午夜的钟声敲响了，小罗伯特·F·肯尼迪有资格参加CNN 6月27日的大选辩论正式宣布他不会出现在舞台上。周四的那个小时标志着与CNN见面的最后期限资格要求这包括宪法规定有资格成为总统，至少有四次合格的全国民意调查，至少有15%的支持率符合CNN的指导方针，并在足够多的州确认了投票权限，有可能在选举团中赢得多数席位(270张选举人票)。肯尼迪最终在民意调查和选票准入方面都表现不佳，他试图在辩论舞台上与总统乔·拜登和前总统唐纳德·特朗普并肩作战。
但是，即使肯尼迪没有资格，他对这场辩论的法律挑战仍在继续。5月下旬，肯尼迪的竞选活动提起诉讼联邦选举委员会指控CNN的辩论违反了竞选财务法，因为该网络与拜登和特朗普的竞选团队“勾结”策划了这场辩论，并对两个主要政党的竞争者使用了与肯尼迪不同的选票准入规则。美国有线电视新闻网曾表示，肯尼迪的抱怨是没有根据的。总而言之，联邦选举委员会代表肯尼迪进行干预似乎不太可能——尽管并非不可能。
以下是肯尼迪的资格情况以及可能会影响CNN辩论的法律争论。
肯尼迪最终在民意测验和投票机会上处于劣势
在民意调查方面，肯尼迪的情况相当确定:根据CNN的规定，他有三次全国民意调查的支持率达到15%或更高，这意味着他需要一次以上的支持。然而，肯尼迪可能错过了第四次投票的最后机会福克斯新闻频道研究公司发布了一项全国调查周三晚上，他的支持率为10%。
尽管他在2008年的民调中支持率在9%到10%之间538的全国民调平均值自3月中旬以来，肯尼迪的支持度从一次调查到另一次调查变化很大，在四次资格调查中达到了15%似乎合理当CNN在五月发布辩论标准时。然而，在14项针对注册选民或潜在选民的合格全国调查中，肯尼迪只在三项调查中达到了这一水平。尽管如此一点点变化在另外一项调查的结果中，他就可以满足CNN的民意调查标准——毕竟，他在两项资格调查中获得了14%的支持率。
然而，即使他获得了第四次民意调查，肯尼迪在资格赛结束时仍然远远低于CNN对投票的要求。与大党提名者不同，独立和第三方竞争者不都是保证投票的吗在所有50个州和哥伦比亚特区，他们必须通过每个州的规则才能在选票上获得一席之地——这个过程通常涉及收集相当数量的请愿书签名。肯尼迪的竞选主张在23个州投了310张选举人票，但是CNN上周六称只证实了他在六个州投了89张选举人票。本周早些时候，美国广播公司新闻证实，田纳西州也将肯尼迪列入候选人名单，但这仍然只给了肯尼迪100张潜在的选举人票——远远低于他满足辩论要求所需的270张。
为了获得270张潜在的选举人票，肯尼迪至少需要他的竞选团队声称可以进入的16个未经确认的州中的9个州来确认他已经投票——这是一个艰巨的任务。2004年获得选票的公认小党派佛罗里达州(30张选举人票)和南卡罗来纳州(9)已经宣布肯尼迪为他们的总统候选人，而肯尼迪的“我们人民党”似乎即将获得提名在北卡罗来纳州(16)，所以他可能会可信地说他有155张选举人票。但这仍然需要他名单上大多数大中型州的确认，如德克萨斯州(40)、纽约州(28)、俄亥俄州(17)、新泽西州(14)、华盛顿州(12)和明尼苏达州(10)，以及一两个较小的州。
正在进行的关于肯尼迪投票地位的诉讼也可能推迟了一些州的确认。例如，内华达州的国务卿说，根据州法律，该州的竞选请愿书可能无效，因为他们没有列出肯尼迪的副总统竞选伙伴妮可·沙纳汉。虽然肯尼迪的竞选提起诉讼在这个问题上，它也已经开始努力同时用新的请愿书收集签名。
有争议的法律状况
