High Court Rejects RFK Jr.’s Bid to Exit Swing State Ballots \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The Supreme Court has rejected Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s emergency appeal to remove his name from Michigan and Wisconsin ballots following his endorsement of Donald Trump. Kennedy argued that keeping his name on the ballot would imply he is still running, violating his First Amendment rights. However, state officials cited logistical challenges, as over 2.5 million votes had already been cast. The ruling underscores the complexities and potential influence of third-party candidates in swing states.
Supreme Court Rejects RFK Jr.’s Request to Remove Name from Ballots: Key Points
- Kennedy’s Appeal Rejected: The Supreme Court denied RFK Jr.’s request to remove his name from Michigan and Wisconsin ballots after he endorsed Donald Trump.
- Logistical Voting Constraints: Both states argued that ballot changes were unfeasible due to the ongoing early voting, with over 2.5 million ballots already submitted across Michigan and Wisconsin.
- Justice Gorsuch Dissents: In the Michigan case, Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented, supporting Kennedy’s request and noting that his timing was not unreasonable.
- Swing State Dynamics: Kennedy’s name on the ballot could influence the vote in key swing states, potentially affecting the narrow race between Trump and Kamala Harris.
- Legal Hurdles in Ballot Removal: Courts in both Michigan and Wisconsin upheld strict guidelines that prohibit ballot removal after deadlines, barring extenuating circumstances like death.
Deep Look
Supreme Court Denies Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Emergency Appeal to Exit Presidential Ballots in Key Swing States
State Arguments: Logistical Challenges in Ballot Removal
Both Michigan and Wisconsin responded to Kennedy’s request by arguing that logistical constraints make it impossible to alter the ballots so close to Election Day. Early voting has been underway for weeks, with Michigan already receiving over 1.5 million absentee ballots and another 264,000 early in-person votes, according to state attorneys. Wisconsin reported that more than 858,000 absentee ballots have been returned.
The high volume of votes already cast highlights the logistical difficulties states would face in attempting to alter ballots or notify voters. Michigan and Wisconsin officials noted that Kennedy’s proposed solution of covering his name with stickers would be impractical and potentially confusing for voters. The Supreme Court issued its decision without explanation, as is typical in emergency cases, but Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a dissent in the Michigan case. Gorsuch emphasized that Kennedy’s initial request to be removed was filed within a reasonable timeframe, indicating that lower courts may have overlooked this factor.
Impact on Swing State Dynamics
With Kennedy’s name set to remain on the ballots in two pivotal swing states, his presence could play a unique role in the race. Independent and third-party candidates have historically influenced tight elections by drawing votes away from major candidates. Political analysts suggest that Kennedy’s presence could pull votes from both Trump and Harris, potentially affecting the close margin expected in these states.
RFK Jr.’s Broader Legal Efforts and Party Dynamics
Kennedy has pursued ballot removals in multiple states following his endorsement of Trump, seeking to avoid unintended votes from those who may still believe he is running as an independent. With Michigan and Wisconsin being the final states where his name remains, Kennedy’s efforts have faced challenges as each state’s election law differs in its approach to third-party candidates.
In Michigan, Kennedy initially gained support from the Natural Law Party, which nominated him before his endorsement of Trump. After the endorsement, the party argued for his name to remain on the ballot, citing its original nomination. Kennedy won an appeal in one court to withdraw his name, but further rulings upheld that he could not be removed without violating the party’s rights or disrupting the ballot process.
In Wisconsin, Kennedy contended that major political parties receive more flexibility with ballot changes, claiming this as unfair. However, state judges upheld Wisconsin’s existing policy that candidates who miss deadlines must remain on the ballot unless specific exceptions—such as death or permanent incapacitation—apply.
Justice Gorsuch’s dissent in the Michigan case also pointed to state court rulings that agreed with Kennedy’s request, describing his initial petition as reasonable. Gorsuch suggested that Kennedy’s intent to withdraw should weigh in his favor and questioned the practicality of denying him ballot removal at such a critical time.
Third-Party Candidate Challenges and Swing State Importance
This Supreme Court ruling has effectively closed the door on Kennedy’s last-minute attempt to reshape the ballot, leaving Michigan and Wisconsin voters with an unexpected option as they head to the polls. The broader implications of his presence on these ballots have led some to examine the potential impact on voter dynamics in states crucial to both parties’ strategies.
Election Law and Ballot Guidelines
The Supreme Court’s decision aligns with state policies that limit ballot modifications close to an election. In both Michigan and Wisconsin, deadlines for removing or replacing candidates on ballots are strict, with limited exceptions. These policies aim to ensure consistency and prevent voter confusion but can create challenges when candidates attempt to change course late in the election cycle. With Kennedy’s name remaining on these key ballots, political strategists anticipate that the unplanned variable may influence voter decisions.
Closing Observations: How Kennedy’s Decision Could Shape the Election
As the race heads into its final stretch, Kennedy’s appearance on ballots in Michigan and Wisconsin may serve as a deciding factor in one of the tightest elections to date. The combination of his high-profile endorsement of Trump and continued ballot presence adds complexity for both campaigns. Independent candidates have long been viewed as potentially shifting outcomes in close races, and Kennedy’s unique role could become a pivotal influence in the final election results.
Kennedy’s name on the ballot leaves him positioned to capture a slice of votes that might otherwise have gone to one of the two major party candidates, adding an unpredictable factor to the battleground states. With no further options for removal, the votes cast in Michigan and Wisconsin will include Kennedy’s name, leaving the Supreme Court’s decision as the final word on his unexpected role in the election.
