The U.S. Supreme Court has effectively blocked Green Party candidate Jill Stein from appearing on Nevada’s 2024 presidential ballot, marking a significant development in the state’s highly contested race.
The ruling had the effect of upholding a Nevada Supreme Court decision, which found that Stein failed to meet access requirements and must leave the ballot, potentially boosting Vice President Kamala Harris in her narrow race against Donald Trump, as USA Today reports.
On Friday, the Supreme Court denied an emergency request to allow Stein on Nevada’s ballot, filed by Jay Sekulow, a prominent attorney who once represented former President Donald Trump. Stein’s removal has sparked concerns from some that voters are being deprived of choice, while others see it as an important move to preserve the integrity of the ballot process.
The legal battle over Stein’s eligibility began when Nevada Democrats challenged her spot on the ballot, asserting that the Green Party had failed to follow proper ballot procedures. The Nevada Supreme Court sided with the Democrats, stating that the Green Party's paperwork lacked a crucial sworn statement, thus violating state laws aimed at preventing fraudulent signatures.
Sekulow, who represented the Green Party in this case, argued that removing Stein from the ballot not only harmed Nevada voters but could also have implications beyond the state. He claimed the decision robbed Nevadans of their right to choose and that there was still time to “correct this injustice.” However, Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar and state Democrats opposed the move, arguing that any changes to the ballots would risk confusing voters and could erode their trust in the electoral process.
The stakes in this legal battle are particularly high due to the close nature of the race in Nevada. According to opinion polls, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are running neck and neck, with analysts predicting that the state’s outcome could be decided by mere tenths of a percentage point.
Kyle Kondik, a well-known polling expert, emphasized the importance of the ballot’s composition in such a tight race, noting that even a small percentage of third-party support could shift the final outcome. Stein, polling at roughly 1%, was not expected to gain much traction by election day, but the removal of even minor candidates could impact voter choices. Additionally, Nevada offers a “None of These Candidates” option on the ballot, further complicating the dynamics of voter preferences. Chase Oliver, the Libertarian Party candidate, remains on the ballot, offering another alternative for disillusioned voters.
Political analysts like Dan Lee have pointed out that support for third-party candidates often dwindles as election day nears. Many voters who initially back such candidates may ultimately shift their support to one of the major party contenders, depending on which they perceive as the lesser of two evils. However, Lee also noted that it is not guaranteed that Stein’s supporters would have gravitated toward Harris. Some third-party voters, he explained, are less concerned with any particular ideology and more motivated by a desire to protest the political system as a whole.
The Nevada Supreme Court’s ruling that kept Stein off the ballot was not without dissent. Two justices argued that the Green Party had “substantially complied” with the legal requirements and that the Secretary of State’s office had committed a significant error, resulting in an injustice.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to reject the emergency petition came without an explanation, as is common with emergency orders. This effectively affirmed the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision, leaving Stein without recourse to remain on the ballot.
Nevada Democrats and election officials defended the ruling, pointing to the potential for voter confusion if ballots were altered at this stage. They argued that the state’s ballot access rules were designed to maintain confidence in the election process and prevent fraud. Meanwhile, Sekulow continued to argue that the removal of Stein had larger national consequences, insisting that Nevada voters should have the chance to cast their ballots for her. Despite this, the Supreme Court’s silence on the matter has left little room for further legal challenges.
As the 2024 election draws nearer, Nevada voters will head to the polls with fewer third-party options. Though Stein was not expected to have a large impact, her absence may sway undecided voters toward the major party candidates.
Chase Oliver, polling behind Stein, remains on the ballot, though analysts suggest his influence will also likely diminish as the election approaches. As Dan Lee remarked, many third-party supporters tend to return to major parties by election day, driven either by pragmatism or protest. Ultimately, the removal of Jill Stein from Nevada’s ballot highlights the challenges third-party candidates face in navigating state election laws. Whether her absence will impact the final result in Nevada’s tight race remains to be seen.
