In recent years a new obstacle has risen to litigation over ballot access: the pernicious principle known as the “Purcell Principle” that says courts should not alter ballots too close to an election. In 2022, a U.S. District Court Judge in Florida refused to put the People’s Party candidate for Pasco County Commission on the ballot, partly because “plaintiffs cannot overcome Purcell”. The People’s Party had filed its ballot access lawsuit on June 3, for an election in November, and yet the judge felt the Purcell Principle meant the case had been filed too late.
In 2023, a New Haven Superior Court in Connecticut kept Shafiq Abdussabur, a candidate for Mayor of New Haven, off the Democratic primary ballot, even though he had enough signatures, because the evidence that he had enough signatures had not been presented until August 16, and the primary was on September 12. Abdussabur v Evans, NY-cv–23-6135336. The court ruling against Abdussabur was made on August 23, and the ballots had not yet been printed on that day, except for some absentee ballots.
Yet the Colorado Supreme Court has now decided to remove Donald Trump from the March 5, 2024 ballot, and has said nothing about the Purcell Principle. If the Purcell Principle applies to potential court decisions that put a candidate on the ballot, logically it should apply to court decisions that remove a candidate from a ballot.
If the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the Colorado State Court, that should set a powerful precedent that the Purcell Principle does not apply to adding or subtracting candidates from a ballot.
The origin of the Purcell Principle was a U.S. Supreme Court order in Purcell v Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the issue was whether the Ninth Circuit should have enjoined an Arizona law concerning photo ID on October 5, only a month before the November election.
