There are now concerns regarding the Supreme Court's potential to resolve election disputes
Voting rights activists fear that the US Supreme Court's recent decision to alter Arizona's voter registration laws could affect how the justices will handle emergency election challenges in the lead-up to November's election.
Experts argue that the Arizona verdict has increased concerns that the court is adopting a vague legal theory that is meant to lessen disorder rather than increase it unevenly. In addition, it was a missed opportunity for the justices to clarify when they will take up election and voting matters.
The "Purcell principle," which has its roots in a 2006 Supreme Court ruling, cautions federal courts against making haphazard modifications to the current voting procedures prior to an election.
However, 18 years later, there is still disagreement over what constitutes the "last-minute" and "status quo." This lack of clarity, along with what some perceive to be an uneven implementation of the doctrine, may play a significant role in this year's election.
The Arizona decision, according to Sophia Lin Lakin, head of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, is "creating additional uncertainty around a principle that already had very few concrete parameters." Because it is unclear exactly what the court is doing with regard to Purcell, there is a great lot of concern that the rule may be implemented inconsistently and tip the scales in favor of one party or the other."
Critics claim the justices managed to confuse matters by skipping Purcell's ruling in the Arizona citizenship voting registration case, rather than providing clarification.
"How does Purcell's goal of lowering voter confusion come even close to the game-changing outcome we witnessed in the Arizona case, if that is the company's primary objective?" asked Steve Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and Supreme Court specialist for CNN.
Prior to the November election, the Supreme Court will almost certainly be requested to consider a number of last-minute lawsuits from election year. This is similar to previous years. A number of such cases are expected to surface unexpectedly, and others are already making their way through lower courts.
A splintered Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a portion of an Arizona voter registration law supported by Republicans, allowing new registrations for voters using state forms to require evidence of citizenship. This is the first case of its kind this election season. The liberal and conservative wings of the court, as well as Justice Amy Coney Barrett, would have postponed the implementation of the proof-of-citizenship requirements.
However, another measure that would have prohibited voters who had previously failed to provide proof of citizenship from voting in person or by mail this year was blocked by an undefined majority of the court. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch—three conservative judges—objected to that decision, claiming they would have approved the implementation of all the new rules.
Due to the very close vote, just a portion of the Arizona statute was approved by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, or both. Why at least one of them divided the difference is unclear.
The supreme court has occasionally invoked Purcell, even in brief rulings pertaining to election cases, but not last week. While the justices typically remain silent while deciding urgent matters, some found the Arizona case to be particularly perplexing because of the amount of attention given to Purcell during the case's progression through the lower courts.
According to Chad Ennis, vice president of the conservative Honest Elections Project, some modifications to election regulations may take longer to implement than others, thus there needs to be some flexibility in the philosophy. He claimed that imposing a deadline for Purcell's application would not be feasible.
However, he added, it wouldn't hurt to have a bit more clarity regarding when the regulation applies and when it doesn't.
Ennis stated, "It's something we need, but it needs some development." "I want to know when Purcell applies before the election a little more clearly."
Steer clear of election mayhem, or not
Purcell shouldn't apply at all, Republicans contended while lower courts deliberated the Arizona case. The modifications pertaining to proof of citizenship were brought about by the state legislature. They countered that Purcell is about preventing judges, not state legislators, from changing election laws at the last minute.
However, Democrats said that Republicans' court appeals were putting county election offices in danger of last-minute "chaos and confusion." After all, the initial ruling by a district court invalidating Arizona's statute was made in late 2023, more than a year before the election.
In a case involving Louisiana's new congressional map, which created a second majority-Black district and advantages Democrats, the Supreme Court last used the Purcell principle in May. The three liberal members of the court dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson arguing that it was too soon for the Supreme Court to become involved at all, possibly perceiving an extension of Purcell's views. Nearly six months had passed since the state's congressional primary when that ruling was made.
Purcell was cited by the court in 2022 in an additional redistricting lawsuit, this one in Alabama. A lower court found that the congressional map created by state Republicans likely violated the Voting Rights Act by weakening the political clout of Black voters, but a 5-4 decision upheld the plan's validity. About four months before the state's primary, in February 2022, the court rendered a decision in that case (albeit early voting didn't start until late March).
At that time, Kavanaugh wrote, "The rules of the road must be clear and settled when an election is close at hand." "Later judicial intervention in the election process can cause unrest and unfair outcomes for voters, political parties, and candidates, among other parties."
Months later, the Supreme Court finally invalidated the map, but not before voters had used it in the 2022 midterm elections. Now that the state has added a second district with a Black majority, Democrats will have a chance to gain ground in November.
"Election specialist and University of Notre Dame Law School professor Derek Muller said, "These cases are always in an emergency posture, so you're dealing with short fuses." "But it appears that the court is not eager to provide further information regarding the reasons behind its approval or rejection."
