The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the extent to which judges can alter voting rules close to an election, a decision that could impact ongoing legal disputes nationwide just weeks before the presidential election.
In Arizona, a key battleground state for Donald Trump, the Republican National Committee (RNC) has asked the Court to reinstate a state law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. This law was previously blocked by an appeals court. The case challenges a nearly 20-year-old precedent that cautions against last-minute federal court actions that could lead to “voter confusion.”
A Supreme Court decision could provide guidance on how lower courts should apply the “Purcell principle,” established in a 2006 ruling that discourages changes to election laws close to an election. The RNC has requested a ruling by August 22, and the Court has set a deadline for responses by Friday.
The justices have not provided a detailed framework for applying Purcell, leaving it up to judges to decide when it is too late to implement changes before an election. This lack of clarity has led to accusations of partisan bias in judicial decisions.
In the 2006 Purcell v. Gonzalez case, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that had blocked voter ID laws in Arizona, citing the imminent midterm elections. In the current case, an Arizona federal judge initially blocked the proof of citizenship law, but a 9th Circuit Court panel reinstated it before it was blocked again by a different panel in a 2-1 decision on August 1.
The majority opinion from the 9th Circuit, authored by judges appointed by former President Bill Clinton, cited Purcell, arguing that the previous panel’s decision caused “manifest injustice” by disrupting the status quo before the primary and as general election registration was underway. Judge Patrick Bumatay, appointed by Trump, dissented, criticizing the majority for using an “irregular” procedure and highlighting the case’s political implications.
The RNC is urging the Supreme Court to intervene immediately, allowing Arizona to enforce the law while the case is ongoing. The party argues that Purcell is intended to protect “state election-integrity measures” from last-minute judicial interference, rather than maintaining a general status quo.
Purcell has surfaced in other cases this year. For example, in July, an Ohio federal judge blocked a state law restricting assistance for disabled voters, and a Louisiana federal judge later ruled it was too late to address a similar challenge.
The issue also arose during the 2020 election cycle when courts faced challenges related to voting during the pandemic. Justice Elena Kagan criticized her colleagues for prioritizing timing over constitutional rights in a case involving Wisconsin’s mail ballot deadline.
Efforts to clarify how courts should handle pre-election cases through legislation have stalled in Congress. In 2022, the Court’s conservative majority referenced Purcell in a 5-4 decision to uphold Alabama’s congressional map ahead of the midterms. More recently, in May, the Court used Purcell to reinstate a Louisiana map adding a majority-Black district, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting and arguing there was minimal risk of voter confusion.
