The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling that independent presidential candidate Cornel West will not appear on the key battleground state’s ballot for the November election.
The high court’s decision clears the way for Pennsylvania Secretary of State Al Schmidt, who was named in West’s ballot access lawsuit, to certify the official list of candidates for the Nov. 5 general election.
Schmidt’s office issued a statement on Sept. 16 indicating that the official list has already been certified after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “resolved all pending cases involving third-party candidates.”
“Counties can now prepare their ballots to be printed, then begin sending mail ballots to voters who have requested one as soon as they are printed,” Schmidt said in a statement.
West’s removal from the Pennsylvania ballot leaves a narrowed field of candidates competing for the state’s 19 electoral votes. Alongside the Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, and Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Libertarian Chase Oliver will appear on the ballot.
West’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the ruling.
“With Virginia now secured, our focus shifts to Pennsylvania,” DeJesus said. “We are prepared to take on the challenges ahead and ensure that Dr. West’s message reaches every corner of the state. We believe the federal courts may provide some relief, as the current system unfairly burdens First Amendment rights.”
The challenge to West’s candidacy in Pennsylvania was brought forward by the Pennsylvania Department of State, which on Aug. 1 rejected West’s nomination papers because they did not include the candidate affidavits for all 19 individuals identified in the papers as West’s presidential electors.
In response to the rejection, three petitioners associated with West’s presidential campaign—Autumn Williams, Abraham Deramay, and Jonathan Mark Daniels—sued the Pennsylvania Department of State and Schmidt, in his capacity as secretary of state. The three petitioners were either presidential electors or would be substituted as presidential electors on West’s nomination papers.
The petitioners argued that the Pennsylvania Department of State wrongfully rejected West’s nomination papers, claiming that this rejection violated the Pennsylvania Election Code and several provisions of both the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions.
The respondents countered by saying that the petition should be dismissed under the legal doctrine of laches, which bars claims if there was an unreasonable delay in bringing them, causing prejudice to the other party. They also argued that the petition was flawed because indispensable parties, such as West and his running mate, Melina Abdullah, were not included in the lawsuit. Even if the court found these arguments lacking, the respondents said that rejection of the nomination papers was consistent with the Election Code and did not violate any constitutional rights.
Jubelirer found that the petition was barred by laches because the petitioners’ delay in filing their challenge caused prejudice to election officials, as it interfered with the timely preparation of ballots.
The judge also noted that West and Abdullah were indispensable parties to the case and, since they were not joined in the lawsuit, this was a supporting argument for why the petition should be dismissed.
Finally, the court upheld the Pennsylvania Department of State’s interpretation of the state’s Election Code that minor-party presidential electors, such as those for West’s campaign, are considered candidates for office and so must file affidavits to certify their eligibility, even though major-party presidential electors are not subject to the same affidavit requirement.
