Supreme Court Rejects Ohio Democrats’ Request for Polling Place Restraining Order

United States Supreme Court unanimously rejected on Monday Ohio Democrats’ request for a restraining order aimed at preventing voter intimidation.

The restraining order was granted at a U.S. District Court Friday, but was then lifted by a federal appeals court Sunday. The Democrats rushed to ask the Supreme Court to reinstate the restraining order through an emergency application, only to have it denied the day before Election Day.

Under the restraining order, anyone of any party who engaged in intimidation or harassment at or near polling places in Ohio would have faced contempt of court charges, USA Today reported.

But according to the Supreme Court, the restraining order wasn’t necessary. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by President Bill Clinton, said in a statement that “Ohio law proscribes voter intimidation,” citing existing laws as justification for the Court’s denial.

The case started when the Ohio Democrats challenged the Ohio Republicans, the Donald Trump campaign and Stop the Steal, an organization of Trump supporter Roger Stone, accusing the groups of plotting voter intimidation.

Their concerns were based partly on a quote from Trump encouraging supporters to watch the polls in “certain areas” to prevent voter fraud. Here is the full quote from Trump’s speaking engagement in Pennsylvania in August from the Chicago Tribune:

 We’re going to watch Pennsylvania. Go down to certain areas and watch and study make sure other people don’t come in and vote five times.

Democrats claimed that the Trump campaign was going to attempt to intimidate minority voters, while Trump and many of his supporters have warned about the threat of voter fraud throughout the election season, Politico reported.

The Trump campaign responded to the Ohio Democrats’ accusations, saying they had no intention of breaking the law. Campaign attorney Chad Readler wrote:

The order tramples upon core First Amendment freedoms. It imposes vague prohibitions against poorly defined categories of core political activity — talking to voters, giving information to voters, etc. — that guarantee hundreds (if not thousands) of Ohioans will be chilled from participating in our democratic process. The order prohibits anyone from having a truthful discussion about voting rules with another voter when the two are heading inside to vote. … The untailored list of examples of such activity in the order offers more confusion than clarity.

Federal judges have rejected similar requests from Democrats in Pennsylvania and North Carolina.