The Georgia Supreme Court will hear the ballot access case involving presidential candidates Claudia De la Cruz and Cornel West on Tuesday, September 24, at 10 a.m. They both petitioned, but then a lower state court judge ruled their petitions should not have been on behalf of the candidates, but on behalf of each candidate’s presidential elector candidates. In other words, the candidates should have prepared petitions for each of their presidential elector candidates and circulated those petitions.

The two candidates’ names are already on the ballot, but the lower court ruled that votes for them should not be counted. If the State Supreme Court reverses the lower court, then their votes will be counted. The Secretary of State is on the same side as the two candidates; the Democratic Party is on the other side.

On September 18, the Second Circuit issued a one-sentence order in Kennedy v Berger, 24-2385, denying a ballot position to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in New York. It is now confirmed that New York will be the only state with only two presidential candidates on the ballot.

On September 19, the Tennessee Libertarian Party filed a notice of appeal in Darnell v Hargett, the ballot access case filed in 2023. The U.S. District Court last month upheld the law on how a new party gets on the ballot, a petition signed by 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote. The U.S. District Court decision did not mention that the U.S. Supreme Court has twice said that if a ballot access law is so stringent that it is rarely used, it is probably unconstitutional. No party has got on the Tennessee ballot by petition since 1968. Parties that tried and failed to petition successfully have included the Populist, Green, Constitution, Americans Elect, and Reform Parties.

The U.S. District Court decision also did not mention that the current law creates voter confusion in Tennessee. Because the independent presidential petition is only 275 signatures, independent presidential candidates always appear with the inaccurate label “Independent”, instead of the proper label.

UPDATE: the case number in the Sixth Circuit is 24-5856.