**Wisconsin Supreme Court Decides RFK Jr. to Remain on Ballot Despite Request for Removal**

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. will be appearing on Wisconsin's ballots after the state Supreme Court ruled on Friday that his request to withdraw his name was inadequately briefed. The court decision did not make any legal conclusions regarding Kennedy's claims, stating that insufficient information was presented to make determinations.

The liberal-majority court had earlier accepted a petition from the Wisconsin Elections Commission on September 20, bypassing an appeals court to take the case directly. Kennedy's legal team was given until noon on September 21 to file a brief limited to 20 pages. Chief Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler and Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, both conservatives, dissented the decision to take the case, criticizing the majority for being arbitrary in its procedures.

Kennedy's lawsuit, filed in Dane County earlier this month, argued that independent candidates faced unfair treatment due to different deadlines for ballot access compared to party-aligned candidates. He ended his campaign on August 23, just weeks before clerks were required to send out absentee ballots listing his name.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission had earlier denied Kennedy's request to be removed from the ballot after he had endorsed former President Donald Trump and ceased his campaign. According to Wisconsin law, once nomination papers are filed and a candidacy is confirmed, it cannot be withdrawn unless the candidate dies.

State Department of Justice attorneys representing the elections commission maintained that Kennedy’s name was lawfully retained on the ballot. The state Supreme Court supported this stance by ruling that Kennedy had failed to present substantial constitutional arguments.

In the aftermath of the decision, voters will see eight presidential candidates on Wisconsin's November ballot, including the Green Party's Jill Stein and independent candidate Cornel West. Ziegler and Bradley, while concurring with the ruling, expressed concerns over the potential impact on electoral democracy, suggesting that voters might be misled by casting their ballots for a candidate who has withdrawn.