Trump's former lawyer asks SCOTUS to put Green Party's Stein on Nevada's ballot
Jill Stein was ordered off the ballot by the Nevada Supreme Court last week. Jay Alan Sekulow, a longtime conservative lawyer, is now representing the Nevada Green Party.
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.
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:
![Lastly, 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. A political party cannot demonstrate compliance with the law based on mistaken guidance received from a government entity when the "[g]overnment has a duty to correct any previous mistakes in enforcing the law it might have made." Further, permitting a minor party to be placed on the ballot when the party failed to comply with the legal requirements for such placement negates the requirements that were put in place for the public's benefit. Thus, regardless of what it received from the Secretary, the Green Party still had a duty to comply with the legal requirements for circulator affidavits, and it did not do so.](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F5e1f8731-dd06-4ea8-a71d-3750cd88e8ce_1158x1032.png "Lastly, 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. A political party cannot demonstrate compliance with the law based on mistaken guidance received from a government entity when the \"[g]overnment has a duty to correct any previous mistakes in enforcing the law it might have made.\" Further, permitting a minor party to be placed on the ballot when the party failed to comply with the legal requirements for such placement negates the requirements that were put in place for the public's benefit. Thus, regardless of what it received from the Secretary, the Green Party still had a duty to comply with the legal requirements for circulator affidavits, and it did not do so.")
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.
Keep in mind, for most of Sekulow’s career, he was a First Amendment lawyer focused on religious liberty cases at the Pat Robertson-founded American Center for Law & Justice. (The ACLJ was formed as a sort of Christian, right-wing opposition group to the ACLU.) Sekulow often has defended anti-abortion protesters. Then, he became a Trump lawyer — fighting for Trump up to the U.S. Supreme Court and defending him in his first impeachment.
Now, though, Sekulow and six other ACLJ lawyers, joined by one lawyer each from the Center for Competitive Democracy and the More Voter Choice Fund, Inc., are fighting for the Nevada Green Party.
It’s not just about Nevada either, they insisted in the filing.
“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 and the other lawyers 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.
Now, ACLJ is representing the Nevada Green Party while ACLJ Action sat on the advisory board of the far-right Project 2025.
This is a breaking news report. It was updated and expanded after initial publication, with the final update being made at 1:20 p.m. September 14.
I was familiar with Sekulow for his repeat performances at SCOTUS as part of his calling to be a Christian conservative, legal corps division. I'm less enthused about his evangelism in support of Trump.
His support for third party rights here is about as selective as the North Carolina Supreme Court's recent ruling in favor of Trump ... I mean Robert Kennedy Jr.
One wonders how much Jill Stein is being paid by conservative interests to file her evergreen spoiler run.
Georgia's Raffensperger overrode a state court to put two candidates on the ballot, solely to take votes from Harris. Thankfully, the state Supreme Court said no way. Bull Stein is on the ballot...happily throwing the vote to Trump.
The Green party is a joke.