New Hampshire asks the Supreme Court to pause the student-ID ruling; challengers oppose the exclusion
New Hampshire asks the Supreme Court to pause an injunction allowing election officials to consider student IDs with other evidence of identity. The group that sued defends the injunction and still challenges HB 323, which removed student IDs from the accepted list.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
New Hampshire asks the Supreme Court to pause an injunction allowing election officials to consider student IDs with other evidence of identity. The Coalition for Open Democracy, which brought the lawsuit, and its lawyers defend the injunction and continue challenging HB 323, the separate law removing student IDs from the list of accepted IDs.
Read the full background
On October 2, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante left HB 323 in place but blocked the Secretary of State's April 23 directive to the extent it barred election officials from considering student IDs as evidence of identity. A separate injunction order followed on October 5. Under the order, a student ID on its own is no longer expressly valid identification, but officials may consider it along with other evidence; registering still requires proof of age, citizenship and domicile. Secretary of State David Scanlan and Attorney General John Formella argue that the court misread state law and that revised instructions weeks before the election risk confusion. The First Circuit denied a stay on October 14 by a 2-1 vote. As of October 17, the Supreme Court docket (opens in a new tab) showed no ruling on their October 15 application. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson requested a response by October 19, and the Republican National Committee filed a brief supporting the stay on October 16.
Timeline
3 timeline entries on this page. Dates: October 2, 2026 to October 16, 2026
October 2026
District court distinguishes HB 323 from the broader student-ID directive
The district court granted partial preliminary relief against the instruction preventing consideration of student IDs as evidence of identity. It left HB 323's removal of student IDs from the mandatory list in place.
[01]Student-ID litigation orders attached to New Hampshire's Supreme Court application
The appendix preserves the distinction between HB 323's list of mandatory IDs and the broader directive excluding student IDs from consideration as other evidence of identity.
Student-ID litigation orders attached to New Hampshire's Supreme Court applicationAppendix: district court opinion and injunction; stay denials; First Circuit order[02]Free Speech For People
Free Speech For People and co-counsel welcome relief against the directive and say they will continue challenging HB 323 itself. The statement acknowledges that the court left that statute in place.
Plaintiff's counsel responds to the student-ID ruling · Free Speech For PeopleStatement of plaintiff's counsel, final paragraphNew Hampshire asks the Supreme Court for a stay
After the district court and the First Circuit declined to pause the injunction, Scanlan and Formella applied to the Supreme Court. Their application argues that the district court misread state law and that changing instructions weeks before the election risks confusion.
[03]New Hampshire application for a stay in Coalition for Open Democracy v. Scanlan
The state asks to pause the injunction pending appeal. It argues that new instructions shortly before the election risk confusion and that the district court misread state law.
New Hampshire application for a stay in Coalition for Open Democracy v. ScanlanApplication, introduction and arguments concerning election timing and state law[01]Student-ID litigation orders attached to New Hampshire's Supreme Court application
The appendix preserves the distinction between HB 323's list of mandatory IDs and the broader directive excluding student IDs from consideration as other evidence of identity.
Student-ID litigation orders attached to New Hampshire's Supreme Court applicationAppendix: district court opinion and injunction; stay denials; First Circuit orderSix State Signal explains what the student-ID ruling permits
Source release
James Mercer wrote in Six State Signal: "A student card does not automatically qualify someone to receive a ballot." The report explains that officials may consider the card with other evidence of identity, while separate voter-eligibility requirements remain.
[04]Six State Signal explains New Hampshire's emergency student-ID appeal
James Mercer explains that a student card may be considered with other evidence of identity, rather than automatically qualifying a voter for a ballot. He reports the October 15 application and the October 19 response deadline.
Six State Signal explains New Hampshire's emergency student-ID appealSecond body paragraph and sections on the ruling and stay request
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
The student-ID injunction should be paused because the district court misread state law and because changing identity-verification instructions weeks before the election risks confusing voters and election officials.
Sources (1)
- New Hampshire application for a stay in Coalition for Open Democracy v. ScanlanApplication, introduction and arguments concerning election timing and state law
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
11 responses. First 6 shown initially. Newest first.
