The U.S. Supreme Court’s “Purcell principle,” which warns against changing election rules close to when voting begins, is facing criticism after a series of last‑minute rulings. In recent cases, the court allowed Republican‑backed maps in Louisiana and Alabama just days before or even during voting, while earlier citing Purcell to block changes months ahead of elections in Texas. Some experts see inconsistency; others say the court is simply restoring maps passed by state legislatures after lower court rulings.
Why it matters
The timing of these decisions is fueling concerns about fairness and the court’s credibility. Critics say the principle is being applied unevenly, potentially benefiting Republicans in key redistricting fights that shape control of Congress.
The court’s use of emergency rulings without full explanations adds to uncertainty about how election law will be handled going forward.
What’s next
More challenges are likely as redistricting battles continue. Without clearer guidance from the Supreme Court, lower courts may struggle to predict when it will step in, leaving election rules in flux close to voting.
Joseph Ax and John Kruzel have more here.
