Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been disqualified from appearing on the New York state ballot following a court ruling that states he used a “sham” address on his nominating petitions. The campaign announced on Monday that it intends to appeal the decision.
On Monday, New York Supreme Court Justice Christina Ryba ruled against Kennedy appearing on the state ballot later this year, stating he used a false New York address to maintain his voter registration while primarily living in California, leading to the invalidation of his petition forms. “Based upon the clear and convincing credible evidence presented in this case, the Court finds that the 84 Croton Lake Road address listed on the nominating petition was not Kennedy’s bona fide and legitimate residence, but merely a ‘sham’ address that he assumed for the purpose of maintaining his voter registration and furthering his own political aspirations in this State,” the ruling stated.
The case was first brought against Kennedy by Clear Choice Action, a Democratic Party-aligned super PAC reportedly created to challenge third party and independent candidates. Special thanks to Ballot Access News for publishing a copy of the recent decision.
In a press release following the ruling, the Kennedy campaign reasserted that Kennedy is a registered New York voter, maintains all his licenses in New York, and that New York has been his primary residence since 1964. Kennedy himself accused the Democratic National Committee of engaging in “lawfare,” and the campaign stated that it intends to appeal the ruling.
“The 12th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution governs the residency of presidential and vice presidential candidates, not state law,” said Kennedy campaign Senior Counsel Paul Rossi in the release. “We intend to pursue injunctive relief in the Southern District of New York. If state court judges are going to ignore the Constitution, the federal courts must step in to protect voters’ rights.”
Jeff , when you check the BAN article, if you get time to read comments, I’m curious what you think of Rays argument about the address. The cynic in me suspects he might be correct.
Imagine creating a SPAC just for filing frivolous lawsuits to try and deny voters options. Imagine ruling in favor of that SPAC because they are filing frivolous lawsuits on behalf of your party. And imagine refusing to even let the defendant make any argument with reference to the constitution.
The correct response to such systematic frivolous litigation, is to remove the SPAC’s party from the ballot for that election in that state. And the correct response to such gross partisan abuse of authority, miscarriage of justice and corruption it to defrock the supreme court injustice, throw them in prison for as many years as they have heard cases without possibility of parole, and donate their entire pension and benefits to the candidate they were conspiring to screw over.
I need to check the BAN article – does anyone know if RFK’s NY address is the same one he used on all of his petitions? I suspect it may be, since she lives in CA just as he does. FWIW the 12th amendment doesn’t say anything about how states may define legal residency, which I would assume is left to the states by the Bill of Rights.