David M. ScanlanNew Hampshire secretary of state, applying jointly with Attorney General John Formella through Solicitor General Anthony J. GaldieriDirectly involved Before this statement
On October 2, the district court left HB 323 in place but blocked the April 23 directive to the extent it barred officials from considering student IDs as evidence of identity. The First Circuit denied a stay on October 14.
"the district court premised relief on an incorrect interpretation of New Hampshire law. But even if the merits were “not entirely clearcut,” the Purcell principle overwhelmingly supports a stay of the district court’s order. ... This Court should stay the district court’s orders pending proceedings in the court of appeals and in this Court."
Defended or excusedCase context: New Hampshire asks the Supreme Court to pause the student-ID ruling; challengers oppose the exclusion
Full statement and sources
Scanlan and Attorney General John Formella ask the Supreme Court to pause the injunction while they appeal, arguing that the district court misread state law and that late changes to election rules risk confusion.
After the statement
The application relies on Purcell v. Gonzalez, a 2006 Supreme Court decision cautioning federal courts against changing election rules close to an election. It also asks for an immediate administrative stay while the Court considers the request.
New Hampshire application for a stay in Coalition for Open Democracy v. ScanlanApplication, introduction and arguments concerning election timing and state lawStudent-ID litigation orders attached to New Hampshire's Supreme Court applicationAppendix: district court opinion and injunction; stay denials; First Circuit orderWhy this label?
The reference point is the state's categorical exclusion of student IDs from consideration under existing identity-verification safeguards, the rule in the April 23 directive that the district court blocked on October 2. Scanlan and Formella ask the Court to stay that injunction while they appeal, arguing that it rests on "an incorrect interpretation of New Hampshire law", so we labeled the filing Defended or excused. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, since the filing disputes the court's reading of state law; it loses because the application asks to let the state keep enforcing the exclusion while the appeal proceeds.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Michael GarritySpokesperson for the New Hampshire attorney general Before this statement
The First Circuit had denied stay relief. The state then asked the Supreme Court for an emergency stay.
"The State has asked the United States Supreme Court for an emergency stay in this matter. New Hampshire has a strong interest in ensuring that its election laws are applied consistently and that local election officials have clear, workable guidance in administering elections"
Defended or excusedCase context: New Hampshire asks the Supreme Court to pause the student-ID ruling; challengers oppose the exclusion
Full statement and sources
Garrity defends seeking an emergency stay on the grounds that election officials need consistent rules and workable guidance.
After the statement
The same report quotes the district court's finding that the state identified no interest served by the April directive beyond those already served by HB 323.
State and League of Women Voters assess the student-ID injunctionStatements by Michael Garrity and Liz TentarelliWhy this label?
The reference point is the state's categorical exclusion of student IDs from consideration under existing identity-verification safeguards, the rule in the April 23 directive that the district court blocked on October 2. Garrity, speaking for the attorney general's office, says the state sought an emergency stay because it has "a strong interest in ensuring that its election laws are applied consistently" with "clear, workable guidance" for local officials. The stay would let the state enforce the exclusion while it appeals, so we labeled it Defended or excused. The defense rests on election administration rather than on the merits of student IDs. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional; it loses because the statement expresses no reservation about keeping the state's rules in force.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Liz TentarelliLeague of Women Voters of New Hampshire president Before this statement
The court blocked Scanlan's directive while leaving HB 323 in force.
"We at the League of Women Voters New Hampshire think this is a good ruling that student IDs should be considered in spite of the law passed last spring. ... It’s upsetting that this bill passed last spring ... But when it got extended by the Secretary of State to include voter registration, that was an assumption that was not spelled out in the bill"
CondemnedCase context: New Hampshire asks the Supreme Court to pause the student-ID ruling; challengers oppose the exclusion
Full statement and sources
Tentarelli calls the injunction a good ruling, says the passage of HB 323 was upsetting and says Scanlan's extension of the restriction to registration was not in the bill.
After the statement
Tentarelli says students must still prove their age, citizenship and where they live, and that the League is not arguing against those requirements.
