Priorities USA said the law creates undue burdens for voters who lack the required photo identification and could illegally suppress turnout, especially among so-called “vulnerable populations,” such as the elderly and minorities.

Callahan ruled the affidavit is contradictory and misleading and should no longer be used.

The state appealed, saying Callahan should have called for a rewrite of the affidavit, rather than tossing it completely out.

In arguments before the court, Priorities USA attorney Marc Elias called on the judges to stick with Callahan’s decision.

“The affidavit is confusing, misleading,” Elias said.

Supreme Court Judge Laura Denvir Stith said the affidavit was confusing to voters.

“You are forcing them to lie,” Stith said.

Thursday’s hearing is the second time the law has been before the court.

After Callahan’s decision, the high court was asked to weigh in on the ruling in the run-up to the 2018 election. The seven-member panel declined.

Shake off your afternoon slump with the oft-shared and offbeat news of the day, hand-brewed by our online news editor, Mandy St. Amand. Sign up! * I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.