Howard Wilkinson
and Cindi Andrews
Enquirer staff writers

Two federal judges today banned thousands of challengers who had been recruited to monitor voters in Ohio polling places, saying poll workers -- not outsiders -- should determine voter eligibility.

Three local Republicans backed by the state party quickly appealed to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which in turn asked Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro to give his position on the cases by 5 p.m.

Petro had planned to wait until after the election to appeal the challenger ban, spokeswoman Kim Norris said. He will comply and file a brief defending the use of challengers as permitted by Ohio law.

In the first ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Dlott found the portion of Ohio law that allows challengers to be placed in polling places to be unconstitutional. Having challengers inexperienced in questioning voters would impede the election and potentially disenfranchise some voters, Dlott said in her ruling, issued at 1:24 a.m.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by long-time Cincinnati civil rights activists Donald and Marian Spencer, who argued that the GOP's plan to deploy challengers in mostly in African-American precincts was an attempt to intimidate and frustrate black voters.

Republicans argued that the challengers would have been there to prevent voter fraud. Republicans, in their appeal, said there was no evidence of racial hostility or discrimination. They want Judge Dlott's order blocked.

Republicans and Democrats had planned to place over 1,000 challengers in Hamilton County alone.

The "vast'' number of new voter registrations around the state, Dlott said in the ruling, are likely to cause long lines and crowded conditions at many polling places. Having inexperienced challengers questioning voters would increase the long lines and could intimidate some voters, Dlott said.

"Further, there are other protections in place to prevent election fraud," Dlott wrote in her 18-page decision. Among them, she said, are the Republican and Democratic precinct judges who are always present at each precinct.

U.S. District Judge John Adams made a similar ruling in Akron, barring challengers from polling places.

Like Dlott, Adams said that the precinct judges that are normally on duty at polling places are the ones to determine if voters are eligible.

"In light of these extraordinary circumstances, and the contentious nature of the imminent election, the court can not and must not turn a blind eye to the substantial likelihood that significant harm will result not only to voters, but also to the voting process itself, if appointed challengers are permitted at the polls,'' Adams wrote.

Mark Weaver, a lawyer for the Ohio Republican Party, said it's possible for two judges to be wrong. He is optimistic the issue can be resolved in time for Tuesday's election.

"The 6th Circuit is wired for speed. They can move when they have to.''

Weaver said he thinks the Republicans will win on the merits of the case.

"I think the law is on our side. It takes a lot to override a law passed by the General Assembly,'' Weaver said.

In Akron, the Summit County Democratic Party sued to block the challengers.

E-mail hwilkinson@enquirer.com or candrews@enquirer.com