The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed New Hampshire officials to limit when voters may use a student ID to receive a ballot, agreeing that a lower court ruling that blocked enforcement of the policy was too close to Election Day.
The unsigned order was a win for New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan, a Republican, and the Republican National Committee, which had supported Scanlan in the fight.
The court did not provide a vote count, though it did provide a brief explanation, invoking the “Purcell principle” that warns against last-minute decisions from courts that change election rules.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, wrote a dissent questioning the application of the Purcell doctrine in the case.
New Hampshire voters will fill an open Senate seat in November to replace the retiring Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. A recent CNN poll found that Democrats enjoy a 31 percentage point advantage over Republicans among younger adults.
Dispute over student IDs and voter identification
Lower federal courts allowed the state to enforce the central prohibition of a law enacted by the state legislature this spring. Under that law, student IDs on their own may no longer be used to verify a voter’s identity.
But the state law also includes a “safety valve” that allows voters to attempt to prove their identity through other means and the fight at the Supreme Court was about whether, in those circumstances, student IDs could be used as one factor, along with other evidence, to help officials identify people requesting a ballot.
New Hampshire officials interpreted the new state law as shutting off the ability to use student IDs even in those circumstances. A voting rights group called Coalition for Open Democracy sued. A federal district court blocked enforcement of that interpretation on October 2.
Justice Jackson questions application of election doctrine
In her dissent, Jackson questioned whether it made sense to apply the Purcell doctrine to New Hampshire’s interpretation of the law. In this case, she said, the lower court didn’t change anything about the law the state enacted but rather only changed the state’s interpretation of the law.
“This so-called ‘Purcell principle’ arose in a particular context, and this court has yet to fully define its limits,” Jackson wrote, echoing a question about the doctrine’s lack of definition that critics have raised.
“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.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case criticized the ruling in a statement Thursday, saying it is “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.”
The Supreme Court has been called on to address several high-profile election disputes heading into next month’s midterms, most notably a decision in mid-September rejecting President Donald Trump’s proposal to change how mail ballots are sent to voters across the country.
Source: CNN
Also Read: Cyprus offers businesses up to €20,000 to cut food waste in 2027
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel
