WEST v. WITTENSTEIN

Independent presidential candidates Dr. Cornel West and Claudia De la Cruz wanted their names on Georgia's November 2024 ballot. Under Georgia law, their presidential electors, not the candidates themselves, had to qualify by filing certain paperwork. Georgia voters challenged whether the electors had properly qualified, arguing that each elector needed to file a nomination petition signed by thousands of voters, which none of them did. An administrative judge agreed with the challengers, but the Secretary of State overruled that decision, reasoning a federal injunction limited what he could require. Two Fulton County Superior Court judges then reversed the Secretary and sided with the challengers. The Supreme Court of Georgia took up the case on an accelerated basis before the election. It held that Georgia's Election Code requires each presidential elector for an independent candidate to file a nomination petition in his or her own name, and that a decades-old federal injunction about signature counts did not excuse that requirement. Because no West or De la Cruz elector filed such a petition, neither candidate qualified for the ballot, and the superior courts' rulings were affirmed.

The court held that presidential electors for independent presidential candidates are themselves 'candidates' under Georgia's Election Code and must each file a nomination petition in their own name; because no elector for West or De la Cruz did so, neither candidate qualified to appear on Georgia's ballot.

The ruling clarifies that independent presidential candidates cannot rely solely on their own signature-gathering; each of their electors must personally file qualifying paperwork. It affects how the Secretary of State administers future elections, how third-party and independent campaigns organize their elector slates, and it required polling-place notices telling voters that ballots cast for West or De la Cruz would not count.

Affirmed in Case Nos. S25A0177-S25A0182 and S25X0184; appeal dismissed in S25A0183

1. The court read the plain text of Georgia's Election Code, explaining that OCGA § 21-2-132(e) requires 'each candidate required to file a notice of candidacy' to also file a nomination petition, a signed document supporting a candidate's ballot access.
2. It found that OCGA § 21-2-132.1, the statute governing independent presidential candidates, repeatedly labels presidential electors as 'candidates for the office of presidential elector,' tying them directly into the notice-of-candidacy and petition requirements of OCGA § 21-2-132.
3. The court rejected arguments that electors described only as 'electors' in one subsection escape the petition requirement, reasoning it would be inconsistent to treat electors as candidates for qualification purposes but not for the petition-filing requirement that flows from that same qualification process.
4. It distinguished a 2016 federal court injunction (Green Party v. Kemp) that reduced the number of signatures independent presidential candidates must gather, explaining that ruling predated the 2017 and 2019 statutory amendments creating the elector-specific filing requirement and never addressed electors' own petition obligations.
5. Because the parties agreed no West or De la Cruz elector ever filed a nomination petition, the court concluded none of them qualified as candidates for presidential elector, meaning their independent candidates for President could not appear on the ballot.
6. On the cross-appeal, the court applied an 'any evidence' standard to the factual finding that there was insufficient time to reprint ballots or strike West's name, and upheld the superior court's remedy of posting notices instead.

• ballot access
• independent presidential candidates
• Cornel West
• Claudia De la Cruz
• Georgia Secretary of State