2026年10月22日 / 美国东部时间晚上7:53 / 哥伦比亚广播公司/美联社报道
美国最高法院周四为新罕布什尔州全面禁止在中期选举中使用学生证作为投票身份证明扫清了道路。
大法官们批准了共和党支持的紧急上诉，叫停了将学生证作为备用身份证明的做法。
新罕布什尔州今年通过一项法律，规定学生证不再明确作为领取选票的有效身份证明形式。随后该州务卿发布指导意见，禁止将学生证作为证明选民身份的备用方式。
一名法官在10月初保留了这项法律，但叫停了该指导意见，这促使州方向上诉最高法院提起上诉。美国共和党全国委员会也表态支持该州。
在这份简短的单段落裁决中，最高法院援引了长期存在的“珀塞尔原则”，并引用了2020年的一项先前裁决，称最高法院“多次强调，联邦下级法院通常不应在选举前夕更改选举规则”。
该裁决未署名。大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊是唯一公开反对这项裁决的大法官，她认为珀塞尔原则未必适用于本案。
“在我看来，涉及本案所涉法院命令——该命令未改动州选举规则——的案件，未必属于珀塞尔原则及其关于联邦法院‘在最后时刻更改选举规则’的关切的适用范围，”杰克逊写道。
最高法院在周四的裁决意见中指出，下级法院“未指出任何可证明偏离珀塞尔原则具有合理性的依据”。
新罕布什尔州共和党总检察长约翰·福梅拉在一份声明中对这项裁决表示赞赏，他写道：“新罕布什尔州有责任维护选举的公正性，确保选举法律按规定执行。”
福梅拉称这是“我们捍卫这些法律、防止最后时刻的法院命令给选民和选举官员带来不确定性的努力的一次重要胜利”。
这项裁决出台之际，距新罕布什尔州选民参加竞争激烈的美国参议院选举不到两周时间。
Supreme Court rules New Hampshire can ban use of student IDs for midterm voters
October 22, 2026 / 7:53 PM EDT / CBS/AP
The Supreme Court cleared the way Thursday for New Hampshire to fully ban the use of student IDs for voting during the midterm elections.
The justices granted a Republican-backed emergency appeal and blocked the use of student IDs as a backup method of identification.
New Hampshire passed a law this year that said student IDs would no longer be an expressly accepted form of identification for obtaining a ballot. The secretary of state then issued guidance barring them as a backup way to prove a voter’s identity.
A judge left the law in place but blocked the guidance in early October, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court. The Republican National Committee weighed in to support the state.
In its brief one-paragraph decision, the Supreme Court invoked the longstanding “Purcell principle,” quoting a previous 2020 decision that stated that the high court “has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.”
The decision was unsigned. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only justice to publicly dissent from the ruling, arguing that the Purcell principle did not necessarily apply in this case.
“It seems to me that a case involving a court order like the one at issue here—which left the state election rule untouched—does not necessarily fall within the ambit of Purcell and its concern about federal courts ‘changing the election rules’ at the last minute,” Jackson wrote.
The Supreme Court wrote in its opinion Thursday that the lower court “did not point to anything that would justify deviating” from the Purcell principle.
In a statement, Republican New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella praised the ruling, writing that “New Hampshire has a responsibility to protect the integrity of its elections and ensure that election laws are applied as written.”
Formella called it “an important victory for our efforts to defend those laws and prevent last-minute court orders from creating uncertainty for voters and election officials.”
The decision comes less than two weeks before New Hampshire voters cast ballots in a closely contested U.S. Senate race.
发表回复