The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on October 22 that New Hampshire may enforce its ban on the use of student identification cards as acceptable voter ID at upcoming elections, supporting the state’s efforts to tighten voting regulations. This decision allows New Hampshire to prohibit voters from presenting student IDs as proof of identity at the polls beginning next month.
The ruling came after New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan, a Republican, requested the court’s intervention to pause a lower federal court order that had permitted student IDs to be accepted on a case-by-case basis if a voter lacks a government-issued photo ID. Scanlan argued that the lower court’s October 2 decision caused uncertainty in election procedures just weeks before the midterm elections and misinterpreted state law.
New Hampshire is among several states controlled by Republicans that have enacted laws disallowing student identification cards as valid voter identification. The measure has been contested by voting rights advocates, who claim it unfairly discriminates against younger voters and imposes a burdensome restriction on their right to vote. A coalition focused on electoral access argued that state officials failed to show any specific concerns about the security or integrity of student IDs, which they say are similar to other forms of non-governmental identification allowed under the state’s “safety-valve” provision.
The federal judge overseeing the case refrained from fully blocking enforcement of the law but emphasized that poll workers retain discretion to accept or reject student IDs individually. The judge noted that the new restriction had already prevented at least one student from voting and warned it could impact other young voters who might not possess government-issued IDs that are automatically accepted at the polls.
The Supreme Court’s brief, unsigned opinion cited precedent discouraging last-minute alterations to election rules close to voting day. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, stating that the lower court had not changed the rules but rather corrected a misinterpretation by the state, and she argued that the federal order was justified to provide voters with accurate information about electoral procedures before the election.
New Hampshire’s upcoming U.S. Senate race, decided in the midterm elections, remains a critical contest for control of the Senate, heightening the significance of the state’s voting regulations and the Supreme Court’s decision. The Republican National Committee supported New Hampshire’s appeal to the high court.