The Supreme Court has rejected an emergency appeal from Nevada’s Green Party seeking to include presidential candidate Jill Stein on the ballot in the battleground state.

The Supreme Court has rejected an emergency appeal from Nevada’s Green Party seeking to include presidential candidate Jill Stein on the ballot in the battleground state.

The court’s order Friday, without any noted dissents, allows ballot preparation and printing to proceed in Nevada without Stein and other Green Party candidates included.

The outcome is a victory for Democrats who had challenged the Greens’ inclusion on the ballot in a state with a history of extremely close statewide races. In 2020, President Joe Biden outpaced former President Donald Trump by fewer than 35,000 votes in the state.

  • Flying Squid
    18•2 months ago

    It is not undemocratic to be barred from the ballot because your campaign did not bother reading the fine print on the paperwork to make sure it’s all correct. It’s not the level of attention to detail or responsibility I would want from a presidential administration either.

    • @blazeraEnglish
      -10•2 months ago

      Ive yet to have anyone actually cite the forms and what specifically was overlooked. Like somewhere it just states this form not admissable for candidate qualification.

      All of this is incredibly self serving arguments, you would be having quite an outrage if a democrat was barred from an election because of fine print technicality. Thats not what you actually care about, you only care that people you dont like suffered from it.

      • Flying Squid
        7•2 months ago

        You didn’t look very hard. This took seconds:

        Under Nevada law, the Green Party needed to obtain just over 10,000 valid signatures to get its candidates on the ballot for the 2024 general election. The petitions containing the signatures are also required to include an affidavit from the people who circulated the petitions.

        As it came to the Supreme Court, the dispute centered on the content of that affidavit. For minor political parties seeking access to the ballot, Nevada law requires the affidavit to include an attestation that the person who circulated the petition believes that each person signing the petition is registered to vote in the county where she lives.

        The affidavit originally submitted with the Green Party’s petition in July 2023 was the correct one. However, because the petition that the Green Party submitted contained a separate mistake, an employee in the secretary of state’s office sent the party a sample petition that included the wrong affidavit – for use with petitions to put initiatives and referenda on the ballot. As a result, the affidavits that the Green Party later submitted with its petitions did not contain the attestation required for access to the ballot.

        The secretary of state eventually announced that the Green Party had submitted enough signatures to qualify for the 2024 general election ballot.

        The Nevada Democratic Party went to state court in June of this year, arguing that the signatures were invalid because the Green Party had used the wrong affidavit.

        https://amylhowe.com/2024/09/20/supreme-court-rejects-green-party-bid-to-appear-on-2024-nevada-ballot/

        Was it a fuckup by the Secretary of State or just a ratfuck? Yes. Does that mean the campaign shouldn’t have lacked the attention to detail to be able to avoid it? No. They didn’t bother checking to find out that everything was as it should be. And that is not who people should want running the country. If they get thrown off this easily, what will it be like when they’re negotiating things like treaties and trade agreements?

        • @blazeraEnglish
          -15•2 months ago

          You’re the second person ive asked to cite the forms in question, who links to an article about the court case instead.

          The forms, like the forms the green party allegedly received copies of that were incorrect, i am asking to see those forms.

            • Skeezix
              11•2 months ago

              He doesn’t want to see the forms. He just wants to be right.

              • Flying Squid
                7•2 months ago

                I guess they don’t have to click on the link if they don’t want.

                Incidentally, the language in the affidavit makes it pretty clear what it’s for.

            • @blazeraEnglish
              -11•2 months ago

              Why are you saying again like you found them the first time. So, this is the form the secretary of state handed out to a party asking for the form to enter an election

                • @blazeraEnglish
                  -10•2 months ago

                  like you found them the first time.

                  • Flying Squid
                    5•2 months ago

                    I see, you don’t understand that when someone says “again,” they mean that they are repeating the thing they said the first time.

                    This should help:

                    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/again

                    By the way, you could also thank me for providing the document you said no one would provide you with and which you couldn’t take a couple of seconds to find yourself.

          • @Apollo42
            6•2 months ago

            And asking two people was easier than using a search engine?

            • @blazeraEnglish
              -7•2 months ago

              I did search, and like these two people i was getting articles about the court case instead of the forms.

              Hostility to citation just makes political discussion less informed.