Mohave Daily News: Top Story

Associated Press

PHOENIX - A federal judge on Wednesday refused to let critics of Arizona's voter identification law station observers inside polling stations during the Nov. 7 general election but ordered election officials to count how many people without identification walk away without voting.

U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver said the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona and other challengers to the 2004 law have a legitimate pretrial interest in learning how many people are affected by the requirement that people casting ballots at polling places produce specified types of identification.

The judge ordered election officials to count instances where people who do not have required identification and leave a polling place without casting a conditional provisional ballot.

Silver said she denied the challengers' request to be allowed to station their own observers in polling places because state law permits only certain people in polling places in order to prevent interference, intimidation and harassment.

‘‘This will allow the (challengers) access to the information they seek while avoiding the evils the statute seeks to prevent,'' Silver wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 20 overturned a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' Oct. 5 ruling that put the voter ID requirement on hold.

The law generally requires that voters present either government-issued photo ID or two types of specified non-photo ID with name and address to cast a regular ballot at a polling place on election day.

Voters without the required ID can fill out a conditional provisional ballot but under some circumstances would have to subsequently go to an election office to produce ID for that special ballot to be counted.

The ID requirement was first used statewide in the Sept. 12 primary election. Some parts of the state also followed the requirement earlier this year for local elections.

Supporters of the law say it will help prevent voter fraud. Critics contend it will disenfranchise some voters, particularly the elderly and minorities.

The challengers had said the placement of observers at polling places would provide important information on how poll workers implement the law and that there were indications that ‘‘an unknown but significant number of people'' without required ID left polling places without casting a conditional provisional ballot during the primary.

The state argued against allowing observers, saying it would pose ‘‘a potentially significant intrusion'' that could lead to ‘‘intimidating and confusing voters when asked to provide ID.''

Also, it could have led to a request by supporters of the law to send in their own monitors, the state said.

Thirteen counties - all except Coconino and Navajo - also argued against the challengers' request on similar grounds.

Linda Brown, a spokeswoman for the challengers, said Silver's ruling was a step in the right direction but that there were concerns whether counties and overworked poll workers would and could adequately implement the order.

‘‘They have inherent conflicts of interest,'' Brown said. ‘‘It doesn't make sense that they would exert themselves to deliver evidence that supports the plaintiffs' position.''

Maricopa county Elections Director Karen Osborne said the order would be hard to implement because most poll workers already had been trained. ‘‘It is difficult to get something out at the last minute but we'll do our best,'' she said.