The Nevada Supreme Court has removed Green Party candidate Jill Stein from the November ballot, raising questions about electoral fairness and inclusivity.
At a Glance
- Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of the lawsuit blocking Jill Stein from the ballot.
- The court’s decision was a 5-2 ruling.
- More than 15,000 signatures on the Green Party’s petition were invalidated due to incorrect affidavit language.
- The affidavit language was recommended by the Nevada Secretary of State’s office.
- Jill Stein criticized the decision as anti-democratic.
Court Ruling and Impact
In a 5-2 decision, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Nevada Democratic Party’s lawsuit, blocking Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, from appearing on the November general election ballot. This decision is based on the invalidation of more than 15,000 signatures due to incorrect affidavit language on the Green Party’s petition, despite this language being recommended by the Nevada Secretary of State’s office.
The court clarified that the Green Party’s reliance on the sample ballot petition from the secretary could not excuse the incorrect language. This development highlights the strict and complex ballot access laws that third-party candidates face, questioning the fairness and inclusivity of the current electoral process. This ruling may significantly impact voter preferences in closely contested regions.
Reactions and Criticisms
Jill Stein criticized the court’s decision, calling it anti-democratic and a disservice to Nevada voters. She claimed that the Democratic Party has a pattern of eliminating competition in multiple states. “This is extremely anti-democratic. This is a slap in the face to the voters of Nevada, who deserve choices. That’s what democracy is supposed to be about,” Stein stated. She further emphasized that this is part of a broader strategy to stifle competition.
This perspective is supported by the Green Party’s decision to appeal the ruling to the United States Supreme Court. The party had submitted nearly 29,500 signatures, well above the required minimum, but the use of the wrong circulator affidavit led to their disqualification.
And the Jill Stein Green Party WINNING THROUGH WHINING strategy marches on! https://t.co/8LXWLu20Pg
— Frank Conniff (@FrankConniff) September 8, 2024
Nevada Democratic Party’s Stance
The Nevada Democratic Party praised the court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to state law. “We applaud the Nevada State Supreme Court’s decision that the Green Party failed to meet state law. This ruling is a victory for Nevada voters and ensures that the Green Party follows the same rules as other campaigns,” said Nevada State Democratic Party Executive Director Hilary Barrett. The party had actively prepared legal teams to counter potential spoiler candidates like Stein.
This is what the Democrats did to @RobertKennedyJr and now Jill Stein. What is wrong with this country?
This is not democracy. This is the opposite of Democracy. Jill, I send you my love and compassion. This is so not cool. https://t.co/3YPIaIep8e— Karen Lorre (@KarenLorre) September 8, 2024
Dissenting Opinions and Judicial Concerns
Justices Douglas Herndon and Kristina Pickering dissented, citing the error made by the Secretary of State’s office. “I am deeply concerned that our decision today excuses an egregious error by the Secretary of State’s office that will result in a significant injustice and I am convinced that, under the circumstances presented in regard to that error, invalidating the signatures violates the Green Party’s substantive due process rights,” Herndon’s dissenting opinion stated. The dissent argued that the Green Party had demonstrated substantial compliance with the law.
"Stein, Stein, Stein?"
Said about Jill in Ben's voice.
Looks like the Deep Dem State kept Jill off the ballot in NV. https://t.co/iHsFXqE2JU
— Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) September 6, 2024
Future Implications
The ruling leaves the Libertarian Party’s Chase Oliver as the only minor party candidate on Nevada’s general election ballot. The Nevada Supreme Court’s decision underscores the challenges that third-party candidates face in gaining ballot access. This development invites further scrutiny and debate on the fairness of the electoral process in the United States, as the Green Party continues its push for inclusion and representation.
“This is a pattern. What they’re doing in Nevada is also what they’re trying to do in many other states to wipe out competition. Competition is what democracy is supposed to be all about, and they’re doing this in many ways. They announced proudly last March that they had hired an army of lawyers to find little details in the law,” said Stein.
Sources
1. Green Party candidate Jill Stein discusses getting removed from Nevada’s ballot
2. Green Party ineligible, Nevada Supreme Court decides
