Supreme Court Allows New Hampshire to Bar Student IDs for Voting

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday permitted New Hampshire officials to refuse student identification cards as valid voter identification for the upcoming midterm elections. This decision effectively allows the state to enforce a new law that restricts the use of such IDs.

A lower court had previously ruled that state officials had overstepped the new law by completely disallowing student IDs, stating they should still be considered alongside other evidence for voters lacking alternative identification. However, the Supreme Court intervened, deeming it too close to the election for such a change.

The majority opinion stated that the district court had not provided sufficient justification to deviate from the Purcell Principle, a legal doctrine that advises against altering election rules shortly before voting commences to prevent confusion. The court referenced recent legal disputes over Missouri's redistricting maps as an example of why this principle is important.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that the Purcell Principle should not apply in this instance because the lower court's order aimed to prevent public confusion by ensuring accurate information about state electoral processes. She wrote that an injunction to stop the dissemination of misinformation does not cause confusion but rather prevents it.

New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte signed House Bill 323 into law in April, which removed student IDs from the list of explicitly accepted forms of identification for obtaining a ballot. The law went into effect on June 2. Following its implementation, New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan provided guidance to election officials, and multiple training sessions were conducted.

New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella, a Republican, stated that the state has a duty to protect the integrity of its elections and ensure laws are applied as written. He added that the Supreme Court's ruling is a significant victory in defending these laws and preventing last-minute court orders from creating uncertainty for voters and election officials.

The Supreme Court's decision does not represent a final judgment on the legality of the law itself, and the underlying litigation is ongoing.