The conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court last December allowed Texas to implement a new voting map favorable to Republicans, faulting a lower court for blocking it 'on the eve of an election.'
The decision cited the Purcell principle, which warns courts against changing election rules too close to an election to avoid voter confusion.
However, this month, the Court cleared maps in Louisiana and Alabama just days before in-person voting and after mail-in ballots were cast.
Legal experts question the Court's inconsistent application of the Purcell principle, noting all three decisions benefited Republicans.
'Cynics would say this is politics all the way down,' said University of Kentucky law professor Joshua Douglas.
University of Notre Dame's Derek Muller sees consistency: 'The Court stepped back and allowed the legislature to act.'
The rulings come as Republicans seek to retain control of Congress in the upcoming midterm elections.
The Supreme Court's recent actions have fueled perceptions of partisanship, with Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly rankled.
The Court also struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, allowing Southern states to dismantle minority-majority districts.
Legal experts point to the 'shadow docket' as a source of confusion, where the Court issues emergency decisions without full reasoning.
