David M. Scanlan
Role at the time: New Hampshire secretary of state, applying jointly with Attorney General John Formella through Solicitor General Anthony J. Galdieri
Statement summary
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.
“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.”
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.
Why we used 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.