The U.S. Supreme Court has made voting rights advocates nervous about November's election with a recent decision changing registration rules in Arizona.
The justices neglected to clarify in that ruling when they would take up election and voting cases, and experts fear the court will unevenly applying an ambiguous legal principle, known as Purcell, that's intended to minimize chaos by making changes to voting rules right before an election, reported CNN.
"[The Arizona ruling] is creating additional uncertainty around a principle that already had very few concrete parameters,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “It’s hard to understand exactly what the court is doing when it comes to Purcell and that creates a lot of anxiety that the rule could be applied in a way that’s inconsistent and tips the scales one way or the other.”
A 2006 Supreme Court decision established the "Purcell principle" cautioning federal courts about last-minute changes to the election status quo, but it's not entirely clear what should count as "last-minute" or "status quo," and experts are concerned that lack of clarity could be an important factor in this year's election – especially since the court avoided making any clarifications on that topic in their Arizona decision.
“If the entire purpose of Purcell is to reduce the risk of voter confusion, how does that come within a country mile of the difference-splitting result that we saw in the Arizona case?” said CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
ALSO READ: Donald Trump exploits AP photo error for new $99 'Save America' book
The court will almost certainly be asked to take up election-year lawsuits, some of which are already being considered by lower courts, right up to Election Day and beyond, but some experts were puzzled by their silence on the Purcell principle.
“It’s something we need, but it needs some fleshing out,” said Chad Ennis, vice president of the conservative Honest Elections Project. “I’d like a little more clarity on when Purcell applies going into the election.”
Ennis said some flexibility was needed on the doctrine because some election rules take longer to implement, but he said more certainty would be helpful – and others would have preferred some clarity on what type of cases the court would consider taking up.
“The problem is, these cases are always in an emergency posture, so you’re always dealing with short fuses,” said Derek Muller, a professor and elections expert at the Notre Dame Law School. “But the court just seems not interested in adding more details about its basis for granting or denying.”
