washington<u+2014>a federal appeals court<u+00a0>on sunday<u+00a0>nullified an ohio judge<u+2019>s order barring donald trump<u+2019>s presidential campaign from polling-place activities that could intimidate voters, one of a flurry of rulings that could affect the contours of voting in key states. fast-developing cases around the country have required judges to address lawsuits filed over voting rights, particularly for minorities, while also preserving the free-speech rights of the presidential campaigns and assuring election procedures are orderly. in several rulings<u+00a0>friday, the pendulum swung toward protecting voters, with decisions favoring democrats and civil rights groups that had filed legal challenges.<u+00a0>that included a case in north carolina where a judge ordered election officials to restore voter registrations in at least three counties which civil rights groups alleged were improperly canceled. the pendulum swung back over the weekend in court actions that sided with republicans, as judges rejected last-minute rules changes and said democrats in some circumstances hadn<u+2019>t proven a need for judicial intervention. the ohio voter intimidation litigation was one of those cases. the state democratic party sued last week, seeking to head off what it alleged were plans by the trump campaign and mr. trump<u+2019>s close adviser, roger stone, for aggressive polling-place tactics that could hinder or intimidate voters. u.s. district judge james gwin<u+00a0>on friday<u+00a0>issued a temporary restraining order preventing the trump campaign and mr. stone from engaging in voter intimidation activity.<u+00a0>the order, however, raised questions because it was written broadly and the judge applied the restrictions to <u+201c>other individuals or groups,<u+201d> both democratic and republican, that weren<u+2019>t parties to the case. the order prohibited a broad range of actions by trump officials and their surrogates, such as gathering at polling places and telling people that voter fraud is a crime. there are existing laws in place to protect voters. the judge<u+2019>s order would have put in place additional constraints against possible harassment. the campaign denied the democrats<u+2019> allegations and appealed quickly, arguing the order trampled first amendment protections for political organizing and political speech. a three-judge panel of the sixth u.s. circuit court of appeals ruled for mr. trump<u+00a0>sunday<u+00a0>morning, in a two-page order that didn<u+2019>t fully explain the court<u+2019>s reasoning.<u+00a0>the court panel said the ohio democratic party hadn<u+2019>t shown it had a strong case against mr. trump. a lawyer for the trump campaign declined to comment. a lawyer for the democrats didn<u+2019>t immediately respond to a request for comment. the ohio developments followed two notable legal developments<u+00a0>saturday. in one, the u.s. supreme court restored a republican-supported arizona law making it a crime for get-out-the-vote operatives to collect and deliver absentee ballots filled out by voters. the justices acted quickly to overturn the actions of a deeply divided appeals court that had put the arizona law on hold for this election. 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. separately, 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. write to brent kendall at brent.kendall@wsj.com
appeals court backs donald trump following ohio judge<u+2019>s ruling - wsj
brent kendall