Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
The Nevada Green Party submitted a proposed petition to the Nevada secretary of state to be placed on the 2024 general election presidential ballot in Nevada. The secretary of state’s office told the Green Party that its proposed form wasn’t compliant with the governing rules. It sent a different form and asked the Green Party to use the documents it attached to begin collecting signatures.
The Green Party collected more than the required number of signatures and was certified by the secretary of state to have its candidate appear on the 2024 ballot. At no point did the secretary of state indicate that there was any problem with the petitions or the sufficiency of the signatures.
On the last day for such challenges, the Nevada State Democratic Party sued to have the Green Party excluded from the ballot. In an amended complaint, the Nevada Democratic Party challenged the petition signatures, contending that the form the secretary of state told the party to use was the wrong form, namely, the one used for initiatives and referenda, not for minor party ballot access.
Both categories of elections require a petition signer to be a registered voter, but only the form for minor party access explicitly states that requirement on the petition form. The Green Party raised a host of state law arguments in defense and added that denying it ballot access would violate the Green Party’s federal due process and equal protection rights. The state district court rejected the Nevada Democratic Party’s challenge on state law grounds and didn’t reach the federal issues.
A divided Nevada Supreme Court reversed and ordered the Green Party be excluded from the ballot. The Nevada Supreme Court conceded that the secretary of state had instructed the Green Party to use the wrong form but described it as an unfortunate mistake that didn’t rise to the level of a federal constitutional violation. The Nevada Supreme Court ordered that the secretary of state be enjoined from placing the Green Party’s candidates on the general election ballot.
In its application, the Green Party asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider if the exclusion of the Green Party from the 2024 presidential ballot, for using a form that the state itself instructed the Green Party to use, violated due process.
It also asked the high court to answer if the exclusion of the Green Party from the 2024 presidential ballot, for failure to include a statement that the state does not require on initiative and referenda petitions, denies equal protection to the Green Party where it asserted the state has no rational, substantial or compelling interest for imposing that differential requirement.
The application to vacate the injunction presented to Justice Elena Kagan and referred to the court was denied.