The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for New Hampshire's top election official to enforce a complete prohibition on using student IDs as voter identification at the polls, a move backed by the Republican National Committee (RNC). The decision, issued without a full hearing, temporarily sets aside a lower court judge's ruling that had limited the state's ability to reject student IDs.
The dispute stems from a state law enacted earlier this year that restricts the use of student IDs for voting. A federal district judge had determined that election officials overstepped by refusing to accept student IDs even when voters presented them alongside other forms of identification. The judge ordered the state to consider student IDs as part of a broader identification review, but the Supreme Court intervened, citing the so-called Purcell principle, which cautions against altering election rules close to an election.
In an unsigned, one-paragraph opinion, the majority wrote, "Here, the District Court did not point to anything that would justify deviating from that principle." The Court referenced recent legal turmoil over Missouri's redistricting as an example of how last-minute judicial actions can sow confusion among voters and election officials.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented publicly, arguing that the Purcell principle does not apply when a court is correcting misinformation. "When a federal court determines that material misrepresentations are being made about a State's election rules, an injunction to prohibit that conduct does not contribute to public confusion, it prevents that very problem," Jackson wrote.
New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella (R) welcomed the decision, stating, "New Hampshire has a responsibility to protect the integrity of its elections and ensure that election laws are applied as written. The Supreme Court's decision is an important victory for our efforts to defend those laws and prevent last-minute court orders from creating uncertainty for voters and election officials."
The case is not a final ruling on the merits; it may return to the Supreme Court after the November midterms. The emergency appeal was supported by the RNC, which accused the plaintiffs, the Coalition for Open Democracy, of delaying proceedings. "Months passed, and election season began, in the time that the Coalition waited," RNC lawyers wrote.
The ruling carries significant political weight in New Hampshire, where a competitive Senate race is unfolding. Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas is challenging former Republican Sen. John Sununu for the seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D). The state's voter ID rules have become a flashpoint in the broader national debate over election integrity.
This decision aligns with a series of recent court rulings that have favored strict voter ID laws, as seen in North Carolina's mail-in ballot rules. It also reflects the Supreme Court's increasing willingness to defer to state election officials in the run-up to elections, a trend that has drawn criticism from dissenting justices like Jackson.
