Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

The battle against poll taxes and voter repression




 photo 9387a88e-12fc-4e4e-9d43-13acdf7e3063_zpsb1b346d1.jpg

Though many people think of Jim Crow as something in our past, along with poll taxes put in place to be a “skin-color” tax to prevent people of a darker hue from voting, it isn’t history. It’s alive and well and being perpetrated across the U.S. and not just in the south.

 photo Jeffersonparishpolltax_zps33c52d03.jpg

I was a senior in High School the year that the 24th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was finally ratified. Here we are, 50 years later and the struggle continues.

The 24th Amendment:

The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.

Poll taxes appeared in southern states after Reconstruction as a measure to prevent African Americans from voting, and had been held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1937 decision Breedlove v. Suttles. At the time of this amendment’s passage, five states still retained a poll tax: Virginia, Alabama, Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi. The amendment made the poll tax unconstitutional in regard to federal elections. However, it was not until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) that poll taxes for state elections were unconstitutional because they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 photo faec2092-e0da-4a35-bc13-30372c6d4c87_zps7bad6ffd.jpg

A cartoon titled, “Here’s another one for you” making fun of the poll tax

Poll tax: Pay in cash or in time?  

A few years ago, Rachel Maddow made the argument that standing in long lines was a form of poll tax:

Attorney General Eric Holder took a lot of static from the right-wing when he used the “poll tax” words to describe Texas’ voter ID laws, while addressing the NAACP convention in Houston TX, in 2012.



“Under the proposed law, concealed handgun licenses would be acceptable forms of photo ID, but student IDs would not. Many of those without IDs would have to travel great distances to get them, and some would struggle to pay for the documents they might need to obtain them…We call those poll taxes.”

The audience agreed.

Vindication came for Holder, and for us-in the ruling just handed down in Texas:

A Texas-born and raised Latina federal judge, Nelva Gonzalez Ramos, did not just block a Republican-sponsored state voter ID law, she equated it to laws enacted by states after slavery was abolished to ensure blacks could not vote.

“The Court holds that SB 14 creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose,” Gonzalez Ramos stated in her lengthy ruling issued Thursday. “The Court further holds that SB 14 constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax.”

After slaves were freed and black Americans began to win elected office, laws requiring black Americans to pay a fee to vote or to pass literacy tests began to be enacted. Similar tactics were used in the Southwest against Mexican Americans.

Texas’ strict voter ID law, passed by the Republican-led Legislature in 2011, only accepts certain forms of photo ID and does not allow other commonly used ones. It does not allow college student photo IDs, for example, but allows gun permits as identification.

As I said, this isn’t just about the south, which was made clear in a case dealing with Wisconsin. U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner mentioned “poll taxes” in his dissent.

A conservative judge’s devastating take on why voter ID laws are evil

Then there’s the argument that getting a photo ID is easy and cheap, and therefore that people without them must not care enough about voting to bother. The three-judge panel wrote that obtaining a photo ID merely requires people “to scrounge up a birth certificate and stand in line at the office that issues driver’s licenses.” Posner replies that he himself “has never seen his birth certificate and does not know how he would go about ‘scrounging’ it up.” Posner appends a sheaf of documents handed to an applicant seeking a photo ID for whom no birth certificate could be found in state records. It ran to 12 pages.

As for its supposedly negligible cost, “that’s an easy assumption for federal judges to make, since we are given photo IDs by court security free of charge. And we have upper-middle-class salaries. Not everyone is so fortunate.” He cites a study placing the expense of obtaining documentation at $75 to $175 — which even when adjusted for inflation is far higher than “the $1.50 poll tax outlawed by the 24th amendment in 1964.”

Our right to vote is still under attack. The battle to preserve it can’t just be in the courthouses. Each one of us has to vote and get others to do the same.

GOTV!

Cross-posted from Black Kos


11 comments

  1. “standing in long lines was a form of poll tax”

    And it is a poll tax that many working class people can’t afford because it is not just the lost wages, it is getting time off to vote or possibly losing your job if you ask for time off.

