The US Supreme Court on Thursday allowed New Hampshire to limit the use of student ID cards to serve as a valid form of ID to receive a ballot. New Hampshire HB 323, which went into effect in June 2026, requires a government-issued ID to be presented to receive a ballot.

In an unsigned order, the court quoted the Purcell principle, from Purcell v. Gonzalez, which emphasized that “[c]ourt orders affecting elections, especially conflicting orders, can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.” Purcell weighed the imminent election against the constitutionality of preliminary injunctions pausing voting regulations. 

The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire granted a partial preliminary injunction, noting that there is no likelihood that HB 323 is unconstitutional. However, it did find that a directive issued by the New Hampshire secretary is unlikely to pass constitutional scrutiny. The directive stated that student IDs could not be used for “any purpose at all.” However, New Hampshire Voting Requirements (RSA 654:12(d)(4)) allow “any other evidence that reasonably establishes that it is more likely than not that the person is who they claim to be.”

The Coalition of Open Democracy claims that HB 323 is unconstitutional because it infringes on young people’s right to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Following the district court’s ruling, New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan stated, “The court’s interpretation further creates a significant risk of unequal treatment of voters across the state because supervisors in each town and ward across the state will have to decide on a case-by-case basis whether a particular student identification card ‘along with other available evidence’ reasonably proves the voter’s identity.”