This case is challenging Arizona rules about people in uniforms at polling places

Pima County Republican officials told a federal judge Tuesday that he should void some Arizona election rules about people in uniforms in polling places because they could be used to deny the right to vote to law enforcement officers and military members.

And that, they contend, appears to be intentional because these groups tend to support Republicans over Democrats.

There's even a claim that the language of the Elections Procedures Manual is so vague that it could allow county election officials to remove GOP observers from polling places.
That, one GOP official charged, could lead to other kinds of mischief — like ballots being injected at the last minute to change the results of elections. And he said that, based on recent election results, that already may be happening.

But the main thrust of the arguments before Judge Michael Liburdi is the contention that the rules are written in a way to give county election officials too much leeway in deciding who can cast a ballot — and who can be removed from polling places.

What makes all this relevant is that a provision in the Elections Procedures Manual that prohibits conduct that intimidates people going to vote.

Included in those the manual says can be removed is someone "impersonating a law enforcement officer.'' That is not being challenged.

But Jeff Clark, the former chair of the Pima County Republican Party, said the problem is that the ban extends to those "otherwise wearing clothing, uniforms or official-looking apparel intended to deter, intimidate, or harass voters.'' And the manual says that, depending on context, that "may be considered intimidating conduct inside or near a polling place.''

"In law enforcement, as you know, we work shifts,'' said Clark, a former officer with the Tucson Police Department and Department of Public Safety. "But we don't get to pick our days off.''

What that means, he said, is that officers may stop at a polling place while enroute to the police station — and do so in uniform.

"I believe that this discretion would or has a high probability or being purposely abused or inadvertently misused to turn law enforcement officers away from voting locations,'' said Clark.

Attorneys for Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Attorney General Kris Mayes, the defendants in the case, are arguing nothing in the manual conflicts with individuals' rights.

"Voters have a right to cast their ballot without undue influence and people have a right to engage in political speech,'' they said.

And if those rights conflict?

"The Supreme Court has come down on the side of voters and upheld states' efforts to set polling places aside as islands of calm in which voters can peacefully contemplate their choices,'' they told the judge in their legal filings. And they pointed out that nowhere do the challengers identify where an election official has applied or will apply the rules "in a manner inconsistent with either the statutes or the Constitution.''

Anyway, they said, the restrictions on clothing, uniforms and other official-looking apparel only becomes a legal issue only if it is "intended to deter, intimidate, or harass voters.''
Clark, for his part, said the wording in the Elections Procedures Manual provides too much leeway for judgment calls based on partisan decisions.

He said that police officers are most likely to register to vote as Republican. And he said that is true even in Pima County despite the fact that, overall, there are more Democrats registered to vote than Republicans.

"In Pima County, there are people who are very hostile to our presence,'' Clark said.
He acknowledged under questioning he has no reason to believe that the county recorder or the county elections director are biased. But Clark said that's not true of the Board of Supervisors, which has ultimate responsibility over elections.

"I think they're knee-deep in their antagonism to the federal government, to our ICE,'' he said. "It's not a secret at all.''

Clark admitted under cross examination, though, that he is not aware of any law enforcement officer in Arizona who has been blocked from voting simply for showing up in uniform. Nor has he heard that any election official has said that officers in uniforms should be prevented from voting.

Tuesday's arguments were just the first step. Liburdi is set to hear from other witnesses when the trial resumes this coming week.