Nov. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Republican challengers may be present at polling places in Ohio to contest the eligibility of voters in today's presidential election, a U.S. appeals court has ruled.

A three-judge panel this morning overturned two lower court rulings which held that such challenges unduly burdened citizens' right to vote. U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens rejected a request to delay enforcement of the decision by the Cincinnati-based U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeals court ruling allows thousands of Republicans to challenge the eligibility of newly registered Democrats in Ohio, which has 20 electoral votes and is considered a key state in the race between President George W. Bush, the Republican incumbent, and Senator John Kerry, his Democratic challenger. The appeals panel said it had to balance citizens' rights to vote freely with Ohio's ability to root out fraudulent voters.

Challengers at polling places could delay voting in some precincts and lead to lawsuits after the election, said Terri Enns, a staff attorney and professor at Ohio State University's law school. Democrats said Republican challengers who question the ability of voters to cast ballots would create long lines and deter other voters. ``It's possible that it may cause some lines to be a little longer,'' Enns said.

Under Ohio law, poll workers may question voters on four grounds: whether they are 18 or over; whether they are citizens; whether they lived in the state for at least 30 days; and whether they are voting in the precinct where they are registered. Enns said that uncertainty remains over what documents are required to prove residency or age.

Reduce Fraud

Republicans have said they want to reduce fraud by looking for voters whose names are on lists of deceased people or those who already cast absentee ballots.

Another source of possible legal skirmishes, Enns said, could be the provisional ballots cast by voters whose eligibility is questioned at the polls. Under Ohio and federal law, those voters will cast ballots that will be counted 10 days later after election officials verify their eligibility, she said.

``It's possible that provisional ballots, absentee ballots and challenges could cause litigation after the fact,'' she said.

In its 2-1 decision early today, the appeals court said, ``There is a strong public interest in allowing every registered voter to vote freely.'' The court added that, ``There is also a strong public interest in permitting legitimate statutory processes to operate to preclude voting by those who are not entitled to vote.''

`Unfortunate'

Ohio Democratic Voter Protection Coordinator David Sullivan issued a statement calling the appeals court decision ``unfortunate.'' He said Democrats ``were prepared for this outcome and will have voting rights volunteers at the polls to defend the rights of voters.''

In one of two concurring opinions by the appeals court, Circuit Judge James L. Ryan said that in neither of the cases before the panel have the plaintiffs shown that ``the intimidation, chaos, confusion, `pandemonium,' and inordinate delay they allege will occur tomorrow is `actual or imminent.'''

Ryan reasoned that, without proof of such confusion, the plaintiffs, two Cincinnati voters, didn't have standing to bring a lawsuit.

Circuit Judge R. Guy Cole disagreed, asserting in his dissenting opinion that, ``Permitting hundreds of election challengers to challenge voters at particular polls will promote chaos and uncertainty; it will divert the attention of election judges; and most importantly, it will create a level of voter frustration that could deter citizens from exercising their constitutional right to vote.''

No `Legal Standards'

Cole also said in his opinion that the challengers, ``for the first time since the civil rights era, seek to target precincts that have a majority African-American population, and without any legal standards or restrictions, challenge the voter qualifications of people as they stand waiting to exercise their fundamental right to vote.''

Cole was appointed to the appeals court by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat. Ryan was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican.

The 6th Circuit decision overturned rulings by federal judges in Cincinnati and Akron, Ohio.

The appeals court ruling early this morning followed a day of legal battles yesterday in three federal courtrooms over the ability of Republicans to challenge Democratic voters in Ohio polling places. Ohio, along with Pennsylvania, Florida and a handful of other states, have been a focus of the Bush and Kerry campaigns for weeks.

Race-Based Challenges

U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott in Cincinnati and U.S. District Judge John Adams in Akron ruled yesterday that Republican workers threatened to create chaos today and intimidate voters at the polls.

In a separate ruling in Newark, New Jersey, U.S. District Judge Dickinson Debevoise barred the Ohio Republican Party from using a list of 23,000 newly registered voters to challenge their ability to cast ballots.

Debevoise ruled that Republicans violated decrees he issued in the 1980s that barred political parties from using race or ethnicity as a factor in challenging the integrity of voter registrations.

The case is Summit County Democratic Central and Executive Committee v. Blackwell, No. 04-4311, and Spencer v. Blackwell, No. 04-4312, 6th Circuit.

With reporting by Greg Stohr in Washington, and Ann Woolner. Editor: Pinsley.

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Dunn in New York at adunn8@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: November 2, 2004 09:37 EST