The Purcell Principle
|
|
 |
| Select a state from the menu below to learn more about its election administration. |
The Purcell Principle is a legal principle establishing that courts should not change election rules during the period just prior to an election because it could confuse voters and election officials. The United States Supreme Court established the Purcell Principle in Purcell vs. Gonzalez (2006), a case in which the Supreme Court reversed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that had overruled an Arizona voter identification law during a midterm election.
Background
In 2004, Arizona voters passed Proposition 200, which required photo identification for voter registration. Proposition 200 said that “A voter who arrives at the polls on election day without identification may cast a conditional provisional ballot. For that ballot to be counted, the voter is allowed five business days to return to a designated site and present proper identification.”[1]
The Election Assistance Administration notified Arizona’s Secretary of State, Jan Brewer, that the state law conflicted with a federal National Voter Registration Act.
In May 2006, residents of Arizona, Indian tribes, and various community organizations, sought an order to prevent the state of Arizona from enforcing new voter registration rules. [2] These plaintiffs brought suit challenging Proposition 200’s identification requirements. On September 11, 2006, the District Court denied their request for a preliminary injunction, but it did not at that time issue findings of fact or conclusions of law. The District Court also denied their request for an order preventing the state from enforcing the new rules.[1]
The case was scheduled for November 21, 2006, but the election was scheduled for November 7, 2006. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, arguing that it should grant an emergency injunction because elections were about to begin. Pursuant to the rules of the Court of Appeals, a two judge panel examined the order for injunction. On October 5 the panel issued an order enjoining Arizona from enforcing Proposition 200’s provisions pending disposition. [2]
On October 20, 2006, the United States Supreme Court heard the case and considered whether U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred in granting an emergency injunction regarding Proposition 200 close to election time.
In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred in granting an injunction against the enforcement of Proposition 200. The decision said, "Given the imminence of the election and the inadequate time to resolve the factual disputes, our action today shall of necessity allow the election to proceed without an injunction suspending the voter identification rules."[1] The Supreme Court based its decision on the short amount of time between the 9th Circuit’s order and the election, the need of Arizona election officials for clear guidance, and the 9th Circuit’s lack of an explanation for its decision.
Notable cases
Litigants typically assert the Purcell Principle when asking an appellate court to block a lower court decision that would change the rules for an upcoming election. Below are two notable cases in which the Purcell Principle have been invoked:
- The Supreme Court invoked the Purcell Principle in an October 2014 ruling of the case Veasey v. Perry when the Supreme Court let stand a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit allowing a new Texas voter ID law to remain in effect for the November election. [3]
- The Supreme Court invoked the Purcell Principle in a 5-4 ruling on absentee voting in the 2020 case Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee. Both the majority opinion and the dissent cited the Purcell Principle. In the case, the Supreme Court blocked a district court ruling issued five days before the election that extended the deadline for submitting absentee ballots. [3]
See also
- Voter identification laws by state
- Supreme Court of the United States
- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Footnotes
| |||||||||||
