Montana’s attorney general has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Arizona’s appeal after two key elements of Arizona’s election laws were struck down by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Earlier this year the appellate court threw out Arizona’s early June petition deadline for independent candidates and the state’s ban on out-of-staters collecting signatures in Arizona.

Montana’s election laws have similar provisions that are important in helping to police election fraud, Montana’s solicitor said this week.

The case at issue is Nader v. Brewer, a lawsuit filed by independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader against Arizona Secretary of State Janice Brewer. Nader’s lawsuit challenged the state’s residency requirement for petition circulators and its June deadline for submitting signatures for independent presidential candidates.

A federal trial court upheld Arizona’s law but the 9th Circuit Court ruled against Arizona in July.

Montana Attorney General Mike McGrath filed a friend-of-the-court brief dated Dec. 17, presenting arguments why the nation’s high court should consider Arizona’s appeal. The brief was co-signed by attorneys general of 12 other states: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wyoming.

Montana enacted its ban on out-of-state petition gatherers in 2007, after a court ruled three 2006 ballot measures were invalid after fraud was alleged against the mostly out-of-staters who had gathered signatures in Montana.

All three initiatives qualified for the Nov. 7 ballot that year, but they were later invalidated by a state judge who ruled that ‘‘pervasive fraud’’ occurred during the signature gathering process.

Anthony Johnstone, assistant attorney general and solicitor for the state of Montana, said none of the out-of-state petition gatherers could be found to give testimony. The Montana Legislature adopted the residency requirement as an anti-fraud measure, Johnstone said Wednesday.

‘‘The state is also interested in controlling its election calendar as well,’’ Johnstone said. ‘‘That goes hand in hand with some of the fraud and other issues we’ve been seeing.’’

The June filing deadlines ‘‘allow challenges where there might be fraud, and ... allow time for election officials to sort out any allegations of fraud in the signature-gathering process,’’ Johnstone said.