PHOENIX — Pima County Republican officials told a federal judge Tuesday that he should void some state 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.
They contend this appears to be intentional because these groups tend to support Republicans over Democrats.
There's also 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 argued, could lead to other kinds of mischief.
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.
People are also reading…
A provision in the Elections Procedures Manual prohibits conduct that intimidates people going to vote.
Included among those the manual says can be removed is someone "impersonating a law enforcement officer.'' That is not being challenged.
But Dave Smith, 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 Smith, 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 Smith.
Arizona officials dispute claims
Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Attorney General Kris Mayes, elected Democrats and 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,'' their attorneys 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,'' Fontes and Mayes told the judge in their legal filings.
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.''
And they said the restriction on clothing, uniforms and other official-looking apparel only becomes a legal issue if it is "intended to deter, intimidate, or harass voters.''
'Hostile to our presence'
Smith, for his part, said the wording in the Elections Procedures Manual provides too much leeway for judgment calls based on partisan decisions.
He said police officers are most likely to register to vote as Republican. 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,'' Smith said.
He acknowledged under questioning he has no reason to believe that the county recorder or the county elections director are biased. But Smith 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.''
Smith 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 officers in uniforms should be prevented from voting.
Instead, Smith pointed to a news article about an incident that occurred six years ago in North Carolina which said two sheriff's deputies were turned away from voting locations. Smith said that was "because of misplaced fears of voter intimidation.''
'Just clothes'
The lawsuit isn't just about police. He said the rules are so vague they could be used to eject those in military uniforms from polling places.
Joel Strabala, who chairs Legislative District 17 for the Pima County Republican Party, said military voters and veterans, like those in law enforcement, tend to vote for Republicans.
He cited a poll of current and former service members which he said shows they approve of the job President Donald Trump is doing.
"The party is concerned that voters turned away for voting in uniform will disproportionately be Republican voters,'' he told the judge, though he acknowledged there is nothing in the poll he cited that relates specifically to Pima County or even Arizona.
Strabala, who spent 12 years in active duty in the Air Force and 25 years in inactive reserve, said he was never turned away from a polling place when he showed up in uniform.
But he said there's another problem with the language in the Elections Procedures Manual. He said it makes an assumption that someone in a uniform — even a fake uniform — is intimidating.
"Why would impersonation of a law enforcement officer at a polling location be something that is intimidating?'' Strabala asked. "If I wore a military uniform or a piece of a military uniform as a voter, that's just clothes.''
Then there's the question of what is a "uniform.''
"Many jobs have uniforms,'' he said, beyond police, military and fire.
"Many organizations have a polo shirt or a uniform to operate,'' Strabala said. "And if we're making a ban on a subset of those uniforms, we're doing voter intimidation.''
Political party observers at the polls
There's another complaint.
The lawsuit says the Elections Procedures Manual allows for the removal of political party observers from polling places. Among the reasons for ejection, Strabala said, are observers making too many "frivolous voter challenges.''
He said that chills the ability of those observers to not just make objections but to make any comments about long lines for fear it will be considered "aggressive behavior toward poll workers,'' something he said could lead to their being ejected and losing their ability to keep an eye on what's going on.
He said there is reason to fear what might go on in polling places without those observers.
"There is some circumstantial evidence that there have been, let's say, ballots cast and results that seem inconsistent,'' Strabala said.
Consider, he said, that Republicans have had a 10-point voter registration edge in LD 17 since at least 2016. The district stretches from the eastern section of Pima County around through Oro Valley and Marana and up into southern Pinal County.
But he said votes in 2024 and 2025 have given Republicans just a three-point edge.
"Statistically, that's not making sense based on the voter registration statistics,'' Strabala said.
One thing that could affect outcome, he said, is "insertion of ballots in the early voting process,'' though he cited no evidence that actually has occurred.
"And that's what we're trying to ensure that does not happen by having observers present,'' Strabala said.
Tuesday's arguments were just the first step. Liburdi is set to hear from other witnesses when the trial resumes next week.
Howard Fischer is a veteran journalist who has been reporting since 1970 and covering state politics and the Legislature since 1982. Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter, Bluesky, and Threads at @azcapmedia or email azcapmedia@gmail.com.
