Texas defends voter ID law in federal court
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott explains
- Duration 5:12
- Date Jul 15, 2012
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott explains
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Texas is one of three states fighting with the Obama administration over voter ID laws laws the administration says are discriminatory.
In fact attorney general Eric Holder -- compared to -- ideologue sexist to Jim Crow era poll taxes.
The law was passed to try to curb voter fraud -- this case could wind up going to the Supreme Court.
Joining me now is Texas attorney general Greg -- general -- thanks for being with this you had final arguments in this case before the district court here in Washington on Friday.
Looked like it was a pretty tough room how do you think those arguments went.
Well first well let's put this in context this lawsuit that we were litigating last week against Obama's Department of Justice.
Is part of an overall national scheme by Obama administration to promote and protect illegal voting in this country.
The -- litigation as you pointed out as one of three.
Pieces of litigation with states across the country most recently in the state of Florida you had the situation -- Florida was trying to purge illegal voters from their roles and the Obama administration actually filed legal action to prevent.
Purging illegal voters same thing applies in Texas but we approved in Texas is that voter.
Fraud exists we have more than 200 dead people who voted in the last election.
And we proved that in court in addition to the fact that the voter ID law will have no it disenfranchisement.
On the voters instead of Texas despite those facts.
You see the Obama administration trying to protect.
Dead voters foreign nationals and others on the voter rolls in this that a Texas and across the country.
We think that approach is reprehensible to the integrity.
Of our election system you say general -- that you did I get a five voter fraud but how much of a problem is it really.
Well first you need to understand that the United States supreme -- spoke on this issue for years ago.
And upholding the Indiana voter ID law in in that case the Supreme Court said there were no proven instances of voter fraud but nevertheless there.
They Indiana -- to go into effect to prevent.
A voter fraud and they upheld about a ride became president in Indiana but it could however that it's not that much of a problem why the need for -- voter -- -- that that.
May go all the way to the spring -- -- year.
Says the United States Supreme Court it self made clear because of the appearance of impropriety in the election system there is lack of confidence elections however John understand this.
My office alone which is just one of countless prosecutors in this that a Texas my office alone is prosecuted more than fifty cases of voter fraud John in May we had.
More than 200 people who were dead.
Who voted we have -- Nash for nationals who have voted we have rampant voter fraud in fact there was a -- -- -- from south Texas bank.
-- -- -- who testified.
Deb voter fraud in south Texas is rampant it's a proven problem that needs to be addressed and better -- one of the ways to address.
Then a general -- -- you say that there's no disenfranchisement.
Of of any potential voters here at the attorney general of those says to the contrary.
This could disenfranchise as many as one point four million people in the state of Texas.
You disagree why right.
Because the evidence showed conclusively the opposite first -- ball.
You would think if one person could be disenfranchised they would have been able to present that person to set to testify.
No one testified at trial who would have been disenfranchised but secondly more and -- Among that one point four million people they claim would be disenfranchised.
Includes more than 50000 people who are dead includes more than 200000 people who live in other states includes hundreds of thousands of people are raised 65 or older who don't need a photo ID.
But also John importantly the number of people supposedly disenfranchised.
Bush senator Kay Bailey Hudson.
Phil Gramm and even a senator from the -- -- Texas who testify from the witness stand so it -- we showed it trial that the data relied upon by the Department of Justice was hopelessly flawed.
I wanna play said the general -- that the attorney general said the other day at the NAACP convention -- which he likened the voter ID law there in Texas.
To Jim Crow era poll taxes here's what he said.
Many of those without IDs would have to travel great distances to get him.
And some would struggle to pay for the documents they might need to obtain them.
We call those poll taxes.
It is in the short amount of time we have left that want to get your response to that and two to Texas State senators.
Who testified before the district court saying that these these laws were quote racially motivated what do you say.
First of all one of those senators who testified -- that said that he had lied previously already.
And so his testimony can't be take into account but as a concerned Eric Holder.
He doesn't know what his own expert witness testified to which is it.
Eric -- own expert witness said it is inappropriate to equate a voter ID laws.
To Jim Crow laws -- poll taxes but on top of that.
Eric Holder hasn't read the United States Supreme Court decision -- came out four years ago.
That said that these voter ID laws are are a race neutral way of protecting the ballot box right.
Attorney general Greg -- from the state of Texas good to talk you'll be looking forward to that decision coming up soon.