Days before the nation votes in one of the most substantial elections, activist and scholar Cornel West sought to increase his visibility as a presidential candidate through unconventional means.
The Hill reported that after being denied ballot access in Pennsylvania, West filed an emergency appeal to the United States Supreme Court. His request was simple yet unprecedented: he wanted polling places across the state to post notices that voters could write in his name along with his running mate, Melina Abdullah.
Justice Samuel Alito, who oversees emergency appeals from Pennsylvania, was the arbiter of West’s ambitious request.
In a swift decision characterized by its brevity, Alito denied the application with a single, terse sentence. This left West’s campaign without the direct method of voter notification at polling stations that they had hoped for.
The backdrop to West's appeal involved a challenging journey where time was not on his side. Election Day was less than a week away, and traditional ballot access had already been closed to him. This prompted West to abandon his efforts for direct ballot placement and instead pivot to pursuing recognition as a write-in option.
This sort of emergency appeal to the Supreme Court is not West's only recourse, but options are limited.
Historical precedents are not favorable; the Supreme Court has a record of denying similar requests, including those from other notable figures such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Green Party candidate Jill Stein. These decisions create a daunting precedent for any future emergency appeals of this nature.
West’s team now faces the legal realities that accompany a write-in candidacy—a path filled with hurdles and minimal formal recognition at polling places.
Despite these challenges, West's campaign could still push forward to renew their request with another justice, although the likelihood of a different outcome is slim based on historical outcomes.
The Supreme Court, at this same juncture, is handling other significant election-related cases. Among them is a Republican National Committee appeal concerning provisional balloting rules in Pennsylvania and a decision that allows Virginia to purge voter rolls suspected of containing registrations by noncitizens. These cases illustrate the high stakes and complex legal landscape that defines the electoral process in America.
Consequently, Alito’s decision not to require polling place notifications for West reflects broader themes of the 2024 election cycle, including the tension between state control over election processes and individual campaigns’ efforts to maximize voter outreach. This particular decision underscores the limited judicial appetite for altering state election procedures this close to Election Day.
For Pennsylvania voters, the absence of notices at polling locations means less awareness of all available candidates, specifically less conventional ones like West whose campaigns operate outside the main bipartisan platforms.
Voters wishing to support West must now rely on other forms of communication and campaign outreach to become aware of their option to write him in.
The ramifications of this Supreme Court decision will echo beyond Pennsylvania, influencing how other states handle similar appeals, and perhaps shaping the strategies of future independent and write-in campaigns.
It also raises questions about the accessibility of the electoral system for candidates not aligned with major political parties.
Justice Alito's rejection of the appeal leaves West’s request unfulfilled, setting a precedent for how similar cases may be treated in the high-stress atmosphere of last-minute pre-election litigation. Thus, the campaign moves forward under existing constraints, hoping to influence voters through methods beyond the direct interventions they had hoped for.