I asked Claude the following:
Q: As part of the Callais decision, Landry issued an emergency executive order to suspend the House primary even though it had already started and 4000 people had submitted mail-in votes. A judge enjoined the decision but could Landry have continued with the election schedule instead of suspending it if he wanted to?
A: This is a really interesting legal question, and the answer is likely
yes —
Landry probably could have let the election proceed, and several legal experts say he had stronger legal footing doing so than suspending it.
Here's the core of the argument:
The Purcell Principle would have protected him. The Supreme Court's
Purcell v. Gonzales (2006) precedent prevents courts from ordering states to make major ballot changes too close to an election. Attorney General Murrill herself acknowledged this at a press conference, pointing out that courts would be prohibited from ordering the state to do anything under Purcell. She said: "The Purcell principle is a principle that says that courts, particularly federal courts, should not be monkeying with state election dates when it's too close to an election." In other words, the same doctrine that protects states from last-minute court-ordered changes would likely have shielded Louisiana from being
forced to switch maps mid-election.
Louisiana IlluminatorLouisiana Illuminator
The Callais ruling didn't actually order the election stopped. Plaintiffs challenging Landry's suspension argued that "The Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais did not order the May 16 election canceled — and did not authorize it. The judgment in Callais is not yet even final." This is a procedural point — under the Supreme Court's rules, the court normally sends a copy of its opinion and judgment to the lower court, making the decision final, 32 days after it is issued. That process hadn't happened yet when Landry issued his order.
Democracy DocketSCOTUSblog
Legal experts disagreed with Landry's framing. Michael Li, senior counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice, said it was not clear that Louisiana was right to delay the congressional primary. The Supreme Court's ruling does not throw out Louisiana's existing congressional districts for the current cycle, and the
Purcell doctrine would apply. Louisiana had actually used maps for congressional elections after they were ruled unconstitutional in both 2022 and 2024, precisely on the basis of the Purcell ruling. So there was direct precedent for running an election on a map even after a court found it constitutionally deficient.
NOLA.comNOLA.com
What Landry and Murrill actually argued was that a lower court's earlier injunction blocking the map — which had been on hold pending the Supreme Court's review — effectively snapped back into force once
Callais was decided. They said Louisiana was "enjoined from carrying out congressional elections under the current map," and that the lower court ruling blocking the map was now in effect. But critics noted that this reinstatement was itself legally unsettled and unfinalized.
NOLA.com
The bottom line: Landry had a colorable legal argument for suspending the election, but the weight of independent legal opinion — and the historical precedent of Louisiana itself running elections on maps under injunction in 2022 and 2024 — suggests he almost certainly could have continued with the scheduled election. Purcell would have been a strong shield against any court ordering him to stop. The suspension looks less like a legal necessity and more like a political choice to give the Republican-controlled legislature an opportunity to redraw the maps.
