Supreme Court Lets New Hampshire Keep Student IDs Out of the Polls on Nov. 3. Only Justice Jackson Dissented.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday let New Hampshire enforce its ban on student IDs at the polls for the Nov. 3 election. The justices granted an emergency request from New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan, a Republican, and froze a federal judge's order that would have let poll workers accept a college ID as backup proof of who a voter is. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only justice to dissent, according to the order.

The order was short and unsigned. "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. "Here, the District Court did not point to anything that would justify deviating from that principle," per the Supreme Court.

The loophole the state closed

Earlier this year New Hampshire passed a law, signed by Gov. Kelly Ayotte, that took student IDs off the list of identification election officials accept when someone asks for a ballot, NBC News reported. Republican state Rep. Ross Berry, a co-sponsor, explained why. "Student IDs have no address verification," he wrote. "No citizenship check. No security features. They were the weakest link in our election integrity framework, and now that loophole is closed," The Federalist reported.

Scanlan then told voters and local election workers that student IDs could not be used for any purpose when getting a ballot, Courthouse News reported.

Then a left-leaning group, the Coalition for Open Democracy, sued, and U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante left the law itself standing. But on Oct. 2 he blocked Scanlan's guidance, saying election officials could still weigh a student ID under a separate catch-all rule that lets voters prove identity with "any other evidence" that they are probably who they say they are, NBC reported. The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals refused to pause that order in a 2-1 vote on Oct. 14, according to The Federalist, and Scanlan went to the Supreme Court the next day, the docket shows. It was a bit like taking a card off the bouncer's list, then having a judge tell him he can still wave it through if he squints.

Why the timing mattered

Scanlan warned the justices that the fine print would get lost. "The district court's disagreement with the secretary's interpretation of state law is nuanced, and the press and public could very easily misunderstand what the district court actually said," he wrote. "There is substantial risk that voters could show up at the polls with only their student IDs in hand. But even under the district court's interpretation, that is not the law," per Courthouse News.

The Republican National Committee backed New Hampshire with a brief of its own. "Democrats and their allies waited 130 days to attack voter ID, and we're not letting them get away with it," RNC Chairman Joe Gruters said. The party noted that Granite State voters had already voted under these rules in the September primary, the RNC said.

Jackson stood alone

Jackson argued the judge had not changed any rule, only corrected what she called a misleading summary of the law. "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," she wrote, in her dissent. None of the other eight justices joined her.

The stakes are real. New Hampshire's ballot includes one of the most watched Senate races in the country, with Republican former Sen. John E. Sununu facing Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas for the seat Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen is leaving, NBC reported.

The stay holds while the case moves through the 1st Circuit and any petition back to the Supreme Court, the order says. For Nov. 3, the rule in New Hampshire is simple: bring a real ID.