The court said that the petition to get the party on the ballot lacked legally required language, rendering the 30,000 signatures invalid.
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.
“The Green Party’s failure to use the correct circulator affidavit cannot be excused by the Green Party’s reliance on the sample petition received from the secretary,” the five justices who formed the majority said.
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.
The Green Party instead included a different affidavit that is required for petitions for ballot referendums, because that’s the affidavit that is included in the Nevada secretary of state’s office’s minor party ballot access petition sample.
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.
