• A Georgia judge’s rulings barring third parties from the presidential ballot reflect strategic efforts by both major parties to maintain control.

A Georgia judge ruled that several independent and third-party candidates failed to qualify for the 2024 presidential ballot this week. The decisions were in response to lawsuits filed by the Georgia Democratic Party challenging the four candidacies, while Republicans threw legal support behind keeping one of them — a socialist — on the ballot. 

Atlanta Civic Circle
By Claire Becknell
August 28, 2024

It’s a series of events that reveals how the winner-takes-all stakes of the Electoral College drive the two-party system to engage in strategic maneuvers  — such as restricting ballot access to maintain party dominance. 

The result is to block third-party candidates who might otherwise appeal to voters dissatisfied with the two main parties. Could ranked-choice voting change that? 

The state of play

Chief State Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi ruled against ballot bids from independent presidential candidates Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West, along with the Green Party’s Jill Stein and Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) nominee Claudia De la Cruz over technicalities in their nomination filings. 

In Georgia, it’s actually a presidential candidate’s electors, not the candidate, who must file nomination petitions for ballot access, due to a 2017 change in election law. The judge ruled against West and De la Cruz because the candidates filed petitions, but their electors did not. Kennedy was ruled against due to concerns over his residency. 

Kennedy formally withdrew his Georgia ballot petition on Tuesday after the ruling – and after suspending his campaign in battleground states last week to endorse former President Donald Trump.

In a statement, De la Cruz’s campaign called the ruling a “slap in the face” to Georgia voters who petitioned for her to be on the ballot. The PSL candidate accused Democrats and Republicans alike of pushing to keep third parties and independents off the ballot. That said, the Georgia Republican Party actually tried to keep her on the ballot, filing a motion in support of her petition. 

For Stein, her electors properly filed nomination petitions, the judge’s order said. However, the Green Party candidate’s own ballot petition hinged on a new Georgia law that grants automatic ballot access if a party is on the ballot in at least 20 other states. Stein contends she is on the ballot in 24 other states. But the judge denied her petition, ruling she has shown official documentation from only six states. 

The Georgia Green Party is expected to appeal, after arguing that they can’t procure official documentation from some states until after the Georgia ballot deadline.

Malahi’s rulings go to Secretary of State Brad Raffesnperger, who has final say.

The strategic game of party politics

In this year’s hotly contested presidential race, both the Georgia Republican and Democratic Parties have jousted for an advantage by controlling third-party ballot access. While very few Georgians actually vote for third-party candidates, the margin of victory for the Democrats in the 2020 presidential race was a mere 11,779 votes – and the margin is expected to be close this year as well. 

Georgia’s Republican-majority General Assembly made the first move, passing the 20-state threshold law in the last session to make it easier for third parties to get on the ballot. That was likely in hopes that leftist third-party candidates, such as Stein and De La Cruz, would siphon votes from the Democratic nominee, said veteran political observer Charles Bullock, a political science professor at the University of Georgia. 

The Democrats’ actions are now just as strategic, in trying to block leftist or progressive contenders from the ballot, Bullock said. “These third, fourth, and fifth parties, at least this year, do appeal more to Democrats than Republicans.”

Democrats, he added, may worry that third-party candidates could impact their chances in the general election, much like many still contend that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the Florida election against George W. Bush in 2000 – and thus the race nationally, since Florida has 25 electoral college votes. 

In this view, Georgia Democrats are not objecting to third-party candidates for any ideological reason, but for a strategic one: These candidates could draw crucial votes away from their candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris, and boost Trump’s chances in what is expected to be a razor-thin margin of victory in Georgia. 

For comparison, in 2020 the Green Party candidate, Howie Hawkins, received 1,013 votes in Georgia. (That translated into just 0.3% of votes nationwide.)

Republicans, on the other hand, threw their legal muscle behind the socialist candidate, De la Cruz, along with West, Stein, and Kennedy, filing motions advocating that all four should be on the ballot. It’s a move that many observers see as an equally craven political strategy – despite public statements from Georgia GOP officials about supporting the “rule of law.”

“Both major parties generally oppose third parties,” Bullock said, “although if you see it will actually hurt your opponent, then suddenly they’re favorable.”

This strategic maneuvering by both parties has left many voters feeling disillusioned. Nick Blair, a 22-year-old independent voter from Georgia State University, expressed frustration with the administrative law judge’s ruling. “The reason people are looking for an independent [candidate] is because they want something else … That’s not democracy at its core,” he said. 

Blair had planned to vote for Kennedy, but after the adverse ballot ruling and Kennedy’s endorsement of Trump, he says he’s now voting for Trump, in hopes that Kennedy might secure a cabinet seat in a Trump White House. 

What about ranked-choice voting? 

The Democratic and Republican maneuvering over third-party candidatesraises questions about potential solutions to what can seem like an interminable political game. 

Ranked-choice voting allows voters to rank candidates by preference, rather than choosing just one. That reduces the risk of vote-splitting – and it eliminates the so-called “spoiler effect,” where a third-party candidate’s presence on the ballot can help a less favored major-party candidate win, Bullock said. 

“With ranked-choice voting, you could go and vote for the Libertarian or the Green Party or somebody else, without necessarily throwing away your vote,” Bullock said. 

While ranked-choice voting does not increase the likelihood of a minor-party candidate winning, Bullock added, it increases the potential for a minor-party voter to see their second-choice candidate represented. Thus, they are not “wasting” their vote by voting for their top-choice candidate. 

Libertarian presidential candidate Chase Oliver –  who is on the ballot in Georgia – told Atlanta Civic Circle that the Democratic Party’s ballot challenges, along with the Republican Party’s counter-maneuvering, reflect fear from both major parties. 

“They are afraid that more choices might wake voters up to the false binary they have conditioned voters to believe,” Oliver said.

Such legal maneuvers are the byproduct of the current electoral system, he added. “This is absolutely a result of winner-take-all and plurality voting being the norm in the U.S. With more choices and a more representative way to vote, like ranked choice voting, we would see higher turnout and governing via coalition, not [by] whomever has 50% plus one [vote].”