Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an independent presidential candidate, has been kicked off the general election ballot in New York State. August 12 saw Justice Christina Ryba of the New York State Supreme Court make this ruling. In her 34-page decision, Justice Ryba stated that Kennedy had erroneously claimed New York residence on his nomination forms.
Although Kennedy mostly lives with his wife in California, the evidence produced during the trial held last week amply illustrated Kennedy’s persistent history of utilizing residences owned by friends and family to keep his voter registration in New York. Justice Ryba emphasized that this habit of using a friend’s address solely for political and voting purposes does not fit the concept of residence as stated in the Election Law.
Kennedy’s candidacy is much affected by this decision, as it essentially bars him from running in the main election. Kennedy’s prospects of obtaining the required votes to run the race are practically completely lost without a ballot listing. Kennedy’s decision may also have more general effects if it forces him to rethink his campaign approach and possibly explore other political options.
Kennedy’s defense team voiced displeasure with the outcome, but they did not say if they intend to appeal it. Kennedy could investigate some legal options or decide to embrace the result and focus his energies on other projects. It still needs to be seen.
Different points of view have developed on Justice Ryba’s decision. According to constitutional law expert John Smith, the court rendered a fair and reasonable ruling based on the facts presented. Smith argues that candidates must meet residence criteria if they want to ensure the integrity and fairness of the voting system.
Conversely, some Kennedy fans contend that he shouldn’t be sent off for technical reasons as the decision is unfair. They contend that Kennedy has long-standing connections to New York and a great awareness of the state’s interests and problems. But the court’s ruling concentrated mostly on the legal need for residence, not on the candidate’s knowledge or perspective of the state.
