The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an emergency request to place Green Party candidate Jill Stein on Nevada’s presidential ballot, dealing a blow to her campaign and possibly shifting the dynamics of a tight race in the state.
USA Today reported that the ruling could impact the closely contested battle between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump in the key battleground state of Nevada.
Stein’s exclusion stemmed from a legal challenge initiated by Nevada Democrats, who argued that the Green Party had failed to comply with the state’s ballot access laws.
Specifically, the party submitted improper paperwork when petitioning to get Stein’s name on the ballot. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Democrats, and an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court ensued, resulting in the rejection of Stein’s request.
Polls indicate a neck-and-neck race between Harris and Trump in Nevada, with both candidates locked in a statistical tie.
The removal of Stein from the ballot could potentially benefit Harris by consolidating left-leaning votes. The Green Party candidate is polling around 1%, but in an election as close as Nevada’s, even a small shift in votes could have significant consequences.
Jay Sekulow, an attorney representing the Green Party and a former lawyer for Trump, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on Stein’s behalf. He argued that Stein had been "wrongfully ripped from the ballot," a move that would deprive Nevada voters of the chance to support her candidacy.
Sekulow compared Stein’s situation to a previous case where the court overturned Colorado’s decision to exclude Trump using an anti-insurrectionist provision.
Nevada’s ballots are already in the process of being printed and mailed to voters, adhering to state and federal deadlines.
According to the state’s attorneys, making changes to the ballot now would cause confusion among voters and undermine confidence in the electoral process. The U.S. Supreme Court provided no written explanation for its decision to reject Stein’s inclusion on the ballot.
Despite Stein’s small polling numbers, experts believe her presence on the ballot could influence the outcome of the election.
Kyle Kondik, an analyst at the University of Virginia, noted that Nevada’s race could be decided by fractions of a percentage point, making every vote and candidate on the ballot significant.
The controversy surrounding Stein’s ballot access arose from errors in the Green Party’s petition process. The party mistakenly used verification language meant for ballot initiatives, rather than for candidate nominations, when collecting signatures.
This misstep led Nevada Democrats to challenge Stein’s eligibility, resulting in the Nevada Supreme Court ruling against her.
The Green Party claimed they were misled by a sample petition provided by an employee from the Nevada Secretary of State’s office. However, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld the need to follow proper legal procedures to prevent fraud, stating that there was no evidence of intentional misinformation from the state’s office.
The Nevada Supreme Court’s ruling was not without dissent. Two justices argued that the Green Party had substantially complied with the state’s requirements and that the Secretary of State’s office error should have been taken into account.
They contended that the party’s efforts to comply were sufficient and that excluding Stein would result in an injustice to voters seeking alternative options in the election.
Polls show that while Stein is polling at around 1%, support for third-party candidates often diminishes as election day approaches. Dan Lee, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, observed that many third-party voters eventually shift to a major party candidate they find more acceptable as election day nears.
While Stein may be off the ballot, voters in Nevada still have alternative choices beyond the two major candidates. Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver will be listed on the ballot, along with Nevada’s unique “None of These Candidates” option, which allows voters to reject all listed candidates.
The composition of the ballot could prove crucial in Nevada, a state where the margin of victory may be razor-thin. Kondik emphasized that even a small percentage of voters casting ballots for third-party candidates or opting for "None of These Candidates" could sway the outcome in what is expected to be one of the most hotly contested states in the 2024 presidential election.
