Michigan remains one of the most hotly contested states in the upcoming presidential elections for various reasons that are obvious to political junkies. But the true battle for the state's eleven electoral votes isn't being waged from opposing lecterns at campaign rallies or a debate stage, nor is unfolding during legacy media interviews with the two major party candidates. This is a particularly nasty battle that is playing out in the courts, where both sides are using every trick in the book to control ballot access to their own advantage. The latest example of this phenomenon arose when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. asked Michigan's Democratic Secretary of State to remove his name from the ballot last Friday. In no time at all, Judge Christopher P. Yates ruled yesterday that RFK's name must remain on the ballot, potentially eating into Donald Trump's base of support. The judge's reasoning seems to leave much to be desired, but at least for now, this round goes to Kamala Harris. (Associated Press)

A Michigan judge ruled that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. must remain on the November presidential ballot, dealing a blow to his crusade to strategically remove his ticket from the battleground state.

Kennedy suspended his campaign and endorsed former President Donald Trump in August. Since then, he has sought to withdraw his name in states — like Michigan — where the race could be close. At the same time, he is trying to remain on the ballot in states where he is unlikely to make a difference between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.

Kennedy filed a lawsuit Friday in Michigan’s Court of Claims against Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, in an effort to withdraw his name. Michigan’s election officials had previously rejected Kennedy’s notice of withdrawal.

For what it may be worth, Judge Yates holds an elected seat on Michigan's 3rd District Court of Appeals. All judges running for such seats are listed as "nonpartisan" on the ballot, but Yates was originally appointed by Gretchen Whitmer, and we all know how those appointments work under the covers. In this case, we have a Democrat-appointed and aligned judge ruling quickly in favor of a Democrat Secretary of State and against a Trump ally. I'll leave you to do the math for yourself.

As to the actual merits of the case, RFK's ballot strategy in various states looks unserious at best, so he is definitely open to criticism. A candidate is either running for President or they aren't. Kennedy completed all of the required steps to get on the ballot, so he should be allowed to remain if he wishes. But he is now saying that he doesn't want to appear. Yet he still wants to be listed on ballots in other states. You don't run to the President of Utah but not the President of Michigan. This strategy tiptoes up the brink of election interference, and should at least fall into the category of "hijinks." 

With all of that said, however, in the specific case of Michigan, the court appears to be trampling on RFK's rights. He qualified for the ballot, but if he has changed his mind and no longer wishes to compete, what right does any court have to force him to appear? If the ballots had already been printed (they have not) then perhaps you could see denying his request unless his campaign was willing to pay for the reprinting costs. Yet even then, I'm sure the Trump campaign would gladly write them a check.

What the court is doing here should already be obvious to most of us. Kennedy wants to be removed from the ballot because he is more likely to draw votes away from Trump than from Harris. How RFK suddenly became a viable alternative for conservatives who may be disillusioned with Donald Trump can remain a mystery for another day, but that's the story that seems to be at the root of this entire kerfuffle. If the polls consistently suggested that Kennedy drew more votes away from Harris than Trump, you can bet your bottom dollar that RFK would have been off the ballot on Friday night before the ink on his removal request had even had a chance to dry.