Ronald J. Hanson, Mary Jo Pitzl, wire reports

The battle over whether people should be allowed to return another Arizona voter's ballot to the polls is going to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Hours after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked Arizona's ballot-collection law, state officials went to the nation's high court seeking a stay of that action.

"At this late stage in an election cycle, emotions and rushed judgment typically have no place and should be avoided," state officials say in the emergency application.

U.S. Supreme Court OKs Arizona ballot-collection ban

The Supreme Court gave Democrats, who had sued over the law, a deadline of 9 a.m. Saturday to reply to the state’s request for a stay.

Earlier Friday, the Appeals Court ruling was heralded as a win for Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts shortly before Election Day.

The 115-page order from an 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit means it won't be a crime for groups to go door to door to collect early ballots from voters and deliver them to the polls. It's a tactic especially effective in minority communities.

Reaction from the political parties was predictable, but the practical effect of the reversal on ballot collection, should it remain in place through Election Day, was unclear.

“We are thrilled that the election process in Arizona has just gotten even easier,” said Spencer Scharff, voter-protection director for the Arizona Democratic Party. “Having more options to turn in your ballot ensures that more people take part in the democratic process. We look forward to more people participating in this election than ever before.”

It was not immediately clear, however, what guidance, if any, the party would give campaigns and volunteers on whether to collect ballots. Voters have been getting the message for months that it is a crime to do so, and a last-minute change could confuse voters.

Republican Party spokesman Tim Sifert said the party's training for poll watchers anticipated this possibility. The instructions remain generally the same: Report suspicious or potentially illegal activity to the poll inspector and call the party’s hotline, where complaints can be handled by attorneys. Poll watchers, however, have been told to disregard earlier instructions to gather evidence on suspected ballot collection, such as trailing people to the parking lot or taking photos of their vehicles or license plates.​

Obviously, with today’s court ruling, the advice to document people who bring in numerous ballots, even photographing them or getting their license-plate number, will be moot, Sifert said.

Activist groups, meanwhile, said they had already begin picking up ballots, said James Garcia, a spokesman for Promise Arizona, and several other Latino advocacy groups.

“We are not going to wait,” Garcia said. “As we speak, they are doing it.”

The groups held a news conference at the state Capitol on Friday evening to celebrate the 9th Circuit’s ruling and to get the message out that volunteers could begin going out into the community to pick up ballots, he said.

A three-judge panel rejected an effort late last week by Democrats and some voters to block the law. They allege it violates the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act because it hurts minorities' ability to vote.

In a rebuke to Arizona lawmakers, six of the 11 judges for the 9th Circuit panel said it was preserving the status quo for this election and set a full hearing for January on the Democrats' request to permanently block the law.

It comes as the presidential race has tightened in the traditionally red state, and marks the second 9th Circuit win Friday for Democrats opposing Arizona voting laws.

The court also said it will reconsider a ruling by a panel of three judges who refused to order ballots be counted if Arizona voters go to the wrong polling place to cast them.

Democrats say Arizona throws out more ballots cast at incorrect polling locations than any other state and that minorities are more likely to be affected.

The smaller panel of judges agreed with a lower-court judge that Arizona has valid reasons not to count such votes and that there's no sign of discrimination.

The ballot collection law, House Bill 2023, was enacted by the Republican-controlled Legislature earlier this year, and GOP Gov. Doug Ducey signed it. He called it a common-sense law that protects the sanctity of ballots.

In their order Friday, six of the Appeals Court judges saw it differently.

What you need to know to vote in the Nov. 8 election

What the judges said

"Enjoining enforcement of H.B. 2023 will not have any effect on voters themselves, on the conduct of election officials at the polls, or on the counting of ballots," the court wrote. "Under H.B. 2023, as the State agrees, legitimate ballots collected by third parties are accepted and counted, and there are no criminal penalties to the voter. So, under H.B. 2023, if a ballot collector were to bring legitimate ballots to a voting center, the votes would be counted, but the collector would be charged with a felony. Thus, the only effect of H.B. 2023, although it is serious, is to make the collection of legitimate ballots by third parties a felony."

The court noted that unlike other election-law challenges, the case was filed shortly after the law was enacted and the injunction doesn't change the election process; it keeps the practice the same as it has been.

The judges went on to suggest Arizona lawmakers knew HB 2023 would be viewed as discriminatory in years past, before the U.S. Supreme Court upended a key portion of the Voting Rights Act in a case from Shelby County, Ala.

"In 2012, Arizona submitted a previous iteration of H.B. 2023 for preclearance. The Department of Justice expressed concern and refused to preclear the bill, S.B. 1412, without more information about its impact on minority voters. Rather than address this concern, Arizona withdrew S.B. 1412 from preclearance and repealed it the following session.

"Now, unhindered by the obstacle of preclearance, Arizona has again enacted this law — a mere seven months before the general election — with nothing standing in its way except this court. Thus, not only are the preclearance protections considered important in (an earlier case involving Maricopa County Recorder Helen) Purcell absent in this case, but it is quite doubtful that the Justice Department would have granted preclearance. In the wake of (the Supreme Court decision), the judiciary provides the only meaningful review of legislation that may violate the Voting Rights Act."

Fact check: Arizona GOP's misleading claim on 'ballot harvesting'

In a dissent, five of the judges sketched out their view that the courts were improperly intruding on state election matters at the worst possible time.

"The court misinterprets (and ultimately sidesteps) (the Purcell case) to interfere with a duly established election procedure while voting is currently taking place, contrary to the Supreme Court’s command not to do so," the dissenters wrote. "I thus respectfully dissent from this order enjoining the state of Arizona from continuing to follow its own laws during an ongoing election."

"Even if the majority believes that courts should engage in a heightened review of voting laws after Shelby County — and I stress the Supreme Court has given us absolutely no reason to believe we should — that does not support the notion that such review matters at this stage of litigation. Purcell is plainly about the impact a court order will have on an upcoming (or in our case, ongoing) election, not the merits of the constitutional claim underlying that order. Preclearance, Shelby County, and the merits of the challenge to H.B. 2023 are beside the point. Four days before an election is not an appropriate time for a federal court to tell a State how it must reconfigure its election process."

Ballot collecting kicking into gear

The response to the ruling was swift in Arizona.

Bazta Arpaio, the campaign working to oust Sheriff Joe Arpaio, has already set up a texting system so voters can get someone to pick up their early ballots. They are telling people who want someone to return their ballot to text Bazta to 33888 and they will get a volunteer to their door.

One Arizona, a coalition of 14 mostly immigrant- and Latino-rights groups, issued a statement Friday saying, "Voters can know that One Arizona volunteers will be at their doors ready and willing to deliver their ballots for them, if requested."

Both parties have used ballot collection to boost turnout during elections by going door to door and asking voters if they have completed their mail-in ballots. Voters who have not are urged to do so, and the volunteers offer to take the ballots to election offices. Democrats, however, use it more effectively.

Daniel Gonzalez and the Associated Press contributed to this report.