PAC affiliated with Democrats aiming to thwart third-party candidates in the upcoming presidential election. Pete Kavanaugh, the founder of Clear Choice Action, expressed that the ruling clearly indicated that Kennedy had misrepresented his residency and provided false information on his official papers. He added that Kennedy’s campaign would likely face a series of unsuccessful lawsuits in the coming days.

This super PAC has also initiated legal actions against Kennedy in Pennsylvania and filed an objection to his candidacy in Illinois. Similar efforts to challenge Kennedy’s candidacy are being led by allies from the Democratic Party in states including Nevada and Delaware.

Matt Corridoni, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), characterized Kennedy as “a deeply troubled, reckless, and dangerous man” who ignores the rules and disregards the potential repercussions of his actions. He further alleged that Kennedy’s candidacy could inadvertently aid Donald Trump in the election and referred to Kennedy’s alleged willingness to support Trump in exchange for a position in a potential Trump administration.

In light of the New York ruling, Corridoni indicated that the Democratic Party would determine their next steps in other states based on the outcome.

The Kennedy campaign did not provide a response to requests for further comment following the ruling.