Wisconsin Supreme Court Keeps RFK Jr. on Presidential Ballot \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s name will remain on the presidential ballot, allowing removal only in case of death. This decision follows Kennedy’s endorsement of Trump and his efforts to withdraw from key battleground states. Wisconsin’s ruling comes after Kennedy’s campaign suspension and similar cases in North Carolina and Michigan.
Wisconsin Keeps RFK Jr. on Ballot: Quick Looks
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled RFK Jr.’s name will remain on the presidential ballot.
- The court upheld a lower ruling allowing removal only if a candidate dies.
- Kennedy previously suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump in August.
- He filed a lawsuit claiming discrimination against third-party candidates.
- Dane County Judge Stephen Ehlke ruled ballots with valid names must stay.
- The ruling came after over 418,000 absentee ballots had been sent out.
- RFK Jr.’s attempt to use stickers for name removal was dismissed.
- The court’s conservative justices warned keeping Kennedy’s name could mislead voters.
Deep Look:
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s name must remain on the state’s presidential ballot, despite his request to have it removed following the suspension of his campaign. The court’s unanimous decision upholds a previous ruling that a candidate can only be removed from the ballot in the event of death, a decision that came after Kennedy officially endorsed former President Donald Trump in August.
The ruling by Wisconsin’s liberal-leaning Supreme Court added another chapter to Kennedy’s complicated quest to have his name removed from ballots in key battleground states, where tight races between Republican nominee Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris are expected. The court’s decision came after more than 418,000 absentee ballots had already been sent to voters across Wisconsin. By Thursday, nearly 28,000 of those ballots had been returned, making the logistics of Kennedy’s removal particularly complex, according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission.
Kennedy had previously filed a lawsuit in Wisconsin on September 3, seeking a court order to remove his name from the ballot, claiming that state laws unfairly discriminated against independent and third-party candidates. His argument centered around the discrepancies in withdrawal deadlines between major party candidates and independent candidates like himself. While Republican and Democratic nominees can withdraw as late as the first Tuesday in September before an election, independent candidates must submit their withdrawal before August 6, when they file their nomination papers. This discrepancy, Kennedy argued, placed third-party candidates at an unfair disadvantage.
However, Dane County Circuit Judge Stephen Ehlke ruled against Kennedy on September 16, noting that Wisconsin law clearly states that once candidates file valid nomination papers, they remain on the ballot unless they pass away. The judge added that many clerks had already printed ballots listing Kennedy’s name, making any changes exceedingly challenging. Judge Ehlke also rejected Kennedy’s proposed solution of covering his name on ballots with stickers, arguing that doing so would create logistical nightmares and potentially cause malfunctions in tabulating machines. He predicted that lawsuits would be inevitable if clerks failed to cover Kennedy’s name properly, or if stickers were not affixed to some ballots.
Kennedy’s attorney, Joseph Bugni, declined to comment on the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision was delivered by its four liberal justices along with conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn. Together, they wrote that Kennedy’s arguments were too underdeveloped for them to conclude whether Judge Ehlke had abused his discretion in ruling that Kennedy should remain on the ballot. They pointed out that Kennedy had not contested Ehlke’s interpretation of the specific law that allows only deceased candidates to be removed from the ballot.
“We emphasize that we are not making any legal determinations on our own regarding the claims made by Kennedy and we are not agreeing with the circuit court’s legal conclusions on those claims. We simply are unable to make such determinations, given the inadequate briefing presented to us,” the five justices stated in their six-page opinion.
Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley voiced her concerns in a one-page concurrence, asserting that keeping Kennedy on the ballot could lead to voter confusion and potentially skew the election outcome. She expressed concerns that voters might inadvertently cast their ballots for Kennedy, unaware that he had suspended his campaign, thereby losing their opportunity to cast a meaningful vote. “Ballots listing a non-candidate mislead voters and may skew a presidential election. In this case, the damage to voter participation in electoral democracy is real,” Bradley wrote. Annette Ziegler, the court’s third conservative justice, joined Bradley’s concurrence, underscoring the potential for confusion among voters.
The presence of third-party candidates like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could have a significant impact on the 2024 election, especially in Wisconsin, where tight presidential races have been the norm in recent years. Out of the past six presidential elections in Wisconsin, four have been decided by margins of between about 5,700 to 23,000 votes. The inclusion of Kennedy, even though he has suspended his campaign, could sway voters away from either of the major party candidates in what is expected to be another extremely close contest.
Historical precedents underscore the impact of third-party candidates in Wisconsin. In 2016, Green Party nominee Jill Stein received just over 31,000 votes in the state—a figure that exceeded Donald Trump’s narrow winning margin of under 23,000 votes. Some Democrats blamed Stein’s candidacy for siphoning votes away from their nominee, thereby contributing to Trump’s win in Wisconsin and ultimately the presidency.
Kennedy’s challenges in key battleground states have also seen varied outcomes. Earlier this month, the North Carolina Supreme Court, in a divided ruling, decided to keep Kennedy off the ballot, while the Michigan Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s decision and ruled in favor of keeping his name. These mixed results have added complexity to Kennedy’s efforts to withdraw his candidacy from critical electoral battlegrounds, where his name could influence an unpredictable electorate.
Kennedy’s decision to endorse Donald Trump after suspending his campaign was a significant moment in the evolving narrative of the 2024 presidential election. Initially running as an independent candidate, Kennedy presented himself as a third option outside of the traditional two-party system. His campaign aimed to draw voters disillusioned with both Democrats and Republicans. However, in August, Kennedy abruptly ended his campaign and threw his support behind Trump, a move that puzzled some of his supporters and fueled suspicions of political strategizing aimed at influencing key states like Wisconsin.
Justice Bradley’s concerns over voter confusion are not unfounded. Kennedy’s name remaining on ballots in states like Wisconsin, despite his withdrawal from the race, could mislead voters unaware of his endorsement of Trump or his decision to step out of the presidential contest altogether. Such confusion may inadvertently affect vote counts in critical battleground states, with Kennedy potentially siphoning votes from either of the major candidates.
The timeline of events also played a crucial role in the court’s decision. By the time Kennedy filed his lawsuit on September 3, the election process in Wisconsin was already well underway, with absentee ballots being printed and distributed to voters. Changing the ballots at that stage would have required significant logistical efforts and would have complicated an election system already under scrutiny for other reasons. Judge Ehlke’s decision to reject the idea of using stickers to cover Kennedy’s name was partly based on logistical concerns, as well as fears about the stickers interfering with ballot tabulation machines.
The ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court highlights the challenges faced by third-party candidates within the U.S. electoral system, particularly when it comes to navigating state-level requirements that differ from those faced by the two major parties. Kennedy’s argument that these laws discriminated against independent candidates shed light on a broader issue—how difficult it is for third-party voices to participate on equal footing in presidential elections. However, the court ultimately found that the state’s rules were clear and applied fairly under existing statutes.
Looking ahead, the presence of Kennedy’s name on the Wisconsin ballot could impact the final outcome in the state, adding yet another layer of complexity to an already contentious election. With Wisconsin having played a decisive role in recent elections, both Harris and Trump will closely watch how any deviation in voter behavior, influenced by the unexpected presence of Kennedy’s name, might affect the results in this pivotal battleground.
