Voters in Nevada will have one less option for president in November as the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled against the Green Party. The court has ordered the removal of the party’s candidate, Jill Stein, from the ballot.
On September 6, the Nevada Supreme Court acknowledged that the Green Party had used a sample petition from the Nevada Secretary of State’s office to gather signatures for ballot access. However, the court stated that the petition was invalid as it lacked the required language according to the state law. Approximately 30,000 signatures gathered by the Green Party were disregarded.
Under Nevada law, minor parties seeking ballot access must include an affidavit with the petition for signatures. This affidavit should state that the person collecting the signatures believes each signer is a registered voter in the state and that the signature is genuine.
In this particular case, the Nevada Democratic Party brought the lawsuit against the Green Party. Initially, a district court judge had ruled in favor of the Green Party, stating that the Democratic Party had failed to provide evidence that the Green Party had not complied with the law. However, the Nevada Supreme Court majority found this ruling to be erroneous due to the Green Party’s petition affidavit lacking the necessary information.
The majority of the Supreme Court stated that failure to comply with legal requirements typically results in a lack of substantial compliance, unless evidence is provided to the contrary. The Green Party failed to submit evidence demonstrating that their petition circulators had complied with the legal requirements despite the missing affidavit language.
Justices Lidia S. Stiglich, Linda Marie Bell, Elissa F. Cadish, Patricia Lee, and Ron D. Parraguirre formed the majority in this ruling.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Douglas Herndon, joined by Justice Kristina Pickering, expressed deep concern over the decision, stating that it excuses a significant error by the Secretary of State’s office which ultimately leads to a substantial injustice.
Justice Herndon argued that the evidence presented in the case, including a declaration from the CEO of the circulation company employed by the Green Party, demonstrated substantial compliance with the law. Additionally, the ruling was seen as a violation of the Green Party’s due process rights since they had used the correct language in the petition they filed with the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office. However, an employee from the office provided them with a sample form that contained the incorrect affidavit.
In response to the ruling, the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office stated that it is committed to providing accurate information to the public. The office acknowledged its involvement in the case and emphasized that it had taken no position on the legal sufficiency of the petition under Nevada law. The office is currently reviewing and improving its guides and other documents.
Margery Hanson, co-chair of the Nevada Green Party, announced that she will not be voting in the upcoming election following the court’s decision.
Hilary Barrett, executive director of the Nevada Democratic Party, hailed the ruling as a victory for Nevada voters. She stated that it ensures the Green Party will be subject to the same rules as other political campaigns.