This transcript is automatically generated
Our Justice Department lawsuit.
In the voter photo ID case with the state of Texas.
Entered its second day of arguments before a special three judge panel in the nation's capital.
But the attorney general himself was in Texas today slamming the law in front of the NAACP.
The department found that this law would be harmful to minority voters and we rejected.
-- simple -- Joining us now Texas attorney general Greg Abbott mr.
attorney general great to have you -- -- Lou great to be back banks well let's turn first.
Attorney general holder.
Are saying that it.
Photo ID laws upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008 from -- Indiana case.
He -- -- -- suppression above voter rights for minorities.
-- -- is rather stunning and it shows quite an about face by the United States Department of Justice.
As you point out it was just four years ago that the United States Supreme Court said that a similar law from Indiana is perfectly constitutional.
However in addition to that -- In that lawsuit the United States Department of Justice at that time filed a brief saying that photo voter IDs -- what we -- have now in taxes.
Our our constitutional our legal and are necessary in order to prevent.
But also -- that very same Department of Justice then.
Upheld our pre cleared a similar law in the state of Georgia so my point -- this.
I believe that Eric Holder is playing politics with this law because the former.
United States Department of Justice said these laws were OK now -- Eric Holder is in there.
He's pandering to political partisans and preventing Texas from enforcing a law that other states already have.
You know I understood well let me first all -- If I may just and something -- said you talked about pre clearing which is a necessity four states that were involved that have.
Been structured if you will by the Civil Rights Act of 1965.
Or the Justice Department -- of them because of -- history of segregation in those states.
Is out of her way to put it.
It is and -- way to put it -- -- and that is a stated taxes and in several other states across the country.
Have to go through this process about -- being treated differently than other states that are allowed to have and are virtually identical law.
And that we should point out that it took more than -- you're supposed to be a matter of judgment on the part of -- Justice Department rather -- -- the Obama Justice Department and the other the requirement is sixty days -- believe.
I'll watch you seek requires to get a decision from the Justice Department you -- actually sued them about a year later right.
Rival in and what is clear from this and that is that under Eric Holder -- seems as though they have been dragging their feet.
In a way to try to drag this out so this law.
Would not be able to be imposed in this election cycle.
The little let me let me share with you this fact a lot of people are unaware of because it shows how Eric holder's claim about disenfranchising.
Voters rings hollow.
If you look at the states where voter identification has been applied you'll see.
That voter participation by minorities has increased knocked -- Also if you look at the claims made by Eric -- -- lawyers themselves.
They are claiming that a certain number of people are disenfranchised by the Islamist at a Texas well that number includes.
More than 50000 people.
Who are already dead so it seems as though they're trying to protect the voting rights.
Up corpses here in the state of Texas and an -- to put this in some further objects over the pure researcher her pointing counters two million.
Persons dead and are deceased if you would like to be more delicate.
Whose name still appear on voting rolls across the country I mean and then this Justice Department.
As soon as the state of Florida because they wanna per issue their list of names that they -- they believed to not be.
Well Lou it's worse than that and it shows -- we need voter ID in Texas because we put on evidence in this trial yesterday.
This showed in taxes most recent election in May.
There were votes cast for more than 200 people.
Who were dead at the time their votes were cast we have voter fraud this taken place across a state.
We need to have the tools to be able to crack down on it but -- is one of those tools.
We disagree with Eric Holder trying to prevent taxes from me being able to protect the integrity of -- -- -- Will you have a decision that will stand up as a result of the three judge panel in DC hearing this case now.
Because the United States Supreme Court has already said a law like this is constitutional.
If the three judge panel rules on our favor I'm very confident that ruling will withstand scrutiny.
If the panel rules against us we of course will take it immediately to the US Supreme Court.
-- outlook right now on the -- that'll go.
Well the -- has gone very powerfully for a case showing the need for voter fraud or voter identification because of the rampant voter fraud has taken place in the state.
There was testimony by a stay represented -- former prosecutor in south Texas.
Saying that the voter -- -- taxes is rampant and needs to be stopped.
And so we think we have made our case and hopefully the court will agree and allow taxes to require voter ID for the upcoming election.
Attorney general Greg -- here to talk -- thanks for being here.
Thank you --