The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed New Hampshire to ban student ID cards as a means of voter identification ahead of the November midterm elections.
In a brief, unsigned order, the justices sided with an appeal supported by the Republican National Committee (RNC) on the issue. They cited a longstanding rule that lower federal courts should not “change election rules” too close to Election Day.
The challenge stemmed from a directive issued earlier this year by New Hampshire state officials that student ID cards could not be used as a means of identification when voting at the polls, even as a backup under what is known as “safety valve” identification.
New Hampshire has required voters to show ID to vote since 2012, but earlier this year the state’s Republican governor, Kelly Ayotte, signed a law toughening the rules by removing student IDs from the list of standard voter ID forms.
Voting rights advocates had challenged the directive, arguing it would disenfranchise young voters, who might not have access to a driver’s license or passport. But Republicans insisted the directive was necessary to combat voter fraud.
A lower court judge blocked the directive, leading state officials to ask the Supreme Court to intervene.
The dispute over voter ID requirements highlights a national debate sparked by Donald Trump and other prominent Republicans who argue that voter ID laws are necessary to prevent mass voter fraud.
Although there is little evidence that voter fraud affects the outcome of elections, the president and his allies used the speech to convince conservative lawmakers and voters to support initiatives requiring ID in elections.
Voting rights advocates say voter ID laws can disenfranchise low-income voters who may not be able to afford government-issued ID, voters who may not have access to official documents, such as a birth certificate, to obtain ID, rural voters who may not be able to travel to a location with ID services and much more.
after newsletter promotion
Although the Supreme Court justices did not reveal how they voted on the issue, Ketanji Brown Jackson, a member of the court’s liberal wing, disagreed with the majority.
Jackson argued that the lower court did not err in blocking the directive because the lower court judge was asking state officials to correct directives that “could mislead voters and local election workers.”
Gn headline
