A brief history of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ruled on cases for more than 230 years, but recent decisions have Americans calling the court’s legitimacy into question.
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on Friday rejected an emergency request to put Green Party candidate Jill Stein on Nevada’s presidential ballot, a potential boost for Vice President Kamala Harris’ efforts to carry the closely divided state.
Opinion polls show Harris and former President Donald Trump essentially tied in Nevada, and Stein’s presence on the ballot had the potential to pull voters from the vice president.
More: ‘Torn 20’ voters, still on the fence, will decide if Trump or Harris prevails
Nevada Democrats had challenged Stein’s eligibility, claiming she hadn’t followed ballot access rules for third party candidates.
After the Nevada Supreme Court sided with Democrats, the Green Party asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene − in a petition filed by lawyer and conservative pundit Jay Sekulow, who represented Trump during his first impeachment.
Sekulow, an attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice, told the court Stein was “wrongfully ripped from the ballot,” robbing Nevadans of their chance to vote for her in a case with national impact.
The Supreme Court shouldn’t let Nevada keep Stein off the ballot, he wrote, just as the court ruled in March that Colorado couldn’t use an anti-insurrectionist provision of the Constitution to exclude Trump. (Sekulow represented Colorado Republicans in that ballot dispute.)
More: 14% of Republicans would ‘take action to overturn’ the election if Trump loses, study finds
“There is still time to right this wrong,” Sekulow told the court.
But Democrats and Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar said the clock had run out.
Ballots are already being printed and mailed out to meet federal and state deadlines, they told the court. Changing them now “would lead to voter confusion and an erosion of confidence in the electoral process,” the state’s lawyers said in a filing.
As is common for emergency orders, the court did not give an explanation for its decision. There were no noted dissents.
Tight race in Nevada
Polls show a neck and neck race between Harris and Trump in Nevada, one of the seven battleground states expected to determine who will succeed President Joe Biden.
Kyle Kondik, who analyzes elections at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said Nevada could be decided by just tenths of a percentage point, “so the composition of the ballot matters.”
But Kondik also noted that Nevada has an explicit “None of These Candidates” option, giving voters another way to lodge a protest vote regardless of who is on the ballot.
Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver is also on the ballot.
Stein is polling around 1% and support for third-party candidates tends to decline on election day, said Dan Lee, an associate professor of political science at the University of Nevada Las Vegas.
Some voters who tell pollsters they’re backing a third-party candidate will either not vote or will vote for the major party candidate they consider the lesser of two evils, he said.
And it’s not a given that Harris would be the second choice of a Stein supporter. Some third-party voters are driven less by a particular candidate or party ideology and are mostly trying to send a general protest message, Lee said.
More: USA TODAY’s guide to the 2024 election
Dispute over proper paperwork
The legal dispute centered on the fact that the ballot access petitions submitted by the Green Party did not include a sworn statement that the person who collected the signatures believed every signer was a registered voter in their county of residence.
Instead, the Green Party incorrectly used paperwork for ballot initiatives, which includes different verification language stating that the signer had read the full text of the referendum or initiative.
The Green Party contends it relied on an incorrect sample petition given to the campaign by a secretary of state employee.
But the Nevada Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, said the Green Party still had a duty to comply with the legal requirements that are in place to prevent fraudulent signatures being gathered.
The majority said there was no evidence that the secretary of state’s office intended to mislead the Green Party. In fact, the office employee directed the party to the state’s qualification guide, which included information on how to comply, the majority said.
Two of the Nevada court’s justices dissented, saying the Green Party “demonstrated substantial compliance” and the majority’s opinion “excuses an egregious error by the Secretary of State’s office that will result in a significant injustice.”
Source link : http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx?ref=FexRss&aid=&tid=66ed9402c2e042a99006fc3d4d9bb7dd&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Felections%2F2024%2F09%2F20%2Fjill-stein-supreme-court-nevada%2F75269772007%2F&c=9118226495848826102&mkt=en-us
Author :
Publish date : 2024-09-20 03:17:00
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.