North Carolina Removes RFK Jr. from Ballot; Michigan Keeps Him

On Monday, North Carolina’s Supreme Court ruled to remove Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from the state’s ballot, a decision made hours after the Michigan Supreme Court determined that Kennedy should remain on Michigan’s ballot. Kennedy, who had previously exited the race as an independent candidate and endorsed former President Donald Trump, faced contrasting rulings from the two states’ highest courts.

The North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision, rendered by a 4-3 majority, upholds an earlier appeals court ruling that mandated Kennedy’s removal from the ballot. This decision affects the timeline for sending out mail-in ballots, causing a significant delay. Justice Trey Allen, writing for the majority, acknowledged the logistical and financial challenges associated with expediting the process of reprinting ballots. Despite these difficulties, Allen emphasized that adhering to the state constitution’s commitment to safeguarding voters’ rights justified the expense.

As a result of this ruling, North Carolina election officials will need to reprint over 2.9 million absentee and in-person ballots that previously included Kennedy’s name. This reprinting process will impose additional costs on the counties, as reported by the Associated Press. The decision to remove Kennedy’s name, while upholding the integrity of the voting process, creates a substantial burden on state resources and could delay the distribution of ballots.

Earlier on the same day, Michigan’s Supreme Court issued a contrary decision, ruling that Kennedy must remain on the state’s ballot. This ruling reversed a lower court’s order from the previous week. The Michigan court determined that Kennedy had not demonstrated a sufficient entitlement to the “extraordinary relief” sought. This decision means that Kennedy will continue to be listed on ballots in Michigan, despite his withdrawal from the race.

The contrast between the two states highlights the complex legal and procedural landscape surrounding election processes. In North Carolina, the Supreme Court’s decision to remove Kennedy from the ballot reflects concerns about ensuring that voters have a meaningful choice and that votes are accurately counted. The court’s ruling underscores the importance of adhering to constitutional principles even when it entails additional costs and logistical challenges.

In Michigan, the Supreme Court’s ruling to keep Kennedy on the ballot reflects a different set of priorities and legal interpretations. The court’s decision suggests a commitment to maintaining ballot integrity and honoring the procedural aspects of the election process, even in the face of Kennedy’s withdrawal and endorsement of Trump.

Kennedy’s withdrawal from the presidential race last month, coupled with his endorsement of Trump, has added a layer of complexity to the election landscape. Kennedy cited a lack of a “realistic path to an electoral victory” as his reason for exiting the race. In endorsing Trump, Kennedy framed his decision as a move towards political unity, accepting Trump’s offer to join forces under the banner of a unified party.

Kennedy had initially managed to secure his name on the ballot in more than 20 states. However, in response to his strategic withdrawal and endorsement of Trump, Kennedy pledged to remove his name from ballots in about 10 key battleground states where his presence could act as a spoiler. To date, Kennedy has succeeded in removing his name from the ballots in five of these seven key battleground states: Pennsylvania, Nevada, Georgia, Arizona, and now North Carolina. Nonetheless, he remains on the ballot in Michigan and Wisconsin.

The decision in North Carolina affects a significant number of voters, with over 136,000 absentee ballot requests having been filed as of last week. The Supreme Court’s ruling necessitates the reprinting of ballots, causing a delay in mailing them out and potentially affecting voter turnout and election administration.

This legal battle underscores the intricate nature of election law and the challenges faced by state courts in navigating changes in candidate status and ballot integrity. As North Carolina and Michigan grapple with the implications of their respective decisions, the broader implications for Kennedy’s campaign and the upcoming election remain a subject of significant interest and scrutiny.