Hansi Lo Wang has this extended NPR piece on the still-growing impact of Purcell v. Gonzalez (audio to be added late tomorrow afternoon). It includes an interview with Helen Purcell, who was Maricopa County’s top election official when the Supreme Court stopped a Ninth Circuit injunction against state voter ID rules from taking effect:

Purcell remembers feeling concerned about how a late change to the rules for the 2006 election could have befuddled voters and election offices.

“It’s mind-boggling when you’re thinking, ‘OK, how do I do this now?’ Because now the rules have been changed or the rule we thought was in place, we can’t use,” Purcell recalls.

And comments from Rick:

Rick Hasen, a professor at UCLA School of Law who specializes in election law, has been keeping track.

Credited with coming up with the term “Purcell principle,” Hasen remembers first using it on his Election Law Blog in 2014. Federal courts have long been asked to weigh in on last-minute legal controversies about elections, Hasen explains, and the Purcell principle “kind of articulated a principle that maybe courts were considering in the background.” …

“The factor that voters and election administrators might be confused and have trouble with election changes just before an election, that’s a perfectly valid concern, and I share that concern,” Hasen says. “The problem with Purcell is not that this is a factor. The problem is that it is the most important factor.”