Supreme Court Bars Green Party’s Jill Stein from Nevada Ballot

Washington — The Supreme Court has refused to allow Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein onto the Nevada general election ballot, affirming a lower court’s decision that excluded the party from voting. This case marks one of the first electoral disputes to reach the high court as the upcoming election approaches. Although the court had previously revived part of an Arizona law requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, it rejected enforcement of similar requirements for voting in presidential elections or by mail.

Nevada and Arizona are both critical battlegrounds that could significantly influence the presidential race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. The Green Party is attempting to have Stein appear on the ballot in a state where ballots needed to be finalized by September 6.

The Supreme Court denied the Nevada Green Party’s appeal to overturn a lower court injunction barring its candidates from the general election ballot. Notably, there were no dissenting opinions filed regarding the decision.

The conflict originated when the Nevada State Democratic Party took legal action in June to challenge the Green Party’s eligibility for the ballot. Nevada Democrats claimed that the Green Party, classified as a minor political entity in the state, used an incorrect form to collect signatures to secure ballot access, thus invalidating their petitions. The Green Party had inadvertently received the wrong form from the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office due to an error in their initial petition.

While the state Democratic Party correctly identified that the incorrect affidavit was circulated, the Green Party argued that preventing their candidates from appearing on the ballot would violate constitutional rights. A state district court initially ruled in favor of the Green Party, but the Nevada Supreme Court later determined that the party’s rights had not been infringed.

The Nevada Supreme Court then directed the Secretary of State to remove Green Party candidates from the general election ballot. In their ruling, the Nevada Supreme Court stated, “If the Green Party had reviewed the petition before using it, it would have discovered the incorrect circulator affidavit.” It highlighted that the Green Party was already aware of the affidavit requirements because they used the correct affidavit in their original filing.

Following the state Supreme Court’s decision, attorneys for the Nevada Green Party requested emergency relief from the Supreme Court, terming the state court’s ruling “extraordinary” and a violation of due process and equal protection. They sought to have the lower court’s decision overturned, asserting that voters supporting Green Party candidates would be unlawfully deprived of their voting rights in the upcoming election.

The Green Party’s legal team maintained that thousands of Nevada residents who signed petitions for the party to be included on the ballot would now be disenfranchised. “Exclusion from a ballot is tantamount to an electoral death penalty for candidates,” their lawyers contended.

The Nevada Democrats countered that the Green Party’s request was “extraordinary” and “seemingly unprecedented,” implying that the Green Party was attempting to avoid compliance with the state’s laws regarding ballot access. Lawyers for the Democrats noted that ballots were in the process of being printed, set to be distributed soon, and any disruption to the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision would create complications in the production of ballots.

According to state officials, ballots designated for military and overseas voters must be mailed by September 20, while those for out-of-state absentee voters must be dispatched by September 26. Furthermore, at least one county clerk had already begun sending out ballots to military and overseas voters, as well as to out-of-state residents, to ensure adherence to both federal and state regulations.

The state Democratic Party urged the Supreme Court justices to dismiss the Green Party’s request, warning that it could introduce chaos and uncertainty into Nevada’s election process just days prior to ballots being dispatched to voters.

Nevada’s Secretary of State also expressed concerns that reinstating Stein’s candidacy on the ballot could undermine the integrity of the state’s elections, as it might force the state to reissue ballots to certain voters. “Here, the harm is far greater than just the loss of time preparing and printing ballots,” state lawyers argued in a filing to the Supreme Court. “Ballots have already been mailed to some voters, and if the Court grants the Application, it would lead to voter confusion and an erosion of confidence in the electoral process.”

Source: various news articles