Supreme Court Lets New Hampshire Enforce Student ID Voting Limits for Nov. 3
In an unsigned order Thursday, the justices paused a federal judge's injunction that had let poll workers weigh a student ID as backup evidence of a voter's identity. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only justice to note a dissent. The 2026 law removing student IDs from the list of accepted IDs was never blocked.
By Rachel Dunmore, Washington Correspondent
Published · 6 min read
The Overview
The facts, straight
The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for New Hampshire to enforce, for the Nov. 3 election, its guidance barring student IDs as proof of a voter's identity. In an unsigned order in Scanlan v. Coalition for Open Democracy, the Court stayed two preliminary-injunction orders, dated Oct. 2 and Oct. 5, from U.S. District Judge Joseph N. Laplante. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only justice to note a dissent (docket).
What the Court said. The order opens with a quote: "This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election." The quote comes from the Court's 2020 decision in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee. It then says the district court "did not point to anything that would justify deviating from that principle," citing last month's decision in People Not Politicians v. Onder. The stay lasts while the state appeals to the First Circuit and through any Supreme Court review. The order does not decide whether the guidance is lawful.
What was, and wasn't, blocked. HB 323, signed April 3 and effective June 2, struck student IDs from the list of photo IDs that automatically satisfy the ballot requirement. Judge Laplante declined to block the law. What he blocked was the Secretary of State's April guidance, which advised that "student IDs cannot be used as proof of ID when registering to vote, requesting an absentee ballot, or checking in to vote in an election." He wrote that this went "further, barring election officials from considering student IDs even as evidence under the safety-valve provision." That provision lets a voter without qualifying photo ID prove identity by other means.
His Oct. 5 order told the Secretary to issue guidance that "election officials may consider them, along with other available evidence, when determining voter identity." The Secretary's Election Day page still carried that court-ordered language Thursday evening.
How it got here.
- Aug. 11: the Coalition for Open Democracy sued (docket).
- Before the Sept. 8 primary: Judge Laplante denied relief, citing Purcell.
- Oct. 2 and Oct. 5: he granted the partial injunction for the general election.
- Oct. 7: he refused to stay it.
- Oct. 14: a First Circuit panel denied a stay 2-1, with Judge Dunlap saying he would have granted it.
- Oct. 15: Secretary of State David Scanlan and Attorney General John Formella filed their emergency application.
- Oct. 16: the Republican National Committee filed a brief supporting the stay.
The dissent. Jackson wrote that a court order "which left the state election rule untouched" does not necessarily fall under Purcell v. Gonzalez, the 2006 case behind the principle. She wrote that the district court's injunction "was reasonably designed to address alleged misinformation, not to change the law," and that such an injunction "does not contribute to public confusion, it prevents that very problem."
The ruling lands 12 days before an election that includes New Hampshire's open U.S. Senate seat. Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas and Republican former Sen. John E. Sununu are running to replace the retiring Sen. Jeanne Shaheen.
What the Left Says
The progressive and Democratic case
Lawyers for the Coalition for Open Democracy called the order "wrong" in a statement posted by Free Speech For People. They said it blocks "an injunction that has now been in place for almost three weeks, injecting confusion into the election—precisely what the Purcell principle is supposed to prevent—and authorizing an unconstitutional policy that will deprive young voters of their right to vote." They said they "applaud Justice Jackson for her dissent" and will keep litigating.
In its Supreme Court response, the coalition argued that "No statute is enjoined." It said the Secretary had already posted revised guidance, so a stay "would reverse the rules for a second time in a month."
Shaheen, New Hampshire's senior senator, responded on X:
Post: Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (@SenatorShaheen) on X, Oct. 22, 2026, 7:30 p.m. ET.
"With midterm elections days away, the Supreme Court just made it harder for our Granite State students to vote. I strongly disagree with this ruling and am troubled by any efforts to limit access at the ballot box."
Where Reality Likely Sits
Radio Purple's analysis
- The fight is narrow. It isn't about whether a student ID alone gets you a ballot; the Legislature settled that with HB 323, and no court blocked it. The question is whether poll workers may weigh a student ID as one piece of backup evidence when a voter has no qualifying ID. Judge Laplante noted that the deputy secretary of state testified he didn't "see any factual reason why a student ID could not be reasonable evidence" of identity. Scanlan's office reads HB 323, and a later bill it cites, SB 223, as barring that use.