State and League of Women Voters assess the student-ID injunctionStatements by Michael Garrity and Liz TentarelliWhy this label?
The reference point is the state's categorical exclusion of student IDs from consideration under existing identity-verification safeguards, which Secretary of State David Scanlan's April 23 directive set out. Tentarelli calls the injunction "a good ruling that student IDs should be considered in spite of the law passed last spring" and says extending the restriction to voter registration "was an assumption that was not spelled out in the bill", so we labeled it Condemned. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, since Tentarelli disputes the directive's reading of the law; it loses because the League also backs letting officials consider the cards and calls the law's passage "upsetting".
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Republican National CommitteeRepublican National Committee, through chairman Joe GrutersBefore this statement
On October 2 the district court blocked Scanlan's directive excluding student IDs from other identity-verification procedures, while leaving HB 323 in place. The state then sought a stay from the First Circuit.
"We’re standing in the way of this blatant power grab and keeping elections in the Granite State secure ... Democrats and their allies waited until the eleventh hour to launch an all-out attack on voter ID."
Defended or excusedCase context: New Hampshire asks the Supreme Court to pause the student-ID ruling; challengers oppose the exclusion
Full statement and sources
Through Joe Gruters, the RNC calls the challenge a power grab and supports keeping New Hampshire's student-ID restriction in place.
After the statement
NHJournal reports that the RNC filed an amicus brief supporting New Hampshire's position in the lawsuit.
RNC supports New Hampshire in student-ID litigationJoe Gruters statementWhy this label?
The reference point is the state's categorical exclusion of student IDs from consideration under existing identity-verification safeguards, the rule in the April 23 directive that the district court blocked on October 2. Through chairman Joe Gruters, the RNC says it is "standing in the way of this blatant power grab and keeping elections in the Granite State secure", backing the state after the October 2 ruling blocked the directive. We labeled it Defended or excused. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, since Gruters also calls the lawsuit an "all-out attack on voter ID"; it loses because the RNC supports keeping the state's rules in place rather than only disputing how the lawsuit is described.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Free Speech For PeopleCounsel for the plaintiff, the Coalition for Open Democracy, in a statement of plaintiff's counselDirectly involvedBefore this statement
Free Speech For People and the Mintz law firm represent the Coalition for Open Democracy, which sued over HB 323 and the April 23 directive. The October 2 ruling blocked the directive's bar on considering student IDs and left HB 323 in place.
"We are pleased that the court enjoined as unconstitutional any effort by New Hampshire to prohibit or discourage voting officials from considering student IDs as evidence of identification when registering and voting in New Hampshire elections. ... We will continue to urge the courts to recognize that HB 323 violates the constitutional right of students to vote and must be enjoined in its entirety."
CondemnedCase context: New Hampshire asks the Supreme Court to pause the student-ID ruling; challengers oppose the exclusion
Full statement and sources
The plaintiff's lawyers welcome the injunction against barring officials from considering student IDs and say they will keep arguing that HB 323 is unconstitutional.
After the statement
Between these passages, the statement says the court ordered that student IDs may be considered under the safety-valve provision and that the decision did not yet block HB 323.
Plaintiff's counsel responds to the student-ID ruling · Free Speech For PeopleStatement of plaintiff's counsel, final paragraphWhy this label?
The reference point is the state's categorical exclusion of student IDs from consideration under existing identity-verification safeguards, which Secretary of State David Scanlan's April 23 directive set out. Counsel for the plaintiff say they are "pleased that the court enjoined as unconstitutional" any effort to stop officials from considering student IDs as evidence of identification, so we labeled the statement Condemned. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization; it loses because the statement endorses the finding that the exclusion is unconstitutional rather than disputing how it is described. The further challenge to HB 323 concerns the separate statute.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Olivia ZinkCoalition for Open Democracy executive director Before this statement
Zink's group, the Coalition for Open Democracy, sued on August 11 to block HB 323 and the April 23 directive. Zink says the group found that many high school students lack a driver's license or passport.
