New NRF Report: Millions of Voters Disenfranchised by Obscure Legal Rule

Washington, D.C. – A new report detailing how millions of American voters have been disenfranchised by the Purcell principle, a seemingly-neutral concept that has been increasingly misused as a bar against voting rights enforcement, was released today by the National Redistricting Foundation (NRF). With the Supreme Court considering changes to Louisiana’s map in Callais and more voting rights litigation expected before the midterms, the report reveals how courts have inconsistently applied the Purcell principle to voters’ detriment in voting rights and redistricting cases. This has already resulted in more than 2.49 million Americans voting on electoral maps that were determined by the courts to violate federal law – in 2022 alone. Purcell, which was originally meant to protect voters, has instead been effectively weaponized against them.

This is the first report of the NRF’s newly launched Policy Lab, a first-of-its-kind project meant to conduct groundbreaking research and develop solutions to end gerrymandering once and for all.

“What began as a practical rule in 2006 has since been distorted by courts and anti-voting rights politicians to the detriment of millions of voters,” said Marina Jenkins, Executive Director of the National Redistricting Foundation (NRF). “Time and again, the original intention of Purcell, to protect voters from confusion and encourage participation, has been subverted and the principle has instead been used  as a means to leave in place gerrymandered maps or other burdensome voting changes that have already been found by federal courts to violate the law or harm voters. Nobody wins this race to the bottom, least of all the American people. 

“We need Congress to outlaw partisan gerrymandering and establish fair redistricting standards so that everyone has to play by the same rules. That’s why we’re launching the NRF Policy Lab to help us further support the effort to preserve our democracy for generations to come.”

In the 2006 case Purcell v. Gonzalez, the Supreme Court overturned an appeals court ruling that struck down an Arizona voter ID law, citing the short time left until the election. Under the principle established in Purcell, federal courts should analyze whether it is too close to an election for the court to  intervene to protect voters. However, courts’ interpretations of how close an election must be to apply Purcell has varied widely—and politicians have used that fact to their advantage. As a result, states have convinced courts to allow discriminatory voting laws and gerrymandered maps to be put into place—even after those new maps or new laws have been determined to likely violate voters’ rights. For example, NRF’s analysis shows that:

  • Across all cases citing Purcell, a decision issued three months before the general election is only 3.4 percentage points more likely to apply Purcell than one issued six months before.
  • Purcell is most frequently applied in states with historically heavily-gerrymandered legislatures, including Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin—enabling skewed legislatures to pass last-minute changes to preserve their unearned power. 
  • Courts are considering and applying Purcell much more since 2016, and giving states longer to implement maps than in the early 1980s, despite significant increases in map-drawing technology.

The National Redistricting Foundation Policy Lab
The report comes from NRF’s newly launched Policy Lab, a first-of-its-kind initiative that conducts actionable research on the harms of gerrymandering and develops innovative solutions to protect voting rights. With redistricting now happening more often than once a decade, there is a greater need for attention, resources, and ideas. The Policy Lab will fill this void by providing data and legal analysis, best practices for reformers and map-drawers, and tools to ensure transparency and fairness during the redistricting process.

###