The U.S. Supreme Court’s old 2006 ruling, known as the Purcell decision, may play a major role in shaping political districts in Texas and California for the upcoming elections. Even though the ruling was short and offered little explanation at the time, it has now become a powerful tool for states facing legal fights over redistricting.
How the 2006 Purcell Ruling Still Influences Elections
In 2006, the Supreme Court allowed Arizona to enforce strict voter ID rules just weeks before an election. The court said that last-minute changes to voting rules could confuse voters and harm turnout. This idea became known as the “Purcell principle.”
Simply put, Purcell means courts should avoid blocking or changing election rules close to voting day.
Why the Purcell Principle Matters in 2026
Because of this principle, states like Texas — and even California under Proposition 50 — are expected to use their newly drawn political maps for the 2026 elections, even though lawsuits are still ongoing.
Texas: New Maps Could Add Five House Seats for Republicans
Texas lawmakers approved new congressional maps on Oct. 25, designed to give Republicans five more seats. But a federal court ruled 2-1 that the maps may illegally weaken the voting power of racial minorities.
Even so, Purcell may prevent courts from stopping the maps in time for the 2026 elections because candidate filing deadlines are just weeks away.
California: Proposition 50 Likely to Be Used in 2026
California voters passed Proposition 50, a new Democratic-leaning redesign of House districts. Republicans argue that one district was illegally shaped to favor a Latino candidate.
But just like Texas, California’s new map will likely be used in the 2026 elections because courts typically will not block new rules so close to voting day.
Legal Experts Warn of Risks to Voting Rights
UC Berkeley law dean Erwin Chemerinsky says Purcell can hurt voters by letting state lawmakers pass questionable maps right before elections, knowing that courts will likely avoid intervening.
He argues that challengers had no time to sue earlier because the maps were passed late in the year — yet courts still may refuse to act.
Examples of Purcell in Action
- In 2020, the Supreme Court blocked a Wisconsin judge’s order to allow extra time for counting absentee ballots during the pandemic.
- In 2022, the court let Alabama use a map that grouped most Black voters into one district, even though the map was later found illegal in 2023.
According to a Yale Law Review article, Purcell makes it much easier for states to hold at least one election using maps or rules that may later be ruled unlawful.
Texas Defends Its New Map Before the Supreme Court
Texas officials argue that blocking their new maps now would violate the Purcell principle and create confusion among voters. They say the court should allow the maps to be used for the upcoming election, even if the lawsuit continues.
They quoted Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote in 2020 that it is better for states — not federal judges — to make last-minute changes to election rules. Courts, he said, should avoid stepping in right before an election.
Conclusion
The Purcell principle, a little-known Supreme Court standard from 2006, could shape the political landscape in 2026. Both Texas and California may use disputed redistricting maps simply because time is running out before the elections. While courts may later decide the maps are illegal, Purcell makes it likely voters will see them in action at least once. As legal battles continue, the true impact of these maps may not be clear until long after the 2026 elections.
