In a recent turn of events, Michigan's Court of Appeals has decided that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s name should be stricken from the state's upcoming November presidential ballot. This ruling, delivered on Friday, countervails a prior determination from the Michigan Court of Claims which had posited that Kennedy, despite his desired withdrawal from the race, must be included on the ballot—itself a reflection of the Michigan Secretary of State's stance.
Following the appeals court's decision, Secretary of State Benson's office announced plans for an emergency appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, as per information from CBS News Detroit.
The deadline for local election clerks to be notified of ballot changes pressed the urgency of the matter, with Benson's legal team citing the appeals court ruling as "erroneous" and poorly reasoned, and seeking a stay on the order by 3 p.m. Monday as per The Detroit Free Press.
RFK Jr.'s initial bid for the presidency was as an independent candidate endorsed by the Natural Law Party—a maneuver that permitted him to elude the signature collection requisite for independent candidates. However, after suspending his campaign and throwing his support behind former President Donald Trump in August, Kennedy appealed for his removal from various state ballots, to avoid diluting support for Trump, as detailed by The Detroit Free Press.
Michigan is considered a pivotal battleground state in an election where the polls manifest a neck-and-neck race between Vice President Kamala Harris and Trump. With Kennedy garnering approximately 5% of the likely Michigan voters' support, even after suspending his campaign, his presence on, or absence from the ballot could sway the eventual outcome of the election. These figures come from a poll conducted after Kennedy's campaign suspension.
One central contention in the dispute over Kennedy's ballot status was a section of Michigan's state law. Kennedy's legal argument, which the appeals court sided with, posited that the statute in question applies to state office candidates, rather than presidential candidates. This distinction was integral to the appeals court's verdict that ruled in favor of removing his name from the ballot—the latest chapter in an unfolding electoral drama that touches on the tension between individual political strategy and the rigidity of electoral processes. However, as The Detroit Free Press noted, "It cannot be denied that plaintiff appears to have tarried somewhat in his attempts to obtain relief."
As the legal battle progresses, the Michigan Supreme Court's response to Benson's emergency request remains to be seen. Should the Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's appeal fall short, the Court of Appeals decision will stand, potentially affecting the broader dynamics of the Michigan presidential vote and, by extension, the national election in the face of the imminence of the printing of ballots.
