In Arizona, where the Senate race has now moved into what appears to be a dead heat, a number of court challenges are underway regarding the ballot drop boxes being used around the state. But most of these challenges don’t have to do with how people are using them or if the drop boxes are even legal. Democratic groups are going to court seeking injunctions to prevent primarily conservative organizations from dispatching people to monitor the drop boxes. In case that wasn’t entirely clear to you, these cases are challenging the rights of people to stand on the street and observe as people drop off ballots. The plaintiffs in some cases are also seeking ways to prevent these observers from recording video or taking photos of people using the drop boxes. And amazingly, the courts seem to be taking these challenges seriously. (Associated Press)

A federal judge in Arizona said he hopes to decide by Friday whether to order members of a group to stop monitoring outdoor ballot drop boxes in the Phoenix area in an effort that has sparked allegations of voter intimidation.

The groups Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans and Voto Latino asked U.S. District Judge Michael Liburdi during a Wednesday hearing to prevent members of Clean Elections USA from gathering within sight of drop boxes in Maricopa County, the state’s most populous, and from following voters and taking photos and videos of them and their cars.

The attorney for Clean Elections USA said that such a broad restraining order would be unconstitutional.

The list of “offenses” being claimed by the plaintiffs includes the supposed crimes of watching the ballot drop boxes and recording the activities of people using them. This is beyond audacious. The ballot drop boxes are not placed on private property where trespassing could be an issue. They are right out on the public sidewalks. Under what conceivable pretense could the courts issue orders to only the members of particular groups forbidding them from basically “people-watching” in public?

As to recording video or taking photographs, the only laws that forbid such activity deal with what is done with the images after they are taken. If people’s images are being used without their permission for the purpose of generating a profit, they would have the opportunity to bring a suit against the photographer. But beyond that, this is also a baseless charge. You are filmed on a regular basis every time you leave your home in most places, primarily by security cameras, but also by random tourists collecting images of the area. Nothing about that is illegal.

Also, the courts should be grateful for citizen participation if the observers detect a crime being committed and submit that information to the authorities. In Arizona, it is only legal for someone to drop off a completed ballot for another person if they are a family member, household member, or caregiver. If a person is seen dropping off multiple ballots at different drop boxes, there is almost certainly a crime taking place, and that activity needs to be reported and investigated. If no such activity is detected, then that’s great. The system is functioning as designed and no further action should be required.

This entire effort speaks more broadly to the differences between the parties when it comes to transparency and accountability in how elections are handled. Democrats seek as much secrecy as possible, fighting against voter ID requirements and pushing for as many mail-in ballots as can be managed. The more hands a ballot has to pass through and the more stops it has to make along the way until an appropriate election official receives and tallies it, the more opportunities for malfeasance exist. Why would you make the voting process more complicated than it needs to be? It’s impossible to avoid one possible conclusion here. Do you know who doesn’t want people watching what they are doing? Someone who knows they are doing something wrong.

Hopefully, the courts will boot all of these challenges out to the street promptly. If the courts allow this sort of suppression of free movement in the public square we will be moving even further into some sort of dystopian, authoritarian state. And limiting those restrictions to only politically “unfavored” groups makes it all the more repulsive to consider.