The U.S. Supreme Court has denied the Green Party's request to place its presidential candidate, Jill Stein, on the Nevada general election ballot.

The high court's decision, announced on Friday, upheld a Nevada Supreme Court ruling that the party used an incorrect form to gather petition signatures, a mistake that stemmed from an initial error by the Nevada Secretary of State's office, as CBS News reports.

The Green Party had initially succeeded in court, but a series of rulings against them led to its candidates' exclusion from the ballot.

The dispute began when the Nevada State Democratic Party challenged the Green Party’s petition in June, pointing out that the Green Party had used the wrong affidavit form to collect signatures. The Green Party claimed the incorrect form was sent to them due to a technical error by the Nevada Secretary of State's office. Despite this, the Nevada Supreme Court ultimately found that the Green Party should have noticed the error before proceeding with its petition drive.

Nevada Secretary of State’s Office Admits Error

Initially, the Nevada district court ruled in favor of the Green Party, allowing Jill Stein’s name to appear on the ballot. However, the Nevada Supreme Court overturned this ruling, concluding that both the Green Party and the Secretary of State’s office were responsible for the mistake. The court ruled that the Green Party’s failure to review the affidavit before using it constituted a significant oversight, especially given that they had used the correct affidavit in their initial filing.

"The Green Party was clearly aware of the legal requirements," the Nevada Supreme Court wrote, "as they had used the correct affidavit in their original petition."

The party's lawyers responded to the ruling, stating that the error was an unfortunate oversight shared by both the party and the Secretary of State. They argued that the exclusion of their candidates from the ballot effectively disenfranchised thousands of voters who would have supported the Green Party in the election.

Democrats Argue Against Reinstating Green Party

The Nevada State Democratic Party, which brought the initial challenge, argued that reinstating the Green Party at this late stage would disrupt the election process. The party emphasized that finalizing and printing ballots had already begun, with some ballots already mailed to voters. The Nevada Democratic Party stated that placing the Green Party back on the ballot would cause confusion and undermine confidence in the electoral system.

"The relief the Green Party is seeking is 'extraordinary' and 'seemingly unprecedented,'" the Democratic Party wrote in its statement to the court.

The Democratic Party's concerns also reflected the tight deadlines in place for preparing and sending ballots. Nevada ballots were required to be finalized by Sept. 6, and ballots for military and overseas voters needed to be sent by Sept. 20. Allowing a late addition to the ballot, according to the Democratic Party, would risk voter confusion and delays.

Ballot Printing Deadlines Play a Critical Role

As the September deadlines approached, the urgency of the case increased. Out-of-state absentee ballots were due to be mailed by Sept. 26, which left little room for adjustments to the ballot. Lawyers for the state argued that the harm caused by reinstating the Green Party would be significant, both in terms of time and the impact on voters.

"Here, the harm is far greater than just the loss of time preparing and printing ballots," the state’s lawyers said in their statement to the U.S. Supreme Court. "If the Court grants the Application, it would lead to voter confusion and an erosion of confidence in the electoral process."

The Green Party’s exclusion also drew comparisons to a similar case in Arizona in August, where a court upheld an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. Like Nevada, Arizona is a critical battleground state in the upcoming presidential election, adding to the high stakes of the legal battles over ballot access.

Green Party Argues Voter Disenfranchisement

The Green Party argued that their exclusion from the ballot violated due process and equal protection under the law. The party's lawyers stated that keeping Jill Stein and other Green Party candidates off the ballot amounted to "an electoral death penalty," stripping voters of the chance to support their preferred candidates.

"Green Party candidates 'are wrongfully ripped from the ballot and Nevadans who would vote for them in this election are robbed of the opportunity to do so,'" the party's lawyers said.

Despite these arguments, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that the Green Party bore some responsibility for the mistake. The court found that the party's failure to double-check the affidavit, even though it had been mistakenly sent by the Secretary of State’s office, was a crucial error.

Conclusion: A Tense Legal Battle Ends with a Setback for the Green Party

In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Nevada Supreme Court's ruling, barring Jill Stein and the Green Party from appearing on Nevada's general election ballot.

The decision came after weeks of legal wrangling, and it underscored the high stakes of election protocols in battleground states like Nevada and Arizona.

The case highlights the challenges faced by third-party candidates in navigating the complexities of state ballot access rules.

Ultimately, the court's ruling reflected the importance of strict adherence to legal procedures, especially in a contentious election year.