federal courts issued several rulings friday on voter harassment and election mechanics that favored democrats, as judges continued to grapple with legal challenges on voting ahead of election day. ruling in a lawsuit brought by ohio democrats, a federal judge there issued a temporary restraining order that bars the donald trump campaign and mr. trump<u+2019>s longtime adviser, roger stone, <u+201c>from engaging in voter intimidation activity.<u+201d> u.s. district judge james gwin said that activity includes hindering or interrogating voters at polling places, or taking photos or recordings of voters in or around voting locations. the judge applied the same restrictions to the hillary clinton campaign. <u+201c>where there is a legitimate possibility that particular laws may be imminently violated, ordering compliance with those laws is appropriate,<u+201d> wrote judge gwin. the trump campaign appealed the ruling friday evening. a lawyer for the trump campaign declined to comment. in arizona, a deeply divided federal appeals court put on hold a republican-backed state law that made it a crime for get-out-the-vote operatives to collect and deliver mail-in ballots filled out by voters. the order, by the ninth u.s. circuit court of appeals, is a win for democrats who argued the law was a hardship on thousands of voters who in the past have relied on neighbors, activists and campaigns to collect and hand deliver their ballots. republicans had argued the law, passed earlier this year, was a common-sense approach to addressing concerns about ballot tampering. arizona won two recent rulings allowing the law to be enforced<u+2014>one from a trial judge and one from a divided three-judge panel on the ninth circuit. the appeals court, however, vacated that decision this week and said a larger panel of judges would reconsider the case after the election early next year. friday<u+2019>s court order, which came on a 6-5 vote, prevents the state from enforcing the law while the appeal proceeds. the majority, in an opinion by chief judge sidney thomas, said the order leaves in place the previous longtime status quo which <u+201c>has permitted the collection of legitimate ballots by third parties to election officials.<u+201d> dissenting judges said that arizona<u+2019>s law appeared to be on solid legal footing, and they criticized the majority for its last-minute intervention. <u+201c>four days before an election is not an appropriate time for a federal court to tell a state how it must reconfigure its election process,<u+201d> wrote judge diarmuid o<u+2019>scannlain. arizona responded quickly friday evening, asking the supreme court to intervene and restore the law. a separate notable election ruling involving arizona came from the same appeals court late on friday, and that one sided with republicans. the court, on a 7-4 vote, rejected a request by democrats to require the state to count ballots that are cast outside a voter<u+2019>s designated precinct. in north carolina, a federal judge ordered election officials to restore voter registrations in at least three counties that civil rights groups alleged were improperly canceled when mail sent to voter addresses was returned undelivered. u.s. district judge loretta biggs in issuing a preliminary injunction wrote the challengers have <u+201c>established that the defendants<u+2019> challenged conduct likely violates<u+201d> federal law on voter registration residency provisions. a new jersey-based federal judge also is expected to rule no later than saturday on whether the republican national committee violated a decades-old consent decree barring it from engaging in poll-security activities. u.s. district judge john michael vazquez in newark, n.j., pressed rnc lawyers at a court hearing on friday about why public statements made by high-ranking republicans about preventing voter fraud don<u+2019>t violate the 1982 consent decree. the democratic national committee sued its republican counterpart in late october seeking court intervention to uphold the consent decree, which stems from complaints brought by democrats during the 1981 new jersey gubernatorial election that republicans had engaged in voter-suppression tactics targeting minority voters. the decree is set to expire at the end of next year, but could be extended for another eight years if the court determines it was violated. the republicans have argued, through court submissions from more than a dozen people and other evidence, that they have no agreements in place to monitor polls on behalf of mr. trump and aren<u+2019>t overstepping their bounds. <u+201c>we have turned over every stone in the last week, through all levels of the republican parties, to confirm there is no violation here,<u+201d> bobby burchfield, a lawyer representing the rnc, told the judge friday. write to brent kendall at brent.kendall@wsj.com and sara randazzo at sara.randazzo@wsj.com
federal courts in ohio, arizona and n.c. issue voting rulings favoring democrats  - wsj
brent kendall sara randazzo