Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,
The Supreme Court sided with New Hampshire Republicans, allowing officials to stop accepting student ID cards as valid proof of identity for voting.
The high court cited the Purcell principle, which guards against changes to election rules close to Election Day.
The court’s decision took the form of an unsigned opinion issued late on Oct. 22.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
The Supreme Court here applied the so-called Purcell principle against last-minute judicially ordered changes to election rules.
A state law known as HB 323 forbids the use of student IDs as valid proof of identity when voting. New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan issued guidance directing election clerks not to accept student IDs as a backup form of identification.
A group called the Coalition for Open Democracy challenged both the state law and the directive in federal court. The group’s attorneys argued that the law ran afoul of both the U.S. and New Hampshire constitutions and discriminated against young voters on the basis of age. They also argued Scanlan exceeded his lawful powers as secretary of state.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante denied the group’s request to bar enforcement of HB 323, but temporarily blocked Scanlan from advising election clerks that student IDs were never acceptable. Days later, the judge extended his order to cover public statements to that effect made by Scanlan. Together, the two orders meant clerks had to keep treating a student ID card as possible backup proof.
In its emergency application to the Supreme Court, the state argued that the district court’s order came a mere 32 days before the general election, and that this goes against the Supreme Court’s rulings, which have repeatedly held that lower federal courts should not “intervene in state election procedures in the lead up to an election.”
The justices stayed Laplante’s orders.
“This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election,” the justices wrote, citing a 2020 precedent. “Here, the District Court did not point to anything that would justify deviating from that principle.”
In her dissent, Jackson said Laplante had determined that it was necessary to correct Scanlan’s “publicized misstatement about what New Hampshire’s election rules require.”
The injunction issued by the district court, Jackson said, “was reasonably designed to address alleged misinformation, not to change the law.”
“An injunction to prohibit that conduct does not contribute to public confusion, it prevents that very problem,” she said. “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.”
New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella hailed the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“New Hampshire has a responsibility to protect the integrity of its elections and ensure that election laws are applied as written,” he said in a statement.
“The Supreme Court’s decision is 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 Coalition for Open Democracy criticized the high court’s new ruling, calling it “wrong” and a misinterpretation of the Purcell principle.
“We applaud Justice Jackson for her dissent, in which she stands for the Constitution, the right to vote, and a rational application of Purcell,” the group said in a statement.
“We will continue to vigorously litigate this case in the defense of the fundamental right to vote of young voters across New Hampshire.”
The Supreme Court’s order remains in effect through the Nov. 3 general election, while the case continues on appeal in the lower courts.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 10/23/2026 – 12:55
