On September 17, the Nevada Democratic Party filed this response in the U.S. Supreme Court in Nevada Green Party v Aguilar and Nevada Democratic Party, 24A262. The brief mostly says there are procedural rules for why the Nevada Green Party’s request should be denied. The Democratic Party only mentions Trump v Anderson in a single sentence, merely asserting that Trump v Anderson doesn’t change anything.
In Trump v Anderson, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously said that the relationship between the people and the presidency of the United States is so strong, Article Two impplicitly bars a “patchwork” in which presidential candidates are on the ballot in some states and not other states. If the Nevada Green Party cannot get on the ballot this year, Nevada, Oklahoma and South Dakota voters will be the only ones in the nation who are barred from physically casting a vote for Jill Stein.
I see they rely on Burdick v. Takushi, where part of the reasoning was that it was easy to get on the ballot in Hawaii, so banning write-in voting was not too severe a burden.
You can’t rely on that reasoning in a different situation like Nevada, where it is not easy to get on the ballot, and yet the petition for Stein was completed anyway. And, everyone who signed the petition is for sure burdened. The ban on write-in voting in Nevada critically undermines the argument for denying ballot access to Stein’s electors. In fact, the word “write” does not appear even once in the Democratic Party’s response.