Judges express skepticism over Texas voter ID law

WASHINGTON - The state's argument for a voter ID law met with skepticism Friday from federal judges who questioned Texas attorneys about the lack of witnesses and the need to prove the law is fair to minority voters.

Attorneys for the state contend that the law, which would require government-issued photo identification for voters, would not disenfranchise minorities and is instead designed to address fraud. The Justice Department blocked the law from being implemented, ruling that its implications would disproportionately affect blacks and Hispanics.

District Judge Rosemary Collyer told Texas attorney John Hughes on Friday that the state must prove the voting ID law adheres to the Voting Rights Act - a federal standard for Texas called pre-clearance. The statute is applied to 16 states with a history of discriminating against minority voters.

"Texas bears the burden here," Collyer said.

Circuit Court Judge David Tatel asked the state to show why there would be no impact on minorities, as implied by the Justice Department.

Hughes offered that the Texas law is similar to others passed in Georgia and Indiana, which were upheld by the Supreme Court. In his closing argument, he said Texans who want to vote must either have a driver's license or identification card or could easily get one.

"No one is prevented from voting," he said.

Justice Department lawyer Matthew Colangelo, however, argued the new law violates the Voting Rights Act by placing a new burden on poor and minority voters. The new barrier, he said, "will disenfranchise voters the day it goes into effect."

Statistical analysis in the trial suggested some eligible voters could be ruled ineligible under the new law for lack of state- or federally-issued documents with a photograph. Access to state offices where such identification is obtained is limited for some elderly, poor and rural Texans.

Hughes has argued the Justice Department findings are flawed.

During his closing arguments, Colangelo said evidence showed the Texas Legislature passed the bill with the intent to suppress minority turnout. Neither state Senate and House authors of the bill nor Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst - all Republicans - were called to testify on the motives of passing the legislation.

The legislative rules, Colangelo noted, were changed to ram the bill through the state House and Senate and "enacted against a backdrop of huge Hispanic growth."

Texas grew by 4 million people over the past decade, according to the 2010 U.S. census. Roughly 90 percent of that growth was attributed to minorities, and Latinos alone accounted for 65 percent of the population growth.

Texas passed the voter ID law in 2011 over the objections of minority lawmakers that new regulations would create a hardship for people, largely Hispanic, who lived in rural reaches of the state.

State Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, testified via video this week that some of his constituents in the sweeping border district would be forced to travel up to 120 miles, one way, to a Department of Public Safety office to receive a driver's license or state-issued identification card.

District Judge Robert Wilkins cited Uresti's testimony in questioning the new burden on minority voters, pointing out that even federal court rules discourage the issuance of subpoenas when it requires a person to travel in excess of 100 miles to appear in court.

Reaction from both Texas Democrats and Republicans was swift following the trial.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said the Justice Department case represented "a remarkable intrusion by the federal government into the authority of the Texas Legislature to protect the integrity of the ballot."

But Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio, chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, pointed out that Texas attorneys could not point to one recent conviction in Texas for voter impersonation fraud, despite a state attorney general's investigation to find such criminal acts.

"This is a proposed solution in search of a problem," Martinez Fischer said. "We could have done it differently."

The judges are expected to rule within a month, which would leave Texas time to implement the law for the November election if preclearance is granted.

gmartin@express-news.net