The case, which started nearly six years ago challenged two constitutional amendments. One of those amendments include lowering the state income tax cap and the other challenges a state voter photo ID requirement.
Advocates argue the state's photo ID law discriminates against Black and Hispanic voters and dilutes their voting power.
Lawyers for the group say the law violates section two of the Voting Rights Act as well as the 14th and 15th amendments.
Republican state lawmakers say the ID requirement, which took effect last year, builds voter confidence in elections.
Today the defense asked to dismiss the plaintiff's efforts to move forward with discovery to provide more evidence that the amendments are discriminatory.
"I think the question left for the court is why do we need to move forward with more discovery when the challenges of implementing legislation has failed to show discriminatory intent through the very thing the plaintiff said it might be found if they take a look," said Martin Wharf who represents the defendants.
"There were two main theories that were proposed to challenge the amendments one that is before you today is that these amendments were placed on the ballots by a racially gerrymandered legislature," said Kym Hunter who represents the plaintiffs.
The panel will meet in person to deliberate at a later date.