After a district court concluded March 4 that a disqualification challenge to Madison Cawthorn’s candidacy in North Carolina could not proceed, the case has been hit with timing issues and procedural complexity. (The district court issued a written order March 10.)

First, the putative intervenors (voters who filed a challenge before the North Carolina State Board of Elections to contest Cawthorn’s eligibility) have filed for an emergency stay on appeal, but the Board did not. One challenge is winning a stay on an emergency basis. Another is that the intervenors have to get over the fact that they were denied intervention below, a separate barrier to getting to the merits. And even if a stay is granted on this basis, the district court could return to one of the constitutional grounds that did not form the basis of its original opinion.

In short, there are a lot of vehicle problems to cleaning this case up in the near future.

The Board, however, did file a brief explaining that it might appeal in the future but would not on an emergency basis. It noted a state statutory deadline of March 28 to distribute ballots, which could be extended to April 1 for cause. The Board explained that it would need to resolve any disputes at least 7 days before (March 21 or March 25) to meet printing and delivery deadlines. On top of that, there are “a number of administrative steps that must be completed in advance of that deadline”–appointing a panel, a hearing before the panel, a written decision, and multiple rounds of appeals, along with all of the development of the factual record. But, the Board explains, it “would be implemented after the May 17 primary.”

The Fourth Circuit solicited Cawthorn’s briefing to be completed by March 14. Here now, on March 16, we wait. It’s not clear how doctrines like Purcell play into the process. But a pre-primary election exclusion from the ballot (i.e., a stay on the district court’s decision allowing the process to play out) seems increasingly unlikely.

It’s all the more reason, in my judgment, to be skeptical of purported state authority to judge qualifications before a general election. The notion that the state would be ready to exclude a candidate from the general election ballot after he won a primary election is a remarkable statement of the power to adjudicate qualifications.

It’s still possible for this dispute to play out, but the procedural and timing questions continue to grow more complicated seemingly by the day.