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.

    • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
      0·
      3 months ago

      Democrats applaud bc she is another Republican plant. They like doing that. If you want to vote for her, you still can. Democracy

              • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
                0·
                3 months ago

                Yall should be embarassed for having such anti-evidence attitudes. Its a core aspect of having informed political discussion.

            • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
              0·
              3 months ago

              Per the Republican caucus they didn’t allow write-ins in Nevada. Looking at your post, those people will not help you. You should be looking for an actual candidate in your state that has a chance.

              Jill Stein is not the one. She is a Putin simp. Her goal is to disrupt the Democrats chance to win. I know it sucks (I live in NC) but you need local winners for a third party. Eventually that will lead to a national third party.

              • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
                0·
                3 months ago

                Republican caucus? This is nevada state law, not party convention rules. Im talking about democracy and freedom to vote for people. You can make arguments supporting voting for your candidate or why people shouldnt vote for another. But trying to win an election by outright forbidding the ability to vote for an opponent is, sitting eerily well with people.

                • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
                  0·
                  3 months ago

                  Sounds like the secretary of the state fucked you. Not sure when they banned write-ins ( Every state should have it.)

                  I still stand by my main point, third parties need to put an effort in local elections to change the laws. You never hear about them during mid-terms. They only want the presidency and that will never happen.

                  • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    0·
                    3 months ago

                    Ill give you a hint, theyre banned by the same people for the same reason third parties get banned from participating in democracy.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 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.

      • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        3 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@lemmy.world
          0·
          3 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?