"If you’re 18 and you’re a U.S. citizen, you still have a constitutional right to vote, and even though the state legislature changed the law to say that student IDs no longer count to prove your identity, remember it’s just a proof of identity ... It has your picture and your name."
CondemnedCase context: New Hampshire asks the Supreme Court to pause the student-ID ruling; challengers oppose the exclusion
Full statement and sources
Zink, whose group brought the lawsuit, says 18-year-old citizens keep their right to vote and that a student ID still shows identity with a photo and name.
After the statement
The article then describes the lawsuit's argument that a driver's license, passport or state ID card is costly or hard for many young voters to obtain.
New Hampshire student-ID lawsuit draws support and oppositionZink interview and Berry statementWhy this label?
The reference point is the state's categorical exclusion of student IDs from consideration under existing identity-verification safeguards, which Secretary of State David Scanlan's April 23 directive set out. Zink argued that a student ID is "just a proof of identity" that carries "your picture and your name", an argument that the cards should still count as evidence of identity. We labeled it Condemned. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, since Zink disputes the view that the cards are inadequate; it loses because the argument is aimed at keeping the cards usable to prove identity, which the exclusion prevents.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Show fewer responses
Ross BerryNew Hampshire House Election Law Committee chair Before this statement
HB 323 removed student IDs from the identification accepted for obtaining a ballot. Berry, chair of the House Election Law Committee, sent this statement to The Dartmouth after the Coalition for Open Democracy sued.
"college students are not a special class of voters ... Our common-sense law holds everyone, college student or otherwise, to the same standard ... There are no exemptions for favored groups. Going to court to demand otherwise undermines the very principle of equality under the law."
Defended or excusedCase context: New Hampshire asks the Supreme Court to pause the student-ID ruling; challengers oppose the exclusion
Full statement and sources
Berry defends HB 323 as applying the same identification standard to college students and other voters and criticizes the lawsuit as seeking an exemption.
After the statement
The article adds that Scanlan and Attorney General John Formella did not respond to requests for comment. Berry's statement predates the October 2 ruling that separated HB 323 from the broader April 23 directive.
New Hampshire student-ID lawsuit draws support and oppositionZink interview and Berry statementWhy this label?
The reference point is the state's categorical exclusion of student IDs from consideration under existing identity-verification safeguards, the rule in the April 23 directive that the district court blocked on October 2. Berry's August statement defends the law as holding everyone "to the same standard" and says "Going to court to demand otherwise undermines the very principle of equality under the law." The lawsuit then sought to block both HB 323 and the directive, which applied the law as a complete bar on the cards. Berry argues that no exemption for students is justified, so we labeled it Defended or excused. Berry does not separately address whether officials may consider the cards with other evidence, a distinction the court drew in October. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, since Berry rejects treating students as "a special class"; it loses because the statement argues for keeping student IDs out rather than only disputing a description.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Ben HortonFree Speech For People counsel representing Open Democracy Before this statement
Horton, counsel for the plaintiff, says HB 323 takes away student IDs for obtaining a ballot and that Scanlan's April 23 directive unlawfully extends the law to voter registration.
"It’s adding this extra layer of bureaucracy with literally no actual difference in the amount of types of documents that are being required; it’s just adding another step. This does nothing to further election security"
CondemnedCase context: New Hampshire asks the Supreme Court to pause the student-ID ruling; challengers oppose the exclusion
Full statement and sources
Horton says the restrictions add bureaucracy without improving election security and could discourage future voting.
After the statement
Horton predicts that additional barriers at a person's first election could discourage voting for years.
InDepthNH reports the student-ID lawsuit and early reactionsStatements by Ben Horton, John Sellers and Alexis SimpsonSellers and Simpson assess New Hampshire student-ID restrictionsStatements by Ben Horton, John Sellers and Alexis SimpsonWhy this label?
The reference point is the state's categorical exclusion of student IDs from consideration under existing identity-verification safeguards, which Secretary of State David Scanlan's April 23 directive set out. Horton says the student-ID restrictions add "another step" and do "nothing to further election security". Horton also says the April 23 directive unlawfully extends HB 323. We labeled it Condemned. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, since Horton disputes the security rationale; it loses because the remarks argue that the restrictions add a step without improving election security.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
John SellersRepublican state representative and HB 323 cosponsor Before this statement
Sellers co-sponsored HB 323, which removed student IDs as accepted voter identification. Sellers told InDepthNH that a more secure government-issued ID for students would be preferable to school-issued IDs.
