Originally Authored at TheFederalist.com
On Friday, the Nevada Supreme Court granted Democrats’ request to deny the left-leaning Green Party the ability to appear on the state’s 2024 presidential ballot.
In a 5-2 decision, the Silver State’s highest court agreed with state Democrats’ claims that the Green Party used incorrect affidavit language on its signature petition. The ruling reverses a decision issued by a state district court last month that dismissed state Democrats’ attempt to disqualify the third party from appearing on the 2024 ballot.
“The Green Party did not substantially comply with the requirements for circulator affidavits, and thus, the Green Party’s signatures must be invalidated,” the court’s majority wrote.
As noted by dissenting Justices Kristina Pickering and Douglas Herndon, however, the affidavit form used by the Green Party was the same version recommended by the office of Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, a Democrat. According to the justices, the Green Party sent its petition to the secretary’s office when starting to collect signatures to gain ballot access and was subsequently told by an office official the “documents [they] may have [appear to be] an older version.”
The documents provided by the secretary’s office “contained the wrong circulator affidavit, specifically the one used for circulating initiative or referendum petitions, instead of the correct circulator affidavit for minor party petitions for ballot access,” Herndon wrote. “The Green Party was not merely provided an incorrect form, rather, they were affirmatively told by the Secretary of State’s office that the correct form the Green Party originally provided in their petition was outdated and they were affirmatively directed by the Secretary of State’s office to use the specific form provided by that office in moving forward with their petition” [emphasis added].
The majority effectively dismissed this point, claiming the Green Party’s “failure to use the correct circulator affidavit cannot be excused by [its] reliance on the sample petition received from the Secretary.”
Pickering and Herndon disagreed and expressed belief that the court’s decision “excuses an egregious error by the Secretary of State’s office that will result in a significant injustice,” and that the decision to “invalidat[e] the signatures violates the Green Party’s substantive due process rights.”
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein responded to Friday’s ruling in an X post, writing that the Nevada Supreme Court “has set a dangerous precedent incentivizing partisan election officials to sabotage their competition.” Conversely, Nevada Democratic Party Executive Director Hilary Barrett reportedly celebrated the court’s decision to deny Stein ballot access as a “victory for Nevada voters,” according to the Nevada Independent.
The campaign to keep the Green Party off Nevada’s November ballot comes amid a nationwide effort among Democrats to deny left-of-center presidential candidates ballot access to boost Kamala Harris’ electoral prospects. Other targets of this campaign include Cornel West and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
After fighting to keep Kennedy off the ballot in key swing states, Democrat officials are now working to keep his name on the ballot since he withdrew from the race and endorsed Donald Trump. However, appellate courts in Michigan and North Carolina ruled on Friday that Kennedy must be removed from the ballot before early ballots are mailed to voters.
UPDATE
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled Monday that Kennedy’s name must appear on the state’s 2024 ballot, reversing the appellate court’s Friday decision.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood