Disrupting Election Day: Reconsidering the Purcell Principle as a Federalism Doctrine

*J.D., University of Virginia School of Law, 2024. I am grateful to Professor Michael Gilbert, who introduced me to election law (and the Purcell Principle) during my first year of law school and supervised the independent research project that became this Note. For their advice and feedback on drafts of the piece, I am also indebted to Professor John Martin, Professor Richard Re, Andy McCarthy, and Sean Gray. Finally, for their efforts in bringing this to publication, I owe thanks to my dear friends on the Virginia Law Review—especially Harrison Gordon, Bryce Campanelli, and the Executive Editors.Show More

The Purcell Principle—the doctrine that courts should refrain from changing election rules during the period of time close to an election—has long been misconstrued. Where the Principle operates, it creates a near-categorical bar to federal judicial relief in the upcoming election cycle; the provisions of federal law that would normally safeguard voting rights, govern redistricting, and supervise how a state can conduct its elections are paralyzed until after election day. Born and raised on the shadow docket, the Principle has been underdeveloped by the Supreme Court. The Court has provided little guidance as to what triggers the Principle or how it will be applied in future cases. And, in recent years, the doctrine has become increasingly powerful in shaping election law. With the 2024 elections quickly approaching, this Note seeks to shed light on Purcell.

The goals of this Note are twofold. First, I suggest that courts and scholars have been thinking about Purcell incorrectly. I argue that Purcell cannot be justified on the grounds of preventing voter confusion—as the case law and scholarship have suggested—but instead is better explained by federalism. Under this conception, the Court’s historic applications of the doctrine make more sense. Second, I provide a new framework for understanding what triggers Purcell. In deciding whether the Purcell Principle should be applied, courts would reach more consistent, analytically sound results by asking whether judicial intervention would disrupt a state’s administration of its elections. I provide four conditions for courts to consider in determining whether injunctive relief is disruptive. But these conditions can also provide insight to future litigants making decisions about where, when, and how to bring their election claims to avoid running into Purcell’s snare.

Introduction

On January 24, 2022, two decisions¹ 1.Singleton v. Merrill, 582 F. Supp. 3d 924, 936 (N.D. Ala. 2022) (per curiam),aff’d sub nom. Allen v. Milligan, 143 S. Ct. 1487 (2023); Caster v. Merrill, No. 21-cv-01536, 2022 WL 264819, at *3 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 24, 2022), aff’d sub nom. Allen, 143 S. Ct. 1487.Show More of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama held that the districting plan adopted by the State of Alabama for its 2022 congressional elections was “substantially likely” to violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”).² 2.Singleton, 582 F. Supp. 3d at 936.Show More The court preliminarily enjoined Alabama from using that map in the forthcoming election and required the state legislature to enact a new plan with a second Black-majority congressional district.³ 3.Id.Show More

Two weeks later, and some nine months before the general election, however, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the district court’s decision, authorizing Alabama to nevertheless move forward with its tarnished map in November.⁴ 4.Merrill v. Milligan, 142 S. Ct. 879, 879 (2022) (mem.).Show More The only rationale provided for this stay came not from the Court—which issued an unexplained, unsigned order on its shadow docket⁵ 5.Id. Professor William Baude coined the term “shadow docket” to describe “everything other than the Court’s ‘merits docket.’” Stephen Vladeck, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic, at xii (2023); see also William Baude, Foreword: The Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket, 9 N.Y.U. J.L. & Liberty 1, 1 (2015) (pointing to “a range of orders and summary decisions that defy its normal procedural regularity”).Show More—but a concurrence from Justice Kavanaugh.⁶ 6.Merrill, 142 S. Ct. at 879–82 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in grant of applications for stays, joined by Alito, J.).Show More His basis for lifting the injunction rested on the Purcell Principle, a “bedrock tenet of election law” instructing that “federal district courts ordinarily should not enjoin state election laws in the period close to an election” and “federal appellate courts should stay injunctions when . . . lower federal courts contravene that principle.”⁷ 7.Id. at 879–80.Show More

The effect of the Court’s order was to allow the map to apply to the 2022 elections, but with future elections governed by its decision on the merits.⁸ 8.Id. at 882.Show More The map, enacted by a Republican-controlled legislature and signed by a Republican governor,⁹ 9.Caster v. Merrill, No. 21-cv-01536, 2022 WL 264819, at *14–15 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 24, 2022); Brian Lyman, Gov. Kay Ivey Signs Off on Alabama Congressional, Legislative, SBOE Maps for 2022, Montgomery Advertiser (Nov. 4, 2021, 3:30 PM), https://www.montgomery‌advertiser.com/story/news/2021/11/03/alabama-congressional-state-house-maps-2022-heade‌d-gov-kay-ivey/6258353001/ [https://perma.cc/RBY9-WLDR].Show More produced a safe Republican seat as opposed to one that likely would have elected a Democrat.¹⁰ 10.Melissa Murray & Steve Vladeck, The Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act Ruling Is No Victory for Democracy, Wash. Post (June 8, 2023, 9:28 PM), https://www.washingtonpost.‌com/opinions/2023/06/08/supreme-court-alabama-redistricting-voting-rights-act/ [https://per‌ma.cc/EB4X-9HYG].Show More So on election day—as expected without the additional Black-majority district—six Republicans and one Democrat were elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Alabama.¹¹ 11.State of Ala., Canvass of Results: General Election, November 8, 2022, at 15–28 (2022), https://www.sos.alabama.gov/sites/default/files/election-data/2022-11/Final%20Canvass%2‌0of%20Results%20%28canvassed%20by%20state%20canvassing%20board%2011-28-2022‌%29.pdf [https://perma.cc/5GRV-D9GD].Show More

But months after the election had been held, the Supreme Court reversed course. A majority affirmed the district court’s decisions and agreed that Alabama’s plan was indeed unlawful.¹² 12.See Allen v. Milligan, 143 S. Ct. 1487, 1498 (2023).Show More As a result, the invocation of Purcell provided the State with a one-time get-out-of-jail-free card; the Court allowed Alabama to use its map in the 2022 midterms before an adverse decision later on the merits. Scholars have criticized the Court’s use of the Purcell Principle—both on theoretical grounds and its application in this case specifically.¹³ 13.See Vladeck, supra note 5, at 226–27 (arguing that the Court has applied Purcell “inconsistently, and in a way that outwardly favors Republicans far more often than it does Democrats”). See generally Steve Vladeck, 31. Emergency Applications and the Merits, One First (June 12, 2023), https://stevevladeck.substack.com/p/31-emergency-applications-and-the [https://perma.cc/XT2Q-LLAT]; Ruoyun Gao, Note, Why the Purcell Principle Should Be Abolished, 71 Duke L.J. 1139 (2022); Harry B. Dodsworth, The Positive and Negative Purcell Principle, 2022 Utah L. Rev. 1081; Richard L. Hasen, Reining in the Purcell Principle, 43 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 427 (2016); Michael T. Morley, Election Emergencies: Voting in Times of Pandemic, 80 Wash. & Lee L. Rev.359, 425–28 (2023); Wilfred U. Codrington III, Purcell in Pandemic, 96 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 941 (2021).Show More Indeed, some have even argued that the Republican Party owes its control of the House of Representatives in the 118th Congress to the Supreme Court’s intervention in redistricting actions like this one leading up to the 2022 elections.¹⁴ 14.Murray & Vladeck, supra note 10.Show More

That the Purcell Principle is controversial is perhaps unsurprising. When the Principle operates, it creates a “presumptive categorical bar”¹⁵ 15.Morley, supra note 13, at 427; see also Hasen, supra note 13, at 443 (referring to Purcell as “a per se rule to not allow last-minute judicial changes to election rules”). Justice Kavanaugh has also recognized that the “Court’s opinions, including Purcell itself, could be read to imply that the principle is absolute and that a district court may never enjoin a State’s election laws in the period close to an election.” Merrill v. Milligan, 142 S. Ct. 879, 881 (2022) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in grant of applications for stays, joined by Alito, J.).Show More to federal judicial relief in the upcoming election cycle. The provisions of both federal constitutional and statutory law that would normally protect voting rights, govern redistricting, and otherwise supervise how a state can conduct its elections are essentially put on hold until after the election at hand. Given the severity and categorical nature of its effect, great weight is thus placed on what triggers application of the Purcell Principle.

I argue that what should trigger Purcell is disruption to a state’s administration of its elections. This conception is different from that of other scholars and jurists, who claim that the Principle is guided by concerns of voter confusion. But disruption alone does not tell the full story either. Understanding Purcell also requires bringing to light the constitutional theory that is underlying the doctrine: federalism¹⁶ 16.Federalism can broadly be defined as “[t]he legal relationship and distribution of power between the national and regional governments within a federal system of government, and in the United States particularly, between the federal government and the state governments.” Federalism, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).Show More (as applied here, the idea that decisions about election procedures are primarily the province of the states).

Even though Purcell is supposedly about confusion—indeed, everyone says as much—this Note will demonstrate that rationale does not adequately explain the case law. In practice, the Supreme Court’s applications of the Principle are better rationalized by federalism and disruption; both are necessary to trigger Purcell. Viewing Purcell as a part of the Court’s commitment to federalism is important not only to explain when and why the Principle should be invoked, but it also harmonizes this doctrine with the Roberts Court’s jurisprudence in other areas of election law and beyond. Further, because application of the Principle will effectively neuter election law in the federal courts for a given election cycle, my proposed disruption framework is useful to future litigants making strategic decisions about where, when, and how to bring their claims.

On their face, the Supreme Court’s applications of Purcell may seem partisan. Professor Steve Vladeck, for example, has characterized the Purcell Principle as “[h]ow the [c]urrent Court [u]ses the Shadow Docket to [h]elp Republicans.”¹⁷ 17.Vladeck, supra note 5, at vii. In May 2024, however, the Supreme Court applied Purcell to hand what appeared to be a victory to Democrats—staying a district court injunction that paved the way for Louisiana to use a redistricting map with an additional majority-Black district in November. See Robinson v. Callais, 144 S. Ct. 1171, 1171 (2024) (mem.); Nina Totenberg, Supreme Court Upholds Louisiana Redistricting Plan, NPR (May 15, 2024, 6:44 PM), https://www.npr.org/2024/05/15/1250937356/supreme-court-louisiana-redistricti‌ng [https://perma.cc/E8Y9-RDL8].Show More And Professor Wilfred Codrington has described it as “an empty vessel for unprincipled decisionmaking and inconsistent rulings.”¹⁸ 18.Codrington, supra note 13, at 941.Show More But this Note suggests there may be an unarticulated rationale that better accounts for the Court’s decisions in this area. In doing so, I do not purport that this is the “true” motivation guiding Purcell or what individual Justices are necessarily thinking. Rather, this Note offers federalism as an alternate, novel ground in a framework that seeks to make the Court’s applications of the Principle more coherent. If you reconsider Purcell as a federalism principle with me and read these cases through the lens of disruption, you just might be disabused of your cynicism.

This Note proceeds in three Parts. Part I introduces the origins of the Purcell Principle and its professed rationales: preventing voter confusion, providing clear guidance to the states, and deferring to the district court. It then surveys the development of the doctrine by reviewing each case in which the Supreme Court has applied the Purcell Principle or otherwise discussed it. Part II then analyzes whether the three rationales announced in Purcell are supported by the subsequent case law. (This Note contends they aren’t.) Having chipped away at those rationales, Part III argues that the Principle is better understood as being justified by the Court’s concerns with federalism. Federalism requires insulating to some degree the ability of the state to dictate the rules that govern its elections. If Purcell is defined by the power of federal courts vis-à-vis the states, the Court’s historic applications of the Principle and the Principle’s limits make more sense. Reconceptualizing the doctrine in this way, I propose a new framework to explain what should trigger Purcell. In deciding whether the Principle ought to be applied, courts would reach more consistent, analytically sound results by asking whether judicial intervention would disrupt a state’s administration of its elections. If an order changing the election rules or procedures would be disruptive, the Principle is invoked and operates as a near-total bar on judicial relief. But where intervention wouldn’t be disruptive, Purcell does not govern and a federal court’s decision to enjoin that state procedure is permissible. I conclude by proposing four conditions necessary for finding disruption, which courts can look to in determining whether the Principle should be applied in a given case.

