Remove ads by Supporting Independent News
Written by: E. George
Published October 1, 2024 @ 4:00 PM ET
GEORGIA – On Wednesday, September 25, 2024, the Georgia Supreme Court issued a significant ruling that disqualified presidential candidates Cornel West and Claudia De la Cruz from the ballot, reflecting a broader struggle over electoral dynamics in the state. The ruling upheld prior decisions by two Fulton County Superior Court judges, effectively determining that votes cast for West and De la Cruz would not be counted in the upcoming presidential election.
This ruling could shape the outcome of Georgia’s 16 electoral votes, which would be an influential prize in the presidential race. The court’s decision followed a swift hearing just one day earlier, highlighting the urgency surrounding the legal battle.
The case was initiated by the Georgia Democratic Party, which sought to remove these minor candidates from the ballot, arguing that their presence could siphon crucial votes away from the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, particularly in a tight race against Republican candidate Donald Trump.
While the names of West and De la Cruz will still appear on the ballots across Georgia, only votes for Harris, Trump, Libertarian Chase Oliver, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein will count. The Secretary of State’s office, represented by attorney Elizabeth Young, emphasized the logistical difficulties in altering the ballots, citing a lack of time and necessary resources to correct the printed materials.
As part of the ruling, polling locations will be mandated to display clear signage informing voters that ballots cast for West and De la Cruz will not be counted. This requirement aims to prevent voter confusion, as the state cannot update the voting machines and printed ballots in time for the election.
The legal controversy began when two Fulton County judges initially ruled against the Secretary of State’s decision to keep West and De la Cruz on the ballot. The Democratic Party’s challenge reflects a nationwide strategy to limit minor candidates’ participation, driven by concerns that these candidates could divert votes from the Democratic ticket, particularly given that Joe Biden’s victory in Georgia in 2020 was decided by a narrow margin of less than 12,000 votes.
In a notable response, Edwin DeJesus from the West campaign encouraged voters to still cast their votes in protest for West, stating, “His name is still appearing on the ballot. We encourage all voters supporting our campaign in Georgia to vote for Cornel West.” Meanwhile, Josh McKoon, chair of the Georgia Republican Party, expressed disappointment, arguing that the ruling disenfranchises voters who wish to support candidates of their choice.
The ruling was welcomed by the Georgia Democratic Party, with executive director Tolulope Kevin Olasanoye asserting that it reaffirmed the necessity for all candidates to adhere to electoral rules.
“Today’s ruling affirms what two judges have already found: neither of these candidates is qualified to be on the ballot, and the Secretary of State attempting to ignore the judges’ rulings doesn’t make state election law any less clear. We believe that every candidate should follow the rules, and today, the Georgia Supreme Court agreed,” Olasanoye stated.
Other candidates have navigated their way on or off the ballot through various means. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. withdrew from the race and endorsed Trump, while Jill Stein managed to qualify for the ballot through a new state provision allowing automatic ballot access for parties that achieve it in at least 20 states.
Both West and De la Cruz had met the signature requirements needed to qualify for the ballot; however, the court found that the required signatures were not submitted in accordance with state law, which stipulates that they must be linked to one of the candidates’ potential state electors.
While the West and De la Cruz campaigns may consider appealing to federal courts, legal experts have indicated uncertainty regarding the viability of such appeals under federal law. This ruling highlights the potential impact of minor candidates in the competitive landscape of American presidential elections.