Behind the Ballot: Getting on – and off – the Ballot for President in NJ
By Harrison Clewell
Running for president in New Jersey isn’t just a campaign—it’s a legal rodeo where the rules sometimes seem more byzantine than the politics. Our state, known for its hardball politics, isn’t just a crucial battleground for votes but also for legal squabbles about who even gets the chance to compete. And when the stakes are this high, those squabbles quickly become a theater of the law.
The Quest for Ballot Placement
Over the years, many candidates have tried and failed to get on the ballot in New Jersey. Back in 1960, the New Jersey Secretary of State disqualified a pig farmer from running for president under the Poor Man’s Party banner. Why? Because his elector happened to live in the same state as the candidate—an apparent violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Fast forward to today, and New Jersey’s ballot process is still full of surprises. Candidates face a host of legal hurdles, and what seems like a straightforward task—gathering 800 signatures and filing the paperwork on time—often turns into an unpredictable and chaotic process. In New Jersey, simplicity is rarely the rule.
Take Peter Sonski, a candidate for the American Solidarity Party who thought he’d done his due diligence. He managed to collect 800 signatures—or so he thought—until an administrative judge combed through the list and tossed 198 of them. Suddenly, Sonski found himself 198 signatures short, his name removed from the ballot.
Then there’s Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, the India-born scientist whose candidacy for president as an independent hit a constitutional brick wall. It turns out that despite his naturalized status, a judge decided that being a “natural-born citizen” means something different. Ayyadurai, who had immigrated at age seven and became a citizen in 1983, wasn’t “natural-born” enough for the New Jersey ballot, ending his presidential hopes in a twist of constitutional interpretation.
In a dramatic twist, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. faced his own legal drama. A lawsuit claimed his switch from running as a Democrat to an independent violated the state’s “sore loser” statute, which prevents candidates who’ve lost a primary from running in the general election. But after a heated battle in the courts, Kennedy lucked out: his brief Democratic dalliance hadn’t been official enough in New Jersey, and thus, he wasn’t technically a sore loser. The legal battle to keep him off the ballot fell flat, leaving RFK Jr. on New Jersey’s political stage…only to drop out a few days later.
How to Lose Your Spot
Just as New Jersey’s courts can be a gauntlet for candidates trying to get on the ballot, they are also well-versed in throwing candidates off. Filing objections against nomination petitions is a well-trodden path in New Jersey politics. But it’s not always clear who’s the gatekeeper and who’s the gate-crasher.
One of the state’s more high-profile recent attempts to kick a candidate off the ballot involved none other than former President Trump. A former history teacher filed a lawsuit arguing that Trump’s role in the January 6th insurrection disqualified him from running under the 14th Amendment. The amendment bars anyone who has “engaged in insurrection” from holding office. While it made headlines and had legal pundits buzzing, the court tossed the case faster than you could say “procedural issues.” Trump hadn’t even filed his nomination papers when the suit was launched, so the court waved it away.
As if that weren’t enough legal intrigue for one election cycle, whispers began circulating this summer that some Republicans might try to sue to keep President Biden off the ballot. Concerns about President Biden’s mental fitness swirled after a lackluster debate performance, and some even suggested that it might be safer to leave him off entirely. These whispers grew louder after Vice President Harris stepped into the spotlight as the presumptive nominee. But with the clock ticking, these legal efforts have yet to materialize into anything tangible, though the sheer existence of such ideas shows how wild the race to be president can get in our state.
Harrison Clewell is an attorney with Genova Burns LLC, and chairs the firm’s Corporate Political Activity Law and Election Law Practices. Harrison focuses his practice on federal, state, and local elections, advocacy efforts, voter protection, and assisting clients in reaching their political and policy goals nationwide. Special thanks to Katherine Szabo and Kevin Stawicki for their assistance in drafting this piece.
This column is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended and should not be construed as legal advice. It is recommended that readers not rely on this column, but that professional advice be sought for individual matters.
I am SHOCKED a lawyer wrote a ridiculous snark about a naturalized citizen running for President. It reads as if a single judge randomly rejected a naturalized citizen rather than a few hundred years of agreed laws.
“ All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States‘
Harvard Review.
FYI this is also why McCain and Cruz who were born out of USA were able to run, since they were born to American citizens.
Kamala Harris’ parents were not American citizens. Her father was from Jamaica and her mother was from India. Further, Kamala’s mother divorced and took Kamala and her sister with her to Canada where they became Canadian citizens. So, which is it????
“Thomas Jefferson” again rears his ignorant head. If you had bothered to even glance at VP Harris’s biography and if you had maybe 2 or 3 neurons in your brain, you would know that since 1868 (14th Amendment) anyone physically born in the United States is an American citizen, plain and simple. She was born in Oakland (which last I checked is in the U.S.). Maybe spend a couple minutes familiarizing yourself with our Constitution before anonymously spouting nonsense on the internet?
Question remains: She moved to Canada with her mother for several years, where her mother, then divorced, worked. They were Canadian citizens. Did they change that?
Americans are starting to challenge the standing of who they are in this nation. There is now a challenge in defining who’s an American “citizen” vs. American “national” vs. Federal “citizen” vs. “naturalized citizen”. American “nationals” have rights while Federal “citizens” have privileges (based on the fact that pursuant to 28 USC Section 3002(15) the United States is defined as a “federal corporation”. Are we “federal corporate citizens” with only privileges, and not rights???
Hence, the reason to bring in illegal aliens and turn them into Federal “citizens” that have no rights, and can be controlled.