Michigan Supreme Court Denies Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Request to Withdraw from Primary Ballot

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will remain on Michigan’s November ballot despite his efforts to withdraw, as the state’s Supreme Court denies his request.

At a Glance

Michigan Supreme Court ruled against Kennedy’s bid to remove his name from the ballot
Kennedy suspended his campaign and endorsed Donald Trump in August
The court stated Kennedy did not demonstrate a clear legal right to ballot removal
The decision highlights the complexities of election law and ballot access

Court’s Decision Keeps Kennedy on Michigan Ballot

In a significant ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court has denied Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s request to remove his name from the state’s November ballot. This decision comes after Kennedy suspended his presidential campaign and endorsed former President Donald Trump in August. The court’s ruling underscores the intricate nature of election laws and the challenges candidates face when attempting to withdraw from a race.

The Michigan Supreme Court, in its order, stated that Kennedy “has not shown an entitlement to this extraordinary relief.” This ruling effectively vacated a previous state Appeals Court decision and ensures that Kennedy’s name will appear on the ballot, potentially influencing the electoral landscape in a key swing state.

setting aside the partisan effects, this is the right answer under Michigan law. many state courts would come to similar decisions in interpreting their statutes, too.

now, *should* RFK Jr. be able to remove himself? I think so—but that's not what the law allows in many states. https://t.co/GiQvcRpc1g

— Quinn Yeargain (@yeargain) September 9, 2024

Legal Reasoning Behind the Decision

The court’s decision hinged on several key factors. Justice Elizabeth Welch explained that Kennedy’s request came too late in the process, with the ballot printing deadline just two weeks away. Additionally, the Natural Law Party, which had nominated Kennedy, opposed his withdrawal efforts, citing potential harm to their ballot access if he were removed.

“[The] plaintiff has neither pointed to any source of law that prescribes and defines a duty to withdraw a candidate’s name from the ballot nor demonstrated his clear legal right to performance of this specific duty, let alone identified a source of law written with ‘such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment,'” read the Supreme Court order.

This ruling highlights the stringent legal standards candidates must meet to alter their ballot status after nominations have been accepted. It also demonstrates the court’s reluctance to intervene in established electoral processes without clear legal grounds.

Implications for Voters and the Election

The court’s decision raises concerns about potential voter confusion. With Kennedy’s name remaining on the ballot despite his campaign suspension and endorsement of Trump, some voters may cast ballots for a candidate who is no longer actively seeking the office.

“Now countless Michigan voters may be deluded and deceived into casting their ballots for a candidate who has no intention to hold the office. Because there is no legal authority for the Secretary’s decision to deny Kennedy’s withdrawal, mandamus is warranted, and this appeal should be denied,” Justices David Viviano and Brian Zahra wrote in their dissent.

This situation underscores the importance of voter education and the need for clear communication about candidates’ status in the lead-up to elections. It also highlights the challenges election officials face in balancing legal requirements with the practical realities of the electoral process.

Michigan Supreme Court rejects RFK Jr.’s bid to withdraw from state ballothttps://t.co/lsYa7Werxs pic.twitter.com/76ry2t1d8l

— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) September 10, 2024

The ruling’s impact extends beyond Michigan, as it may influence similar cases in other states where Kennedy has sought to withdraw. It also raises questions about the broader implications for ballot access and the rights of candidates to control their participation in elections after formal nominations have been made.