2026-10-22T22:16:11.873Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：约翰·弗里茨（John Fritze）
更新于56分钟前
更新时间：2026年10月22日，美国东部时间晚上7:35
发布时间：2026年10月22日，美国东部时间下午6:16
2029年6月29日，美国最高法院在华盛顿特区。
汤姆·布伦纳/盖蒂图片社
美国最高法院周四允许新罕布什尔州官员限制选民使用学生身份证领取选票的情形，认定此前阻止该政策实施的下级法院裁决距离选举日过近。
这份未署名的裁决对共和党籍新罕布什尔州务卿戴维·斯坎兰（David Scanlan）以及支持斯坎兰的共和党全国委员会来说是一场胜利。
最高法院未公布投票票数，但给出了简短解释，援引了“珀塞尔原则”——该原则警告法院不得在选举临近时临时更改选举规则。
自由派大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊（Ketanji Brown Jackson）发表了不同意见，对本案中适用珀塞尔原则提出质疑。
相关实时报道
艾米·阿克顿与维韦克·拉马斯瓦米的辩论片段。苏·奥格罗基/美联社/迈克尔·M·圣地亚哥/盖蒂图片社 特朗普告知拉马斯瓦米不要撤下包含其对手 estranged 母亲的争议广告
新罕布什尔州选民将于11月投票填补即将退休的民主党参议员珍妮·沙欣（Jeanne Shaheen）留下的参议院席位空缺。CNN近期的一项民调显示，在年轻选民群体中，民主党对共和党拥有31个百分点的优势。
下级联邦法院允许该州实施今年春季州议会通过的一项法律的核心禁令。根据该法律，学生身份证本身不得再用于验证选民身份。
但该州法律还包含一项“安全条款”，允许选民尝试通过其他方式证明身份，而此次提交至最高法院的争议焦点在于：在这种情况下，学生身份证是否可以作为辅助证据之一，与其他证明材料一同帮助官员识别申领选票的选民。
新罕布什尔州官员将新州法律解读为即便在上述情形下也禁止使用学生身份证。一个名为“开放民主联盟”的投票权组织就此提起诉讼。联邦地区法院于10月2日阻止了该解读的实施。
在不同意见中，杰克逊质疑将珀塞尔原则适用于新罕布什尔州对法律的解读是否合理。她表示，在本案中，下级法院并未更改州议会通过的法律本身，而仅改变了州政府对该法律的解读。
“这项所谓的‘珀塞尔原则’产生于特定背景，而本院尚未完全明确其适用边界，”杰克逊写道，呼应了批评人士对该原则缺乏明确定义的质疑。
“我恭敬地表示反对，因为——即便在选举临近之际，或许尤其如此——我不会推翻一项显然合理的联邦法院命令，该命令旨在确保公众能够获得关于州选举程序的准确信息，”杰克逊写道。
本案原告的律师周四在一份声明中批评了这项裁决，称其“给选举制造了混乱——而这恰恰是珀塞尔原则本应防止的情况”，并“批准了一项违宪政策，将剥夺年轻选民的投票权”。
CNN已联系斯坎兰的办公室置评。
最高法院此前已就下月中期选举的多起备受关注的选举纠纷案件做出裁决，其中最引人注目的是9月中旬驳回了总统唐纳德·特朗普更改全美邮寄选票发放方式的提议。
本文已更新补充更多细节。
Supreme Court says New Hampshire can limit use of student IDs for voting
2026-10-22T22:16:11.873Z / CNN
By John Fritze
Updated 56 min ago
Updated Oct 22, 2026, 7:35 PM ET
PUBLISHED Oct 22, 2026, 6:16 PM ET
The US Supreme Court on June 29 in Washington, DC.
Tom Brenner/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed New Hampshire officials to limit when voters may use a student ID to receive a ballot, agreeing that a lower court ruling that blocked enforcement of the policy was too close to Election Day.
The unsigned order was a win for New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan, a Republican, and the Republican National Committee, which had supported Scanlan in the fight.
The court did not provide a vote count, though it did provide a brief explanation, invoking the “Purcell principle” that warns against last-minute decisions from courts that change election rules.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, wrote a dissent questioning the application of the Purcell doctrine in the case.
Related live story A split of Amy Acton and Vivek Ramaswamy. Sue Ogrocki/AP/Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images Trump tells Ramaswamy not to take down controversial ad featuring his opponent’s estranged mother
New Hampshire voters will fill an open Senate seat in November to replace the retiring Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. A recent CNN poll found that Democrats enjoy a 31 percentage point advantage over Republicans among younger adults.
Lower federal courts allowed the state to enforce the central prohibition of a law enacted by the state legislature this spring. Under that law, student IDs on their own may no longer be used to verify a voter’s identity.
But the state law also includes a “safety valve” that allows voters to attempt to prove their identity through other means and the fight at the Supreme Court was about whether, in those circumstances, student IDs could be used as one factor, along with other evidence, to help officials identify people requesting a ballot.
New Hampshire officials interpreted the new state law as shutting off the ability to use student IDs even in those circumstances. A voting rights group called Coalition for Open Democracy sued. A federal district court blocked enforcement of that interpretation on October 2.
In her dissent, Jackson questioned whether it made sense to apply the Purcell doctrine to New Hampshire’s interpretation of the law. In this case, she said, the lower court didn’t change anything about the law the state enacted but rather only changed the state’s interpretation of the law.
“This so-called ‘Purcell principle’ arose in a particular context, and this court has yet to fully define its limits,” Jackson wrote, echoing a question about the doctrine’s lack of definition that critics have raised.
“I respectfully dissent because – even, and perhaps especially, when an election is looming – I would not disturb a clearly justifiable federal-court order issued to ensure that the public receives accurate information about a state’s electoral processes,” Jackson wrote.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case criticized the ruling in a statement Thursday, saying it is “injecting confusion into the election—precisely what the Purcell principle is supposed to prevent—and authorizing an unconstitutional policy that will deprive young voters of their right to vote.”
CNN reached out to Scanlan’s office for comment.
The Supreme Court has been called on to address several high-profile election disputes heading into next month’s midterms, most notably a decision in mid-September rejecting President Donald Trump’s proposal to change how mail ballots are sent to voters across the country.
This story has been updated with additional details.
发表回复