Ramos scheduled the hearing for Jan. 24 and instructed that all legal briefs be submitted by Dec. 16. She directed the lawyers to focus only on the discrimination issue and not to suggest other fixes to the ID law.

The state voter ID law continues to make its way through the courts after a federal appeals court ruled in July that the law, which was backed by Republicans and enacted in 2011, discriminated against minority voters.

The appeals court sent the case back to the federal court in Corpus Christi to determine if the law was intentionally enacted to discriminate against minority voters and to establish interim rules for the Nov. 8 general election.

Under the interim rules Ramos announced two weeks ago, voters will be allowed to present a voter registration certificate, birth certificate, current utility bill, bank statement, government check or other government document with the registered voter's name and address. Expired driver's licenses will be accepted only if they are fewer than four years past the expiration date.

Any voters who present an alternate form of identification will be required to fill out and sign paperwork explaining why they could not acquire a government-issued ID.

Paxton has said he will ask the Supreme Court to overturn the appeals court ruling. He argued that strict voter ID laws were needed to combat voter fraud.

Between the 2012 primary election and July, the office of the attorney general prosecuted 15 voter fraud cases, The Texas Tribune reports, none of which involved voter impersonation. Eleven of those cases were considered unlawful assistance of a voter, a crime not prevented by the state's voter ID law. In that same time, more than 360 allegations of voter fraud were made statewide.

Paxton argued that Ramos delaying her ruling until August would allow the appeal to run its course.

"There is no reason for the parties or the court to devote additional time and resources to the discriminatory-purpose claims before the defendants have exhausted their appellate remedies," Paxton wrote.

Ramos disagreed.

"The court has a duty to the parties to proceed with the adjudication of this case without unnecessary delay," she wrote.