Supreme Court Upholds Jill Stein’s Candidacy on Wisconsin Ballot

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court has rejected a Democratic challenge, ensuring Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s place on the 2024 presidential ballot.

At a Glance

Wisconsin Supreme Court dismisses Democratic lawsuit, keeping Jill Stein on the ballot
Democrats worried Stein could siphon votes from Vice President Kamala Harris
Stein celebrates decision as a victory for voter choice and democracy
Ruling highlights ongoing debates about third-party candidates’ impact on elections

Court Upholds Stein’s Ballot Presence

In a decisive move, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge from the Democratic Party aimed at removing Green Party candidate Jill Stein from the state’s 2024 presidential ballot. The court’s decision, delivered without detailed explanation, effectively ensures Stein’s candidacy will remain intact for Wisconsin voters come Election Day.

The ruling comes as a significant blow to Democratic strategists who fear Stein’s presence could potentially draw crucial votes away from Vice President Kamala Harris in what is anticipated to be a closely contested state. Wisconsin, known for its razor-thin margins in recent presidential elections, has seen four of its last six presidential contests decided by narrow margins, underlining the state’s pivotal role in national politics.

MADISON — Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules Against Democratic Challenge, Keeps Jill Stein on State Ballot.

— NewsWire (@NewsWire_US) August 26, 2024

Democratic Concerns and Legal Challenge

The legal challenge was initiated by David Strange, an employee of the Democratic National Committee, who argued that the Green Party lacked the necessary qualifications to nominate presidential electors due to its absence of state officeholders or legislative candidates. This move reflects growing Democratic apprehension about the potential impact of third-party candidates on the upcoming election, particularly in battleground states like Wisconsin.

“The Wisconsin Green Party’s violation of the law is crystal clear,” DNC spokeswoman Adrienne Watson stated. “WGP did not meet either of Wisconsin’s two simple requirements to nominate candidates, so it should not be on the ballot in November.”

Democrats’ concerns are not unfounded. In the 2016 election, Stein received over 31,000 votes in Wisconsin, a number that exceeded Donald Trump’s margin of victory in the state. This historical context has heightened anxieties within the Democratic Party about potential vote splitting in 2024.

"Stein last appeared on the Wisconsin ballot 2016, when she won just over 31,000 votes — more than Trump’s winning margin of just under 23,000 votes. Some Democrats have blamed her for helping Trump win the state and the presidency that year." https://t.co/Ald5R8AOFZ

— Charlotte Scott (@reportsbychar) August 26, 2024

Stein and Green Party Celebrate

Jill Stein and her supporters have hailed the court’s decision as a triumph for democratic principles and voter choice. The Green Party candidate didn’t mince words in her response to the ruling, framing it as a rebuke to what she perceives as the Democratic Party’s attempts to limit electoral options.

“Today justice prevailed,” Stein declared in a statement. “We beat back the DNC’s attack, and voters in Wisconsin will still have an anti-genocide, pro-worker, climate action choice in this election.”

Michael White, co-chair of the Wisconsin Green Party, echoed Stein’s sentiments, suggesting that the Democratic challenge had only served to galvanize Stein’s supporters. He emphasized the importance of offering voters a diverse range of candidates and criticized efforts to restrict ballot access.

Implications for the 2024 Election

The court’s decision underscores the complex dynamics at play in American electoral politics, particularly concerning the role and influence of third-party candidates. As the 2024 presidential race heats up, the inclusion of candidates like Stein on state ballots could potentially reshape the electoral landscape in unpredictable ways.

Wisconsin GOP Chair Brian Schimming seized on the court’s ruling to criticize Democratic tactics, stating, “For years, Democrats have silenced and disenfranchised Wisconsin voters by removing inconvenient candidates from the ballot. This time around, their undemocratic schemes have failed. If Democrats hope to win over voters, they will have to do so through earnest persuasion instead of disqualification.”

As the election approaches, all eyes will be on Wisconsin and other battleground states to see how the presence of third-party candidates like Stein might influence voter behavior and, ultimately, the outcome of the presidential race. The court’s decision serves as a reminder of the ongoing debates surrounding ballot access, voter choice, and the complex interplay between major and minor political parties in American democracy.