jasdooit

President Donald Trump’s urgent attempt to restrict the use of mail-in voting is set to bring the Supreme Court face-to-face with a legal principle it originally created for a specific reason – and may now be expanded for an entirely different purpose.

The matter at hand is the “Purcell principle,” a regulation from 20 years ago advising federal courts to avoid altering voting rules shortly before an election,reported CNN.

Also Read: Key deadline in Mitch McConnell case to activate a law that has never been used before

Each time the court has referenced Purcell, it has applied the doctrine to prevent federal courts from overturning state election regulations — a safeguard based on federalism. As Professor Derek Muller from Notre Dame noted, “Purcell carries greater significance when you are blocking a state rule due to federalism issues.”

Trump’s executive order would disrupt this approach by mandating that the U.S. Postal Service and Department of Homeland Security review state voter lists, and prevent ballots from being sent to those not registered.votersand necessitate the tracking of barcodes on ballot envelopes.

Looking for more up-to-date political news?Click to view the most recent news updates on Raw Story.

It’s the federal government enacting new regulations on states — and the states taking legal action to prevent it. If the Court uses Purcell in this case, it would be applying a principle designed to maintain state authority over elections to protect a federal encroachment on that very power.

“This mail voting executive orderit’s positioned on the incorrect side of the line,” stated Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project. “It involves a federal entity implementing sudden modifications to state election systems despite the states’ objections.

The Department of Justice claims the states filed their lawsuit prematurely, prior to the implementation of the order. Should the court concur, the states would need to submit their case again — bringing their challenge nearer to the November election.

At that moment, the administration could bring in Purcell to claim that it’s now too near to Election Day for courts to get involved in any way.

Acting Solicitor General D. John Sauer has already set the stage, informing the judges that the executive order “does not alter anything regarding elections in any state” by itself.

Although DOJ lawyer Stephen Pezzi minimized the chances of bringing up Purcell again, he did not completely dismiss the possibility. “I, naturally, can’t and won’t eliminate an argument regarding what the situation might be like in August,” he stated.

A federal appellate court in Washington has already attempted to prevent that situation, deciding that blocking a late federalchangeactually maintains the “existing state” that Purcell is designed to safeguard — contrary to what the administration may claim.

Significantly, the panel did not reference any Supreme Court ruling for that decision, as none is available.