The Nevada Green Party has filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to reverse a state court ruling that removed Jill Stein from the ballot according to CNN.
The decision, issued last week by the Nevada Supreme Court, found that the Green Party failed to use the correct form when collecting signatures for Stein’s candidacy.
The Nevada Green Party argues that this ruling could significantly impact the upcoming election, especially in a battleground state where the margin between major-party candidates is tight.
The dispute began when the state Democratic Party sued to block Stein’s inclusion on the ballot, claiming procedural errors in the signature collection process.
Initially, a lower court ruled in favor of the Green Party, but the Nevada Supreme Court later overturned this decision.
The Nevada Supreme Court found that the Green Party did not substantially comply with the necessary legal requirements for candidacy.
The court ruled that using the incorrect form disqualified Stein from appearing on the ballot, despite acknowledging that the form was mistakenly provided by the Nevada secretary of state’s office.
In its ruling, the court described the error as an “unfortunate mistake” but maintained that the Green Party failed to meet the legal standard. The court’s decision was a setback for the Green Party, which has emphasized the importance of offering voters a third-party option in a closely contested election.
The Green Party, represented by Jay Sekulow, a high-profile attorney who also worked with former President Donald Trump, swiftly responded to the state Supreme Court’s decision. On Friday, they petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting a pause on the ruling that would keep Stein off the ballot.
The party’s emergency appeal argues that Green Party candidates were "ripped from the ballot" unlawfully and that Nevada voters are being denied the opportunity to support third-party candidates.
According to the appeal, this exclusion directly harms the party’s chances in an election where the political landscape is already highly competitive.
Nevada, a key battleground state, has been the focus of intense campaigning as polling shows a close race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. The presence of third-party candidates like Stein could potentially sway the outcome in such a closely contested election.
The Green Party has long positioned itself as an alternative to the two major parties, and the exclusion of its candidates could have significant electoral consequences. The party contends that by removing Stein from the ballot, voters are being deprived of the opportunity to support a broader range of candidates.
The Green Party’s emergency appeal has been submitted to Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees emergency cases from several Western states, including Nevada. Kagan has requested a response to the case by Tuesday, setting the stage for a potential intervention by the nation’s highest court.
The outcome of this appeal could have far-reaching implications, not only for the Green Party but also for third-party candidates across the country. The party hopes that the Supreme Court will rule in their favor, restoring Stein’s place on the ballot and allowing voters to consider her candidacy.
The original lawsuit against the Green Party was filed by the Nevada Democratic Party, which argued that the party’s failure to follow proper procedures invalidated Stein’s candidacy. The Democratic Party's legal challenge pointed to the use of an incorrect form for gathering signatures, a procedural error that ultimately led to Stein’s exclusion.
Despite the Nevada secretary of state’s office providing the incorrect form, the state Supreme Court ruled that the Green Party did not "substantially comply" with the legal requirements. This decision underscores the strict procedural rules governing ballot access and the challenges that third-party candidates often face.
The Green Party has expressed frustration over the court's decision, arguing that the removal of Stein from the ballot was not only a legal issue but also a matter of electoral fairness. In its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the party is calling for immediate relief to allow Stein’s candidacy to move forward.
If the Supreme Court declines to intervene, the Green Party will face significant challenges in competing in Nevada, a state where third-party candidates have traditionally played an influential role. The party’s chances of success could diminish without its candidate on the ballot.
As the case moves to the U.S. Supreme Court, all eyes are on Justice Kagan’s response. The Green Party is hoping for a swift decision that will reverse the state court’s ruling and restore Stein’s candidacy ahead of the election.
The outcome of this legal battle could have lasting implications for future third-party candidates, particularly in states with stringent ballot access rules. A decision from the Supreme Court could set a precedent for how such cases are handled in future elections.
