Signaling its reluctance to wade into 2024 presidential-election politics, the Supreme Court has refused to order Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s removal from the ballot in the battleground states of Michigan and Wisconsin.
The Court did not explain its decisions. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a brief dissent in the Michigan case.
RFK Jr. withdrew his candidacy, endorsed the Republican nominee — former president Donald Trump — and has been very active in the Trump campaign. He wanted his name off the ballot for the same reason Democrats want it on the ballot: In what polls indicate are tightly contested states, voters who would have otherwise cast their ballots for Trump may prefer RFK Jr. and erroneously believe that he is still seeking the presidency — thereby helping Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee (however marginally).
The Wisconsin case was the easier of the two. As Amy Howe explains at SCOTUSblog, the state’s law provides that anyone who files nomination papers must appear on the ballot, as RFK Jr. did during his candidacy. “The name of that person shall appear upon the ballot except in case of death.”
There is more intrigue in the Michigan case, where Jocelyn Benson, the state’s Democratic secretary of state, declined to remove RFK Jr.’s name from the ballot. In the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, three dissenting conservative justices detailed that, after initially refusing to remove RFK Jr. from the ballot — before ballots were printed — Secretary Benson removed his name at the direction of the Michigan Court of Appeals on September 6. Yet, three days later, she directed that Kennedy’s name be reinserted. Benson has since given conflicting explanations for this curious action.
Justice Gorsuch cited the three dissenting opinions from the Sixth Circuit in his dissent. At this late stage, with the election a week away and early voting under way, it is unclear how Kennedy’s name could, as a practical matter, be removed — which of course doesn’t justify Benson’s including it in the first place.
As it gets later in the process, the Supreme Court — which never wants to be perceived as having an impact on presidential elections — can more easily rationalize that it is too late to embroil itself in election-related disputes.