The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that the Green Party is ineligible to appear on the state’s presidential ballot after its petition failed to include the required language for minor parties to qualify for the ballot.

In a 5-2 ruling released Friday, the high court’s majority agreed with lawyers representing the state Democratic Party — which filed the lawsuit — that the minor party’s petition contained the wrong affidavit language, invalidating the signatures gathered to land on the ballot. The legally deficient language used by the party was recommended by the secretary of state’s office, which led dissenting Justices Kristina Pickering and Douglas Herndon to write that they believe the ruling violates the Green Party’s due process rights.

The decision reverses a lower court’s ruling that allowed the Green Party to qualify for the Nevada ballot for the first time since 2008. It is also a victory for state Democrats and ensures that only Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver will appear as a third-party candidate on Nevada’s presidential ballot after independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dropped out of the race last month.

Democrats in multiple states have sued to keep the Green Party off the ballot, fearing dissatisfied left-leaning voters would not vote Democratic if the Green Party was an option. Jill Stein, the Green Party’s presidential candidate, has received around 1 percent of the vote in Nevada, polls show.

In a statement, co-chair of the Nevada Green Party Margery Hanson did not address the ruling but said “I live in a swing state and I will not be voting this cycle.”

Hilary Barrett, the executive director of the Nevada Democratic Party, said in a statement that the “ruling is a victory for Nevada voters and ensures that the Green Party plays by the same rules as other campaigns.”

The Democratic Party had amended its original lawsuit because the affidavits signed by circulators included the language for initiative petitions to qualify for the ballot, not minor political parties, which omits a sentence stating the circulator believes all signees were registered voters in the county they reside.

However, the affidavit language used by the party is the same as the one recommended by the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office in its guide for minor political parties to qualify for the ballot. The high court’s majority ruled that this error by the state did not absolve the Green Party’s legal obligation to use the right form.

“The Green Party's failure to use the correct circulator affidavit cannot be excused by the Green Party's reliance on the sample petition received from the Secretary,” the opinion states.

In their dissent, Pickering and Herndon were “deeply concerned that our decision today excuses an egregious error by the Secretary of State's office that will result in a significant injustice.”

In a statement, the secretary of state’s office said providing “accurate information to the public is a priority for our office, and we will continue to review and improve all guides and documentation.”

“The Secretary of State's office was involved in this case by necessity, and took no position on the legal sufficiency of the petition under Nevada law,” the statement said. “We respect the decision of the Justices, and are working with the counties to ensure the decision is carried out.”

The high court’s majority reversed the initial decision by Carson City District Court Judge Kristin Luis and found that she had erred by determining that the Green Party had substantially complied with the requirements for circulator affidavits. 

“[T]he declarations provided by some of the Green Party's circulators … do not indicate that the circulators were asking signatories if they were a registered voter in the county of the signatory’s residence,” the ruling said.

The dissent disagreed, saying that the majority’s view of substantial compliance was “too expansive” and that the declarations made by the Green Party were sufficient to show compliance with state rules.

The decision comes one month before mail ballots are set to be sent out. The state Supreme Court expedited its ruling because of the need to change election ballots before they go to print.

Updated on 9/6/24 at 2:54 p.m. to include more information about the ruling, at 4:05 p.m. to include statements from the Green Party and Nevada Democratic Party and at 4:25 p.m. to include a statement from the secretary of state's office.