WASHINGTON: Tens of thousands of voters in at least six battleground states have been removed from election rolls or have been illegally blocked from registering to vote, according to an investigation by the New York Times.

The actions appear to be errors rather than intentional violations, the paper says, adding that Democrats may be affected more than Republicans because the Democrats have been more active in registering voters.

The irregularities, which are violations of US federal law, are largely bureaucratic mistakes in record keeping, and “do not seem to be coordinated by one party or the other, nor do they appear to be the result of election officials intentionally breaking rules,” said the newspaper.

The states affected — Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and North Carolina — are among the most crucial states that could swing either way in the Nov. 4 presidential election between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama.

But not everyone believes these are accidental irregularities.

Voting rights groups filed a federal lawsuit and asked a federal judge Friday to stop Georgia’s attempts to verify the identities and citizenship of new voter applicants, arguing they amounted to a “systematic purging” of rolls just weeks before the election.

Georgia is not alone in being questioned about the way it has been verifying voter records and “purging” voters from the rolls before election day, but Georgia is among several states with a history of discriminatory voting practices.

The federal lawsuit came a day after the Department of Justice said the state’s action to verify citizenship using Social Security numbers violated the 1965 voting law because the policy did not receive federal clearance first.

The Justice Department says Georgia officials made some 2 million requests to check the Social Security numbers of newly registered voters — far more than any other state, indicating a change in election policy.

State officials question so high a number, since just 406,000 registered in Georgia during the same period. Elsewhere in the country, Colorado Secretary of State, Mike Coffman said The Times’ numbers were “pretty out to lunch” and that in reviewing the 14,049 voters whose registrations were canceled since mid-July, his office found 2,454 may have been improperly canceled.

Coffman and Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter have ended up pointing the finger of blame at each other.

All this hasn’t impressed the state’s leading newspaper. The Denver Post wrote in yesterday’s lead editorial: “…This political posturing is just distraction. In recent memory, there hasn’t been an election so charged as this one. Emotions are running high. Voter turnout will be huge. Those entrusted with ensuring a fair vote have the greatest burden to lead with equanimity.”

And, over in Ohio, a federal judge has ordered the state’s top election official to verify the identity of newly registered voters by matching them with other government documents. That includes matching new registrants’ voting information against databases maintained by Ohio driver’s licenses and the Social Security Administration.

Those states mentioned in the Times’ article have taken offense.

North Carolina election watchdog Bob Hall, who heads the advocacy group Democracy North Carolina, defended the state’s election board and called the Times story “reprehensible.”

Indiana also defended its procedures. “Using all available appropriate technology is our best way to combat voter fraud that we know exists in this state and across the country,” Secretary of State Todd Rokita said in a statement Thursday.

Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller issued a statement calling the Times report misleading. “I want to assure Nevadans that any suggestion that eligible voters will be denied their right to participate in this election on Nov. 4 is false,” he said.

The Times said the problems could keep up until election day, when people who have been removed turn up and expect to vote “only to be challenged by political party officials or election workers, resulting in confusion, long lines and heated tempers.”