Judge Rejects RFK Jr.’s Attempt to Withdraw From Michigan Ballot
Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher P. Yates: “Elections are not just games, and the Secretary of State (SOS) is not obligated to honor the whims of candidates for public office.”
A Michigan judge rejected RFK Jr.’s request to remove his name from the Michigan ballot, citing insufficient legal grounds since RFK Jr. met the state’s requirements to be listed as a candidate. Kennedy, who suspended his campaign on August 23rd, had argued that staying on the ballot would mislead voters and undermine election integrity.
It’s ironic because Kennedy claimed he dropped out due to Democrats trying to silence him, but now that he’s endorsed Trump, they seem eager to keep him on the ballot. Despite Kennedy’s request, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson refused to remove his name.
His attorney, Eric Esshaki, noted that Kennedy had given adequate notice by August 30 for removal and pushed for a swift resolution, especially with absentee ballots set to be mailed soon.
Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) “acted well within the bounds of the law” when her office denied a last-minute attempt by the third-party candidate to remove himself from the ballot, Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher P. Yates wrote in a three-page opinion.
“Elections are not just games, and the Secretary of State (SOS) is not obligated to honor the whims of candidates for public office,” Yates wrote, adding that state law says third parties can’t switch their candidates after the state’s primary election in August.
🗳️👩⚖️ #NEWS:
Michigan judge swiftly rejects 🟡 RFK Jr.'s bid to get off the ballot after nomination.
"Elections aren't games, and the Secretary of State doesn't have to cater to candidates' whims."— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) September 3, 2024
New: Michigan judge quickly rejects RFK Jr. attempt to get off the ballot after nomination. "Elections are not just games, and the Secretary of State is not obligated to honor the whims of candidates for public office." https://t.co/SFueepItNO
— Jonathan Oosting (@jonathanoosting) September 3, 2024
This is Michigan's Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson
She's refusing to remove RFK Jr. from the ballot after he suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump
She's also the woman that sought to remove Cornel West — who hurts Kamala — from the ballot
She is a complete partisan hack pic.twitter.com/tOkR0DxCIc
— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) August 27, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
What about all the ballots completed on Sundowner for the election?
That . . . is (D)ifferent.
What ballots? Biden was never nominated.
What morons are downvoting this? Does anyone claim that he was nominated?! When do they claim that happened?! Utter morons.
You mean the pre printed ones with his name ticked off? Probably in a landfill. I don’t see this as much of a problem for Trump. All Trump needs to do is campaign in the states who refuse to remove RFK Jr with Bobby and they both make it clear not to vote for Bobby but vote for Trump instead. I doubt many Dems are going to try “Operation Chaos” and cross over in states they can considering how close the polls are.
RFK Jr was running for president, no primary or convention and wants to pull out but can’t.
Joe Biden was running, won every state primary but by convention just pulled out said he isn’t running.
How is this different?
fighting to keep Trump off the ballot and denying a “traitor” the desire to get off the ballot while installing a candidate no one voted for on the ballot.
Okay.
How can you force someone to run for office against their will?
By court order designed to help the Left.
Subotai Bahadur
You’re not forcing anything. He got himself on the ballot, so he’s on it. Now he wants off?! The Secretary of State has no duty to oblige him.
Yes, because there is actually no good reason for him to remain on the ballot other than politics. This from the same team who have fought tooth and nail to remove others from the ballot because their appearance isnt helpful to Democrats.
This shouldn’t be the problem Democrats are making it to be. Anyone still capable of rubbing two or more functioning brain cells together knows this already.
It doesn’t matter whether there’s a good reason or not. The Secretary of State is entitled to enforce the existing law. She is not obligated to do him a favor by removing him.
Of course her motivation is political. That goes without saying, but there’s nothing illegal about it. So long as she’s within the law her motivation doesn’t matter.
Oh, but it would if the tables were turned–you’d be hearing jurists whining to the heavens about how it was not “legal” to keep whoever it was on the ballot. Just another example of where the system breaks down and can be abused by whoever controls the machinery of state.
No, you wouldn’t. You’re just making that up.
