Civic Literacy Tests: Poll Taxes Redux
By Andrew Stengel
This piece was produced for HuffPost's OffTheBus by NYU School of Law's Brennan Center for Justice.
You really have to hand it to Jonah Goldberg, the National Review's columnist and conservative policy stalking horse. In an op-ed column in Saturday's New York Post (I read it for the sports articles!), he actually proposed a civic literacy exam to qualify to vote. Therefore, according to Goldberg, eligibility to vote could hinge upon familiarity with say, the Voting Rights Act--which, of course, prohibits literacy exams.
There are many, many ways voting-age American citizens are either maliciously or unintentionally disenfranchised--restrictive government-issued ID requirements, purges based on voter caging or deceptive election practices to name a few--but this one takes the cake for its temerity and sheer nakedness. "What would be so bad about discrimination, properly understood," he writes.
The faulty basis for Goldberg's misguided idea is a recent poll that found that two-thirds of NYU students would trade their right to vote for a year's tuition. (Full disclosure: the Brennan Center for Justice is affiliated with NYU School of Law.) I'm reminded of the assertion of a former New York State Chief Judge who said that a grand jury could be persuaded "to indict a ham sandwich." The same is probably true of polls. We could find out which is more popular, ham or ham and cheese sandwiches, but that doesn't mean we'd elect either president -- or that a given poll has a real-world application.
Goldberg's misguided proposal is based on an entirely faulty claim: "The problem is that we've been making voting easier for a long time now, and turnout has generally been declining." A recently released survey by Sacred Heart University, Rock the Vote and WWE's Smackdown Your Vote showed that election participation from 18 to 29-year olds increased over the past two elections. In 2004, 4.3 million more voters under 30-years-old cast ballots than in 2000, and in the off-year election, turnout increased by 1.9 million from 2002 to 2006. In fact, participation among the demographic has increased in the face of efforts to make voting more difficult.
Only forty-three years ago, at the waning end of the Jim Crow era, the 24th Amendment was adopted to eliminate poll taxes. Since then, with some substantial exceptions in the crazy-quilt of felony disenfranchisement laws, most efforts to deny the vote to adult American citizens took less overt form. However, by no means is voting universal today. Some states, Indiana for example, have strict identification laws crafted in such a way to prevent a substantial segment of American citizens from voting. As a result, African Americans, the poor and seniors are disproportionately denied access to vote.
Goldberg's proposition also discounts the notion of one person, one vote and betrays the idea of representative government- democracy means the people have the right to elect representatives that will offer policies to help them. However, I agree with Goldberg on one point--more voting-age American citizens should participate in elections. However, we differ by the means to accomplish the goal. We should dismantle obstacles to registration and voting, not erect new and Trojan-horse poll taxes.
Here's another poll question: Would you trade your iPod if Jonah Goldberg were to renounce tactics that intentionally or unintentionally disenfranchise legitimate voters? I certainly would.
Andrew Stengel is the National Election Advocacy Director for the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The National Review sucks. Always did. Absolute
bilge!
I've been a Northern Democrat my entire 69 years (save the first 21). And the notion of the citizenry entire voting has always had tremendous appeal to me. But then the niggling synapses remind my conscious mind that most of them can't even find Iraq on a map, let alone most countries of the world. Recall that someone resembling Geo. W. Bush didn't know who the President of Pakistan was, while campaigning for office as a person who shortly would be dealing with him.
Before we search every forlorn corner of the homeland,for every breathing human maybe we should spend our paltry inheritance on bringing them to the threshold of informed consciousness first.
Dear Brennan Center for Legal Justice: Justice for whom? Since the first election of GeeDubya, the wonderful Catherine(the Great) Harris had it right. Cut the baloney and report THE LEGAL VOTERS. I laughed at my own state's DNC quandry trying to steal the elections with chits,indents, felons voting, and stupid people. Sometimes you can cure, Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabeties, but you can't cure STUPID!
Until now, I did not understand the hard push to give driver's licenses to illegals. Of course it clear to me now. Illegals from any nations could vote legally with a drivers license! Hmmm, that sounds just great for this nation. Any illegal visitor, worker, parasite, can now vote. Don't have to be a citizen. Hmmm. Great Idea for INJUSTICE!
The entire article points clearly that difficulty in voting because of ID's or addresses problems fall squarely upon that citizen to do his or her job. That means, DUE DILLIGENCE towards your responsibility and privilege!! It's your(MR & MIZ Citizen) to make sure your registration, data, addresses, is up to date. It is your responsibility to understand clearly the issues, candidates, polling locations, days, absentee voting privileges, and the rest.
The most dangerous thing America can have happen is to have the lazy, uninformed, the stupid, the un-aware, vote on decisions of local, national importance. Voter literacy, voter diligence, voter registration, voter legality are correct and appropriate costs for each citizen. Get it done, and help those who need it, to be ready for the next election. No excuses. Do your job!
Make voting just a little bit more confusing, a little more red tape, then no one will vote at all.
