Voters cast their ballots in Brooklyn. Image Credit: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office.
By Hussein Ahmed
In August, an Albany state supreme court judge ordered that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. be removed from the state’s ballot as a presidential candidate. The court ruled that Kennedy’s nominating petition included the “wrong address” for his “residence” under New York law. Earlier in the year, Kennedy’s supporters circulated petitions to place his name on the presidential ballot in New York. Kennedy subsequently dropped out of the national race for president but attempted to stay on the New York ballot.
New York requires independent presidential candidates to list their “place of residence” on ballot access petitions. The court found that the address Kennedy listed in Katonah, N.Y. where he pays rent and keeps personal belongings, did not meet the state’s definition of a “fixed, permanent and principal home” that a candidate must intend to return to. Kennedy actually lives in California with his wife, but claimed he would return to New York after his wife’s acting career ended.
Importantly, the court did not find that any voters or petition-signers were misled by the address, nor did it identify any state interests that were compromised by its use. Rather, the court simply held that New York has a rule of “strict compliance” with petition requirements, and under this rule, Kennedy’s petitions were invalid and his name had to be removed from the ballot.
Challenging the Residency Requirement
Kennedy and his campaign organization, Team Kennedy, also challenged the state court’s ruling in the United States District Court for the New York State Southern District. They argued that New York’s residency requirement for independent presidential candidates is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s landmark 1983 decision in Anderson v. Celebrezze.
In Anderson, the Court found that Ohio’s attempt to exclude independent presidential candidate John Anderson from the 1980 ballot due to a missed filing deadline was unconstitutional. The Court held that while states have important interests in regulating elections, those interests do not outweigh the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of voters to associate with the candidate of their choice.
Kennedy argued that the constitutional rights at stake in his case are identical to those in Anderson. He contended that New York’s residency requirement is severely burdensome and discriminatory, applying only to independent candidates and not to major party nominees who are not required to disclose their home address.
Moreover, Kennedy asserted that unlike for state and local offices, states have no constitutional authority to impose any kind of in-state residency requirement on presidential candidates. They argued that the U.S. Constitution allows individuals from any state to run for President in every state.
The Qualifications Clause Challenge
In addition to their First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, Team Kennedy also challenged the residency requirement under the Presidential Qualifications Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
This clause establishes the three exclusive qualifications to serve as President: being a natural born citizen, being at least 35 years old, and having resided in the United States for at least 14 years. Team Kennedy argued that by requiring independent presidential candidates to list a “fixed, permanent and principal home” address, New York is imposing two additional qualifications beyond those set forth in the U.S. Constitution.
First, the state requirement bars individuals who have no permanent home address from running for President. And second, it bars individuals who have a home address but choose not to disclose it. Team Kennedy contends that both of these effects violate the Qualifications Clause.
The Broader Ballot Access Challenges
In addition to the residency requirement, Team Kennedy challenged several other New York ballot access rules that they argue impose severe and unjustified burdens on independent presidential candidates.
These include requirements that independent candidates:
- Collect 45,000 valid petition signatures within just a six-week window, compared to major party nominees who automatically appear on the ballot;
- Name a slate of 28 presidential electors months before major party candidates;
- Comply with a ban on compensating petition circulators based on the number of valid signatures collected;
- Defend their petition signatures through a private challenge process that imposes significant costs.
Team Kennedy argued that the combination of these requirements makes it virtually impossible for any independent presidential candidate to get on the New York ballot, violating the constitutional rights of both the candidates and the voters who wish to support them.
Sought Emergency Relief
Given the looming deadlines for finalizing New York’s 2024 general election ballot by September 11, Kennedy was seeking immediate emergency relief from the federal court. He and his litigation team asked the court to issue an injunction ordering state election officials to keep Kennedy’s name on the ballot and to declare the residency requirement and other challenged ballot access rules unconstitutional.
The stakes were high, as Kennedy was the leading independent presidential candidate nationwide, receiving between 5-20% support in national polls. His exclusion from the New York ballot would not only deprive his supporters in that state of the ability to vote for him, but could also have ripple effects in other states.
Despite Kennedy’s arguments, the court did not rule in Kennedy’s favor in any of the arguments under Anderson v. Celebrezze, the Qualifications Clause, or the other Ballot Access requirements.
Residency Requirement
The court acknowledged that the constitutional rights at stake were similar to those in Anderson v. Celebrezze. However, it found that the residency requirement was not a severe burden, as it was “reasonable and nondiscriminatory” since it applied equally to all independent candidates.
The court rejected the argument that states have no authority to impose any residency requirement for presidential candidates. It found that the residency requirement served the state’s legitimate interests in ensuring voter integrity and preventing voter confusion. The court was not persuaded that the residency requirement was discriminatory, since major party nominees were also required to disclose identifying information like their name and address, even if the process was more streamlined for them.
Qualifications Clause
The court determined that the residency requirement did not impose additional qualifications beyond the three set forth in the Presidential Qualifications Clause (age, citizenship, and 14-year residency). It reasoned that the requirement to list a “fixed, permanent and principal home” address was not the same as requiring candidates to be permanent in-state residents, which would be unconstitutional. The court found that the residency requirement was a reasonable regulation of the electoral process, not an impermissible additional qualification for the presidency.
The requirement to list a “fixed, permanent and principal home” address was not the same as requiring candidates to be permanent in-state residents. The court saw this as a reasonable regulation of the electoral process, not an impermissible additional qualification.
The court explained that states have the authority to impose certain regulations on the electoral process, as long as they don’t go beyond the constitutional qualifications. Since the residency requirement didn’t bar candidates without a permanent home, or those who chose not to disclose their address, the court didn’t view it as adding new qualifications. Instead, the court saw the residency rule as a way for the state to obtain information about the candidate.
Other Ballot Access Requirements:
The court acknowledged that the combination of New York’s ballot access rules, including the 45,000 signature requirement and private challenge process, imposed significant burdens on independent candidates. However, it concluded that these requirements were still “reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions” that served the state’s important regulatory interests in administering fair and orderly elections. The court was not persuaded that these rules made it “virtually impossible” for independent candidates to get on the ballot, as Team Kennedy had argued.
In its decision, the federal district court ruled that Kennedy used the Katonah address only for the purpose of maintaining voter registration and furthering his own political affiliations in the state.
In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Kennedy’s subsequent appeal without comment. He will not be on this year’s New York State ballot.
***
Hussein Ahmed is a student at New York Law School.