The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled against the Green Party, resulting in the removal of their candidate, Jill Stein, from the presidential ballot. The court found that the Green Party used a sample petition from the Nevada Secretary of State’s office to collect signatures for ballot access. However, because this petition did not include required language, approximately 30,000 signatures were deemed invalid.
According to Nevada law, minor parties must include an affidavit with their petition stating that each signer is a registered voter and that their signature is genuine. Instead of using this required affidavit, the Green Party included a different one that is typically used for petitions related to ballot referendums.
The case was brought by the Nevada Democratic Party and initially decided in favor of the Green Party by a district court judge who stated that there was no evidence showing non-compliance with the law. However, the majority of justices on the Supreme Court disagreed with this ruling and emphasized that substantial compliance requires meeting all legal requirements unless evidence suggests otherwise.
Justice Douglas Herndon dissented from this decision and expressed concern about excusing an error made by the Secretary of State’s office. He argued that evidence presented in court demonstrated substantial compliance with training given to circulators regarding voter registration status.
In response to these developments, Jill Stein took to social media platform X to express her disappointment and called it an affront to democracy. Margery Hanson from the Nevada Green Party announced she would not be voting in light of this ruling. On behalf of Democrats in Nevada, Hilary Barrett hailed it as a victory for voters and ensuring equal treatment under campaign rules.
The Secretary of State’s Office acknowledged its involvement but maintained neutrality on legal sufficiency while pledging cooperation with counties for implementation purposes.
