Court urged to stop registration requirement

Thousands of Arizonans, including many naturalized citizens, have had their federal registration forms rejected because they weren't accompanied by other documents required by the state in violation of the federal law, Perales said.

One of the judges sharply challenged State Solicitor General Mary O'Grady when she said the first panel correctly ruled that the state law did not violate the National Voter Registration Act.

``We do accept and use the form but we also require that they meet the criteria of Arizona law,'' O'Grady said.

However, retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, sitting as a temporary 9th Circuit judge, said it appeared the earlier ruling was ``clearly wrong.''

O'Connor recited language from the federal law directing states to ``accept and use'' the federal form. ``Suppose we think that's pretty clear? It seems pretty clear to me,'' O'Connor said.

Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta seemed skeptical that Congress intended to give the states any leeway to impose additional registration requirements. It seems clear, she said, ``that they wanted the postcard to do the trick.''

Appellate court rulings are generally considered binding on future cases dealing with the same issues, but the judges hearing arguments Tuesday noted that subsequent rulings can take different courses if previous decisions were clearly erroneous.

Other parts of the appeal challenge the state law's requirements for proof of identity to cast a ballot at a polling place.

U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver in August 2008 rejected claims by Latino and Native American advocacy groups that the law constitutes a poll tax and disproportionally impacts minority voting. She also cited the state's interest in preventing voter fraud.

The challenges are based on claims that the law violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee for equal protection under the law and federal statutes on civil rights and voting rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 upheld an Indiana voter ID law similar but not identical to the Arizona statute.