The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday allowed New Hampshire to enforce a law barring the use of student identification cards as proof of identity for voters in the upcoming midterm elections.
The justices granted a Republican-backed emergency appeal, reversing a federal judge’s order that had temporarily blocked the state from enforcing the restriction. The decision came after a lower court judge in early October had partially blocked guidance from New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan, which directed election clerks to treat student IDs as unacceptable forms of identification. The Supreme Court’s unsigned order cited the Purcell principle, a legal doctrine that discourages last-minute changes to election rules near Election Day.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only justice to publicly dissent, arguing that the Purcell principle did not apply in this case. The high court’s order did not provide further explanation beyond invoking the Purcell precedent.
Background: New Hampshire’s Voter ID Law
New Hampshire passed a law this year that explicitly removed student IDs from the list of acceptable forms of identification for obtaining a ballot. The law took effect in April and remained in place for the state’s primary elections in September. After the law’s passage, Scanlan issued guidance to election officials clarifying that student IDs would no longer be accepted, even as a secondary form of ID.
In early October, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante blocked portions of Scanlan’s guidance, ruling that election clerks could still accept student IDs as backup identification. Days later, Laplante expanded the order to cover public statements by Scanlan reiterating that student IDs were not valid. The state appealed these rulings to the Supreme Court, which stayed both orders on Thursday.
Legal and Political Reactions
The Republican National Committee supported New Hampshire’s appeal, arguing that the state’s election laws should be applied as written. Republican New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella praised the Supreme Court’s decision, stating that it was “an important victory for our efforts to defend those laws and prevent last-minute court orders from creating uncertainty for voters.”
The Supreme Court’s order did not address the merits of the underlying law or the judge’s reasoning. Instead, it focused on the timing of the lower court’s intervention, emphasizing that federal courts should avoid altering election rules close to an election. The court quoted its 2020 decision in Purcell v. Gonzalez, which cautioned against judicial interference in election procedures on the eve of voting.
What’s Next for Voters
With the Supreme Court’s ruling, New Hampshire’s ban on student IDs for voting will remain in effect for the midterm elections. Voters who previously relied on student IDs as a secondary form of identification will need to use alternative forms of ID, such as a driver’s license, passport, or other government-issued documents. The state has not indicated whether it will extend the policy beyond the midterms.