The Nevada Supreme Court made that ruling earlier this month The Green Party should be removed from the 2024 ballot in that state Due to a paperwork error.
Nevada law requires people who collect petition signatures to place a “minor party” on the ballot to “verify that they believe that each person signing the petition is a registered voter in the county of his or her residence.” The Greens did not comply with this requirement, so a majority of the state’s highest court ruled that they could not appear on the ballot this year.
But there is a slight complication.
When the Green Party originally submitted documents to the Nevada Secretary of State’s office expressing their desire to begin collecting signatures, they were given improper instructions. An employee of the Secretary of State responded to this submission and said that the party should use a specific form to collect signatures. Unfortunately, this employee attached the wrong signature collection form to that email — the attached form was the form used to collect signatures for a ballot initiative (ie, a vote to change Nevada law), not to collect signatures to keep minors on the ballot. .
And so the Green Party is now on the US Supreme Court, Claiming that their constitutional rights have been violated Because they obeyed this employee’s instructions, and were later removed from the ballot because they did so. It has been reported as a case in the Supreme Court Nevada Green Party v. Aguilar.
Notably, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s former lawyer Jay Sekulow is representing the Greens in the Supreme Court. Sekulow is one of the best lawyers in Trump’s orbit — he is Argued dozens of cases in the Supreme CourtMost favor Christian Right causes — and his presence in this field indicates that Republicans are eager to get the Greens back on the ballot in a key swing state.
And why wouldn’t they? The Green Party is essentially a vehicle for left-of-center candidates Rarely even achieve one percent of the popular vote. The Green Party is just as important because they can attract enough voters who would otherwise support the Democrats in a very close election. (And the race is expected to be in Nevada very Off: Vote average Currently the presidential candidates are separated by less than one percentage point.)
Because of this, it probably won’t surprise anyone to learn that the state’s Democratic Party was the plaintiff in the lawsuit that kicked the Greens off the Nevada ballot. Both major parties are well aware of the possibility that the Green Party’s presidential candidate could act as a spoiler in this November’s election. Republicans want to help make that happen; Democrats want to avoid this at all costs.
But what does the law actually say about the Green Party’s bid to appear on the Nevada ballot?
The short answer is that, if there were no procedural hurdles in the Supreme Court’s ruling for the Greens, they would have a plausible — but, admittedly, airtight — case. in him Brief of JusticesSekulow cites some precedent that supports the Green Party, but it hardly compels the conclusion that the party has the right to appear on the Nevada ballot.
That said, there are several procedural hurdles in this area that could prove fatal to the Green Party’s claim. Among other things, Nevada is Race to meet September 21 deadline For mailing ballots to overseas military personnel – a deadline set by federal law. If the Supreme Court were to order Nevada to turn over those ballots so close to the deadline, it would likely be impossible for the state to meet it.
Still, it’s always dangerous to bet that this Supreme Court, with its 6-3 Republican supermajority, will rule against Donald Trump’s interests. After all, this is the same court that recently held that Trump has immunity from prosecution for crimes he has committed using the president’s official powers — an immunity that has no basis in the Constitution.
What are the legal issues? Nevada Green Party?
Sekulow’s strongest argument is that the Green Party cannot be removed from the ballot for complying with the orders of state employees. In an email to the Green Party, Sekulow claimed, a state employee told them “Use the attached document to start collecting signatures” The Green Party then used the attached document to collect signatures, only to discover later that they had used the wrong form.
This argument has some superficial appeal – it seems, at the very least, unfair to punish a party who obeys the instructions of a public servant. Many of the Supreme Court’s past decisions, however, were against Sekulow’s argument. As the court said Heckler v. Community Health Servs (1984), “those dealing with government are expected to know the law and cannot rely on the conduct of government agents contrary to the law.”
Sekulow does not quote two case It suggests that one cannot be charged with a crime if he acts consistently with the government’s instructions. However, there are no allegations of criminal activity against the Green Party. The only issue in this case is whether it could appear on the 2024 ballot in Nevada.
At best, in other words, Sekulow is asking the Supreme Court to expand these two criminal cases into a new context and note that the Constitution also protects political parties that comply with public servant instructions regarding ballot access from being kicked off the ballot. But there are several very good reasons why the Court should not extend that precedent in this case.
One is that, even though the state gave the wrong form to the Green Party, it should have been obvious to the party that the form was sent in error. The correct form requires petition circulators to certify that they believe each signer is a registered voter in the county in which they reside. In contrast, the form the Green Party actually used was the correct form to collect signatures for ballot initiatives and referendums. It requires circulators to certify that signatories “had an opportunity before signing Read the full text of the legislation or resolution on which the initiative or referendum is demanded“
It turns out, in other words, that the Green Party’s petition circulators all proved under penalty of perjury that their petition signers had an opportunity to read the full text of a ballot initiative that didn’t actually exist.
Additionally, there are procedural reasons why the Green Party’s bid to get on the Nevada ballot has failed. One is the conclusion of the Supreme Court Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006) that federal courts should be wary of changing a state’s election rules as an election approaches, due to concerns that late-breaking changes to those rules could create confusion about how the election should be conducted.
This Court has not always applied Parcel Consistently — frankly, it has historically applied it far more aggressively when lower court decisions benefit Democrats than when they benefit Republicans — but it’s hard to imagine a more compelling case to invoke. Parcel compared to Nevada Green Party case
Nevada is trying to make the Saturday deadline set by federal law for distributing ballots to overseas military personnel. It’s Wednesday. If the Supreme Court gets involved now, it will be nearly impossible for Nevada to meet its obligations under federal law.
In fact, according to Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar, at least one Nevada county has Military ballots have already been sent out that do not include the Green Party.
There is another, closely related reason why the Supreme Court should rule against the Green Party. Courts have long held that a party forfeits certain relief, even if it would otherwise be entitled to it, if it is a “lack of effort“To assert its rights, such as waiting so long to assert a legal claim that the delay itself damages the opposing party. Yet the Green Party Wait a whole week It has been removed from the ballot since the Nevada Supreme Court’s Sept. 6 order to file a case with the U.S. Supreme Court instead of immediately.
Thus, one reason it is impossible for Nevada to comply with both federal deadlines governing military ballots and a US Supreme Court order requiring the Green Party to be on the ballot is the clock before the Green Party seeks relief from the justices.
All of this is not to say that while the Nevada employee’s confusing directive to the Green Party should raise some eyebrows, a Supreme Court order to keep the Green Party on the ballot would be inappropriate.
