Last week, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that the Nevada Green Party had not “substantially” complied with the requirements to get on the ballot this fall — a decision that blocked Jill Stein from appearing on the ballot in Nevada as the Green Party’s candidate for president.

On Friday, however, Jay Alan Sekulow — a longtime Christian conservative lawyer who also has previously served as a lawyer for Donald Trump — was counsel of record on an “emergency application” at the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Nevada Green Party. In the shadow docket filing, Sekulow asked the justices to vacate the state supreme court’s decision — about its interpretation of state law regarding “minor party” ballot access — and allow Stein back on the ballot.

In the filing, Sekulow argued that the Nevada Supreme Court’s order violated the due process and equal protection rights of the Nevada Green Party.

A response was requested, due by 4 p.m. Tuesday, September 17.

Share

So, what is at issue here?

The Las Vegas Review-Journal summarized the issues before the state supreme court in its report on the decision as such:

The Green Party said a secretary of state employee sent the campaign an incorrect sample petition. The court ruled, however, that a political party cannot use mistaken guidance received from a government entity as reason for not complying with the law. The employee also directed the party to the Minor Party Qualification Guide 2024 that included the proper guidance.

In its ruling on Sept. 6, the Nevada Supreme Court addressed this issue repeatedly — both in discussing the state’s decision to have the rules it has for access and in discussing the “unfortunate mistake” regarding the sample petition sent from the sectary of state’s office:

Later, the court added, “[T]here is no evidence that the email was anything but an unfortunate mistake or that the Secretary intended to mislead the Green Party. Further, the Secretary's employee also directed the Green Party to The Minor Party Qualification Guide 2024, which contained guidance on the proper circulator affidavit and also included citations to the relevant laws, NRS 293.172 and NAC 293.182. The statute and regulation were readily available to the Green Party ….”

In the Friday shadow docket request at the U.S. Supreme Court, Sekulow argued for the Nevada Green Party that its “candidates are wrongfully ripped from the ballot and Nevadans who would vote for them in this election are robbed of the opportunity to do so” by the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision.

“Further, the lower court’s rulings and the timing thereof dilute the votes of Americans in other States who would vote for Applicant’s candidate and reintroduces the ‘patchwork’ this Court has unanimously rejected,” Sekulow wrote — referencing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year rejecting the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision that Trump was to be excluded from the ballot there due to the Fourteenth Amendment’s “insurrection” disqualification.

In that case, which turned on whether states had the power to implement that Fourteenth Amendment provision, Sekulow was counsel of record for the Colorado Republican State Central Committee.

This request, however, has nothing to do with the Fourteenth Amendment question.