Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a66_new_m6io.pdf
Page Number: 7

2 

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE v. WISCONSIN 

STATE LEGISLATURE 
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

I 
  For  three  alternative  and  independent  reasons,  I  con-
clude that the District Court’s injunction was unwarranted. 
  First,  the  District  Court  changed  Wisconsin’s  election 
rules  too  close  to  the  election,  in  contravention  of  this 
Court’s precedents.  This Court has repeatedly emphasized 
that federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election 
laws in the period close to an election—a principle often re-
ferred to as the Purcell principle.  See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 
549  U. S.  1 (2006) (per curiam); see  also  Merrill  v.  People 
First of Ala., ante, p. ___, (Merrill II); Andino v. Middleton, 
ante,  p.  ___;  Merrill  v.  People  First  of  Ala.,  591  U. S.  ___ 
(2020) (Merrill I); Clarno v. People Not Politicians, 591 U. S. 
___ (2020); Little v. Reclaim Idaho, 591 U. S. ___ (2020); Re-
publican National Committee v. Democratic National Com-
mittee, 589 U. S. ___ (2020) (per curiam) (RNC). 
  The Court’s precedents recognize a basic tenet of election 
law: When an election is close at hand, the rules of the road 
should  be  clear  and  settled.    That  is  because  running  a 
statewide election is a complicated endeavor.  Lawmakers 
initially must make a host of difficult decisions about how 
best to structure and conduct the election.  Then, thousands 
of state and local officials and volunteers must participate 
in a massive coordinated effort to implement the lawmak-
ers’ policy choices on the ground before and during the elec-
tion,  and  again  in  counting  the  votes  afterwards.    And  at 
every  step,  state  and  local  officials  must  communicate  to 
voters  how,  when,  and  where  they  may  cast  their  ballots 
through in-person voting on election day, absentee voting, 
or early voting. 
  Even seemingly innocuous late-in-the-day judicial alter-
ations to state election laws can interfere with administra-
tion  of  an  election  and cause  unanticipated  consequences.  
If a court alters election laws near an election, election ad-
ministrators must  first  understand the  court’s  injunction,