Voters in Nevada will have one less option for president in November after the Nevada Supreme Court ruled against the Green Party and ordered the removal of the party’s candidate, Jill Stein, from the ballot.
Nevada’s top court acknowledged on Sept. 6 that the Green Party used a sample petition from the Nevada secretary of state’s office to gather signatures to get the party on the ballot but said that because the petition lacked language required by the law, the approximately 30,000 signatures were invalid.
Nevada law requires minor parties seeking ballot access to include an affidavit with the petition for signatures, stating that the person circulating the petition believes that each person who signed is a registered voter in the state and that the signature is genuine.
In the case, which was brought by the Nevada Democratic Party, a district court judge had sided with the Green Party. The state Democratic Party needed to provide evidence that the Green Party had not substantially complied with the law and did not do so, the judge said.
The Nevada Supreme Court majority said that ruling was erroneous because the Green Party’s petition circulator affidavit lacked the required information, justices said.
“A failure to comply with such legal requirements typically results in a lack of substantial compliance, unless evidence is submitted to the contrary,” the majority said.
The Green Party did not submit evidence demonstrating that its circulators complied with the legal requirements despite the missing affidavit language, it added later.
Justices Lidia S. Stiglich, Linda Marie Bell, Elissa F. Cadish, Patricia Lee, and Ron D. Parraguirre formed the majority.
In a dissent, Justice Douglas Herndon, joined by Justice Kristina Pickering, wrote that he was “deeply concerned“ that the court’s decision ”excuses an egregious error by the Secretary of State’s office that will result in a significant injustice.”
Herndon said that the evidence from the case, including a declaration from the CEO of the circulation company employed by the Green Party, which stated that he trained circulators to ask petition signers whether they were registered voters, was sufficient to demonstrate substantial compliance with the law.
He also said that the ruling violated the Green Party’s due process rights because the party had used the correct language in the petition it filed with the Nevada secretary of state’s office. However, an employee of that office directed the party to use a sample form that contained the wrong affidavit.
The Nevada secretary of state’s office said in a statement to news outlets that it strives to provide accurate information to the public and that it is working on reviewing and improving its guides and other documents.
“The Secretary of State’s office was involved in this case by necessity, and took no position on the legal sufficiency of the petition under Nevada law,” the office said. “We respect the decision of the justices, and are working with the counties to ensure the decision is carried out.”
Margery Hanson, co-chair of the Nevada Green Party, said in a statement to outlets that she will not be voting in the upcoming election following the ruling.
Hilary Barrett, executive director of the Nevada Democratic Party, said in a statement to outlets that the ruling “is a victory for Nevada voters and ensures that the Green Party plays by the same rules as other campaigns.”