"It’s a simple change to not allowing student IDs as valid identification cards, because there’s maybe a potential for voter fraud, and we’re trying to cut down on fraud."
Defended or excusedCase context: New Hampshire asks the Supreme Court to pause the student-ID ruling; challengers oppose the exclusion
Full statement and sources
Sellers says the change to stop accepting student IDs is meant to reduce possible fraud and to make sure voters are domiciled in New Hampshire.
After the statement
Sellers also cites making sure voters are domiciled in New Hampshire. The report adds that no evidence of widespread voter fraud in New Hampshire has been presented.
InDepthNH reports the student-ID lawsuit and early reactionsStatements by Ben Horton, John Sellers and Alexis SimpsonSellers and Simpson assess New Hampshire student-ID restrictionsStatements by Ben Horton, John Sellers and Alexis SimpsonWhy this label?
The reference point is the state's categorical exclusion of student IDs from consideration under existing identity-verification safeguards, the rule in the April 23 directive that the district court blocked on October 2. Sellers, a cosponsor of HB 323, justifies "not allowing student IDs as valid identification cards" as a step against "a potential for voter fraud". When Sellers spoke in August, the directive applied the law as a complete bar on the cards, and the state later offered no separate justification for that bar beyond the law's own interests. We labeled it Defended or excused. Sellers does not address whether officials may consider the cards with other evidence. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, since Sellers hedges with "maybe"; it loses because the hedge qualifies the cited risk, not the support for the change.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Alexis SimpsonNew Hampshire House Democratic leader Before this statement
HB 323 removed student IDs as an accepted way to obtain a ballot. The lawsuit also challenges Scanlan's directive extending the restriction to voter registration.
"For over ten years, young Granite Staters have been able to use a student ID to prove their identity when casting their ballots. Without a single case of fraud to point to, Republicans took that option away."
CondemnedCase context: New Hampshire asks the Supreme Court to pause the student-ID ruling; challengers oppose the exclusion
Full statement and sources
Simpson says Republicans removed student IDs as an identification option without pointing to a single case of fraud.
After the statement
Simpson argues that young adults should have a say in decisions affecting their lives.
InDepthNH reports the student-ID lawsuit and early reactionsStatements by Ben Horton, John Sellers and Alexis SimpsonSellers and Simpson assess New Hampshire student-ID restrictionsStatements by Ben Horton, John Sellers and Alexis SimpsonWhy this label?
The reference point is the state's categorical exclusion of student IDs from consideration under existing identity-verification safeguards, which Secretary of State David Scanlan's April 23 directive set out. Simpson says that "Without a single case of fraud to point to, Republicans took that option away", criticizing the removal of student IDs as a way to prove identity at the polls. The exclusion is the broadest form of that removal, so we labeled it Condemned. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, since Simpson disputes the fraud rationale; it loses because the statement criticizes the removal itself.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Courtney HostetlerFree Speech For People legal director and counsel for the plaintiff Before this statement
HB 323 removed student IDs as an accepted way to obtain a ballot. The lawsuit also challenges Scanlan's directive extending the restriction to voter registration.
"HB 323 and Secretary Scanlan’s directive accomplish one thing: they unconstitutionally burden young voters to keep them from the polls ... The exclusion of these IDs will create chaos in the fall, creating a risk that thousands of young voters will be turned away from the polls. That’s by design—and it is both inexcusable and unconstitutional."
CondemnedCase context: New Hampshire asks the Supreme Court to pause the student-ID ruling; challengers oppose the exclusion
Full statement and sources
Hostetler says HB 323 and the April 23 directive unconstitutionally burden young voters and warns that excluding student IDs could lead to young voters being turned away.
After the statement
The release then quotes Ben Horton, counsel at Free Speech For People, saying HB 323 does not make New Hampshire elections more secure.
