Independent newsroom

Friday, October 23, 2026

The File

Every claim traces to a primary source. Uncertainty is labeled. Corrections are public.

Supreme Court · Friday, October 23, 2026

Supreme Court lets New Hampshire keep its voter-ID guidance

The File desk · Oct. 23, 2026, 7:00 a.m. ET

Confirmed1 primary sources

Status

Confirmed from the Supreme Court order in , No. 26A512, on Oct. 22, 2026. The order is unsigned. Only Justice Jackson noted a dissent. The order does not print a vote count.
  • Confirmed
    The Court stayed the district court's orders of Oct. 2 and Oct. 5, 2026.
  • Confirmed
    Only Justice Jackson noted a dissent. No vote count appears in the order.
The Supreme Court on Thursday let New Hampshire keep its own guidance on voter identification, pausing two lower-court orders that had told the secretary of state to stop giving voters and poll workers a version a judge found misleading. Only Justice Jackson noted a dissent, and the order does not say how the other justices voted.1
The case is , No. 26A512. The unsigned order quotes for the line that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election. It stays the October 2, 2026, and October 5, 2026, orders of the District of New Hampshire, No. 1:26-cv-647, while the First Circuit appeal proceeds, and while any timely petition for review is pending.1
Justice Jackson wrote that the district court left the state election rule untouched, and that the order only told the secretary to match his public statements to the letter of state law. She discusses . A footnote says the district court found the secretary's statements about recently amended registration and ballot-receipt rules were, at best, misleading, and it cites and . The same footnote records the question of why a student ID could not be reasonable evidence of identity.2
Why it matters (Estimate). Estimate. New Hampshire votes on Nov. 3. In the days before then, voters and poll workers will hear the state's version of the identification rules, not a version a federal judge had ordered corrected. The order also uses the Court's reluctance to change election rules close to an election even when the lower court said it was correcting official statements, and not rewriting the statute.
What the secretary of state will tell voters now is not in the order. Neither is the First Circuit's next date. The student-ID point is the district court's question, as Jackson recounts it, not a holding that student IDs are or are not enough.2
How we know

Notes

  1. 1.Supreme Court of the United States, , No. 26A512, Oct. 22, 2026. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/26pdf/26a512_6j37.pdf The unsigned order quotes , 589 U.S. 423, 424 (2020): “This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.” It stays “The October 2, 2026, and October 5, 2026, orders granting preliminary injunctive relief by the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, case No. 1:26–cv–647,” pending the First Circuit appeal and a timely certiorari petition. Docket page: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26a512.html This story does not describe briefs on that docket. The order lists a dissent from Justice Jackson only. It does not print a vote count.
  2. 2.Justice Jackson, dissenting, same PDF. She writes that the district court “left the state election rule untouched” and “issued a targeted order, requiring only that the relevant government official conform his public statements to the letter of state law rather than summarizing what the law required in a manner that could mislead voters and local election workers.” She discusses , 549 U.S. 1 (2006). The footnote says the district court found statements about “recently amended registration and ballot-receipt requirements were, at best, misleading,” cites and §654:12, and records the question of “why a student ID could not be reasonable evidence of a prospective voter’s identity.” This desk did not open the New Hampshire statute book. The 2006 Purcell opinion was not opened separately. The description is Jackson's.

What is still unknown or disputed

  • How many justices joined the unsigned order. The order does not print a vote count.
  • What the secretary of state will now tell voters and poll workers.
  • When the First Circuit will act.
  • Any response from the people who sued. Not in the order.

Primary sources

Every claim in this story is drawn from the documents below. If a fetch failed, that is recorded on the card.

  1. Source 1

    Order in Scanlan v. Coalition for Open Democracy, No. 26A512

    Supreme Court of the United States · October 22, 2026

    The Court stayed two New Hampshire federal orders. Only Justice Jackson noted a dissent. The order does not print a vote count.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/26pdf/26a512_6j37.pdf

Ask this story

Answers come only from this story and its sources. Free test: limited questions per day.

0/300