I may be being a first-class dumbphuque here, but I have no idea why having a government ID in order to vote is such a bad idea. I live out in the middle of nowhere, but even though the poll workers know me by now, I still have to show a picture ID before I can sign the roll book and vote.
Everyone who drives has to have a driver's license - a government ID, usually with one's picture on it. Every state I've lived in has some type of local government-issued picture ID as well for non-drivers. The cost here is $20 / year. That works out to less than 50 cents per week, not a budget-buster for most folks, even the poor. Everyone with any medical coverage at all, or who gets government benefits, has some type of ID for that purpose.
I understand that getting someplace to get a picture taken and an ID made could be a problem, but somehow people do make it wherever they need to go for purposes of getting groceries, fixing benefit claims errors, and voting. Even elderly folks who need an ID could get a ride from someone, perhaps the same people who will provide a ride to the polls, to go to town on one day before election day to get an ID.
I wouldn't be able to give rides on most days, but I could certainly contribute $20 to one person who can't afford even the 50 cents per week needed for an ID.
So - what's the problem, and why are we whining about it instead of doing something about it? Right now, picture IDs aren't always needed. Pass the law requiring it, and be prepared to donate some driving time or money to make sure that everyone can meet the requirement. End of problem.
I think this idea has a backward piece as the Congress and those in any position in the government in the managment there of should have to take a test on the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights being the most obvious focus. If we had qualified individuals in government that made choices based on what they should be and not their individual pork there would be more voters. Now the feeling is for sure disenfranchised due to the lack of feeling our vote counts and that those elceted or selected by the president actually represent us, the citizens. If we feel in general that those in power will do whatever they please without concern as bush has done then why vote? To say we did though we doubt it matters as it happened in 2000? There are many who are deliberatly kept from voting and those whovote who know after their vote wasn't counted for various reasons Florida and Ohio are only needed to be mentioned and people remember what happened in at least those states we have been told about. How many do we not know about?
Rather than literacy tests for voters, we should have constitutional literacy AND Minimum IQ requirements for candidates for President - if this were in place George Bush's sub-average IQ of 94 (obtained by Andy Rooney of 60 minutes) would have disqualified him and we all could have been spared his criminal idiocy!
Voting should be looked at as a DUTY not a privilege!
Germany has a voter participation of 97%!!!!!
How is it done?
One has to have a registered address (very important, if arrested one can be held longer than 48 hours). One registers at city hall for sewage and garbage fees, draft and to vote. Voting lists are send to each resident before each election for review. the address label and ID card (every German has to carry one for identification) is checked against the voter list at his/her voting station. It's organized, but most of all, voting on Sunday (when most stores are closed) gives citizens a chance to do their civic duty.
Let's call for a "VOTING HOLIDAY" and close down businesses for one day every 4 years. I am sure the ecomomy can survive!
Great article!
Voter disenfranchisement should be considered a high crime in a democratic nation. Anyone convicted of such an offense should spend a loooooong time in prison. Governors and presidents should be prohibited from pardoning them.
Then again, we give longer sentences to non-violent drug offenders than to child molesters. And you server harder time for robbing $10,000 from a bank than for robbing millions from investors. Could our priorities be out of whack?
The question is: "How do you get people to take voting seriously?"
In an ideal world, voters would be informed on the issues and know the actual records and positions of the candidates. Sadly, I know too many people who don't have a clue about what their voting about.
In an ideal world, people would understand that winning elections is not about patronage, but about a commitment to working on behalf of ALL of the people. The essence of democracy is respecting the interests of minority as well as the majority, and working towards a consensus.
It is sad that in the American experiment so many people have lost sight of this.
FIrst of all, if you buy the Post or add to its circulation numbers you are supporting the Murdoch empire of disinformation.
As for a civics test for voting, properly administered it would disqualify Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, and a large fraction of the un American dead-enders who still proudly call themselves Republicans after that party's assault on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights [Habeas Corpus anyone?]
"civic literacy exam to qualify to vote".
What is the point of that, when if 2000 is any example we'll just get a Vice President who has successfully concealed his desire to go far beyond being ignorant of civics and into actively subverting and usurping the Constitution?
And a President who is such a child he thinks any law that hinders his demand for instant gratification should be ignored, and so is clay in the hands of the former?
It is rather like requiring gamblers to go to poker school to learn the rules before they can play in a game where the dealer will cheat - and the House won't do a darned thing about it because they're still getting their cut.
You lefties are ways hammering the Republicans over voting issues when we all know Democrat party dominated regions are flush with voter fraud (Chicago- vote early and vote often). I never forgot the time one of Maryland's Dem Governors sent uniformed State Troopers to stand outside polling places to "remind" voters how important it was to vote for the right candidate.
It isn't easier to vote today except if you mail it in and then we have seen problems with that as well.
Long lines---people have jobs---the weather---seniors with health issues can't get to the polls even tho their sacrifice for this country is immeasurable.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
