The recent US Supreme Court decision altering voter registration rules in Arizona has sparked unease among voting rights advocates regarding how the justices will handle emergency election appeals leading up to the November election.
The ruling in Arizona, viewed by experts as a missed opportunity for the justices to clarify their approach to election and voting cases, has also amplified worries that the court may not consistently apply a legal principle aimed at preventing chaos.
The 'Purcell principle,' originating from a 2006 Supreme Court ruling, cautions federal courts against making sudden changes to voting rules shortly before an election. However, nearly two decades later, the interpretation of terms like 'status quo' and 'last-minute' remains ambiguous.
The lack of definitive guidance and perceived inconsistency in the doctrine's application could play a pivotal role in this year's election landscape.
Why this is significant: The Supreme Court is expected to face numerous eleventh-hour election-related lawsuits in the lead-up to the November election, mirroring patterns from previous years. Some of these cases are already in progress in lower courts, with others likely to emerge unexpectedly.
