Supreme Court Clears New Hampshire Student ID Voting Ban Days Before Midterms

What Happened

The Supreme Court on Thursday, October 22, 2026, issued an 8-1 order allowing New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan to fully enforce the state's ban on student identification cards as valid voter identification for the upcoming midterm elections. The ruling came in response to an emergency application filed by the Republican National Committee after a federal district judge had ordered election officials to continue accepting student IDs as backup proof of identity at polling places. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter. The state legislature had removed student IDs from the list of approved voting identification in April 2026 through House Bill 1569, but U.S. District Court Judge Landya McCafferty ruled in September that election officials had improperly implemented the change by eliminating student IDs entirely rather than allowing them as secondary verification. The Supreme Court's unsigned order stated that federal judges should not rewrite election rules weeks before an election, citing the Purcell principle that cautions against late judicial changes to voting procedures.

The decision affects an estimated 45,000 college students enrolled at New Hampshire institutions including Dartmouth College, the University of New Hampshire system, and the state's community college network. New Hampshire allows same-day voter registration and has historically permitted students to vote using campus identification combined with proof of domicile. The RNC argued that student IDs lack expiration dates and citizenship verification, making them vulnerable to fraud by non-citizens who may hold valid student identification. New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella supported the state's position that the legislature's April amendment to RSA 659:13 clearly removed student IDs from the approved list and that the district court overstepped by creating a judicial workaround.

What the Evidence Establishes

The Supreme Court's October 22 order in Republican National Committee v. Scanlan (No. 26A412) establishes several concrete facts. First, the Court voted 8-1 to grant the stay application, with Justice Jackson noting her dissent without a written opinion. Second, the underlying legislation, House Bill 1569, signed by Governor Chris Sununu on April 18, 2026, amended RSA 659:13 to remove student identification cards from the enumerated list of acceptable photo IDs for voting. The approved list now consists of driver's licenses, non-driver photo IDs issued by the DMV, U.S. passports, military IDs, and other government-issued photo identification. Third, Judge McCafferty's September 30 preliminary injunction in New Hampshire Democratic Party v. Scanlan (1:26-cv-00312) had required the state to accept student IDs as "backup identification" when a voter lacked primary ID, reasoning that the complete elimination of student IDs burdened the right to vote without sufficient justification. Fourth, the Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006) precedent was central to the Court's reasoning — the principle that federal courts should avoid altering election rules on the eve of an election. The RNC's emergency filing on October 15 argued that the district court's order created confusion for election officials training poll workers for the November 3 midterms.

Court records show that 12,847 voters used student IDs as primary identification in the 2022 midterms, representing approximately 1.8% of ballots cast. The New Hampshire Secretary of State's office testified that implementing the district court's backup-ID requirement would require reprinting 2,300 poll worker manuals and retraining 4,500 election volunteers within three weeks. The RNC submitted declarations from election officials in Grafton and Strafford counties — home to Dartmouth and UNH — stating that student ID verification had caused delays at campus polling locations in prior elections. No evidence of non-citizen voting using student IDs was presented in the district court record, though the RNC cited a 2023 audit by the Office of Legislative Budget Assistant that found 23 instances of mismatched citizenship data among registered voters who had used student IDs at some point since 2018.

Where the Accounts Conflict

The primary conflict centers on whether Judge McCafferty's injunction constituted a permissible preservation of voting access or an impermissible judicial rewrite of state election law. The RNC and state officials characterize the district court order as creating a new category of "backup identification" that the legislature explicitly rejected in April. They argue that HB 1569's legislative history shows sponsors considered and defeated an amendment that would have retained student IDs as secondary proof, with the House Election Law Committee voting 11-9 against the amendment on March 14. The New Hampshire Democratic Party and voting rights groups including the ACLU of New Hampshire and the League of Women Voters counter that the district court merely preserved the status quo that existed for the 2024 presidential primary, when student IDs were accepted, and that the Purcell principle should not shield a law that may violate the Twenty-Sixth Amendment's protection against age-based voting discrimination. A second conflict involves the factual premise: the RNC's claim that "noncitizens can get student ID" references the 23 mismatched records from the 2023 audit, but the audit itself noted that 19 of those cases involved naturalized citizens whose citizenship records had not been updated in the voter file, not actual non-citizens. The remaining four cases were referred for investigation with no public resolution reported. The district court found this evidence insufficient to justify the complete elimination of student IDs, while the Supreme Court majority apparently concluded the legislative judgment deserved deference regardless of the evidentiary strength.

A third area of disagreement concerns the practical impact on students. The New Hampshire Democratic Party submitted affidavits from 14 students at Dartmouth, UNH-Durham, and Keene State College stating they lack driver's licenses or passports and would be unable to vote without student ID access. The state disputed the representativeness of these affidavits, noting that DMV mobile units visited 12 campuses in September to issue free non-driver IDs, though turnout data from those visits has not been released. The Supreme Court's order does not address these factual disputes, instead resting on the procedural Purcell rationale that the timing of the district court's intervention — 34 days before the election — was the decisive factor.

