US Supreme Court lets New Hampshire bar student IDs at the polls in November
In short
The US Supreme Court granted New Hampshire's emergency request and lifted a lower-court ruling that had blocked the state's student-ID guidance for the Nov. 3 election. The unsigned order cited the principle against last-minute changes to election rules, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. The state's request had Republican National Committee backing.
Read the full story 3 min read
The US Supreme Court on Thursday granted an emergency request from New Hampshire, allowing the state to enforce its position on student ID cards in the Nov. 3 election. NBC News reported that the justices said student IDs cannot be used in New Hampshire for the midterm elections. The state's request had the backing of the Republican National Committee, according to NBC News, CNN and The Hill. [ 2 , 3 , 5 ]
The order was unsigned and brief. NBC News reported that it said a federal judge should not have ordered a change in voting rules so close to the election, citing precedent. CNN said the court invoked the Purcell principle, which warns against last-minute court decisions that change election rules. The order said: "Here, the District Court did not point to anything that would justify deviating from that principle." The Hill reported that the opinion pointed to recent legal whiplash over Missouri's redistricting as an example. [ 2 , 3 , 5 ]
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. NBC News wrote that she said she "would not disturb a clearly justifiable federal court order issued to ensure that the public receives accurate information about a State's electoral processes." The Hill quoted her as writing that when a federal court finds material misrepresentations about a state's election rules, an injunction "does not contribute to public confusion, it prevents that very problem." CNN said the court gave no vote count; NBC News called Jackson the sole dissenter. [ 2 , 3 , 5 ]
The dispute arises from a state law enacted this spring that removed student IDs from the forms of identification election officials accept when someone requests a ballot. A nonprofit voting rights group, the Coalition for Open Democracy, sued, arguing the measure unlawfully burdened the right to vote and discriminated against young voters. NBC News reported that U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante declined to block the law but on Oct. 2 put guidance from New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan, a Republican, on hold. According to NBC News, Scanlan's guidance said student IDs could not be used for any purpose when people seek ballots. [ 2 , 3 ]
CNN reported that the law has a "safety valve" allowing voters to try to prove their identity by other means. The Supreme Court fight was over whether student IDs could be used in those cases as one factor alongside other evidence. NBC News said the decision means voters cannot use student IDs as backups. The Hill reported that the order is not a final ruling and could return to the Supreme Court after the midterms, and that the RNC blamed the plaintiffs for delaying the proceedings. [ 2 , 3 , 5 ]
The New Hampshire ballot includes a Senate race that NBC News said could help decide control of the chamber. Republican former Sen. John Sununu faces Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas for the seat of retiring Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. CNN cited a recent poll showing Democrats with a 31-point advantage over Republicans among younger adults. The New York Times described the ruling as the latest in a string of election-related emergency actions by the justices before November. [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]
Why it matters
The order means student IDs cannot be used in New Hampshire in the November election, including as supporting evidence of identity, according to NBC News. Outlets note the state is hosting a closely watched Senate race in which Democrats are defending a seat.
Key facts
- The Supreme Court granted an emergency request from New Hampshire to let it enforce its student-ID rules for the Nov. 3 election. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- The Republican National Committee backed the state's request. [ 2 , 3 , 5 ]
- The order was unsigned and brief; it said the District Court did not point to anything justifying a departure from the principle against changing election rules close to an election. [ 2 , 3 , 5 ]
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. [ 2 , 3 , 5 ]
- A federal district court had blocked the state's interpretation of its student-ID law on Oct. 2. [ 2 , 3 ]
- The ballot includes a Senate race between Republican former Sen. John Sununu and Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas for the seat of retiring Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. [ 2 , 5 ]
Confirmed by several sources
- The Supreme Court sided with New Hampshire and the Republican National Committee in the student-ID dispute, in an unsigned order. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 ]
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissent. [ 2 , 3 , 5 ]
- The court relied on the Purcell principle against court changes to election rules close to an election. [ 3 , 5 ]
- A federal district court had blocked the state's interpretation of the law on Oct. 2, and the plaintiff was the Coalition for Open Democracy. [ 2 , 3 ]
- The New Hampshire Senate race is open because Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen is retiring. [ 2 , 3 , 5 ]
Still unclear
- How many justices joined the order. CNN says the court did not provide a vote count, while NBC News calls Jackson the sole dissenter.
- How far the ruling restricts student IDs. CNN says officials may limit when a student ID is used, The Hill says the state can fully stop voters from using them, and NBC News says they cannot be used even as backups.
- Whether the case returns to the Supreme Court after the midterms. Only The Hill says the order is not a final ruling and the case could return.
What local media are saying
Timeline, local time
- Bloomberg published its report on the Supreme Court order. [ 1 ]
- NBC News reported that student IDs cannot be used in New Hampshire for the midterm elections. [ 2 ]
- CNN reported that the court allowed New Hampshire to limit when voters may use a student ID. [ 3 ]
- The New York Times described the ruling as the latest in a string of election-related emergency actions. [ 4 ]
- The Hill reported that the ruling is not final and could return to the Supreme Court after the midterms. [ 5 ]