washington<u+2014>the u.s. supreme court on saturday restored a republican-supported arizona law that makes it a crime for get-out-the-vote operatives to collect and deliver absentee ballots filled out by voters. the court<u+2019>s action was one of two notable election law matters saturday in which the gop prevailed. a federal judge in new jersey, ruling on a complaint brought by the democratic national committee, declined to find that the republican national committee had violated a longstanding legal settlement barring it from engaging in certain poll monitoring and ballot security activities. the actions come after federal courts issued several rulings friday on voter harassment and election mechanics that favored democrats . in the arizona case, the supreme court acted quickly in response to an emergency appeal by the state after an appeals court on friday put the law on hold. democrats had challenged the arizona law, enacted earlier this year, on the grounds that it would burden the voting rights of thousands of people who have relied upon third parties to turn in their early ballots. the state, along with the arizona republican party, said the law was a fair and sensible measure to guard against ballot tampering. capital journal is wsj.com<u+2019>s home for election 2016 news. two lower-court rulings had allowed the law, but a deeply divided ninth u.s. circuit court of appeals on friday ruled to put the law on ice for the current election while the litigation continued. the supreme court, in a brief order, reversed that action and said the state could again prohibit third-party ballot collection.<u+00a0>the court<u+2019>s action wasn<u+2019>t a ruling on the merits of the law and the justices didn<u+2019>t explain their reasoning. the supreme court has made clear that it generally doesn<u+2019>t like changes to voting procedures when an election is imminent.<u+00a0>some last-minute election law issues have divided the justices along ideological lines. this case didn<u+2019>t, as no member of the court registered a dissent. in the new jersey case, a federal judge was examining whether the republican national committee had been improperly coordinating and assisting donald trump <u+2019>s presidential campaign on aggressive ballot security measures that democrats believed could amount to voter suppression. <u+201c>the dnc offered the court nothing but politically charged allegations with no credible evidence whatsoever. there is no credible evidence because the rnc remains fully compliant with the consent decree,<u+201d> said lindsay walters, a spokeswoman for the rnc. <u+201c>i am disappointed in the court<u+2019>s decision denying immediate relief on the eve of this election, but find comfort in knowing that meaningful discovery may be pursued afterward to establish that this 30-plus-year consent order should remain viable,<u+201d> said angelo genova, a lawyer representing the dnc.<u+200b> the rnc is barred from certain election day security activities under a settlement dating back to the 1980s, when democrats alleged the rnc engaged in efforts to interrogate and intimidate black voters. the settlement is set to expire next year and the rnc has denied it violated the prohibitions. u.s. district judge john michael vazquez in a 36-page opinion saturday rejected requests to sanction the rnc. the judge said democrats hadn<u+2019>t produced enough evidence to support their claims. <u+201c>at best, the dnc shows a possibility, not a probability<u+201d> of a violation, judge vazquez wrote. the judge said democrats can renew their request after election day if they believe they have additional evidence that supports their case. <u+2014>byron tau contributed to this article. write to brent kendall at brent.kendall@wsj.com
voting-rights decisions in arizona, new jersey favor republicans - wsj
brent kendall