RFK Jr., Cornel West Stay on Michigan Ballot
It’s not all bad for Republicans since West is on the ballot, who can take voters from Kamala.
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Cornel West and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. must stay on the state’s November ballot.
RFK Jr. wanted his name removed after he suspended his campaign and endorsed Donald Trump.
The state said no. Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher P. Yates agreed with the state.
RFK Jr. appealed. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed Yates’s decision.
Well, the state took RFK Jr. to the state supreme court.
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ruled that RFK Jr. didn’t show “an entitlement to this extraordinary relief” to remove himself from the ballot:
To obtain the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that: “(1) the plaintiff has a clear, legal right to performance of the specific duty sought, (2) the defendant has a clear legal duty to perform, (3) the act is ministerial, and (4) no other adequate legal or equitable remedy exists that might achieve the same result.” Taxpayers for Mich Constitutional Gov’t v Michigan, 508 Mich 48, 82 (2021), quoting Rental Props Owners Ass’n of Kent Co v Kent Co Treasurer, 308 Mich App 498, 518 (2014). “ ‘A ministerial act is one in which the law prescribes and defines the duty to be performed with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment.’”
The court added: Assuming, without deciding, that the Court of Appeals was correct in its interpretation of MCL 168.686a(4), plaintiff has neither pointed to any source of law that prescribes and defines a duty to withdraw a candidate’s name from the ballot nor demonstrated his clear legal right to performance of this specific duty, let alone identified a source of law written with “ ‘such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment.’”
The order did not say how the justices voted. However, the court Democrat-nominated justices have a 4-3 majority.
Two Republican-nominated justices wrote a dissenting opinion:
The Secretary’s duty to maintain the integrity of Michigan elections includes an obligation to present actual candidates and associate them with the offices that they are seeking. By requiring Kennedy’s name to appear on the general election ballot, the Secretary of State is improperly and needlessly denying the electorate a choice between persons who are actual candidates willing to serve if elected. We can only hope that the Secretary’s misguided action—now sanctioned with the imprimatur of this Court—will not have national implications.
Before Republicans get mad, the same court refused to listen to an appeal to remove Cornel West from the ballot.
The Democrats tried to remove West, but Michigan Court of Claims Judge James Robert Redford ruled that Cornel West and his running mate Melina Abdullah can appear on Michigan’s presidential ballot in November.
Attorney Mark Brewer, who used to chair the state’s party, filed an appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. He “represents Rosa Holliday, a Michigan voter, in the ballot eligibility dispute.”
The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed with Redford.
Brewer went to the Michigan State Court, which refused to pick up the appeal, which leaves the lower court’s ruling in place.
Green party candidate Jill Stein is also on the Michigan ballot.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
10,000 votes here, another 15,000 there
What’s to worry about
Pretty sure we will be hearing from Milhouse in here.
What about North Carolina?
He’s off there. The Supreme Court just ruled,
It doesn’t really matter because they don’t actually count votes anyway. It’s a matter of how many votes the dems need how many turn up in midnight deliveries. The system is designed for cheating and will be maintained that way.
As I said, there is no real law, there is only the will of the Judge. Keep shopping til ya get one that’ll back your play.
Wrong. There is a law, as the supreme court majority pointed out. And if that law doesn’t impose a duty on the SoS then she has no such duty. It was the appeals court panel that was making up a legal duty that can’t be found in the law.
Makes you wonder why that partisan asshat Sec of State is fighting so hard to keep him on, doesn’t it
It’s no wonder why she fought to keep him on. That’s in her party’s interest, and as an elected official she’s obviously going to try to give her party the maximum advantage that the law allows. In this case, as the lower court and then the supreme court agreed, the law was on her side, so of course she wasn’t going to give up without a fight. Do you think Republican secretaries of state behave differently?
The question is what would she do if it were in her interest to remove him. but she honestly believed the law required him to remain. (Not just, as the lower and supreme courts ruled, that she’s not required to remove him, but that she’s not allowed to.) Would she still fight to remove him and make the Republicans litigate to keep him on? Or would she do what she believed the law required?
Will Biden be on any state ballots?
No, of course not. Why would he be? In what state do you think he was nominated?
Something, something, “two-tier”, something.
Subotai Bahadur
There are no two tiers here, as this very article points out.
SCOTUS?
No, it’s got nothing to do with SCOTUS. There’s no issue of federal law here.
As I said, let’s wait till we hear from the state Supreme Court.
The reasoning seems to me to be correct; a court can’t order someone to do something unless there is a law that clearly requires that person to do it. Nobody here could point to any law that requires the secretary of state to remove a name from the ballot. Just because she can do so, and maybe even ought to do so, just because the judge thinks he would have done so had he been in her position, doesn’t give the judge the right to order her if she doesn’t want to. That seems obvious and inarguable. Courts can’t just make up duties for people. Surely everyone agrees with that.
So those who think the court ought to have ordered the secretary of state to remove Kennedy’s name have to point to a law that says so. Nobody seems to have found such a law yet. What we do know is that with regard to congressional candidates the law specifically forbids the secretary from removing their names; its silence about presidential candidates can’t be parlayed into a positive duty to do so.
Couple elections back the left stole the court. Hard left slip and fall lawyer, family is well known, ran and took the seat.
Don’t expect sanity from michigan, the voters are the dumbest in the nation.
That’s true, but in this case the law appears to be with them.
Republicans should promote West is Michigan. Surreptitiously, of course.
Leave a Comment