The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for New Hampshire to implement its ban on voters using student IDs to prove their identity when obtaining a ballot.
The one-page order, unsigned and accompanied by a two-page dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, ended a monthslong legal fight over how the state informs voters about the change in election law.
The ruling pointed to the Purcell principle, which advises against altering voting guidance on the eve of an election.
“The District Court did not point to anything that would justify deviating from that principle,” the order says.
Trending
New Hampshire’s ban on using student IDs went into effect in June, but state officials went to the Supreme Court after a federal judge ruled that the state must update its guidance about the law to local election officials.
On Oct. 2, the federal judge ruled that while student IDs are not valid to establish voter identity, the state needed to clarify that local election officials may consider the documents, “along with other available evidence, when determining voter identity.”
State officials told the Supreme Court on Oct. 15 that the change would be “a complete reversal of prior guidance and training,” and inconsistent with documents used by election officials for reference on Election Day.
“If the injunction is not stayed, there is a substantial risk of inconsistent application of identity-verification procedures,” the state officials told the Supreme Court.
And the misunderstanding could mean “there is substantial risk that voters could show up at the polls with only their student IDs in-hand,” the state officials said.
Attorneys for the Coalition for Open Democracy, a voting rights group, had told the Supreme Court that the ruling didn’t change the law, just the guidance that was reissued quickly after the Oct. 2 ruling.
The secretary of state’s website said prior to the Supreme Court ruling that “even though student identification cards are not expressly valid to prove voter identity, pursuant to court order they may be considered along with other available evidence when determining if a voter has proven their identity when registering to vote.”
“His website has told voters since the October 2 Order that supervisors may consider a student ID along with other evidence,” the voters’ filing says. “The Secretary’s revised guidance is now the status quo. A stay wouldn’t preserve it. It would reverse the rules for a second time in a month.”
In her dissent, Jackson says the Purcell principle does not seem to apply in this case, saying the lower court made a “targeted order, requiring only that the relevant government official conform his public statements to the letter of state law.” The district court’s injunction was meant to “address alleged misinformation, not to change the law,” she added.
“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,” Jackson wrote.
Author
