'Risk of voter confusion': How SCOTUS is 'creating additional uncertainty' about the election

27 August 2024

In its 2006 ruling in Purcell v. Gonzalez, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) established what legal scholars call the "Purcell principle" — meaning that federal courts should avoid making last-minute changes to voting rules before an election.

But much has changed on the High Court since 2006.

In analysis published on August 27, CNN's John Fritze wonders how the justices might handle the Purcell principle this election year.

"Eighteen years later," Fritze explains, "what counts as 'status quo' and 'last-minute' still remains up for debate. That lack of clarity — and what critics see as an inconsistent application of the doctrine — could be a critical factor in this year's election."

Fritze notes that a recent High Court decision changing voter registration rules in Arizona "has voting rights advocates anxious about how the justices will approach emergency election appeals in the runup to the November election."

Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, told CNN that the Arizona decision "is creating additional uncertainty around a principle that already had very few concrete parameters."

According to Lakin, "It's hard to understand exactly what the Court is doing when it comes to Purcell, and that creates a lot of anxiety that the rule could be applied in a way that's inconsistent and tips the scales one way or the other."

George University law professor and CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck also believes the High Court is creating confusion where the Purcell principle is concerned.

Vladeck told CNN, "If the entire purpose of Purcell is to reduce the risk of voter confusion, how does that come within a country mile of the difference-splitting result that we saw in the Arizona case?"”

Read John Fritze's full CNN analysis at this link.

From Your Site Articles