Laplante, a George W. Bush appointee, didn’t block enforcement of the new law, but did reject a broader directive the New Hampshire secretary of state’s office had issued in April based on that law. His injunction in early October reopened the door to student IDs potentially being used as a form of backup identification.
The state attorney general’s office and the Republican National Committee argued in court filings that the injunction was issued too close to the Nov. 3 election and should be stayed. The Supreme Court agreed with that view in Thursday’s brief order, finding that the District Court didn’t cite any justification for departing from the principle that federal courts should generally refrain from altering election rules shortly before an election.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, writing that the injunction in this case was “reasonably designed to address alleged misinformation” related to New Hampshire’s new law, not to alter the rules.
“When a federal court determines that material misrepresentations are being made about a State’s election rules, an injunction to prohibit that conduct does not contribute to public confusion, it prevents that very problem,” she wrote.
This litigation arose from a challenge brought by the nonprofit Coalition for Open Democracy. The plaintiff, represented by Free Speech For People, has vowed to keep pressing this case in hopes of having the new law blocked in its entirety.
The plaintiff’s legal team released a statement Thursday saying the Supreme Court’s order is “wrong” and injects confusion into the Nov. 3 election.
“We applaud Justice Jackson for her dissent, in which she stands for the Constitution, the right to vote, and a rational application of Purcell,” the statement said, referring to a 2006 precedent.
In a statement, New Hampshire Attorney General John M. Formella said his team will continue to defend “the safeguards” that state lawmakers have adopted.
“New Hampshire has a responsibility to protect the integrity of its elections and ensure that election laws are applied as written,” he said. “The Supreme Court’s decision is an important victory for our efforts to defend those laws and prevent last-minute court orders from creating uncertainty for voters and election officials.”
Republican leaders, who hold a majority in each chamber of the New Hampshire Legislature, have said this law and others aim to promote election security. Their effort resembles similar steps taken by other Republican-led states.
Open Democracy’s lawsuit contends, however, that this law is just the latest example of politicians trying to make it harder for college students and other young people to vote.
Steven Porter can be reached at steven.porter@globe.com. Follow him @reporterporter.
