Confused......

Voting rights advocates are confused over how Supreme Court will handle election disputes this fall

From CNN's John Fritze

The recent US Supreme Court decision changing voter registration rules in Arizona has voting rights advocates anxious about how the justices will approach emergency election appeals in the runup to the November election.

Not only was the Arizona ruling a missed opportunity for the justices to explain when they will engage in election and voting cases, experts say it has also heightened concern that the court is unevenly applying a murky legal principle intended to reduce chaos rather than add to it.

The “Purcell principle,” rooted in a 2006 Supreme Court decision, warns federal courts to avoid making last minute changes to the status quo of voting rules before an election. But 18 years later, what counts as “status quo” and “last-minute” still remains up for debate.

That lack of clarity – and what critics see as an inconsistent application of the doctrine – could be a critical factor in this year’s election.

Why this matters: As in past years, the Supreme Court is almost certain to be asked to take up a series of down-to-the-wire election-year lawsuits ahead of the November election. Some of those cases are already percolating in lower courts, and some are likely to appear without much warning.