Washington- Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday rejected a request from progressive activist Cornel West to order Pennsylvania election officials to post notices at polling places across the state on Election Day informing voters that West is a polling place Presidential candidate and his name can be entered on ballot papers.

West, a third-party presidential candidate, sought emergency relief from the nation's highest court on Wednesday, less than a week before Election Day, as more than 1.5 million voters in Pennsylvania have already cast their ballots by mail.

As the November 5 election approached, the Supreme Court was present asked to intervene in a growing number of disputes. Just this week, it rejected a request from independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to have his name removed from the ballots in Wisconsin and Michigan and allowed Virginia officials to resume a program to remove about 1,600 people from the voter rolls The state suspects are not citizens.

West's request arose from his unsuccessful attempt to place his name on the Pennsylvania general election ballot. His name is on the ballot in the battleground states of Michigan, North Carolina and Wisconsin.

After his nomination papers were rejected by the state, the activist filed a lawsuit in federal district court in September, arguing that the application of the state's election law violated the Constitution. Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled in favor of the state, relying on a legal principle that cautions courts against changing election rules too close to an election to avoid confusing voters and election officials.

West then asked the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that Pennsylvania's election rules restrict access to the ballot for minor party candidates, violating his First Amendment rights.

Allowing Pennsylvania's Secretary of State to “engage in the unlawful conduct of denying candidates access to the ballot in violation of their constitutional rights simply because election officials' delay pushes a dispute close to an election is a contradiction of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” enshrined principles,” West said the legal team.

They argued that the lower court's decisions were wrong, in part because putting a candidate on the ballot promotes the country's commitment to vigorous debate by “breaking the monopoly on existing political parties.”