Voting-rights lawyers challenge New Hampshire student-ID restrictionsStatements by Hostetler and HortonWhy this label?
The reference point is the state's categorical exclusion of student IDs from consideration under existing identity-verification safeguards, which Secretary of State David Scanlan's April 23 directive set out. Hostetler says HB 323 and Scanlan's directive "unconstitutionally burden young voters" and that "The exclusion of these IDs will create chaos in the fall", calling the result "both inexcusable and unconstitutional", so we labeled it Condemned. The criticism names the directive, which imposed the exclusion, as well as the statute. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization; it loses because Hostetler attacks the exclusion itself rather than a description of it.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(10)
Original text
Student-ID litigation orders attached to New Hampshire's Supreme Court application
Relevant passage: Appendix: district court opinion and injunction; stay denials; First Circuit order
About this source
The appendix preserves the distinction between HB 323's list of mandatory IDs and the broader directive excluding student IDs from consideration as other evidence of identity.
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
InDepthNH reports the student-ID lawsuit and early reactions
Relevant passage: Statements by Ben Horton, John Sellers and Alexis Simpson
About this source
Zach Laird's original InDepthNH report, later distributed through AP, quotes the plaintiff's counsel, an HB 323 cosponsor and the House Democratic leader two days after the lawsuit was filed. Their claims about fraud, security and legality are attributed arguments.
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
RNC supports New Hampshire in student-ID litigation
Relevant passage: Joe Gruters statement
About this source
NHJournal quotes the RNC chairman supporting the state and criticizing the lawsuit's timing. It does not provide evidence of fraud by student-ID users.
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
State and League of Women Voters assess the student-ID injunction
Relevant passage: Statements by Michael Garrity and Liz Tentarelli
About this source
The report quotes the attorney general's spokesman and the League president after the appellate stay was denied. It distinguishes HB 323 from the broader directive and describes student IDs being considered with other evidence.
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Sellers and Simpson assess New Hampshire student-ID restrictions
Relevant passage: Statements by Ben Horton, John Sellers and Alexis Simpson
About this source
InDepthNH reporting distributed through AP quotes a bill sponsor, the House Democratic leader and litigation counsel. Their allegations about fraud and legality are attributed arguments.
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Voting-rights lawyers challenge New Hampshire student-ID restrictions
Relevant passage: Statements by Hostetler and Horton
About this source
Free Speech For People announces the August 11 lawsuit, separately challenging HB 323 and the broader April directive. Hostetler and Horton speak as counsel.
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
New Hampshire student-ID lawsuit draws support and opposition
Relevant passage: Zink interview and Berry statement
About this source
The Dartmouth interviews Olivia Zink and quotes a statement supplied by Ross Berry about HB 323. Their positions predate the October injunction.
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Six State Signal explains New Hampshire's emergency student-ID appeal
Relevant passage: Second body paragraph and sections on the ruling and stay request
About this source
James Mercer explains that a student card may be considered with other evidence of identity, rather than automatically qualifying a voter for a ballot. He reports the October 15 application and the October 19 response deadline.
- Author
- James Mercer
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Plaintiff's counsel responds to the student-ID ruling
Relevant passage: Statement of plaintiff's counsel, final paragraph
About this source
Free Speech For People and co-counsel welcome relief against the directive and say they will continue challenging HB 323 itself. The statement acknowledges that the court left that statute in place.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
New Hampshire application for a stay in Coalition for Open Democracy v. Scanlan
Relevant passage: Application, introduction and arguments concerning election timing and state law
About this source
The state asks to pause the injunction pending appeal. It argues that new instructions shortly before the election risk confusion and that the district court misread state law.
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- New Hampshire asks the Supreme Court to pause the student-ID ruling; challengers oppose the exclusion
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/new-hampshire-student-id-voting-scanlan-supreme-court-stay
The Dispute Index. "New Hampshire asks the Supreme Court to pause the student-ID ruling; challengers oppose the exclusion". First published: 2026-10-18. Last updated: 2026-10-18. https://disputeindex.com/cases/new-hampshire-student-id-voting-scanlan-supreme-court-stay