Less than two weeks before Election Day, the Supreme Court sided with New Hampshire. On Thursday, the justices let the state enforce its New Hampshire student ID rule for the Nov. 3 midterms. In short, a college ID card will not get anyone a ballot in the Granite State this fall.
The order was brief and unsigned. Even so, it carries real weight in a state with a closely watched Senate race. Here is what happened, how the fight started, what each side argues, and why it matters.
What the Court Decided on the New Hampshire Student ID Rule
The justices granted an emergency request from New Hampshire, which had the backing of the Republican National Committee, NBC News reported. As a result, a federal judge’s Oct. 2 order is on hold while the case moves through the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Court leaned on a long-standing principle. “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, according to Courthouse News Service. It added that the district court “did not point to anything that would justify deviating from that principle.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only dissenter. She argued the lower court had simply ordered the state to describe its own law accurately. “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,” she wrote.
How the Fight Over Student IDs Started
Earlier this year, New Hampshire lawmakers passed HB 323, titled “requiring the presentation of a government-issued photographic means of identification in order to vote.” The law removed student IDs from the list of photo IDs voters can show to get a ballot. Secretary of State David Scanlan, a Republican, said the bill was “clearly intended to prohibit the use of student identification cards for voting,” according to a statement filed in the Supreme Court case record.
Lawmakers then passed a second bill, SB 223, which Scanlan said was meant to “reinforce and strengthen” that ban. It changed the law to say “only the following forms of identification” satisfy the ID requirement.
Scanlan then issued guidance saying student IDs could not be used for any purpose when seeking a ballot. However, a voting rights group, the Coalition for Open Democracy, sued. It argued the law burdened the right to vote and discriminated against young voters, NBC reported.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante declined to block the law itself. Then, on Oct. 2, he put Scanlan’s guidance on hold. He said the guidance went further than the law, which only barred student IDs as a primary form of ID.
The “Safety Valve” at the Center of the Case
The real fight was over one sentence of state law. It lets voters without a listed ID prove who they are with “any other evidence that reasonably establishes that it is more likely than not that the person is who they claim to be.” Under Laplante’s ruling, election officials could still weigh a student ID as part of that backup evidence.
Scanlan read the law differently. He argued that if a student ID could not get you a ballot, it made no sense for it to count as proof of identity under the backup rule. Otherwise, he said, a person could register with a student ID on Election Day “but not be allowed to obtain a ballot and vote after registering.” The 1st Circuit refused to pause the judge’s ruling, so the state went to the Supreme Court.
What Each Side Argued at the Supreme Court
Scanlan told the justices that re-educating local officials and the public this close to the election “is practically impossible and risks voter confusion and inconsistent application of law, if not voter disenfranchisement,” Bloomberg Law reported. He warned there was “substantial risk that voters could show up at the polls with only their student IDs in hand.”
The coalition argued the opposite. It said the secretary’s own website had told voters since Oct. 2 that supervisors may consider student IDs. “A stay would protect no one,” the group wrote. “It would turn away the voters who arrive on November 3 with the evidence the secretary’s website told them to bring.”
After the ruling, the group’s attorney, Bryan Sells, said the order would inject confusion into the election, “precisely what the Purcell principle is supposed to prevent.” State Attorney General John Formella praised the decision, saying New Hampshire has “a responsibility to protect the integrity of its elections and ensure that election laws are applied as written.”
Why the New Hampshire Student ID Order Matters in November
New Hampshire’s ballot includes one of the most closely watched Senate races in the country. Republican former Sen. John E. Sununu faces Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas for the seat held by retiring Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, NBC News reported.
Bloomberg Law noted that polls show young voters heavily favoring Democrats. For that reason, the outlet said the order could give Republicans a modest boost as they try to flip the seat. It also noted that recent polls have shown Pappas ahead.
Critics will call this voter suppression. Yet the law still offers a path for people without a standard ID through that same “any other evidence” provision. A driver’s license, passport or other government photo ID still works, and the backup rule still exists for those who lack one.
The Conservative Take
This is a win for clear rules and for voters. Changing election procedures a month before people vote invites confusion, and the Court has said so for years. Scanlan made the same point when he warned about voters arriving “with only their student IDs in hand.”
Moreover, voter ID is about trust. A student ID card is easy to get and often lacks the checks behind a driver’s license or passport. Most Americans show a government ID to board a plane or pick up a prescription. Asking for one to choose a U.S. senator is not a burden. It is common sense.
Finally, notice who wrote this law. New Hampshire’s elected legislature did, not a court. States run their own elections, and federal judges should be slow to rewrite those rules at the last minute. That principle should apply no matter which party it helps.
To be fair, Justice Jackson raised a real point. Officials should describe the law accurately, and a secretary of state should not stretch a statute beyond its text. The right answer is for the 1st Circuit to settle that question on the merits after the election, not for a district court to change the rules mid-game.
What to Watch Next
- The 1st Circuit. The stay lasts while the appeal is pending, so the court of appeals will decide the guidance question on the merits.
- Election Day at the polls. Whether voters who bring only a student ID are turned away in significant numbers, and how supervisors handle them.
- Other states. Whether more legislatures follow New Hampshire in dropping student IDs from voter ID lists.
For more on the midterms, follow our coverage in Politics.
Update (November 2026)
Added November 2026. Pappas won the Senate race on Nov. 3, defeating Sununu and keeping the seat in Democratic hands, the Associated Press reported. Sununu conceded shortly after polls closed, WMUR reported. Whatever effect the student ID order had, it did not come close to deciding this race. The case over Scanlan’s guidance remains before the 1st Circuit. For another late-October fight over election rules, see our coverage of the California election subpoenas.
Sources
- NBC News: Supreme Court says New Hampshire student IDs can’t be used to vote in November
- Courthouse News Service: Supreme Court signs off on GOP officials’ student ID voting ban in New Hampshire
- Bloomberg Law: Supreme Court backs Republicans on New Hampshire voter IDs
- Supreme Court of the United States: Scanlan v. Coalition for Open Democracy, No. 26A512, supplemental appendix
- AP News: Democrat Chris Pappas wins New Hampshire Senate race over John E. Sununu
- WMUR: Pappas elected to US Senate as Sununu concedes
