Supreme Court Lets New Hampshire Reject Student IDs at the Polls Over a Jackson Dissent

The US Supreme Court on October 22 let New Hampshire stop counting student IDs as proof of identity for the November 3 election. It stayed a federal judge’s injunction in Scanlan v. Coalition for Open Democracy, No. 26A512, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

The order is short and unsigned. It stays the preliminary injunction orders of October 2 and 5 from the US District Court for the District of New Hampshire while the state’s appeal runs in the First Circuit and through any petition for certiorari. The stated reason is timing. Citing Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee (2020), the Court said lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter election rules on the eve of an election, and that the district court had identified nothing that justified departing from that rule.

What the State Law Changed

The dispute starts with HB 323. The Legislature passed it on a partisan vote and Governor Kelly Ayotte signed it on April 3, 2026. It took effect on June 2, in time for the September 8 state primary. The law requires government-issued identification to vote and drops high school and college IDs from the accepted list. A driver’s license or non-driver ID from any state, a US passport or passport card, and a US armed services ID still count.

Secretary of State David Scanlan then issued an April directive to local officials. It told them student IDs could not be used to prove identity when registering, when requesting an absentee ballot or when checking in at the polls. The Coalition for Open Democracy sued in August, arguing under the 26th Amendment and the First and 14th Amendments that the change burdens young voters.

Judge Joseph Laplante did not block HB 323 itself. After evidentiary hearings, he did enjoin the directive “to the extent it prohibits or discourages election officials from considering student IDs as evidence of voter identity.” His reasoning turned on a safety valve in the state’s voter ID statutes: when a voter lacks a listed ID, an official may weigh other evidence of identity. The judge found the state had “identified no interest served by the April Directive beyond those already served by HB 323.” On October 14 the First Circuit refused to stay his order. The state went to the Supreme Court the next day.

Purcell Without a Rule Change

The majority leaned on the Purcell principle, named for Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006), which tells federal courts to be wary of changing election rules close to an election because late changes confuse voters and poll workers. It also cited People Not Politicians v. Onder, a September 25, 2026 order from the Court.

Jackson’s dissent argues that Purcell never fit this order. Purcell itself involved an injunction that blocked a state voter ID law entirely. Laplante’s order left HB 323 in force. It required the Secretary of State to bring his public guidance into line with what the statute says. The district court had found, after three days of hearings, that the state’s statements were “at best” misleading. A footnote records that the Deputy Secretary of State conceded he saw no factual reason a student ID could not serve as evidence of identity under the safety valve. An order that corrects misinformation, Jackson wrote, serves the interest Purcell protects: making sure “the public receives accurate information about a State’s electoral processes.” She would not disturb “a clearly justifiable federal court order” because an election is close.

No other justice noted a dissent.

The Practical Effect on November 3

With the stay, the April directive applies in full again. Local election officials in New Hampshire’s towns and wards are told that a student ID cannot be used to prove identity at registration or at the polls. A student with an out-of-state driver’s license or a passport can still vote with it. A student with only a college ID has fewer options than a week ago.

Attorney General John Formella called the order an important victory against last-minute court orders that create uncertainty. Counsel for the coalition called it wrong and vowed to keep litigating. The case is far from over. The stay settles the rules for one election and says nothing on the merits.

What sets this order apart is the rule it preserved. The Court kept in place a state official’s reading of his own law, which a federal judge had found went further than the statute, on the ground that correcting it this late would confuse voters. The same principle runs through the wider fight over who controls election rules, where federal agencies, not federal judges, are the ones asking for late changes.