The Supreme Court on Thursday, October 22, 2026, cleared the way for New Hampshire to enforce a directive that bars election officials from considering student ID cards when verifying a voter's identity. In a brief, unsigned order, the justices stayed a lower court ruling that had partially blocked a state directive related to the law, citing the Purcell principle that federal courts should generally not alter election rules shortly before an election. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole recorded dissenter.
The law, House Bill 323, was passed by the New Hampshire legislature in April and went into effect in June 2026. It requires voters to present government-issued identification to receive a ballot. The Coalition for Open Democracy, a nonprofit group, challenged the law in federal court, arguing that it unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote and was intended to discriminate against young voters in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante previously declined to block the core provision of HB 323 that removed student IDs from the list of expressly valid forms of identification. However, Laplante barred the state from enforcing a directive issued by Secretary of State David Scanlan that prohibited election officials from considering student IDs at all, even under a "safety-valve" provision that allows voters without qualifying photo ID to establish their identity through other evidence. Scanlan appealed to the Supreme Court after the 1st Circuit declined to pause the order, arguing that changing rules so close to the election would cause confusion and administrative difficulty.
The decision reinforces the Purcell principle, a legal precedent stating that federal courts should ordinarily avoid changing election rules on the eve of an election. For New Hampshire election officials, this means the state can proceed with its implementation plans, which included updating polling place posters, running radio ads, and publishing student voting guides based on the exclusion of student IDs.
What happens next: The Supreme Court's stay remains in place while the state’s appeal of Judge Laplante's ruling continues in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. This ensures the restrictions on student IDs will be in effect for the upcoming 2026 elections. The Coalition for Open Democracy's broader constitutional challenge to HB 323 remains pending in the court system.