“Plaintiff has neither pointed to any source of law that prescribes and defines a duty to withdraw a candidate’s name from the ballot nor demonstrated his clear legal right to performance of this specific duty, let alone identified a source of law written with ‘”such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment,'” the Monday order reads. “Thus, the plaintiff has not shown an entitlement to this extraordinary relief, and we reverse.”

Justices David F. Viviano and Brian K. Zahra dissented, saying the “ruling will do nothing to rebuild the public’s trust in the fairness and accuracy of our elections.”

“No statute prohibits a presidential candidate from withdrawing his or her candidacy. And there is no practical reason for denying a request to withdraw before the ballots have been printed for the general election,” the dissent reads.

The ruling has the potential to affect the election’s outcome with a “significant cost to the integrity of the election,” as “voters will be improperly denied a choice between persons who are actually candidates, and who are willing to serve if elected,” Viviano and Zahra argued. //

At the same time, Benson and state Democrats have been pushing to keep third-party candidate Cornel West off Michigan’s ballot, citing technicalities with his identity notarization and “and allegations that West’s petitions to get on the ballot were fraudulent,” according to The Detroit News.

The state supreme court declined to take up a Democrat appeal to an earlier decision by the court of appeals, which said West must remain on the ballot. West’s presence on the ballot could likely hurt Harris’ chances, as noted by PBS.

After being asked why Benson was working to keep Kennedy on the ballot and Cornel West off the ballot, Benander told The Federalist that Benson’s office “did not seek to overturn the Appellate Court’s decision on Cornel West.”