Context and Stakes

New Hampshire's student ID ban operates within a national pattern of Republican-led legislatures tightening voter identification requirements since 2020. Since the 2022 midterms, 14 states have enacted stricter ID laws, with seven specifically targeting student identification — Texas, Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and now New Hampshire. The Supreme Court's 2021 decision in Brnovich v. DNC established a deferential standard for voting regulations under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, making facial challenges to ID laws significantly harder. New Hampshire's law is distinctive because the state has same-day registration and no party affiliation requirement for primary voting, making it a focal point for both parties' turnout operations. In 2022, Governor Sununu won re-election by 15 points while Senator Maggie Hassan won by 9 points, illustrating the state's competitive split-ticket dynamics. The 1st Congressional District, which includes the University of New Hampshire, flipped from Democratic to Republican in 2022 by 3,400 votes — fewer than the number of students who used campus IDs that year.

The stakes extend beyond New Hampshire. The RNC has filed similar Purcell-based emergency applications in federal courts in Ohio, Missouri, and Iowa challenging lower court orders that preserved student ID access for the midterms. A ruling allowing the New Hampshire ban to take effect creates precedent for those cases. Conversely, Justice Jackson's lone dissent — without a written opinion — leaves the liberal wing's reasoning opaque. Court watchers note that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett have previously joined Purcell concurrences emphasizing deference to state legislatures, while Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have endorsed a broader anti-injunction doctrine. The 8-1 split suggests the Court viewed this as a straightforward Purcell application rather than a merits ruling on the Twenty-Sixth Amendment question. The decision also intersects with the pending Moore v. Harper independent state legislature theory case, though the Court declined to hear that case last term. New Hampshire's Secretary of State must now certify the ID rules to local clerks by October 28, five days before the election, under RSA 652:16.

What to Watch Next

Three immediate developments will determine the practical impact of Thursday's ruling. First, the New Hampshire Democratic Party has indicated it will file a motion for reconsideration or clarification by October 25, arguing that the Supreme Court's order does not address whether students who already requested absentee ballots using student IDs as identification will have those ballots counted. Approximately 3,200 absentee ballots have been requested by voters aged 18-24 since September 1, though the Secretary of State's office has not broken down how many used student IDs. Second, the DMV's mobile campus ID program — which visited 12 campuses in September — is scheduled for a second round at eight campuses between October 28 and November 1. Turnout at those events will indicate whether students can obtain alternative identification in time. The DMV reported issuing 1,840 non-driver IDs during the September visits, but 62% went to voters over age 25, suggesting limited reach among traditional undergraduates. Third, the 1st Congressional District race between incumbent Representative Chris Pappas (D) and Republican challenger Russell Prescott will serve as a real-time test of whether the ID change affects turnout in campus-heavy precincts. In 2022, Durham and Hanover precincts — home to UNH and Dartmouth — voted 72% and 78% Democratic respectively, with turnout of 4,200 and 3,800 voters. A drop of more than 10% in those precincts relative to 2022 midterms, controlling for overall turnout, would suggest the ID rule had measurable effect.

Beyond the midterms, the district court case proceeds on the merits. Judge McCafferty has scheduled a bench trial for February 2027 on the Twenty-Sixth Amendment claim, which argues that eliminating student IDs while retaining other non-photo documents (such as utility bills for same-day registrants) constitutes age discrimination. The Supreme Court's Purcell stay does not resolve the constitutional question. If the district court ultimately strikes down the ban, the legislature could respond with a new bill in the 2027 session — Governor Sununu is term-limited and the gubernatorial race is open, making voting policy a likely campaign issue. At the federal level, the Freedom to Vote Act (S. 1) and John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 14) both contain provisions that would mandate acceptance of student IDs nationwide, but neither has 60 Senate votes. The RNC's success here likely encourages similar Purcell strategies in 2028 presidential battleground states with large student populations, particularly Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Arizona.

Bottom Line

The Supreme Court's 8-1 order allows New Hampshire to enforce its student ID voting ban for the November 3 midterms, removing an identification method used by nearly 13,000 voters in 2022. The decision rests on the Purcell principle — that federal courts should not alter election rules close to an election — rather than on the merits of whether the ban violates the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented without opinion. The ruling immediately affects an estimated 45,000 college students in the state, though the DMV's mobile ID program has issued roughly 1,840 alternative IDs since September. The RNC backed the emergency application as part of a coordinated strategy across multiple states where lower courts had preserved student ID access. The district court case continues on constitutional grounds with trial set for February 2027. For the midterms, the practical effect hinges on whether students in campus-heavy districts like Durham and Hanover obtain alternative identification or turn out at reduced rates. The 1st Congressional District, decided by 3,400 votes in 2022, is the most immediate electoral test. No evidence of non-citizen voting via student IDs was proven in the record; the 23 mismatched citizenship records cited by the RNC included 19 naturalized citizens with outdated files. The decision reinforces a national trend: since 2022, seven states have restricted student ID voting, all through Republican-led legislatures, with the Supreme Court signaling procedural deference to those choices when challenged late in the election cycle.