The unsigned order, issued Thursday in Scanlan v. Coalition for Open Democracy, stays an October 2 ruling by U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante while New Hampshire's appeal goes forward, and it means Secretary of State David Scanlan's directive excluding student IDs from the voting process will be enforced in the November 3 midterm elections.
The Court gave one reason: timing. "This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election," the order said. "Here, the District Court did not point to anything that would justify deviating from that principle." The order, issued on the Court's emergency docket, did not disclose a vote count, and it does not decide the underlying constitutional challenge to the state's law.
For voters, the effect is complete. A student ID can no longer be used at a New Hampshire polling place at all — not as a stand-alone form of identification, and not even as supporting evidence when a voter who lacks an approved photo ID tries to establish identity through the law's "safety valve" provision, which allows identity to be proven by other reasonably reliable means. Voters must instead present an accepted government-issued photo ID, such as a driver's license issued by any state, a U.S. passport, a military ID, or a New Hampshire non-driver ID card.
The dispute began in April, when Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed House Bill 323 on April 3, removing high school, college and university ID cards from the list of identification voters can use to obtain a ballot. Student IDs had been accepted in New Hampshire since 2012. The law took effect on June 2.
Scanlan then went further. In an April 23 directive, he instructed election officials that student IDs could not be considered under any circumstances — not when registering to vote, not when requesting an absentee ballot, and not when checking in to vote — including under the safety-valve provision. The state argued that student cards are less reliable because they may lack expiration dates and anti-counterfeiting features, and it warned the Supreme Court on October 15 that reversing the guidance again would be "a complete reversal of prior guidance and training," creating a substantial risk of inconsistent procedures and of voters arriving at the polls holding only a student ID.
The Coalition for Open Democracy sued Scanlan on August 11, arguing the restrictions burden voters under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and discriminate against young voters under the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. After a hearing in mid-September, Judge Laplante ruled on October 2 that HB 323 itself could stand, but that Scanlan's April directive went too far: the state, he wrote, had identified no interest served by the directive beyond those already served by the law itself. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined on October 14, by a 2-1 vote, to pause Laplante's ruling, and New Hampshire — backed by the Republican National Committee — filed its emergency application at the Supreme Court the next day.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only justice to publicly dissent. She argued that the lower court had not changed the election rules at all, but had only ordered the state to correct guidance that misled the public about what the law permits. "It seems to me that a case involving a court order like the one at issue here — which left the state election rule untouched — does not necessarily fall within the ambit of Purcell and its concern about federal courts 'changing the election rules' at the last minute," she wrote. "I respectfully dissent because — even, and perhaps especially, when an election is looming — I would not disturb a clearly justifiable federal-court order issued to ensure that the public receives accurate information about a state's electoral processes." Lawyers for the plaintiffs said the ruling was "injecting confusion into the election — precisely what the Purcell principle is supposed to prevent — and authorizing an unconstitutional policy that will deprive young voters of their right to vote."
New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella praised the decision. "New Hampshire has a responsibility to protect the integrity of its elections and ensure that election laws are applied as written," he said, calling it "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 stay remains in effect while the case proceeds in the First Circuit and through any petition asking the Supreme Court to decide the merits; it ends automatically if the Court refuses review. The ruling lands in a state where voters will also fill the open U.S. Senate seat of retiring Sen. Jeanne Shaheen on November 3.