From his indispensable “One First” newsletter:

There’s a lot that’s striking here. First, it’s rather remarkable that Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would’ve put all three laws back into effect—a move that, had it applied to recent registrations, might have prevented a large number of Arizonans (especially, as I understand it, college students) who are legally entitled to vote (and duly registered) from casting mail-in and/or presidential ballots in the upcoming election. A big enough possibility in the abstract, it’s only exacerbated by Arizona’s status as a critical state both in the presidential election and with regard to control of the Senate. It seems to me, if you’re going to vote for a result that could produce substantial disenfranchisement of eligible voters with such potential effects, you should at least explain why that result is legally required.

Second, here’s yet another high-profile emergency application where Justice Barrett is publicly distancing herself from all of the other Republican appointees—much like Ohio v. EPA, where she not only dissented, but wrote on behalf of the dissenters. I wrote a piece in early July about Barrett’s increasingly fascinating—and important—independence. Here’s yet another significant example.

Third, and most importantly, there’s the difference-splitting votes of one/both of the Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh—and the difficulty of reconciling those votes with the Court’s purported adherence to the controversial “Purcell principle.” Professor Rick Hasen wrote about this over at his Election Law Blog on Friday, but to make a long story short, the best defense of Purcell is the need to avoid court rulings that increase voter confusion heading into an election cycle. How can that “principle” be reconciled with a ruling that puts back into effect Arizona’s requirement that those registering to vote on the state paper form provide documentary proof of citizenship, when those who register online or use the federal form don’t have to? Or the need for different ballots depending upon whether the voter registered with a state paper form, a state electronic form, or a federal form? Or the possibility that those who used the state paper form while the proof-of-citizenship requirement was blocked might now have their registrations rejected?

If any/all of that sounds like it’s potentially confusing, it’s confusion created largely by the Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday—since the provision had otherwise been frozen by a federal court order issued … last year. And although there may be arguments for why such a result is consistent with Purcell (I’m skeptical), or why Purcell just doesn’t apply in this case (that persuasively explains why it applies in all of the other ones), the majority in the Arizona case . . . didn’t provide them.

if the Court (and, especially, Justice Kavanaugh—who is perhaps the most frequent public defender of Purcell) is going to justify numerous earlier interventions to undo lower-court rulings in election-year disputes on the ground that the courts’ rulings risk confusing voters, it seems like a ruling that could well cause significant confusion on the ground warranted at least a modicum of explanation….