但肯尼迪也在辩论资格问题上发起了一场更直接的法律战:他提起了诉讼联邦选举委员会投诉指控CNN的辩论违反了竞选财务规则。基于联邦法律举办辩论的组织必须根据预先设定的客观标准决定候选人的入选，对于大选辩论，某个政党对候选人的提名不能作为唯一的因素。否则，这一活动可能被视为对辩论参与者的贡献，受活动资金限制一场辩论的成本几乎肯定会远远超出这个数字。
考虑到这一点，肯尼迪竞选团队声称CNN与拜登和特朗普的竞选团队“勾结”，设定辩论标准，并确保他们是舞台上唯一的两个候选人。它还认为，CNN对拜登和特朗普使用了不同的资格标准，规定肯尼迪必须满足270张选举人票的投票资格要求，尽管这两个主要政党的竞争者在今年夏天晚些时候举行大会之前不会被正式提名，从而确保作为各自政党的提名人获得选票。作为回应，CNN发言人说5月，他说“几乎每个州的法律都规定，州政府认可的政党的候选人可以不经申请直接投票。作为他们政党的推定提名人，拜登和特朗普都将满足这一要求。”
德里克·t·穆勒圣母大学法学院教授他告诉我，肯尼迪竞选团队关于共谋的理由可能不是特别充分。虽然CNN明显参与了拜登和特朗普的竞选活动在组织辩论的时候，穆勒觉得CNN可能“站得住脚”，因为该网络采用类似的资格标准总统辩论委员会长期以来一直用于其辩论，并计划用于其主持的任何这一周期:15%的投票门槛和最低投票门槛。从理论上讲，CNN本可以创造出肯尼迪几乎不可能达到的标准，比如30%的投票门槛，但它选择了不去做。小党派和候选人之前质疑过这样的标准，只适用于法院一致认为支持CPD的规则。“有相当可靠的先例，至少CPD过去使用的东西是可以接受的标准，”穆勒说。
然而，穆勒说，肯尼迪竞选团队可能比CNN更有说服力未能持续适用其关于投票准入的资格规则。“拜登和特朗普不是被提名人。他们不在任何州的选票上，”穆勒说。“因此，CNN不得不篡改标准，说，‘嗯，他们是推定被提名人，我们预计他们会出现在选票上。’“这是有史以来最早的大选辩论，这是问题的一部分:尽管CPD使用类似的标准，但它的辩论总是在劳动节之后进行，届时所有或几乎所有州的选票认证都已结束，这使得将选票准入作为一个标准进行评估更加简单。
然而，即使肯尼迪的投诉有价值，联邦选举委员会也可能不会采取行动，部分原因是党派偏见。联邦选举委员会有六名成员——三名民主党人和三名共和党人——四名委员将不得不同意对CNN提起诉讼，这至少需要一定程度的两党合作。拜登竞选团队显然不想让肯尼迪上台因此，任何民主党人都不太可能打破常规，加入三名共和党人的行列，投票推动案件的进展——如果这三名共和党人有兴趣这么做的话。(虽然已经有一个最近的一系列两党协议在共和党三人组和一名民主党成员放松一些竞选财务规则的过程中，穆勒不确定这种趋势是可持续的，也不确定这种趋势是否适用于围绕辩论的问题。)
与此同时，穆勒指出，过去共和党委员在意识形态上反对联邦选举委员会干预媒体经营的辩论。2015年，一位鲜为人知的共和党总统候选人马克·埃弗森提交了不成功的联邦选举委员会投诉反对福克斯新闻频道广播公司选择改变它预先设定的标准资格认证第一次共和党初选辩论2016年的周期。这最新部分选举委员会以4比2的投票结果决定福克斯新闻频道的辩论规则并没有违反法律。但诉讼中的另一项投票可能与此特别相关:所有三名共和党委员也认为联邦选举委员会的规定本身是无效的支持单独的动议也就是说，联邦选举委员会无权调查福克斯新闻频道(该动议以3比3失败)。
“三名共和党议员说，‘我们认为这是第一修正案的问题，我们甚至不能一开始就介入，’”穆勒告诉我。“作为一个媒体实体，我们有什么资格告诉竞选或辩论组织他们能做什么，不能做什么?”
