Access to polling places tightened

Judges in Florida and Colorado yesterday tightened access to polling places in their states, a blow to Democrats who had argued that legal restrictions there disenfranchised voters — especially new ones, mostly Democratic-leaning minorities.

The decisions came as residents in both states began early voting. Early voting was instituted in Florida after the 2000 election in hopes of preventing the electoral mayhem of four years ago that held the presidency in abeyance for weeks after Election Day.

“If you vote early now,” Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry told a crowd of Democrats here yesterday, “We don’t have to stay up late Tuesday night.”

In a unanimous ruling in Florida, the seven justices of the state Supreme Court said the votes of residents who cast ballots at the wrong precincts do not have to be counted, upholding a state law that labor unions argued unconstitutionally deprived residents of the right to vote if they did not know their polling place.

In Colorado, a Denver district judge yesterday upheld a new state law requiring voters to show identification before they cast their ballots and also said residents’ can vote only at their predetermined precinct.

Republican Gov. Bill Owens hailed Judge Morris B. Hoffman’s decision, saying that the ruling would help Colorado “ensure the integrity of next month’s elections.”

“With Democrats and Republicans raising concerns about potential voter fraud, it is essential that we have a common-sense mechanism to make sure that voters who come to vote are indeed who they say they are — and that they vote only once,” Mr. Owens said.

By midmorning yesterday, minor problems had surfaced in early voting. Florida voters faced faulty ballots, crashed voting computers and other problems as they joined voters from battleground states, including Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and New Mexico, that already had begun voting.

The Florida justices, two of whom were appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush — the president’s brother — after 2000, disagreed with a group of labor unions that argued that many people might not know their polling place because it might have been moved, displaced by a hurricane or eliminated in redistricting.

They said the Constitution gives the legislature the authority to dictate voting rules.

Under Florida law, if voters show up at a polling place but officials there have no record that they are registered, they are given provisional ballots. Those ballots are then held until officials determine whether the persons were entitled to vote at that precinct and had not already voted.

If they should have been allowed to vote at that precinct, the ballots count; if not, they are thrown out.

The court said requiring that provisional voters vote at the correct precinct is no more unreasonable than requiring that everyone else vote at the correct polling place.

“This is like saying you can only do your banking in this building downtown,” said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Florida, which supported the plaintiffs in the Florida case. “What we’re seeing here is the difficulty of trying to drag Florida kicking and screaming out of the horse-and-buggy era.”

The Florida court’s ruling contradicted a ruling last week by a federal judge in Ohio. U.S. District Judge James Carr blocked a directive requiring poll workers to send voters to their correct precinct, ruling that Ohio voters can cast provisional ballots as long as they are in the county in which they are registered. Ohio’s secretary of state is appealing.

In Colorado, the ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by Colorado Common Cause, which challenged three provisions of a state election law passed by the legislature in 2003.

Judge Hoffman struck down one section of the law regarding absentee ballots. Under the judge’s ruling, those who request absentee ballots later can change their minds and instead vote in person with a provisional ballot on Election Day.

Pete Maysmith, executive director of Colorado Common Cause, praised the judge’s ruling on the absentee-ballot issue, saying it would increase voter turnout. He cited testimony stating that 13,000 voters who asked for absentee ballots in 2002 never turned in those ballots and voted in person instead.

But state Republicans warned that the decision could increase the potential for voter fraud. Election clerks caught about 85 people who tried to vote twice, once by absentee and once in person, in 2002.

There were concerns that the ruling will increase the workload of county election clerks, who must mark provisional ballots and set them aside to be checked by hand later against their voter rolls. That process could delay the results of close elections.

Mr. Maysmith argued that increasing voter turnout, not reducing the workload of the county clerks, should be the ultimate goal.

“Maybe they never received their absentee ballot. Maybe they lost it. Maybe their dog threw up on it,” said Mr. Maysmith. “If they didn’t cast it, that’s all that matters.”

Common Cause had argued that the identification requirement amounted to a poll tax because many forms, including driver’s licenses, cost money. But Republicans noted that the law allows voters to produce 10 different types of identification, including a current utility bill, bank statement, U.S. birth certificate or certified document of naturalization.

They argued that many everyday transactions, ranging from boarding an airplane to renting a movie, require identification.

Even so, Mr. Maysmith argued that mandating identification at the ballot box will inhibit voter turnout. “Renting a movie at Blockbuster isn’t a constitutional right. Voting is,” he said.

Judge Hoffman had a few remarks for Common Cause and the other plaintiffs.

“At the moment, if I were trying to design a system that maximizes the chances that fraudulent and ineligible registrants will be able to become fraudulent voters, I’m not sure I could do a better job than what [the plaintiffs] are asking me to do in this case — allow voters to vote wherever they want without showing identification,” said Judge Hoffman.

The state legislature approved the law in 2003 “after much heated debate,” said state Senate President John Andrews. He said the law came in response in part to the 2000 presidential election debacle in Florida, as well as a desire to protect Colorado’s election process from fraud.

“I’m delighted to learn that the court has upheld the reasonable power of the legislature to protect honest elections in Colorado,” Mr. Andrews said.

The problems in Florida included a brief computer-system crash in one county and voter complaints of incomplete paper ballots. But there were no early reports of problems with the ATM-like touch-screen voting machines introduced since the troubled 2000 election.

Florida’s early voting was touted partly as a way to avoid long lines on Nov. 2, but it turned out to be so popular that Lucien Gennaro, a police aide in Coral Springs, waited for an hour and finally had to leave for work.

“A lot of people who were waiting just left. I’ll try again tomorrow,” he said. “It was a little frustrating after what happened in 2000.”

Critics say the extended voting period increases opportunities for fraud. And some groups urged voters to ask for paper absentee ballots because of concerns about the touch-screen machines and the possibility of recounts. Voters can choose either method through Nov. 1.

The touch-screen voting machines got a favorable review from Robin Punches, who used one of them for the first time in Palm Beach County.

“It tells you exactly what to do. It’s idiot-proof,” she said.

During early voting in Texas, President Bush got at least two votes in Houston — from his parents.

“We love voting for our son,” former first lady Barbara Bush said after casting her electronic ballot at a community center.

• Charles Hurt reported from West Palm Beach, Fla., and Valerie Richardson reported from Denver. This article is based in part on wire service reports.