POCATELLO — The clerk and elections staff in Bannock County were busy Friday certifying the counting machines, tallying the ballots cast early and reviewing an order dismissing a civil suit filed on behalf of a candidate running for lieutenant governor.

Friday marked the last day of early voting. Between April 18 and May 13, a total of 2,772 people voted early in Bannock County, according to a press release from the county spokesperson Emma Iannacone.

Nearly 1,000 more people voted early this year than those who voted early in the similar 2018 primary election.

“I compared it with four years ago and we had several hundred more voters cast absentee ballots this year so I expect the turnout to be pretty great this year,” said Bannock County Elections Director Julie Hancock. “I’m not sure what to expect on election day, but we sure hope that it’s busy.”

The tallying of the absentee ballots occurred just a few hours after Hancock and other elections staff certified the ballot counting machines in preparation for Tuesday’s primary. All three of Bannock County’s ballot counting machines passed the certification test by providing identical reports when compared to the control test ballots.

Hancock explained to those in attendance that not only does each machine lack the technology to be hacked in any way, the county’s elections office at the Bannock County Courthouse doesn’t even use wireless internet at all. Moreover, Hancock said the wall to which the machines are connected has zero internal ethernet or phone connections to ensure security.

Around 9 a.m. Friday, an Ada County judge issued a formal order tossing a lawsuit filed on behalf of Idaho Rep. Priscilla Giddings that claimed she suffered “irreparable electoral damage” after her poll watchers were prevented from overseeing particular aspects of absentee ballot processing.

In the suit — filed on May 6 against the Idaho Secretary of State and various county clerks, including Bannock County Clerk Jason Dixon — Giddings, a Republican from White Bird who is running for lieutenant governor, alleges her poll watchers were prevented from having access to polling places or that the poll watchers’ rights were restricted in some way.

While not specified in the suit, Dixon told the Idaho State Journal on Friday that the concern from Giddings’ camp surrounded the notion that her poll watchers were prevented from observing the computer screens of poll workers during the absentee ballot counting process.

State law allows each political candidate the opportunity to designate one person per polling location to serve as a poll watcher on election day during a partisan election.

“A watcher is entitled to observe any activity conducted at the location at which the watcher is serving, provided however, that the watcher does not interfere with the orderly conduct of the election,” according to Idaho Code 34-304. “If the watchers are present at the polling place when ballots are counted they shall not absent themselves until the polls are closed. A watcher serving at a central counting station may be present at any time the station is open for the purpose of processing or preparing to process election results and until the election officers complete their duties at the station.”

Another person, limited to one per political party, can be chosen as a poll challenger and is allowed to dispute individual voters who they believe are not qualified to cast a ballot.

For a candidate to have a watcher or challenger present at the polls, the county chairman and secretary of the political party must submit a written request to the county clerk no later than 12 days before the election. Another Idaho statute, states that absentee ballots “may be challenged in the same manner as other votes are challenged,” but does not specifically address poll watchers or challengers being present at polling locations during the early voting period, which ended Friday.

According to an email sent to Giddings’ campaign from Canyon County Elections Supervisor Haley Hicks, poll watchers are allowed to observe the ballot counting process from behind the main counter of the polling location so long as personal identifying information is not on display.

“They are not to handle any voted ballot or be positioned in a way that would violate ballot secrecy or voter privacy,” Hicks wrote in the April 27 email. “Watchers cannot challenge voters or a returned absentee ballot. A watcher may ask questions of a poll worker or election official, but may not interfere with the orderly conduct of the election, or processing of absentee ballots.”

Dixon said he and the staff at the Bannock County elections office never violated state election laws, adding that he allowed poll watchers to observe the elections process amid the early voting period though he restricted watchers from being able to observe computer screens displaying voters’ personal information.

“We followed the law to the letter,” Dixon said. “Giddings has a misunderstanding between a poll watcher and a poll challenger and what the rights are for each of those people. We have had poll watchers in the office for all of the early voting and we have had no problem. The question is, does a poll watcher have the right to observe an election worker’s screen that contains personal identifying information and the directive from the Secretary of State is that they do not have that right and Priscilla didn’t like that.”

Giddings requested the judge issue a writ of mandate or prohibition, an order from the judge directing the Secretary of State and county clerks to adhere to Idaho’s election laws. Additionally, Giddings petitioned for an emergency hearing and ex parte motion, a request for immediate action on behalf of the judge without affording those named in the suit a legal chance to respond.

Nonetheless, the Idaho Secretary of State and several of the county clerks did file responses to the suit, all of whom requested oral arguments on the matter, which occurred in Boise on Thursday evening. Scott dismissed the suit afterward on Thursday and issued a written brief on the matter on Friday.

Scott did not rule on whether or not the Secretary of State or Giddings’ interpreted Idaho elections laws accurately, but did dismiss Giddings’ suit based primarily on the fact that she requested an incorrect remedy for the situation.

“No matter whose interpretation is correct, writs of mandate and prohibition are extraordinary remedies not available to a petitioner who has ‘a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,’” Scott wrote. “Candidate Giddings could have sought a declaratory judgment concerning the scope of the activities in which poll watchers and poll challengers are permitted by Idaho’s election statutes to engage….As a result she is not entitled to writs of mandate or prohibition. Her petition must be dismissed for that reason.”