Opinion ID: 4582369
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Purcell principle

Text: The Purcell principle — that federal courts should usually refrain from interfering with state election laws in the lead up to an election — is well established. See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (per curiam). The Supreme Court has recently and repeatedly reaffirmed it. See, e.g., DNC, 2020 WL 6275871; Andino v. Middleton, No. 20A55, 2020 WL 5887393 (U.S. Oct. 5, 2020); Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205, 1207 (2020) (per curiam). Election rules must be clear and judges should normally refrain from altering them close to an election. Purcell protects the status quo. But the Constitution recognizes something else. Namely that the design of electoral procedures is, at bottom, a job for “the Legislature.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1; art. II, § 1, cl. 2; see also Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484, 2495 (2019); cf. DNC, 2020 WL 6275871, at  (Gorsuch, J., concurring in denial of application for stay) (“The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election [and elector] rules.”). Here, the status quo (Minnesota’s duly-enacted election law) was disrupted by the Minnesota Secretary of State. When the constitutionally mandated locus for election decisions is -15- disregarded, whether by a federal court, a state court, a state agency, or a state official, the same rationale that works to prevent election interference by federal courts also works to prevent interference by other entities as well. See DNC, 2020 WL 6275871, at  (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in denial of application for stay) (defending appellate courts stepping in close to an election to remedy violations of Purcell). The Purcell principle is a presumption against disturbing the status quo. The question here is who sets the status quo? The Constitution’s answer is generally the state legislature. And in the case of presidential elections, the Electors Clause vests power exclusively in the legislature. In our case, the Minnesota Legislature set the status quo, the Secretary upset it, and it is our duty, consistent with Purcell, to at least preserve the possibility of restoring it. The consequences of this order are not lost on us. We acknowledge and understand the concerns over voter confusion, election administration issues, and public confidence in the election that animate the Purcell principle. With that said, we conclude the challenges that will stem from this ruling are preferable to a postelection scenario where mail-in votes, received after the statutory deadline, are either intermingled with ballots received on time or invalidated without prior warning. Better to put those voters on notice now while they still have at least some time to adjust their plans and cast their votes in an unquestionably lawful way.