Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
Kanye West will not be appearing on the presidential ballot in Arizona this November.
A Maricopa County judge ruled Thursday the rapper and aspiring presidential candidate will not be an option for voters on Election Day.
The judge ruled Kanye West’s name will not be on the presidential ballot even if he manages to get the number of signatures required for independent candidates to appear on the ballot, according to ABC15. West’s campaign turned in almost 58,000 signatures earlier this week, which exceeds the 39,000 required to appear on the ballot. The signatures have yet to be verified.
The plaintiff, Arizona resident Rasean Clayton, had filed a lawsuit challenging West’s candidacy. Judge M. Scott McCoy found in his favor and ordered injunctive relief to keep West off the presidential ballot.
Kanye West launched his campaign July 4, and so far has met the requirements to appear on the ballot in a number of states, including Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma and others, The Hill reported. His attempts to appear on the ballot in Illinois, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Virginia and Wyoming have failed, and he has filed lawsuits seeking ballot placement in Wisconsin and West Virginia.
The Hill adds West has failed to file his campaign finance forms with the Federal Election Commission; the most recent was due Aug. 20.
According to the judge’s ruling, West was seeking nomination via a nonpartisan process allowed under Arizona law. This process is available to qualified electors who are not registered members of any recognized political party.
The plaintiff argued that this should not be an option for West, who is registered as a Republican in Wyoming.
In addition, the plaintiff argued, West’s “eleven ‘presidential electors’” are also registered Republicans and have failed to file statements of interest as required by Arizona law.
West contended the nonpartisan nomination option only applies to members of the Arizona Republican Party, Arizona Democratic Party or Arizona Libertarian Party, and notes that he registered with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) as a member of “The Birthday Party.”
West also maintains his presidential electors are exempt from the statement of interest requirement and that because he’s running for president, he and his electors are “a single entity.”
West reportedly provided evidence to the Court that his electors have changed their registrations to Independent.
“Though no statutory definition, legislative history or case explains what the legislature meant by ‘political party that is recognized pursuant to this title,’ the most sensible reading is that it prohibits Mr. West’s nomination,” the ruling says. “The status of his presidential electors, too, is problematic. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs have a significant probability of success on the merits.”
The plaintiff noted that the deadline for printing ballots is drawing closer by the day, and if they’re not stopped, counties would have to print ballots with Kanye West’s name on them.
“And if West is included on the ballot, the harm is done,” the plaintiff argued.
The plaintiff worries “confused ‘[v]oters risk throwing away a vote on a disqualified candidate.’”
West, however, disagrees.
He argues irreparable harm will be done to him “if he is not on the ballot and ultimately prevails, as was the case with Ralph Nader in election cycles past.”
West went on to argue that public policy favors ballot access and “does ‘not look kindly on incumbent major political parties eliminating their potential competitors.’”
While he is a registered Republican in Wyoming, strategists say in this particular race West could pull votes away from Democratic presidential nominee and former vice president Joe Biden, The Hill reported.
West, who in the past has expressed support for President Donald Trump, said earlier this summer it “shouldn’t be hard” for West to take Black votes away from Biden.
Ultimately, the Court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated the potential for irreparable injury, and established probable success on the merits of the case.
“The Court finds that public policy cuts both for and against issuing an injunction in the circumstances, and that Plaintiff has demonstrated a possibility of irreparable injury,” the ruling says.
It was not known if West’s attorneys would appeal the ruling, according to ABC15.
Do you think Kanye West should be allowed on the presidential ballot? Tell us your thoughts in the comments.
The plaintiff is represented by Joseph N. Roth and Joshua D. Bendor.
The Kanye West Presidential Ballot Lawsuit was Rasean Clayton v. Kanye West, et al., Case No. CV 2020-010553, in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County.
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
Voter Rights Groups File Class Action Lawsuit Over Trump Social Media Order
Is Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder Safe?
Navajo Nation Files Lawsuit Over Arizona Vote-By-Mail Deadline
4 thoughts onKanye West Cannot Appear on Arizona Ballot, Judge Rules
add me, BLM!
Yes, he should be included. If you meet the requirements, then a judge with a political bent towards the Democrats should not declare that you’re really a Republican. To wit, judicial activism when the law is not clear should be prohibited. West registered as being affiliated with “The Birthday Party” in Arizona. But he was judged to be a Republican–by his registration in WYOMING.
”Superior Court of Maricopa County Judge M. Scott McCoy presided over the case. Judge McCoy acknowledged that there “no statutory definition, legislative history or case” explains precisely what the legislature meant to require by the way of required party registration. However, wrote the judge, “the most sensible reading is that it prohibits Mr. West’s nomination.”
So, when Judge McCoy writes that there is “no statutory definition, legislative history or case”, he is making up the law, by his own definition and will.
add me in
Hell no! This even being a question is as rediculous as blm!