即使四名委员同意继续推进案件，联邦选举委员会发布裁决迫使CNN让肯尼迪上台的时间也不多了。即使这样的命令是在辩论之前发出的，CNN也可以在法庭上对其提出质疑，这可能会将任何决议推迟到6月27日之后。CNN辩论后的一项裁决(即对CNN开出罚单)不会在那场辩论中帮助肯尼迪，也不会在ABC新闻的下一场大选辩论中帮助他计划在9月举办。到那时，肯尼迪是否有足够的选票的问题应该是明确的。
肯尼迪正试图成为自1992年罗斯·佩罗以来第一个参加大选辩论的第三党或独立总统候选人，但除非联邦选举委员会出人意料地迅速采取行动，否则他似乎只能寄希望于9月份的成功。
Why RFK Jr. didn't qualify for the first presidential debate
The clock struck midnight on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s window to qualify for CNN's June 27 general election debate, and the networkformally announcedthat he won't make the stage. That hour on Thursday marked the deadline to meet CNN'squalification requirements, which included being constitutionally eligible to become president, having at least four qualifying national polls with at least 15 percent support that meet CNN's guidelines and having confirmed ballot access in enough states to potentially win a majority in the Electoral College (270 electoral votes). Kennedy ultimately came up short on both polls and ballot access in his bid to get a spot on the debate stage alongside President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.
But even though Kennedy didn't qualify, his legal challenge to the debate is still ongoing. In late May, Kennedy's campaignfiled a complaintwith the Federal Election Commission alleging that the CNN debate violates campaign finance law because the network "colluded" with the Biden and Trump campaigns in planning the debate and is using different ballot access rules for the two major-party contenders compared with Kennedy. CNN has said that Kennedy's complaint is unfounded. All in all, it seems unlikely — although not impossible — that the FEC will intervene on Kennedy’s behalf.
Here then is a look at Kennedy's qualification situation and the legal wrangling that could play into the CNN debate.
Kennedy ended up short on polls and ballot access
On the polling front, Kennedy's situation was pretty cut and dried: He had three national polls at 15 percent or better that qualify under CNN's rules, which means he needed one more at that level of support. However, Kennedy likely missed his final shot at a fourth poll when Beacon Research/Shaw& Co. Research/Fox Newsreleased a national surveyon Wednesday evening that found him at 10 percent.
Although he's polled at around 9 to 10 percent in538's national polling averagesince mid-March, Kennedy's support level from survey to survey has varied enough that getting to 15 percent in four qualifying pollsseemed plausiblefor him when CNN released its debate criteria in May. However, Kennedy has hit that mark in just three of the 14 eligible national surveys of registered or likely voters that included him as an option. Still, asmall bit of variationin the result of just one other survey would have allowed him to meet CNN's polling criteria — after all, he hit 14 percent in two qualifying surveys.
Yet even if he had gotten a fourth poll, Kennedy sat well shy of CNN's requirement for ballot access at the end of the qualifying period. Unlike the major-party nominees, independent and third-party contendersaren't all but guaranteed ballot accessin all 50 states and the District of Columbia, so they must navigate each state's rules for garnering a spot on the ballot — a process that usually involves gathering a sizable number of petition signatures.Kennedy's campaign claimsto have made the ballot in 23 states worth 310 electoral votes, butCNN said last Saturdaythat it had only confirmed he'd made the ballot in six states worth 89 electoral votes. Earlier this week, ABC News confirmed that Tennessee has also put Kennedy on the ballot, but that still gives Kennedy only 100 potential electoral votes — far short of the 270 he needs to meet the debate requirement.
To reach 270 potential electoral votes, Kennedy would have needed, at a minimum, nine of the 16 unconfirmed states his campaign claims access in to confirm that he's made the ballot — a tall order. Recognized minor parties with ballot access inFlorida(30 electoral votes) andSouth Carolina(9) have announced Kennedy as their presidential nominee, and Kennedy's We The People Party appears on the cusp of having accessin North Carolina(16), so he might credibly say he's at 155 electoral votes. But that would still leave him needing confirmation in most of the medium-to-large states on his list — such as Texas (40), New York (28), Ohio (17), New Jersey (14), Washington (12) and Minnesota (10) — along with perhaps one or two smaller states.
Ongoing litigation over Kennedy's ballot status has potentially delayed confirmations in some states, too. For instance, Nevada's secretary of state said the campaign's petitions in the state were likely invalid under state law because they didn't list Nicole Shanahan, Kennedy's vice presidential running mate. While Kennedy's campaignhas mounted a lawsuitover the issue, ithas also begun effortsto recollect signatures with a new petition form in the meantime.
A debatable legal situation
But Kennedy is also waging a more direct legal battle over the debate qualification situation: He's filed anFEC complaintalleging that CNN's debate violates campaign finance rules.Based on federal law, the organization staging a debate must determine candidate inclusion based on preestablished objective criteria, and, for a general election debate, a candidate's nomination by a particular party cannot be used as the lone factor. Otherwise, the event could be seen as a contribution to the debate participants,subject to campaign finance limits— which the cost of a debate would almost certainly run well beyond.
