In the final case shaping the 2024 presidential election, the North Carolina Supreme Court split 4-3 to remove Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from the ballot. The decision to back the former independent presidential candidate was made by four Republican justices, despite a Democratic dissent that accused the majority of abdicating its judicial role.
“Neither party to this case disputes that plaintiff has withdrawn his candidacy,” Judge Trey Allen noted in an order for the majority Monday. Kennedy suspended his campaign last month and announced his support for Republican nominee Donald Trump.
“Therefore, a vote for plaintiff in this election will not count as a matter of law,” the majority noted, adding that if Kennedy’s name were to appear on the ballot, “it could disenfranchise countless voters who mistakenly believe plaintiff is still a candidate for office.”
The decision could delay the dispatch of ballots by mail by several weeks.
The majority acknowledged that speeding up the printing of new ballots “will require significant time and effort from our election officials and significant expense to the state.” But it said this “is a price the North Carolina Constitution requires us to pay to protect the fundamental right of voters to cast their own ballots and have that vote counted.”
While there may at first glance be some logic to that outcome, the justices who dissented argued that, at best, the majority has no right to reach that outcome.
While calling the majority’s analysis “entirely reasonable,” fellow Republican Justice Richard Dietz wrote in his dissent that the court’s role “is to follow the law as it is written.” He explained that while state law allows a party’s nominee to step down at any time before the state sends out ballots, that is different from allowing the candidate’s name to be retired. DELETED of the mood.
In separate dissenting opinions, the court’s two Democratic justices were less sympathetic to the majority.
Judge Anita Earls wrote to express her concerns
that violating state and federal laws to accommodate the changing desires of a particular political candidate and his political party undermines the rule of law and contributes to the loss of confidence in the impartiality of the state judiciary.
She said Kennedy filed for deportation too late and that the court gave him “special treatment.”
Along with his Democratic colleague Allison Riggs, Earls criticized Kennedy’s tactic of staying off the ballot in certain swing states while fighting to stay on the ballot in states like New York.
“The rules of our elections allow for such attempts to manipulate the presidential election system if they are done far enough in advance, but it is not fair to the rest of the state to ignore state election laws to accommodate a belated political strategy,” Earls wrote. “Even a sophomore knows that it is not fair to change the rules mid-game just because you are afraid you will not win.”
Meanwhile, Kennedy lost his bid to stay off the ballot in the crucial state of Michigan on Monday.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for updates and expert analysis on the most important legal stories. The newsletter will return to its regular weekly schedule when the Supreme Court’s next term begins in October.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
