Open Democracy Sues to Block New Law Barring the Use of Student IDs to Vote in New Hampshire Elections
Free Speech For People, Mintz, and Whatley Kallas File Case on Behalf of Open Democracy
CONCORD, NH – (August 12, 2026) Open Democracy, a nonpartisan organization committed to political equality, filed yesterday a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire to enjoin the enforcement of HB 323 and a related state policy that prevents students from being able to use their student IDs to prove their identity when registering to vote and voting in New Hampshire elections. Free Speech For People and Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky, and Popeo represent Open Democracy, along with local counsel Whatley Kallas LLP.
HB 323 abruptly changes a law that students, organizations that conduct registration drives, and local election officials have long relied upon, and places significant burdens on young voters and on the organizations that support them in becoming registered voters.
Since New Hampshire passed its voter ID law in 2012, student IDs issued by an accredited New Hampshire high school or institution of higher learning have been a valid way to prove identity when registering to vote and at the polls. These IDs bore the same markers of reliability as other forms of ID, like driver’s licenses; student IDs were only accepted if they displayed the student’s photo and displayed an expiration date.
But in April 2026, the New Hampshire legislature passed a law that eliminated all student IDs as a valid form of identification when obtaining a ballot. During debates, legislators incorrectly argued that student IDs are unreliable markers of citizenship and domicile, even though student IDs have never been valid ways of proving citizenship or domicile. Supporters also claimed that the law will prevent fraud—but it does no such thing. The New Hampshire legislature produced and heard no evidence of voter fraud involving student IDs—and virtually no evidence of voter fraud at all. They did, however, hear about the burden the law would place upon young voters. The legislature passed the law anyway, and New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte signed the bill into law on April 3, 2026.
Making matters worse, on April 23, 2026, New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan issued a directive to local clerks that improperly stated that HB 323 also barred the use of student IDs in the voter registration process. It does not; HB 323 did not amend the laws governing registration. But his directive means that clerks will now prevent students from using their student ID to register to vote, in contradiction to the law.
Now, students are left scrambling to obtain other forms of acceptable identification. Notably, to obtain at least some of these forms of ID, including a state-issued ID available at New Hampshire’s Department of Motor Vehicles, students must still provide their identity—and can do so using the same documents, including their student IDs, that they used to be able to use to register to vote. In other words, they will still present their student ID as a basis for proving identity; they just have to go through burdensome processes first.
It is clear that HB 323 is part of a long-running history of New Hampshire politicians making it harder for young people to vote. It is the most recent in a long line of laws—all of which have been struck down—that New Hampshire has passed in order to limit voting by young voters and college students, or to placed burdens on these voters.
The elimination of student ID is especially concerning given that New Hampshire is already one of the most difficult states in the country to register to vote and has one of the lowest nation-wide registration rates for young people. It is concerning, too, because research demonstrates that voting is a lifelong habit that forms quickly. People who vote soon after they are first eligible to vote are more likely to become lifelong voters than young people who face hurdles that prevent them from voting.
New Hampshire should be engaging its youth and encouraging them to participate in democracy—not unconstitutionally abridging their fundamental right to vote.
“In New Hampshire, registering to vote on your 18th birthday is a rite of passage. For more than a decade, student IDs have been a secure and accepted way for students to prove their identity at the polls,” says Olivia Zink, Executive Director of Open Democracy. “HB 323 strips away that option without any evidence that it was ever a problem. That is not the New Hampshire way. Open Democracy is proud to join this lawsuit and stand behind the promise of the 26th Amendment: the right to vote cannot be denied or abridged on account of age.”
The lawsuit argues that HB 323 violates the United States Constitution by:
(1) Substantially burdening voting rights, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments;
(2) Discriminating against young voters, particularly those between 18 and 21, in violation of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, which bars “den[ying] or abridg[ing]” the right to vote “on account of age” for those eighteen and over;
(3) Subjecting young voters to discriminatory and unequal treatment, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The lawsuit also argues that Secretary Scanlan’s April 23 directive violates the New Hampshire Constitution by unlawfully amending the voter registration law to remove student IDs as a valid form of identification, because the power to pass laws exclusively resides with the New Hampshire legislature.
Open Democracy asks the court to issue an injunction to halt the implementation of HB 323 and Secretary Scanlan’s April 23 directive and declare that HB 323 and Secretary Scanlan’s April 23 directive are unconstitutional. Without an injunction, a critical number of young voters will struggle to register to vote when they return to school in the fall and will be turned away when they seek to vote in the November election.
“HB 323 and Secretary Scanlan’s directive accomplish one thing: they unconstitutionally burden young voters to keep them from the polls,” says Courtney Hostetler, Legal Director at Free Speech For People. “Student IDs are an accessible, reliable way for young voters to prove their identity when registering and voting. 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.”
“HB 323 does not make New Hampshire elections any more secure—it just makes it harder for young people to vote,” says Ben Horton, Counsel at Free Speech For People. “Their voices matter, as do the voices of all voters, and they should not be penalized, targeted, burdened, or discriminated against for being young.”
“Mintz is privileged to be able to represent Open Democracy in this important litigation,” says Michael Gardener, Member of the Mintz firm. “The Supreme Court has held many times that the right to vote is the bedrock of all our other freedoms. Through HB 323, the State of New Hampshire has, unfortunately once again, sought to put illegitimate and unnecessary burdens on the ability of young voters to exercise this essential freedom. At a time when democracy is under siege in our land, we look forward to asking the Federal Court to remove these unconstitutional burdens so that all citizens of New Hampshire may fairly have a voice in the election of their government.”
Open Democracy works to achieve political equality for all in New Hampshire, fighting to create a campaign finance system that ends the influence of big money in politics and fighting to ensure that all eligible New Hampshire residents have the opportunity to vote and participate in democracy. To learn more about Open Democracy’s work, visit their website.
Free Speech For People is a national non-profit organization dedicated to defending our democracy and our Constitution. The organization serves as a leading force in the country in litigation to protect the right to vote, including litigation challenging voter suppression laws and voter intimidation schemes.
Read our full complaint here and our brief in support of our motion for a preliminary injunction here.