With this in mind, the Kennedy campaigncontends that CNN"colluded" with the Biden and Trump campaigns to set the debate criteria and make sure that they were the only two candidates on stage. It also argued that CNN is using different qualification criteria for Biden and Trump by mandating that Kennedy meet the 270-electoral vote ballot status requirement even though the two major-party contenders won't be formally nominated — and thus secure ballot access as their respective parties' nominees — until their conventions happen later this summer. In response,a CNN spokesperson saidin May that "the law in virtually every state provides that the nominee of a state-recognized political party will be allowed ballot access without petitioning. As the presumptive nominees of their parties both Biden and Trump will satisfy this requirement."
Derek T. Muller, aprofessor at the University of Notre Dame Law Schoolwho studies election law, told me that the Kennedy campaign's case for collusion may not be particularly strong. Although CNNclearly engaged with the Biden and Trump campaignsas it put together the debate, Muller felt CNN might "have a good leg to stand on" because the networkadopted qualification criteria similarto what the Commission on Presidential Debateshas long used for its debates and planned to use for any it hosted this cycle: a 15 percent polling threshold and minimum ballot access threshold. In theory, CNN could have created criteria that would have been nigh impossible for Kennedy to meet, such as a 30 percent polling threshold, but chose not to. Minor parties and candidateshave previously challengedsuch criteria, only forthe courts to consistentlyupholdthe CPD's rules. "There's pretty robust precedent that at least the things that the CPD has used in the past are acceptable criteria," Muller said.
However, Muller said the Kennedy campaign may have a stronger case that CNNhas failed to consistently applyits qualification rule regarding ballot access. "Biden and Trump are not the nominees. They're not on the ballot in any state," Muller said. "So CNN has had to massage that criteria and say, 'Well, they're the presumptive nominees, and we expect they will be on the ballot.'" That this is the earliest general election debate ever is part of the issue: Although the CPD uses similar criteria, its debates have always come after Labor Day, by which time ballot certification has concluded in all or nearly all states, making it more straightforward to assess ballot access as a criterion.
Yet even if Kennedy's complaint has merit, the FEC may not take action, in part because of partisanship. The FEC has six members — three Democrats and three Republicans — and four commissioners would have to agree to pursue a case against CNN, necessitating at least some degree of bipartisanship. The Biden campaignclearly doesn't want Kennedy on stage, so it may be unlikely that any of the Democrats would break ranks to join three Republicans to vote to move forward with a case — if the three Republicans had any interest in doing that. (While there has been arecent run of bipartisan agreementsamong the Republican trio and one Democratic member to loosen some campaign finance rules, Muller wasn't sure that trend was either sustainable or applicable to questions surrounding a debate.)
Meanwhile, Muller noted past ideological opposition among Republican commissioners to FEC intervention in media-run debates. In 2015, a little-known GOP presidential contender named Mark Eversonfiled an unsuccessful FEC complaintagainst Fox News over the broadcaster's choice tochange its preestablished criteriafor qualificationto the first Republican primary debateof the 2016 cycle. Thenewsiest partof the proceedings was a 4-2 FEC vote determining thatFox News's debate rules had not violated the law. But another vote in the proceedings may have particular relevance here: All three GOP commissioners also felt the FEC regulations themselves were invalid andsupported a separate motionthat said the FEC lacked the power to investigate Fox News (the motion failed 3-3).
"The three Republican members said, 'We think there's a First Amendment issue here, and we can't even get involved in the first place,'" Muller told me. "Who are we to tell the campaigns or debate organizations what they can and can't do as a media entity?"
Even if four commissioners agreed to move forward with a case, time is running short for the FEC to issue a ruling to compel CNN to put Kennedy on the stage. Even if such an order came just before the debate, CNN could challenge it in court, which could push any resolution beyond June 27. And a ruling that came after the CNN debate (i.e., issuing a fine on CNN) wouldn't help Kennedy in that debate, or in the next general election debate that ABC Newsplans to host in September. By then, the matter of whether Kennedy has sufficient ballot access should be unambiguous.
Kennedy is trying to become the first third-party or independent presidential candidate to make a general election debate since Ross Perot in 1992, but barring unexpected and swift action by the FEC, it looks like he'll have to hope for success in September instead.
