Texas voter ID law
Is it suppression or protection?
- Duration 5:34
- Date Jul 8, 2012
Is it suppression or protection?
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Well tomorrow the state of Texas squares off against the Justice Department and federal courts at issue the State's new law requiring voters to show proper photo ID in order to cast a ballot.
Proponents say the law is needed to secure the integrity of the electoral process -- against it say it ends of disenfranchising elderly poor and minority voters.
Joining us now congressman we've -- Republican from Texas we also plan -- -- Sheila Jackson Lee the democratic congresswoman also from Texas.
Other cheek cancel so congress and go we're we're glad you're with us I think three times -- It is great to be with you are right it.
Congresswoman Jackson -- -- among those criticizing this line often they say it is those groups that are going to be impacted.
Disenfranchised essentially older people poor people and minorities.
How do you counter that criticism of this kind of law.
-- -- -- Have been in Iraq I've been in other countries where when I got the vote that we're so excited they didn't mind risking their lives.
Standing in line for hours to vote.
Putting their finger in and -- die so that they could be identified.
In the face of -- have -- eleven flyers around the country that said you vote you die.
And yet people are saying well gee it's too inconvenient to get -- photo ID.
You've got to have it if you wanna make an appointment with the attorney general you've got to have that photo IDR you're not getting in the Justice Department -- drive.
And and it as we know.
You look at the facts -- We're quite created a requirement for a photo ID and in the two elections stance.
-- -- disenfranchise.
Minorities there's been an increased number of minorities and fact much more than the percentage of white voters.
That came out it didn't and disenfranchise.
And for those who say -- -- it it's too oppressive to -- people get a photo ID it costs money.
If you're -- -- we followed the Indiana law that's been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Although you never know what John Roberts is gonna do made that intimidating by Colin political names again getting to go the wrong way but.
But the fact is people are not disenfranchise and we just say.
It is very -- -- what's going on an administration that should they be transparent.
It's unfortunate this is the only place they have been what you ever present out there won't.
Saying as a keying are -- overseas or.
As I speak the law it exist.
All congressional law on immigration.
I'm -- 800000.
To a million new.
And you know -- she'd been out there in previous years saying to illegals.
You know you're gonna run things you know get out there you're the true patriots encourages them basically to go -- So it's very transparent.
They're creating illegals into potential voters and then they didn't help won't photo ID's -- which will allow bad people would continue to vote.
And it'll allow those.
Who shouldn't be voting to vote.
What I'm telling you what -- Let me ask you because you know folks on the other -- this will say and those are all scare tactics and there aren't real cases of fraud that you could point to in taxes.
Well it won't -- well there have been and and -- you can go back Jude Duval county and Lyndon Johnson days when he told his is supposedly his campaign manager.
Now this this man in this grave has ever been as much right to vote -- -- the other people in this cemetery.
I mean those things have been going on.
But when you don't have a requirement for a photo ID it's hard to identify the fraud.
So the fact is we know people are not disenfranchised.
By requiring the the requirement although the Justice Department is spending more tax dollars.
Do and I corn Dart Group.
Catalysts that it's -- it's that -- on the whips out what they're purposes.
It's to support the progressive movement and that doesn't mean that they're going to be.
An unbiased witness in court the fact that they would hire a biased witness like this shows how desperate they are any good trial lawyer knows.
You want expert witnesses who are unbiased who had this great reputation.
And the fact that he would give tax dollars.
Two -- biased group like this means there is no objective evidence that he can point to and I'm telling you what this.
This section -- -- -- of the voting rights amendment.
Is a violation of equal protection it was renewed for 25 years would majority states many of whom had districts would more.
Than any of those that they were ramming this down.
And and that's a violation of equal protection now -- -- attorney general from the states will right he's that.
In the next round of litigation because it is outrageous.
That this attorney general who knows nothing about justice -- testified -- in front of me that -- or political dimensions to justice.
-- -- -- Toward this administration.
Justice being blind.
What they want is a political Justice Department -- politics and justice.
Or are mutually exclusive content him -- you not have black just as you don't have justice.
We got to leave it there but this will go to federal -- -- -- DC of course the voting rights act section five headed for the Supreme Court as well so we'll keep an eye on those battles.
We thank you for your time today congressman thank you Shannon really appreciate.