After a week of testimony in the Texas voter ID case, a court must now decide whether the state photo ID law would “deny or abridge” minorities’ right to vote.

The state began closing arguments Friday morning to argue that even without expert testimony, national social science research shows that photo voter ID laws have no disproportionate effect on voting, fulfilling the state’s burden of proof.

“The social science gets us over the hump,” lawyer John Hughes said in reference to why the law should be cleared.

The three-judge panel raised concerns about the economic burden placed on those who would need to obtain an ID to vote.

Judge David Tatel noted that minorities are more likely to have economic challenges. Judge Robert Wilkins asked why the state could require individuals to travel more than 100 miles to acquire photo ID when law prevents them from being required to travel so far for a subpoena.

The state has used the Supreme Court’s approval of the Indiana photo voter ID law as precedent, but Tatel dismissed this by saying it did not resolve this case.

The plaintiffs also took aim at the Justice Department’s estimate that 1.5 million voters in Texas do not have ID.

“The database match project is hopelessly flawed,” Hughes said.

But the Justice Department argued in its closing remarks that even questionable data or conflicting evidence is not enough to grant federal approval.

The defense argued that Texas failed to meet its burden of proof by providing no evidence as to how many people might have a federal photo ID acceptable under the new law.

A key for the defense was pinning the law as retrogressive by proving that photo voter ID takes away voting strength as the Hispanic population continues to grow.

The defendants also countered Texas’ claim that the law was about voter fraud and integrity at the polls.

“The only thing that was certainly proved was the purpose of SB14 was not to stop in person voter fraud,” lawyer Ezra Rosenberg said.

Rosenberg argued this case was not about voter fraud, but rather racially discriminatory voter suppression “cloaked” as voter fraud.

By Lindsey Ruta and Annelise Russell, News21