Pima County Republicans Challenge Arizona Election Rules on Uniforms in Polling Places
On Tuesday, a squad of Pima County Republicans walked into the courthouse with a challenge that could change the look of Arizona polling stations. They asked U.S. District Judge Michael Liburdi to strike down a state rule that bars anyone in a uniform from voting at a polling place. The officials say the ban could be weaponized against law‑enforcement officers and military members—two groups that lean Republican—and might let county election officials sideline GOP observers, opening the door to ballot tampering.
The heart of the lawsuit is a paragraph in the Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) that bans conduct “intimidating voters.” The manual treats “impersonating a law‑officer” as exempt, but it also forbids “anyone … wearing clothing, uniforms or official‑looking apparel intended to deter, intimidate, or harass voters.” Dave Smith, former chair of the Pima County Republican Party and ex‑Tucson police officer, warned that the rule could force officers to leave polling places even when they’re on duty. “In law enforcement, as you know, we work shifts,” Smith said. “But we don’t get to pick our days off.” He added that an officer could be on the way to the station, stop by a polling site in uniform, and then be turned away—an abuse of discretion.
Smith also argued the vague language gives election officials too much power to decide who may stay and who must leave. He cited a 2016 North Carolina incident in which two sheriff’s deputies were denied access to a voting site because officials feared “voter intimidation.” The rule could similarly eject military uniform wearers, a demographic that tends to vote Republican.
Joel Strabala, chair of Legislative District 17 for the Pima County Republican Party, challenged the premise that a uniform is inherently intimidating. “Why would impersonation of a law‑officer at a polling location be something that is intimidating?” Strabala asked. “If I wore a military uniform or a piece of a military uniform as a voter, that’s just clothes.” He also raised concerns about a provision that allows the removal of party observers. According to Strabala, observers could be ejected for “frivolous voter challenges” or for commenting on long lines—cuts that could reduce oversight and pave the way for ballot injection. He pointed to a shift in registration margins in District 17, noting a 10‑point Republican edge in 2016 but only a three‑point edge in 2024 and 2025, calling the drop “statistically, that’s not making sense based on the voter registration statistics.”
The defendants—Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Attorney General Kris Mayes—argue that nothing in the manual violates voters’ rights. “Voters have a right to cast their ballot without undue influence and people have a right to engage in political speech,” their attorneys said. They cited the Supreme Court’s endorsement of states’ efforts to keep polling places “islands of calm” where voters can contemplate their choices. They also noted that the challengers have not produced a specific instance where an election official applied the rules inconsistently with statutes or the Constitution.
This lawsuit is the first step in a legal battle that could reshape how uniforms and observers are handled at polling places in Pima County and potentially across Arizona. Judge Liburdi is slated to hear additional witnesses in the coming week.
