Voting rights advocates say directive would disenfranchise young and low-income voters, but Republicans say it’s needed to combat voter fraud
The US supreme court has cleared the way for New Hampshire to prohibit student IDs as a form of voter identification ahead of November’s midterm elections.
In a brief unsigned order , justices sided with a Republican National Committee (RNC)-backed appeal on the matter. They cited a longstanding rule that lower federal courts should not “alter election rules” too close to election day.
The challenge stemmed from a directive that New Hampshire state officials made earlier this year, which stated student IDs could not be used as a form 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 present an ID to vote since 2012, but earlier this year the state’s Republican governor, Kelly Ayotte, signed a law tightening the rules by removing student IDs from the list of standard forms of voter ID.
Voting rights advocates had challenged the directive, arguing it would disenfranchise young voters, who may not have access to a driver’s license or passport. But Republicans insisted the directive was needed to combat voter fraud.
A lower court judge blocked the directive, leading state officials to ask the supreme court to intervene.
The dispute involving voter ID requirements highlights a national debate triggered by Donald Trump and other top Republicans who argue that voter ID laws are necessary to prevent mass voter fraud.
Despite there being little evidence that voter fraud affects the outcome of elections, the president and his allies have seized on the narrative to convince lawmakers and conservative voters to back initiatives that require ID at the polls.
Voting rights advocates argue that voter ID laws can disenfranchise low-income voters who may not be able to afford a government-issued ID, voters who may not have access to official documents, such as a birth certificate, to obtain an ID, rural voters who may not be able to go to a location with ID services and more.
While the supreme court justices did not disclose how they voted on the matter, Ketanji Brown Jackson , a member of the liberal wing of the court, dissented from the majority.
Jackson argued the lower court did not err when it blocked the directive because the lower court judge was asking state officials to correct guidance which “could mislead voters and local election workers”.