On April 3rd, Gov. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire signed H.B. 323, which will take effect this June and require voters to present government-issued photo identification to vote in the upcoming state primaries and general election. This law effectively eliminates students’ ability to use their high school or college IDs to vote. Republican legislators in the state claim that the new law prevents voter fraud, but, as many Democrats in the state argue, this is a direct attack on students’ constitutional right to perform their civic duties.
By limiting qualifying identification to state driver’s licenses, non-driver IDs, or U.S. passports and passport cards, the bill fails to account for the many barriers to obtaining such documentation and the associated costs. State representative and government professor, Russel Murihed, responded to the bill, asserting that it only makes it harder for “poorer citizens to vote” by suppressing their constitutional right to vote, rendering it virtually inaccessible. In fact, as a student civic leader from Dartmouth University in New Hampshire shared, there are no cases of voter fraud in the state.
Although New Hampshire has required voters to present identification since the mid-2010s, this requirement has become increasingly difficult to meet, with further restrictions following the 2024 legislative action that removed the option to sign an affidavit attesting to identity under penalty of perjury in the absence of physical documentation. State legislators that support this bill claim they are trying to address the alleged belief that student IDs do not prove residency, citizenship, and national security.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, “students have the choice of registering either where they attend school or where they are originally from,” because their decision depends entirely on where they consider their current address to be. A campus ID in any state signifies that choice. College students have the right to vote where they go to school.
As this new law takes effect, it becomes clear that some state leaders are not interested in preserving democracy and the liberty of a person’s vote. State leaders, as well as the federal government, should not and cannot be the determiners of who gets to vote, and, with that, move the goalposts farther and farther for political gain.
