New Hampshire asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 15 to put a student voter ID ruling on hold before the Nov. 3 election.
At issue is how voters without an accepted photo ID can prove who they are. A federal judge ruled that election officials may consider a student ID along with other evidence when someone registers to vote or asks for a ballot. A student card does not automatically qualify someone to receive a ballot.
Secretary of State David Scanlan and Attorney General John Formella want the Supreme Court to pause that ruling while the state appeals. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has asked the Coalition for Open Democracy, the group that sued the state, to respond by 11 a.m. Eastern Oct. 19. The court's docket listed no decision on the request as of Oct. 16.
What the ruling means for voters
The case grew out of House Bill 323, which removed student IDs from the list of identification election officials must accept when handing out a ballot. U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante left that law in place.
He drew a line, however, at an April 23 instruction from Scanlan's office telling officials they could not consider student IDs at all. Other parts of state law allow officials to review reliable evidence of identity when a voter lacks one of the listed IDs. HB 323 did not change the separate voter registration law.
Under Laplante's ruling, officials may consider a student card together with other evidence to decide whether a person is who they say they are. Voters still have to meet the registration requirements for age, citizenship and where they live.
Laplante ordered the state to explain that distinction to election officials. His decision is temporary while the lawsuit continues.
Why the state wants it stopped
In their request to the Supreme Court, state lawyers argue that changing instructions weeks before the election could confuse voters and poll workers. They point to months of training, updated manuals and polling-place posters based on the state's earlier instructions.
They cite the Supreme Court's warnings against federal judges changing election rules close to an election and argue that the state would be harmed if the order stays in place during its appeal.
Laplante rejected the request to pause his order Oct. 7. He said his ruling removed a barrier for voters without changing ballots or voting procedures. The First Circuit, the federal appeals court, also denied a pause Oct. 14. Judge Dunlap would have granted it.
The coalition's lawyers welcomed the judge's ruling in an Oct. 4 statement and said they would keep trying to overturn HB 323.
The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the judge's order should remain in place during the appeal. It has not agreed to hear a full appeal of the lawsuit.