Wednesday, October 30, 2024

Ironies Abound: A Continuing Series

Purcell in a nutshell:
Under the Purcell principle, courts should not change election rules during the period of time just prior to an election because doing so could confuse voters and create problems for officials administering the election.

 Purcell in practice:

Litigants typically assert Purcell arguments when asking an appellate court to block, or “stay,” a lower court decision that would change the rules for an upcoming election. In these circumstances, litigants seek to prevent the decision from taking effect until a higher court can hear an appeal on the merits of the case. In addition to the election-specific considerations discussed in Purcell, courts apply a broader standard for reviewing these motions. This standard involves weighing: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal, (2) whether there would be irreparable harm to the party seeking to block the decision if it were permitted to stand, (3) whether blocking the decision would substantially harm other parties to the case, and (4) the public’s interest in the matter. Courts view the first two factors as most critical.
And we’re back to why the Court didn’t see fit to explain itself. Ironic because:
The Supreme Court [in Purcell] 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.
Of course, if 1) and 2) above are the most important elements (as they are in any consideration of a stay or injunction), the Supreme Court has already explained itself, without explaining itself.

Shadowy, indeed. 🗣️

No comments:

Post a Comment