{"id":323,"date":"2025-01-07T17:38:51","date_gmt":"2025-01-07T17:38:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/?p=323"},"modified":"2025-01-07T17:38:51","modified_gmt":"2025-01-07T17:38:51","slug":"the-north-carolina-supreme-courts-decision-to-remove-robert-f-kennedy-from-the-ballot","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/2025\/01\/the-north-carolina-supreme-courts-decision-to-remove-robert-f-kennedy-from-the-ballot\/","title":{"rendered":"The North Carolina Supreme Court’s Decision to Remove Robert F. Kennedy From the Ballot"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.\u2019s Campaign Suspension and Ballot Efforts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On August 23, 2024, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK) suspended his presidential campaign<\/a> and announced his plan to remove his name from ballots in battleground states and encourage his supporters to vote for former President Donald Trump. North Carolina, one of his targets, had a ballot finalization deadline of August 22, 2024.<\/a> However, the NC State Board of Elections did not receive RFK Jr. and his party\u2019s formal withdrawal request until August 28.<\/a> During the six days between ballot finalization and the withdrawal request, the State Board printed nearly three million ballots<\/a> with his name included. This was done in accordance with N.C.G.S \u00a7 163-27.10(a)<\/a>, which mandates absentee ballots be sent 60 days before the general election, creating the deadline of September 6 for this year.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once RFK\u2019s formal withdrawal was received, the State Board held an emergency meeting, voting 3-2<\/a> to keep his name on the ballot. Despite having pushed to secure a spot on the North Carolina ballot just weeks earlier, RFK filed a lawsuit to continue the battle to remove his name. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

RFK Jr. v. State Board of Elections<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On September 5, 2024, a Wake County Superior Court judge ruled that RFK\u2019s name should remain on the ballot<\/a>, stating that the harm to the State Board of Elections would be greater than any harm to RFK himself. The judge gave RFK 24 hours to appeal, prompting a temporary pause in the printing and sending of absentee ballots. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The next morning, a unanimous and unnamed three-judge panel from the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the decision<\/a> without explanation, sending the case back to the lower court. The State Board subsequently appealed, and on September 9, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court\u2019s ruling in a 4-3 split<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The majority argued that removing RFK from the ballot did not meet the necessary threshold of \u201csubstantial harm,\u201d a standard that balances the plaintiff\u2019s potential injuries versus the defendant\u2019s. While they acknowledged that the expedited process would \u201crequire considerable effort by our election officials and significant expense to the State,\u201d they maintained that this burden did not outweigh the potential harm to voters if RFK\u2019s name remained. Since RFK had officially withdrawn, any vote for him would not be counted, creating a risk of voter confusion. This confusion, the majority argued, could lead to disenfranchisement and interfere with the right to vote freely and fairly. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Earls and Justice Riggs dissented,<\/a> arguing that the harm of reprinting ballots and delaying the absentee voting window outweighed any potential confusion for voters. Both justices pointed to RFK\u2019s \u201cgamesmanship,\u201d noting his eagerness to be included on the ballot just weeks earlier and his sudden reversal. \u201cThe rules of our elections,\u201d Justice Earls wrote, \u201callow such attempted gaming of the presidential election system when done far enough in advance, but it is not fair to the rest of the state to disregard state election laws to accommodate a late-breaking political strategy.\u201d   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Riggs emphasized the financial burden, estimating the cost of reprinting ballots at a million dollars, while also reducing the absentee voting period by a quarter. This, she argued, prioritizes the wishes of one man \u201cabove the constitutional interests of tens of thousands of North Carolina voters who have requested an absentee ballot and seek to exercise their right, under North Carolina law, to cast their ballot as soon as possible after the statutory deadline required to distribute absentee ballots.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Implications of the North Carolina Supreme Court\u2019s Decision <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This decision comes at a cost to North Carolina taxpayers, local election officials, and absentee voters. It sets a precedent for allowing political strategies to take priority over the timely distribution of ballots. Justice Dietz,\u00a0in his dissent,<\/a> proposed alternative methods to inform voters of RFK\u2019s withdrawal, such as posting signs at polling places or including notices with absentee ballots. Instead, the court\u2019s decision delayed absentee voting by over two weeks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast, the Supreme Courts of Michigan and Wisconsin recently ruled to keep RFK on their ballots, making North Carolina\u2019s decision part of a larger national debate. As of now, 18 states have RFK on the ballot<\/a>, while 32 states and the District of Columbia do not. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s decision also coincides with a challenging time for North Carolina, as Hurricane Helene struck the western part of the state shortly after absentee ballots were mailed. The storm will likely impact voter turnout in November due to the shorter absentee window and loss of infrastructure, raising further questions about whether RFK\u2019s political battle was worth the cost. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beth LeCroy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Class of 2026, Staff Member<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.\u2019s Campaign Suspension and Ballot Efforts On August 23, 2024, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK) suspended his presidential campaign and announced his plan to remove his name from ballots in battleground states and encourage his supporters to vote for former President Donald Trump. North Carolina, one of his targets, had a ballot finalization deadline …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[9],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/323"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=323"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/323\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":324,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/323\/revisions\/324"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=323"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=323"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=323"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}