As you know, back in August a court rejected some very not-impressive arguments by then-presidential-candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who was trying to defend his claim that New York is his current “place of residence” even though he moved to California ten years ago. See “Judge Rejects RFK Jr.’s Claim to Be New York Resident, Despite Valid State Falconry License” (Aug. 16, 2024). This mattered because if he didn’t live in New York, he lied on the forms he filed when trying to get on the ballot there. And, under New York’s antiquated system, lying about stuff can apparently still get you disqualified from running for President.
Though Kennedy then “suspended” his campaign for reasons he would probably also lie about (see “RFK Jr. Expected to End Campaign After Questions Raised About Falconry License” (Aug. 22, 2024)), he very oddly continued to insist that he should still be on the ballot for an office he wasn’t seeking. He appealed the ruling above, and I learned today that New York’s Appellate Division wasted no time shooting that appeal down in flames. Cartwright v. Kennedy, 230 A.D.3d 969 (3d Dept. Aug. 29, 2024).
That opinion, posted below, is just a few pages long, and pages 4 and 5 are really all you need. The court agrees there was “clear and convincing evidence” that the address Kennedy listed in his nominating petition was not his current “place of residence” under New York law. And this wasn’t a hard question, it noted, “[i]nasmuch as the evidence shows that Kennedy has never resided at the … address listed in the nominating petition….” (Emphasis added.) He slept there only once, it pointed out, and that was after the documents were filed and “the media had questioned his stated residence.” Turns out one post-falsehood sleepover isn’t enough.
The only new details involve the constitutional challenges Kennedy raised on appeal, which were also giant losers.
First, the court held the Constitution does not prevent a state from requiring a candidate to provide his or her place of residence in a petition. (As a reminder, Kennedy did not have to be a New York resident to qualify for the ballot, which makes it hard to understand why he kept trying to prove he was.) Second, the court also held that such a requirement did not mean the state was trying to “establish an additional qualification for the office of President” that isn’t contained in Article II. And third, it rejected the (I think) similar claim that requiring a candidate to be honest about his place of residence violates the Twelfth Amendment (which says how the President and VP are chosen). Kennedy cited Jones v. Bush, a 2000 case in which the court held Democratic challengers lacked standing to argue that Texas electors would violate the Twelfth Amendment if both Bush and Cheney were Texas residents. I’m not sure why Kennedy thought that case would help him, and I’m going to devote the same amount of space to this argument that the Appellate Division did, which means I’m done talking about it.
Why did I come across this decision today? Good question, thanks for asking. It’s because I was finalizing my appeal of New York’s decision to deny my Freedom of Information Act request for documents showing whether Kennedy lied about maintaining a New York falconer’s license—evidence he cited in support of his residency claim. See “RFK Jr.’s Falconry Records Still Secret—For Now” (Sept. 6, 2024) and “RFK Jr. Falconry Followup” (Sept. 23, 2024). As I explained in the followup, the agency’s reasons for denying my request were bogus. The American public, but especially me, are legally entitled to those records, and I look forward to getting them.
If the agency doesn’t drag its feet, it might still be possible to get those records before the election, to which Kennedy is still unfortunately at least mildly relevant.