Is Biden still registered so as to show on the ballot, or not? After all, he “wants off” to help the down ballot races. Election aren’t games, ya know. The SOS doesn’t have to concede to Biden’s whims. Did the SOS try to get Cornell West off of it? Is she “legally handcuffed” by this, or is it SOS discretion?
What do you mean “still”? He was never nominated by any party, so of course he was never on any ballots.
Supposing he were on the ballot and now wanted off, then as per this decision Benson wouldn’t have to comply with his whim, but could if she wanted to, so she presumably would.
As far as I know she was not involved in the Dem effort to remove West. But supposing she were, that would not be a problem, since the claim was that West was legally ineligible to be on the ballot. She could support such a claim without any inconsistency.
“…is not obligated to honor the whims of candidates for public office.”
Except when that person is No. Longer. A. Candidate.
These nitwits need to be curb stomped (politically speaking, of course)
There is no such exception. Kennedy is a candidate, because he is on the ballot. Just because he has changed his mind doesn’t give her a duty to act. She’s entitled to use her discretion, and she’s entitled to use it for her party’s advantage. There’s no expectation that she must be neutral; she’s a politician fercryinoutloud.
Is Biden still registered? If not, why was his name removed? What was the procedural process to do that that differed from RFK Jr?
Still registered for what? He was never nominated, so of course he was never on any ballots.
“adding that state law says third parties can’t switch their candidates after the state’s primary election in August.”
Note that. Third parties.
There’s always a Torricelli Exception available to the Uniparty. Always.
Except they’re not changing their nominee they’re withdrawing from the race completely
Nope. The point is that they had until the primary to do this, which makes them equal to the major parties.
I haven’t looked at the Michigan law, but it sounds like once the majors have made their nomination they can’t change it either. Michigan is not New Jersey.
Of course the party can change its nominee any time it likes, but that won’t affect the ballot. If the DNC decides on Nov 1 to swap out Harris for Newsome, that’s its business, but Harris’s name remains on the ballot. If she wins, her electors will vote for the new candidate.
Again, if someone is asking to be taken off the ballot then that should be the end of the story. This isnt rocket science to any rational thinking adult.
What law says so?
Oh spare me. You’re “AHCTKULLY…” schtik is boring. Any lawyer worth his salt knows the “law” is the whim of the Judge. Even the most black letter of statutes can be “interpreted” differently. Which is why you said its “political,” and hence, not a pure legal decision. Otherwise, “politics,”, as you stated, wouldn’t have anything to do with the SOS decision, and the statute would either prohibit removal, or allow it.
No, the law is not at the judge’s whim.
Here RFK wants Benson to do something for him. The judge correctly found that no law requires her to do RFK favors. If you think there is such a law, please cite it or shut up.
Unlike Wisconsin where the law is clear “The statute literally says, ‘Any person who files nomination papers and qualifies to appear on the ballot may not decline nomination. The name of that person shall appear upon the ballot except in case of death of the person,'” which is why Wisconsin denied Bobby
I can find nothing like this in Michigan election law so this might be just another opinion of the Secretary of State of Michigan who has been repeatedly rebuked by the courts.
If there’s no clear language allowing a candidate to demand that their name be removed, then it follows that it’s up to the Secretary of State, and as the court said, she is not obligated to dance to the candidates’ whims. If the law doesn’t say she can’t remove his name, then presumably she could if she wanted to, but nothing in the law requires her to.
Then nothing in the law requires her not to, either. Then its not a “legal decision,” its a political one, which would go differently if it benefited the Dem party. No “equal application of the law.” Get your party elected, gain power, use it to keep the other party out, ad infinitum.
THAT is the problem, we all know its bullshyt, but here you are valiantly defending what should be mocked, hiding behind claims of “legality.”
If there is nothing in the law requiring her to remove the name, or forbidding her from doing so, then it’s up to her. That is the law. And of course she will do what suits her politically. Why wouldn’t she?
I’m of the opinion that the laws dealing with our elections are being routinely flouted in order to give advantage to a particular political party.
