The U.S. Supreme Court has turned down Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s emergency request to be removed from the Michigan and Wisconsin presidential ballots, marking a notable legal setback for the former candidate as well as for former President Donald Trump, whom Kennedy endorsed after suspending his own campaign. With voting already underway, RFK Jr. argued that his presence on ballots in these key battleground states might split votes that could otherwise support Trump in the 2024 election.
The Court’s decision was brief, given without any elaboration, a common occurrence for cases on the Court’s emergency docket. Justice Neil Gorsuch, a conservative member of the Court, was the sole dissenting vote in the Michigan decision, indicating a split even among the Court’s conservative justices.
RFK Jr., who originally launched his bid as a longshot presidential candidate, suspended his campaign in August. Soon after, he publicly endorsed Trump and announced plans to withdraw his name from ballots in multiple battleground states where his continued presence could draw votes away from Trump. Michigan and Wisconsin, both crucial swing states that could influence the overall outcome of the election, are among those where Kennedy petitioned to have his name removed.
Kennedy’s legal team submitted an emergency application to the Supreme Court, arguing that Michigan and Wisconsin were violating his First Amendment rights by leaving his name on ballots, thus misleading voters into believing he was still a candidate. The argument was based on the idea that his name’s presence would siphon votes from Trump, effectively altering the race’s dynamics and potentially harming the chances of his endorsed candidate.
In Michigan, RFK Jr. is listed as the Natural Law Party’s nominee. Although he withdrew his candidacy, the Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, opposed his removal from the ballot, arguing that voters who had already cast early or absentee ballots should not be confused by a sudden change. This argument, Benson said, was grounded in the state’s interest in preserving election stability once voting had begun, particularly in light of high early and absentee ballot counts.
The battle over Kennedy’s ballot status began with the Michigan Court of Appeals, which ruled in Kennedy’s favor last month, effectively ordering his removal from the ballot. However, Secretary Benson pursued the case to the Michigan Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled 5 to 2 that Kennedy must remain on the ballot. With early voting already underway, the Michigan court found that removing his name would disrupt the electoral process and create administrative challenges.
Similarly, Wisconsin election officials contended that removing Kennedy’s name after voting had started could confuse voters and potentially cause logistical challenges. In response, Kennedy’s legal team argued that these states were effectively compelling him to be a “spoiler” candidate against his own intentions, alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights. However, both the lower courts and the U.S. Supreme Court did not support this view, prioritizing election integrity and stability over Kennedy’s individual request.
Kennedy’s withdrawal strategy highlights a broader debate over the influence of third-party or former candidates in the American electoral system. His endorsement of Trump and the subsequent request to exit ballots in states where he could pull votes away from the Republican candidate added a unique twist to the current election landscape.
Political analysts have suggested that the impact of former candidates and third-party nominees could be particularly significant in a close race, especially in states like Michigan and Wisconsin, which were key to the outcomes in the 2016 and 2020 elections.
In a statement made in August, Kennedy explained his rationale for withdrawing from ballots in key battlegrounds, noting his intent to avoid acting as a spoiler. “In about 10 battleground states, where my presence would be a spoiler, I’m going to remove my name,” he stated. “And I’ve already started that process and urge voters not to vote for me.” Despite these efforts, his name remains on the ballot in some of those states, a factor that could influence the race as votes continue to be cast.
The Supreme Court’s rejection of his appeal underscores the broader challenges associated with changing ballots after early voting has started. The growing trend of early and absentee voting has added new complexities to election administration, particularly when candidates alter their status or endorsements close to election time. State election officials generally aim to prevent significant changes to ballots once voting has started, both to avoid confusion and to ensure that all ballots are treated consistently.
This decision could shape the narrative around RFK Jr. and his potential role in the 2024 election, even as a former candidate. His decision to back Trump, coupled with his attempt to remove his name from ballots in certain states, underscores his belief that his continued presence on the ballot could hinder Trump’s chances in these battlegrounds. While Kennedy’s intentions were clear, the legal and logistical complications of changing ballots after voting has begun proved insurmountable.
As the 2024 election continues, Kennedy’s efforts to align with Trump may hold symbolic weight but might not ultimately sway the outcome. Michigan and Wisconsin remain pivotal for both parties, and the high-profile nature of the case draws additional attention to the potential impact of every vote in tightly contested states.