Purcell doctrine

The Purcell doctrine requires courts to refrain from making last-minute changes in election rules.

In Purcell v. Gonzalez (Sup. Ct. 2006), the Supreme Court held that courts should "weigh . . . considerations specific to election cases." Those considerations include the possibility that "[c]ourt orders affecting elections, especially conflicting orders, can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls."

The Purcell doctrine has been invoked in recent election cases that featured claims related to the Virus's impact on voting. In Republican Nat'l Comm. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm, the Supreme Court granted an application for stay of the lower court's preliminary injunction, which had required Wisconsin election officials to count absentee ballots that were postmarked after election day. Explaining its reasons for the stay, the Court explained that it "has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election." And, in Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott, the Fifth Circuit noted that the Purcell doctrine is especially important in situations "where, as here, ... local officials are actively shaping their response to changing facts on the ground."

## See[edit]

* Clark v. Edwards, No. 20-308-SDD-RLB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108714, at *13-14 (M.D. La. June 22, 2020) (quoted above, footnotes omitted)
* Freeing Purcell from the Shadows