    We should, as a country, be working to find creative ways to eliminate the long lines on “voting day” … like weekend early voting (as they will be doing in Georgia), voting by mail (as they do in Washington, Oregon, and Colorado), voting on college campuses and in churches and shopping malls. End the anachronism of “you must vote in a special place” (and the thrown out votes that will be happening in North Carolina because of that rule). Here we go to the city clerk office and when we identify ourselves and give our address, they know which ballot to hand us. Duh!!

    The Ramos ruling is brilliant. She created a solid record with facts and witnesses and it will be difficult for the Supreme Court to ignore it (not so difficult for the 5th Circuit hacks to ignore it).

    Here is an excellent article I read this morning about the Ramos and the Posner opinions: “The Most Persuasive Judicial Responses to Voter Suppression Laws Yet, which a hopeful conclusion:

    … it’s arguable that the damage to the cause of voter suppression nevertheless has been done this week. These two narratives – from the most disparate of judicial sources, a Reagan conservative and an Obama liberal – will at least demonstrate to future historians that there were loud and pained voices during this era, voices from both sides of the ideological spectrum, who stood up against what these laws really are, and what they represent, and tried to stop them. And that is no small thing.

    We need to build on that and it will require a congress willing to pass ironclad (read: John Roberts-proof) laws to protect the franchise.  

  2. From SCOTUSblog

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Tuesday afternoon gave the state of Texas permission to enforce its strict voter ID law, finding that a federal judge’s ruling last week barring the use of that law “substantially disrupts the election process . . . just nine days before early voting begins” next Monday.

    So they are invoking the Purcell rule, used also in OH, WI, NC. However this case is different because the lower court ruling was that the voter id was discriminatory. Per electionlawblog

    First, the risk of changing the rules close to the election should perhaps be balanced with the risk of disenfranchisement. Second, there is less of a problem of turning OFF a voter ID law than turning it ON.  Here, there may be some people who are asked for ID who should not be if the ID law is put on hold. But that’s a lower risk of disenfranchisement than if the law, if discriminatory, remains in place.  The majority’s response on this point was exceptionally weak. The court wrote that the plaintiffs “fail to recognize that inconsistent treatment of voters, even in just ‘some isolated precincts,’ raises a significant constitutional concern, particularly when this disparate treatment is virtually guaranteed by the late issuance of the injunction.” This is weak because there will be inconsistent treatment of voters either way (including the disenfranchisement of voters who are eligible to vote but who won’t be because of an arguably discriminatory voter id law).

    The plaintiffs will file for an emergency stay to the Supreme Court:

    “Today’s decision shocks the conscience of good people everywhere because it has the clear consequence of denying access to the ballot to many people of color, the elderly, and young persons,” stated Gary Bledsoe, president of the Texas NAACP and an attorney with PotterBledsoe. “Texas’s voter ID law is the most extreme in the country, and is designed to swing elections such as the one that is upcoming. For all who believe in democracy, this is unconscionable. As has so often been the case, minorities must now look up north to the U.S. Supreme Court to be accorded their rights of citizenship.”

  3. A recent survey showed that white people are more in favor of voter id when they are shown a black person voting than when they are shown a white person (or no person) voting:

    73 percent of white Americans said they support the laws, which require producing a government-issue ID at polling stations, when shown a photo of a black voter at a polling station. That’s opposed to 67 percent who said they support voter ID laws when showed a photo of a white voter and poll worker – the same percentage supported the laws when shown no image.

    When black and Latino persons were shown the photos with different races, their responses did not change based on the images.

  4. SCOTUSblog

    Saying that the spread across the country of new laws to restrict voting rights will create new tests of constitutionality for the Supreme Court, the Obama administration on Wednesday evening asked the Justices in the meantime to bar Texas from using its strict new voter ID law.  The government’s application was one of three (the others are here and here) seeking delay of the new law – a delay that clearly would last through this year’s election, including early voting that starts Monday in Texas.

    The challenges followed swiftly after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit voted to allow the law to be in full effect, after having never been used in a federal election.  The pleas for delay to the Supreme Court do not ask for an immediate ruling on the law’s constitutionality, leaving that to the Fifth Circuit for now instead.

Comments are closed.