- How many voters are affected is unclear. The coalition's expert estimated that about 6.56% of eligible 18-to-24-year-olds, roughly 7,747 people, lack qualifying ID. The judge noted the expert "did not estimate how many of those individuals possess student identification cards." The same expert estimated that at least 97% of all voting-eligible New Hampshire citizens already have qualifying ID.
- Both sides invoke the same principle. Each says the other is creating last-minute confusion. Jackson's dissent says correcting misinformation prevents confusion. The Court's unsigned order sided with the state's view that late changes by federal courts are the bigger risk.
- Common ground: Every party says voters and poll workers need clear, accurate rules settled before Election Day. Free photo IDs for voting are available through the DMV with a voucher from a clerk or the Secretary of State (SOS). The district court, though, found "scant evidence" that this program is "functional in practice."
- What to watch: new guidance from Scanlan's office to local officials and on its website, the First Circuit appeal, and whether the case returns to the Supreme Court after Nov. 3.
What the Right Says
The conservative and Republican case
The state's application argued that the injunction came "just 32 days before the general election." It said local officials had spent five months training on the April guidance, and that the order required a "complete reversal of prior guidance and training." The state also faulted the coalition for waiting more than four months after HB 323 was enacted to sue.
In an Oct. 6 statement, Scanlan said HB 323 "was clearly intended to prohibit the use of student identification cards for voting." He said the court's reading "defies common sense" and risks "unequal treatment of voters across the state." Under it, he said, local supervisors would decide "on a case-by-case basis" whether a student ID counts.
The RNC's amicus brief argued that the injunction would subject voters and officials "to different sets of rules between the primary and the general election."
After Thursday's order, Formella said in a release, as quoted by InDepthNH: "New Hampshire has a responsibility to protect the integrity of its elections and ensure that election laws are applied as written."
Sources & Citations
- Supreme Court of the United States, “Scanlan v. Coalition for Open Democracy, No. 26A512, order granting stay, with dissent by Justice Jackson (Oct. 22, 2026)”, October 22, 2026.
- Supreme Court of the United States, “Docket for 26A512”, October 22, 2026.
- Supreme Court of the United States (docket filing), “Emergency application to stay (New Hampshire Secretary of State and Attorney General)”, October 15, 2026.
- Supreme Court of the United States (docket filing), “Response in opposition (Coalition for Open Democracy)”, October 19, 2026.
- Supreme Court of the United States (docket filing), “Brief amicus curiae of the Republican National Committee supporting stay”, October 16, 2026.
- CourtListener (RECAP), “Coalition for Open Democracy v. NH Secretary of State, No. 1:26-cv-00647 (D.N.H.), docket”, October 22, 2026.
- U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, via CourtListener, “Order Granting Partial Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Doc. 68, Oct. 2, 2026)”, October 2, 2026.
- U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, via CourtListener, “Preliminary Injunction Order (Doc. 64, Oct. 5, 2026)”, October 5, 2026.
- U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, via CourtListener, “Order Denying Stay (Doc. 72, Oct. 7, 2026)”, October 7, 2026.
- New Hampshire General Court, “HB 323 (2026), bill status”, April 3, 2026.
- New Hampshire General Court, “HB 323, final version (Chapter 20)”, April 3, 2026.
- New Hampshire Secretary of State, “Secretary of State requests a stay of the court order on the use of student IDs (press release)”, October 6, 2026.
- New Hampshire Secretary of State, “Election Day Voting”, October 22, 2026.
- Free Speech For People, “Statement of plaintiff's counsel on the Supreme Court's order granting a stay”, October 22, 2026.
- InDepthNH, “U.S. Supreme Court Reinstates NH's Law Against Using Student IDs To Register To Vote or Get a Ballot Nov. 3”, October 22, 2026.
- X, “Sen. Jeanne Shaheen post on X”, October 22, 2026.
Positions above are attributed to the public statements and published reporting cited here. Quotations are taken from these sources; Radio Purple does not publish unattributed or invented quotes. See an error? Request a correction.
