The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled 5-2 that Nevada Green Party candidate Jill Stein will not appear on the state’s presidential ballot because their petition failed to meet the minor party’s access requirements.
The Nevada Democratic Party filed a lawsuit in June against the Nevada Green Party for alleged invalid signatures.
The Green Party submitted 29,500 petition signatures so its candidates could be included on the ballot, which was roughly three times as many as needed. Nevada Democratic Party then sued, claiming some were signed too far in the past or seem altered, making them invalid.
The district court in Carson City denied the lawsuit in August. The Democrats amended the original lawsuit because the language used the improper affidavit. The case was then taken to the Nevada Supreme Court.
The state Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling to allow the Green Party to stay on the Nevada general election ballot. According to the court documents, the petition contained the “circulator affidavit for initiative and referendum petitions, instead of the circulator affidavit for minor party ballot access” which is what the Nevada Democratic Party amended their lawsuit to say.
The problem: The Green Party submitted the petition that does not swear that they believe each person signing the petition is a registered voter in the county of their residence. In order to be added to the ballot, all minor parties must include this verification. The Green Party did not, so the Nevada Democratic Party added this to their lawsuit and the Nevada Supreme Court ruled to not let them on the ballot for not meeting all requirements.
“The circulator affidavit used by the Nevada Green Party omitted a legally required element: the attestation that each signatory was a registered voter in the county of his or her residence,” the document said.
However, Justices Douglas Herndon and Justice Kristina Pickering voted against the ruling, saying they believed the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office made an “egregious error” when they accidentally sent the Green Party an affidavit with the incorrect requirements.
The secretary of state’s office originally sent the Nevada Green Party the wrong sample petition, which did not include the affidavit requiring voter registration verification, according to the documents. With the wrong affidavit, the Green Party’s petition would not meet the requirements of a minor political party to be on the ballot.
The party still managed to submit the petition with the right affidavit the first time, by not using the same form the secretary of state’s office provided them. However, this petition did not include a blank space for signers to put their petition district, so the office sent it back and notified the Nevada Green Party that they needed the petition district, and emailed the party new instructions.
The employee who provided the Green Party with further guidance told them they had an “older version,” according to the dissenting judges’ opinion. The employee asked the Green Party to use this “newer” form — with the wrong affidavit — to collect signatures.
The dissenting justices claim the Nevada Green Party was “affirmatively directed” by the secretary of state’s office to use this incorrect form because the employee told them to use the wrong form.
Still, the secretary of state’s online guide for minor political parties to apply to be on the ballot states the petition needs the verification that signatures are from people who are actual registered voters. So even without the proper affidavit, the state supreme court ruled that they should’ve done their research into what was required for them to be on the ballot.
The court acknowledged the miscommunication of improper materials on the behalf of the secretary of state’s office, but classified the situation as an unfortunate event that could’ve been remedied with a more in-depth review.
“There is no evidence that the email was anything but an unfortunate mistake or that the (s)ecretary intended to mislead the Green Party,” the documents said.
“If the Green Party had reviewed the petition before using it, it would have discovered the incorrect circulator affidavit …This is an unfortunate oversight on the part of both the secretary of state’s office and the Green Party.”
Herndon and Pickering said they believed the secretary of state’s office’s mistake would be the result of a “tremendous injustice.”
The secretary of state’s office told the RGJ in an email that they took “no position” on whether the Green Party’s petition was legal.
“We respect the decision of the Justices, and are working with the counties to ensure the decision is carried out,” Cecilia Heston, spokesperson for the secretary of state’s office, said.
“Providing accurate information to the public is a priority for our office, and we will continue to review and improve all guides and documentation.”
The last time Green Party had any candidates on the Nevada ballot was in the 2008 presidential election, when Cynthia McKinney received about 1,400 votes compared with Democratic nominee Barack Obama’s 532,000.
Co-chair of the Nevada Green Party Margery Hanson told the RGJ due to the court events today, she “would not be voting this cycle.”
The Nevada Democratic Party did not respond to the RGJ’s request for comment.
