Courts Contend with Legal Issues Surrounding Last-Minute Election Procedure Changes
The Purcell principle, established by the Supreme Court, generally advises against making changes to election procedures close to voting day.
Court battles have arisen in the days leading up to Election Day regarding various policies related to ballots, election integrity, and vote-processing procedures.
Each case raises a common judicial question: whether the policies are in line with state or federal law. Many of these cases involve the debate over whether judges should use their discretion to uphold or invalidate policies so close to Nov. 5.
Attorneys in Georgia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi have discussed the Purcell principle. This principle generally advises against making last-minute changes to election procedures, but there has been debate on the specific application of this principle.
In 2006, the Supreme Court vacated an appeals court decision to stop Arizona’s voter identification law in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. The Court emphasized that it was not taking a position on the case’s outcome but highlighted the importance of the election’s timing.
Honest Elections Project Vice President Chad Ennis believes that while Purcell is a wise rule, the Supreme Court and appellate courts have not provided enough guidance to lower courts on how to apply it.
Pennsylvania
In Pennsylvania, both sides of voting-related lawsuits have invoked the Purcell principle to support their arguments. Republicans asked the Supreme Court to halt a state court decision allowing voters to cast provisional ballots after incorrectly submitting mail-in ballots a week before the 2024 elections.
The exact timing for a change to be considered inappropriate under U.S. Supreme Court precedent is unclear, but the Republican National Committee (RNC) argued that the lower court’s ruling had crossed the line for last-minute changes.
Pennsylvania officials argued that granting a stay on the eve of the election would cause more disruption and confusion, contrary to the Purcell principle.
The Supreme Court rejected the RNC’s application but did not elaborate on how the Purcell arguments influenced their decision.
Justice Samuel Alito, along with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, stated that even if they agreed with the Republicans, they could not prevent the consequences they feared.
In a separate lawsuit, Republicans sought to stop the counting of undated mail-in ballots, citing the Purcell principle, while the Democratic National Committee (DNC) argued that Purcell primarily aimed to prevent voter confusion.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court sided with Republicans without offering insight into how Purcell factored into their decision.
Virginia
The Department of Justice filed lawsuits against Alabama and Virginia for trying to remove noncitizens from their voter rolls within 90 days of the Nov. 5 elections, known as the “quiet period.”
According to the DOJ, these programs violated the National Voter Registration Act, which requires states to remove ineligible voters’ names from the official lists at least 90 days before an election.
Virginia argued that the law did not protect noncitizens from removal and that halting the program would violate the Purcell principle due to the proximity of the election.
Both the DOJ and Judge Patricia Giles suggested that the NVRA and Purcell shared similar goals. After Giles issued an injunction, Virginia asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.
The Supreme Court granted Virginia’s request for emergency relief on Oct. 31, allowing the program to continue, without providing detailed reasoning on how they considered the Purcell principle.
It is uncertain if the Court will offer further clarification on the Purcell principle. Although three justices disagreed with the decision to grant relief to Virginia.
