Should a court block an election rule just because it’s too late to do it right?

• R

  Reese16h ago

  The Purcell principle has existed for decades specifically because last-minute rule changes cause chaos at the polling place. This isn't Kavanaugh inventing something new — courts have been doing this since at least 2006. The question was never "is the rule legal" but "can it be done without wrecking the election." Those are two different questions and conflating them is either lazy or dishonest.

  217Reply
• T

  Taylor12h ago

  I changed my mind on this one. I used to think any delay in applying a rule was just activist judges playing games. Then I worked a local election in 2022 and watched what happened when a software update rolled out four days before the primary. Three precincts had to hand-count. Lines until 11pm. Nobody won that day. Timing is a legitimate governance problem, not a cop-out.

  188Reply
• AK

  Alex K.6h ago

  The Purcell principle is smart judicial restraint dressed up in a Latin name so it sounds more legitimate than it is. Translation: "We won't enforce the law right now because it's inconvenient." If that's the standard, any administration that wants to dodge a rule just has to run out the clock. Pass things late enough and courts won't touch them until after they matter.

  97Reply
• P9

  Priya 9216h ago

  so the rule might be totally fine but we just... don't enforce it? that's not how laws work lol

  84Reply
• NL

  Nina L.11h ago

  What bugs me is the asymmetry. When courts block progressive election rules for timing reasons it's celebrated as protecting democracy. When they block conservative ones it's activist judges. Both sides do this and I'm so tired of pretending one team's version of Purcell is principled and the other's is corrupt.

  63Reply
• K

  Kofi8h ago

  My grandmother has voted by mail for eleven years. She has arthritis and can't drive. Every time a new rule touches mail ballots I hold my breath. I don't care who's right on the constitutional theory — I care whether she can still vote in November.

  52Reply
• N

  Noah14h ago

  Okay but here's the thing nobody's saying: if the rule is lawful, blocking it means unlawful ballots get counted. That's the tradeoff. The court traded legal compliance for administrative convenience. At least be honest about what was traded.

  47Reply
• N9

  Nina 924h ago

  retired federal election attorney here (30 years DOJ). The Purcell principle is not "let the clock decide legality." It explicitly preserves the legal question for a proper hearing after the election. The rule doesn't die — it just doesn't apply THIS cycle. If it's lawful, it applies in 2028. If it's not, the court will say so. This is the system working.

  44Reply
• LM

  Liam M.8h ago

  I hear you, I really do. But the answer to "my family member needs this" can't always be "therefore the rule is wrong." That's how we end up with no rules at all. Rules can be both good policy AND hard on specific individuals in the short term.

  41Reply
• RM

  Riley M.13h ago

  The court didn't say the ballots are unlawful. Kavanaugh specifically said the rule "might well be lawful," which is very different from saying ballots cast without it are illegal. Please read the actual opinion before catastrophizing.

  33Reply
• NT

  Nina T.4h ago

  The system working slowly while potentially unlawful ballots are cast in the meantime is still the system failing someone. I respect your career but "we'll sort it out after" is cold comfort when the election already happened.

  31Reply
• S

  Sam10h ago

  This is the correct and boring answer that nobody wants to hear because it doesn't let anyone be the hero.

  29Reply
• L

  Leo2h ago

  What I genuinely don't understand — and maybe someone can explain — is why this rule couldn't have been issued eighteen months ago if it was ready. Is there a policy reason it came out this close to a midterm cycle, or was that just bureaucratic timing? Because that context changes everything about whether "too late" is an excuse or a legitimate concern.

  26Reply
• J

  Jordan6h ago

  This is the gap nobody in this thread has filled yet: what stops a future administration from intentionally timing rules so they always arrive "too late" to be blocked? That's a real structural problem and Purcell, applied carelessly, creates the loophole.

  23Reply
• N

  Nina12h ago

  genuinely appreciate you sharing that. i had the same gut reaction of "just follow the law" until i talked to someone who ran a precinct. its not abstract.

  21Reply
• R

  Ravi3h ago

  Confidently predicting this gets overturned before 2026 is over and Kavanaugh gets called a hero by the exact people calling him a coward today. That's just how election law cycles work in this country now.

  19Reply
• N

  Noah6h ago

  Kavanaugh's opinion actually addresses this — there's a distinction between rules enacted close to an election by the government and rules blocked by a court close to an election. The principle is about court-imposed disruption, not government-imposed changes. It's not a perfect answer but it's not nothing.

  18Reply
• HL

  Hana L.7h ago

  Nobody said the rule is wrong. She said she holds her breath. That's not a legal argument, it's a human reality. You can acknowledge both.

  16Reply
• A

  Avery11h ago

  With respect, a software update and a federal mail-ballot rule are not the same scale of logistical challenge. The county clerk commenter above knows better than either of us what this actually involves.

  14Reply
• A

  Alex3h ago

  I think people forget that "the election already happened" is also true when you rip out a rule mid-cycle and voters who mailed ballots weeks ago suddenly find out their ballot may not count. Disruption is a two-way street. Purcell protects against disruption in both directions.

  13Reply
• P

  Priya15h ago

  It is literally how election law works and has been for nearly twenty years. Read the Purcell opinion before you type next time.

  12Reply
• H

  Hana9h ago

  If you think this is symmetric you haven't looked at the actual pattern of which party's rules get blocked at what rate. It's not 50/50. That's not a partisan statement, it's a data question.

  11Reply
• TL

  Theo L.2h ago

  ^ this is the actual question. everything else is downstream of when the rule was issued and why. nobody in this thread seems to know the answer.

  11Reply
• P

  Priya15h ago

  I work in a county clerk's office in Ohio. You have zero idea what it takes to retrain poll workers, reprint instructions, update software, and notify voters — all at once, all under a legal deadline. "Just implement it" is not a sentence that means anything to those of us doing the actual work.

  9Reply
• N

  Noah5h ago

  It's also worth noting the rule here came from an agency, not Congress. That matters for the analysis even if most coverage skips over it.

  9Reply
• Z

  Zara9h ago

  Okay then provide the data. That's a real challenge — if you disagree with the symmetry argument, show the numbers. Because I've seen claims in both directions and I don't trust either side's cherry-picked timeline.

  8Reply
• J

  Jordan2h ago

  bro thinks he predicted something bold lmao. every election lawyer already said this.

  8Reply
• M

  Marco11h ago

  yeah the clerk comment is the most useful thing in this whole thread

  7Reply
• K

  Kofi4h ago

  this

  7Reply
• D

  Diego14h ago

  unlawful ballots getting counted is a pretty big deal man

  6Reply
• J

  Jamie12h ago

  nobody reads the actual opinion that's the whole problem with these threads

  5Reply
• S

  Sam9h ago

  "boring" doesn't mean wrong. sometimes boring is right.

  4Reply
• D

  Drew7h ago

  exactly. strawmanning a grandmother is a bad look

  3Reply

More debates people can't stop arguing about