A recent Review-Journal letter to the editor mischaracterized Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto’s Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act, also known as the Clark County Lands bill. As the former executive director of the Nevada Conservation League, I wholeheartedly support this legislation, so I wanted to set the record straight.
Sen. Cortez Masto has been working on this bill for years in partnership with state and local governments, conservation groups like the NCL and local area tribes. It’s true that the Clark County lands bill would open 25,000 acres to help Las Vegas grow responsibly, while setting aside 2 million acres for conservation. It would also help create more affordable housing throughout the valley while ensuring our treasured public spaces can be preserved for generations to come.
What is not correct is that the money from these land sales would go to the federal government’s coffers. In fact, the opposite is true.
The 1998 Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act is a landmark bill that identified specific public land for future sale and created a special account ensuring all land sale revenues would come back to Nevada. In accordance with that law 5 percent of revenue from land transfers goes to the state of Nevada for general education purposes, 10 percent goes to the Southern Nevada Water Authority for needed water infrastructure and 85 percent supports conservation and environmental mitigation projects in Southern Nevada. This legislation has provided billions to Clark County and will continue to benefit generations of Southern Nevadans. Sen. Cortez Masto’s lands bill builds upon the act’s success.
So here’s the good news: All of the money generated from land made available for sale under Sen. Cortez Masto’s bill would be sent to the special account created by the 1998 law. Rather than going to an unaccountable federal government, the proceeds would continue to help kids in Vegas get a better education, bolster outdoor recreation and modernize Southern Nevada’s infrastructure.
I know how important it is that money generated from the sale of public land in Nevada stay in the hands of Nevadans, and so does the senator. That’s why she opposed a Republican effort last year to sell off 200,000 acres of land in Clark County and other areas of the country that would have sent those dollars directly to Washington.
Public land management in Nevada should benefit Nevadans. We should protect sacred cultural sites and beloved recreation spaces, responsibly transfer land for affordable housing when needed and ensure our state has the resources it needs to grow sustainably. I will continue working with Sen. Cortez Masto to advocate for legislation, such as the Clark County lands bill, that puts the needs of Nevadans first.
Paul Selberg writes from Las Vegas.
click to expand photos
Las Vegas High’s baseball team claimed a 3-2 home win over Coronado on Friday.
Las Vegas (9-13-1) next hosts Rancho at 10 a.m. Saturday. Coronado (13-14) hosts Chaparral at 3:30 p.m. Monday.
Contact Alex Wright at awright@reviewjournal.com. Follow @AlexWright1028 on X.
LAS VEGAS (FOX5) — Nevada’s jobless rate is holding steady, but the state is still adding jobs.
A new report from DETR shows February’s unemployment rate unchanged at 5.3 percent, with the labor force growing by nearly 3,800 people.
MORE ON FOX5: Nevada unemployment rate rises to 5.3% in January
Nevada now has about 1.6 million nonfarm jobs, up 2.2 percent over the past year and 1,500 more jobs than in January.
“This month’s report shows a strengthening labor market,” said David Schmidt, Chief Economist. ”Compared to the report for January, the pace of job gains in the past year increased from 1.9% to 2.2%, building on what was already the fastest pace of job growth in the country. While the unemployment rate remained stable, the labor force participation rate rose to 63.7%, 1.7 percentage points higher than the national level.”
In Las Vegas, employment ticked up by 1,100 jobs in February, about 0.1 percent, and is up more than 25,000 jobs compared to last year.
Reno added 1,000 jobs on the month, while Carson City shed about 200 but is still slightly above where it was a year ago.
Copyright 2026 KVVU. All rights reserved.
Storms dump small hail throughout Austin area Saturday
YMCA of South Alabama holds Healthy Kids Day in Spanish Fort
Bear injures two US soldiers during military training in Alaska | The Jerusalem Post
NFL mock draft: 4-round projections for Arizona Cardinals
No. 6 Arkansas ends top-ranked OU’s 31-game home winning streak with 3-2 decision
Billionaire Steyer’s spending binge dwarfs rival campaigns in California governor’s race
Landeskog – April 18 | Colorado Avalanche
Overnight Forecast for April 19
