USAupdated 1h ago3 min read
U.S. Supreme Court Lets New Hampshire Limit Student IDs for Voting
This article is an automated aggregation of coverage from news outlets. Our editorials offer in-depth analysis curated by the NewsCord team.
Supreme Court allowed New Hampshire to fully ban student IDs for voting in November. Order paused a lower court ruling requiring revision of guidance on student IDs.
Save coverage image
Explore source coverage 4 source types
Directory totals describe our source library, not outlets checked for this story.
Supreme Court blocks change
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday allowed New Hampshire officials to limit when voters may use a student ID to receive a ballot, agreeing that a lower court ruling that blocked enforcement of the policy was too close to Election Day.
“Here, the district court did not point to anything that would justify deviating from that principle.”
The unsigned order invoked the “Purcell principle” and cited that “lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election,” while it did not provide a vote count.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, writing, “This so-called ‘Purcell principle’ arose in a particular context, and this court has yet to fully define its limits,” and she argued the lower court did not change the law but only the state’s interpretation.
New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan, a Republican, won the emergency fight after a federal district court blocked enforcement of the state’s interpretation on October 2.
The dispute centered on a state law enacted by the state legislature this spring that removed student IDs from being used to verify a voter’s identity, while also including a “safety valve” for voters to attempt to prove identity through other means.
Guidance, safety valve fight
The Supreme Court’s emergency order permitted Republican officials to ban New Hampshire voters from using student identification cards to vote in the November election, pausing a lower court’s injunction that required New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan to revise guidance. The order stayed the relief while New Hampshire’s appeal proceeded, and it left the stay pending the disposition of the appeal in the First Circuit. Scanlan argued the lower court ignored rules prohibiting federal courts from interfering with voting rules too close to an election, and he warned that “there is substantial risk that voters could show up at the polls with only their student IDs in hand.”
Bryan Sells, the attorney for the Coalition for Open Democracy, said the Supreme Court’s decision was wrong and argued it “inject[ed] confusion into the election — precisely what the Purcell principle is supposed to prevent.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented again, saying 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,” while the majority said the district court did not justify deviating from the noninterference principle.
Midterms and who is affected
The Supreme Court’s decision came as New Hampshire voters prepared to fill an open Senate seat in November to replace retiring Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, and the ballot included a closely watched Senate race.
“New Hampshire voters will fill an open Senate seat in November to replace the retiring Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen.”
CNN reported that a recent CNN poll found that Democrats enjoy a 31 percentage point advantage over Republicans among younger adults, and it framed the ruling as a win for Scanlan and the Republican National Committee.
The dispute also reflected disagreement over a “safety valve” provision, because the state enacted a new law in June removing student IDs from its list of expressly valid photo identification while voting rights groups and state officials disputed how secondary evidence should work.
The New York Times said the Supreme Court agreed New Hampshire can direct election officials not to consider student IDs when verifying voters’ identities ahead of the midterm elections, and it noted that it was not clear how many voters would be affected.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that she viewed the federal judge’s action as merely a “targeted order” to correct public statements and guidance, while the Supreme Court’s order did not include a vote count.
