Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a66_new_m6io.pdf
Page Number: 27

4 

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE v. WISCONSIN 
STATE LEGISLATURE 
KAGAN, J., dissenting 

U. S.  428,  434  (1992).    In  fact,  the  court  never  even  ad-
dressed the constitutional issue.   
  How  could  that  be?    In  the  appellate  court’s  view,  this 
Court’s decision in Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1 (2006) 
(per  curiam),  prohibited  the  district  court  from  modifying 
Wisconsin’s election rules so close to (i.e., six weeks before) 
Election Day.  See Democratic National Committee v. Bos-
telmann, ___ F. 3d ___, ___–___, 2020 WL 5951359, *1–*2 
(CA7,  Oct.  8,  2020)  (per curiam);  see  also  ante,  at  2–4 
(KAVANAUGH, J., concurring).  But that is a misunderstand-
ing  of  Purcell’s  message.   In  fixating  on  timing  alone,  the 
court of appeals went astray. 
  The Court in Purcell considered an appellate decision re-
versing a district court’s refusal to enjoin a voter identifica-
tion law shortly before an election.  We vacated the decision 
because  the  court  of  appeals—much  like  the  one  here—
failed to “give deference to [a district court’s] discretion” in 
assessing the propriety of injunctive relief.  549 U. S., at 5.  
In  doing so, we  briefly addressed  how  to  “weigh” whether 
an injunction of an election rule should issue.  Id., at 4.  A 
court,  we  counseled,  must  balance  the  “harms  attendant 
upon  issuance  or  nonissuance  of  an  injunction,”  together 
with “considerations specific to election cases” that may af-
fect “the integrity of our electoral processes.”  Ibid.  Among 
those election-specific factors, we continued, was the poten-
tial for a court order, especially close to Election Day, to “re-
sult in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain 
away from the polls.”  Id., at 4–5. 
  That  statement,  as  the  dissent  below  saw,  “articulated 
not  a  rule  but  a  caution.”    ___  F. 3d,  at  ___,  2020  WL 
5951359, *4 (Rovner, J., dissenting).  Last-minute changes 
to election processes may baffle and discourage voters; and 
when  that  is  likely,  a  court  has  strong  reason  to  stay  its 
hand.  But not every such change poses that danger.  And a 
court  must  also  take  account  of  other  matters—among 
them, the  presence  of extraordinary circumstances  (like  a