1.  Singleton v. Merrill, 582 F. Supp. 3d 924, 936 (N.D. Ala. 2022) (per curiam), aff’d sub nom. Allen v. Milligan, 143 S. Ct. 1487 (2023); Caster v. Merrill, No. 21-cv-01536, 2022 WL 264819, at *3 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 24, 2022), aff’d sub nom. Allen, 143 S. Ct. 1487. ↑
2.  Singleton, 582 F. Supp. 3d at 936. ↑
3.  Id. ↑
4.  Merrill v. Milligan, 142 S. Ct. 879, 879 (2022) (mem.). ↑
5.  Id. Professor William Baude coined the term “shadow docket” to describe “everything other than the Court’s ‘merits docket.’” Stephen Vladeck, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic, at xii (2023); see also William Baude, Foreword: The Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket, 9 N.Y.U. J.L. & Liberty 1, 1 (2015) (pointing to “a range of orders and summary decisions that defy its normal procedural regularity”). ↑
6.  Merrill, 142 S. Ct. at 879–82 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in grant of applications for stays, joined by Alito, J.). ↑
7.  Id. at 879–80. ↑
8.  Id. at 882. ↑
9.  Caster v. Merrill, No. 21-cv-01536, 2022 WL 264819, at *14–15 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 24, 2022); Brian Lyman, Gov. Kay Ivey Signs Off on Alabama Congressional, Legislative, SBOE Maps for 2022, Montgomery Advertiser (Nov. 4, 2021, 3:30 PM), https://www.montgomery‌advertiser.com/story/news/2021/11/03/alabama-congressional-state-house-maps-2022-heade‌d-gov-kay-ivey/6258353001/ [https://perma.cc/RBY9-WLDR]. ↑
10.  Melissa Murray & Steve Vladeck, The Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act Ruling Is No Victory for Democracy, Wash. Post (June 8, 2023, 9:28 PM), https://www.washingtonpost.‌com/opinions/2023/06/08/supreme-court-alabama-redistricting-voting-rights-act/ [https://per‌ma.cc/EB4X-9HYG]. ↑
11.  State of Ala., Canvass of Results: General Election, November 8, 2022, at 15–28 (2022), https://www.sos.alabama.gov/sites/default/files/election-data/2022-11/Final%20Canvass%2‌0of%20Results%20%28canvassed%20by%20state%20canvassing%20board%2011-28-2022‌%29.pdf [https://perma.cc/5GRV-D9GD]. ↑
12.  See Allen v. Milligan, 143 S. Ct. 1487, 1498 (2023). ↑
13.  See Vladeck, supra note 5, at 226–27 (arguing that the Court has applied Purcell “inconsistently, and in a way that outwardly favors Republicans far more often than it does Democrats”). See generally Steve Vladeck, 31. Emergency Applications and the Merits, One First (June 12, 2023), https://stevevladeck.substack.com/p/31-emergency-applications-and-the [https://perma.cc/XT2Q-LLAT]; Ruoyun Gao, Note, Why the Purcell Principle Should Be Abolished, 71 Duke L.J. 1139 (2022); Harry B. Dodsworth, The Positive and Negative Purcell Principle, 2022 Utah L. Rev. 1081; Richard L. Hasen, Reining in the Purcell Principle, 43 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 427 (2016); Michael T. Morley, Election Emergencies: Voting in Times of Pandemic, 80 Wash. & Lee L. Rev.
    

    359, 425–28 (2023); Wilfred U. Codrington III, Purcell in Pandemic, 96 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 941 (2021). ↑

14.  Murray & Vladeck, supra note 10. ↑
15.  Morley, supra note 13, at 427; see also Hasen, supra note 13, at 443 (referring to Purcell as “a per se rule to not allow last-minute judicial changes to election rules”). Justice Kavanaugh has also recognized that the “Court’s opinions, including Purcell itself, could be read to imply that the principle is absolute and that a district court may never enjoin a State’s election laws in the period close to an election.” Merrill v. Milligan, 142 S. Ct. 879, 881 (2022) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in grant of applications for stays, joined by Alito, J.). ↑
16.  Federalism can broadly be defined as “[t]he legal relationship and distribution of power between the national and regional governments within a federal system of government, and in the United States particularly, between the federal government and the state governments.” Federalism, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). ↑
17.  Vladeck, supra note 5, at vii. In May 2024, however, the Supreme Court applied Purcell to hand what appeared to be a victory to Democrats—staying a district court injunction that paved the way for Louisiana to use a redistricting map with an additional majority-Black district in November. See Robinson v. Callais, 144 S. Ct. 1171, 1171 (2024) (mem.); Nina Totenberg, Supreme Court Upholds Louisiana Redistricting Plan, NPR (May 15, 2024, 6:44 PM), https://www.npr.org/2024/05/15/1250937356/supreme-court-louisiana-redistricti‌ng [https://perma.cc/E8Y9-RDL8]. ↑

18.  Codrington, supra note 13, at 941. ↑