Judge rules against RFK Jr in Wisconsin ballot battle

RFK Jr. isn’t having much luck in Wisconsin so far in terms of getting his name removed from the ballot. Today a judge ruled that Kennedy’s name must remain on the ballot because state laws says it must.

This comes despite Kennedy arguing that state law discriminates against independent candidates.

Here’s more from ABC News:

A judge denied Robert F. Kennedy’s request Monday to erase his name from the presidential ballot in swing state Wisconsin, ruling that state law requires candidates to remain on the ballot unless they die.

Dane County Circuit Judge Stephen Ehlke’s decision marks the latest twist in Kennedy’s push to remove himself from ballots in key battleground states where the race between Republican Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris is tight.

Kennedy suspended his campaign in August and endorsed Trump. Kennedy said he would try to get his name removed from ballots in battleground states while telling his supporters that they could continue to back him in the majority of states where they are unlikely to sway the outcome.

Kennedy won a court order in North Carolina earlier this month to remove his name from ballots there. Michigan’s Supreme Court ruled last week that he’ll remain on that state’s ballot, however.

Kennedy filed a lawsuit in Wisconsin on Sept. 3 seeking a court order removing him from the ballot. He argued that third-party candidates are discriminated against because state law treats Republicans and Democrats running for president differently.

He pointed out that Republicans and Democrats have until 5 p.m. on the first Tuesday in September before an election to certify their presidential nominee but independent candidates like himself can only withdraw before the Aug. 6 deadline for submitting nomination papers.

Ehlke denied Kennedy’s request in no uncertain terms. He ruled that Wisconsin statutes clearly state that once candidates file valid nomination papers they will remain on the ballot unless they die.

“The statute is plain on its face,” the judge said.