I’m also of the opinion that if we don’t put a stop to it there won’t be much need to hold elections.
Further, I am also of the opinion that punishment for election fraud and interference is *much* too light.
For instance, those gentlemen putting up paper to conceal tabulation during the 2020 election should have received 20 years at hard labor. If you conspire to defraud by electronic means (you know what I mean) I think the punishment should be death?
Why? Because that kind of activity deprived millions of their liberty by nullifying their vote.
There seems to be no good reason to cover up counting votes like the Democrats did that night.
Sadly this only stops when there are more people with a vested interest in enforcing laws than there are to turning a blind eye.
Look at that photograph again. RFK Jr. is Blacker than Obama. Now that he has endorsed Trump, he should change his face color to Orange.
so what!!
people are going to vote for who they want to
pro americans for trump
commiunistlovingnazighouls for dems
It’s important because believe theye are those who will vote for JFK instead of Trump and Democrats are figuring that this number is big enough to move things in their favour.
Hence why they’ve moved heaven and earth to remove people from the ballot that could hurt Kamala’s chances in the election.
yeah I do get that POSSIBILITY
but so what
if they really want rfk then thats what the voters want
and rfk is wayyy more in line with the dnc
I posted his position on different issues a few days back
that back that up
Except thats not what the voters are going to get as RFK isnt running any longer. Its a kind of fraud that Democrats are only far to happy to keep going because it helps their side more than it hurts (hence why everyone else unhelpful to their cause is being removed).
RFK, Jr. wants off the ballot in Michigan, but not in other states.
From,
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-ballot-battleground-states/
I think we could agree this reeks of gamesmanship.
If RFK, Jr. wanted off the ballot in all states, that would be a different matter.
Normally, I would agree with you, but the plain fact is that he knows and we know and everybody else knows that in the states where he chose to remain on the ballot, the election results are predetermined, and he will have no effect on altering them. He’s remaining only to send a message to the other two parties by having a vote count available of people who didn’t want to vote for either of them.
I might agree with you if time and resources were infinite. But they aren’t, so you work on the most consequential states with what you have.
RFK, Jr is a senior now.
When given lemons, what does one do?
RFK Jr should campaign extensively in states that refuse to remove his name from the ballot. His stump speech would go something like this: “Do you hate Donald Trump? Good. Don’t vote for him. But for god’s sake don’t vote for Harris, an utterly useless and ineffective vice president who is now promising to do the things she failed to do over the last three and a half years. Instead, vote for me, and register your displeasure with the Democrat Party, the party that stole from you a candidate who received fourteen million primary votes, and replaced him with someone who received not a single primary vote.”
I’m sure you get the drift here. Much mayhem could possibly done with a pitch like this.
I find it highly ironic that the Democrats who fought so hard to keep him off the ballot to manipulate Brandon into the nomination then threw him out and installed Kamalalala Ding Dong are now fighting to keep RFK Jr on the ballots.
It seems to me that if someone want’s to remove him/herself from a ballot for whatever reason they should be allowed to do so.
It’s not ironic. It’s normal and to be expected that every party fights for its own interests. How could it be otherwise? That’s what an adversarial legal system is based on. When it was in their interest to have him on they tried to help him get on; now that it’s in their interest to have him on they’re trying to remove him. And the Republicans are doing the exact opposite, for the same reasons.
There’s no “should” about it; the rules are whatever they are in each state, and if it’s up to an elected official’s discretion she’s entitled to use it for her party’s advantage, unless the law says otherwise.
It’s not as if the rules were made in the knowledge that this situation would arise. They were made long ago, and are thus neutral.
“It’s not as if the rules were made in the knowledge that this situation would arise. They were made long ago, and are thus neutral.”
It is to laugh. OF course they were, IF the legislature INTENDED “discretion” in the SOS. Otherwise, the SOS ignores legislative intent (spirit and intent of the statute), backed by the court, to play fuky fuk with the nomination process as needed.
The status quo is that he is on the ballot. He sued to force Benson to do something. The judge said show me the law that requires her to do that. If you can’t show me the law, then I have no authority to order her to do you a favor.