I fail to see what is wrong with requiring all voters, regardless of race, to demonstrate a certain degree of literacy before practicing the franchise. In fact, I think it would be a good idea if potential voters were first required to take, and pass, a basic civics test.
Tisk, tisk, tisk.
It is true that the Supreme Court did uphold literacy tests in Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U.S. 45 (1959). Of course, this was also no longer good law, so even a cursory look at constitutional law would suggest that this idea is not only appalling, it is unconstitutional. In Lassiter, the state of North Carolina (oh, the South) prescribed a literacy test as a prerequisite to voter registration. The interesting thing about this law was that it originally had a grandfather clause (obviously used to disenfranchise black voters), but an amendment removed the grandfather clause. Because the Court found that the ability to read and write had some relation to standards designed to promote intelligent voting the Court affirmed holding that the literacy requirements were constitutional on their face where the literacy requirements were neutral on race, creed, color and sex
In strange dicta, Justice Douglas, in his majority opinion, writes:
Literacy and intelligence are obviously not synonymous. Illiterate people may be intelligent voters. Yet in our society where newspapers, periodicals, books, and other printed matter canvass and debate campaign issues, a state might conclude that only those who are literate should exercise the franchise.
This seemingly points out what Joel at Southern Appeal is overlooking. Just because a person is illiterate, it does not mean that one is going to be an illiterate person. In 1959, it might have been appropriate for Justice Douglas to ignore the influence of radio and TV as political commentators were not a dime a dozen. Today it seems ridiculous to assume that an inability to read means that a person is unable to make an educated vote.
While states to have considerable power to set voting requirements the federal government has its say. For example, the Court upheld a suspension of literacy tests and similar voting requirements under Congress' parallel power to enforce the provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment, see U.S. Const., Amdt. 15, § 2, as a measure to combat racial discrimination in voting, South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966). Chief Justice Warren wrote the opinion that upheld remedial provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The court found that the temporary suspension of voter qualifications, such as literacy tests, were not unconstitutional because the record indicated that such tests were traditionally used to disenfranchise minorities and their suspension was a legitimate response to the problem.
What does this all mean?
The Court upheld a suspension of literacy tests and similar voting requirements under Congress' parallel power to enforce the provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment, see U.S. Const., Amdt. 15, § 2, as a measure to combat racial discrimination in voting, South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 308 (1966), despite the facial constitutionality of the tests under Lassiter v. Northampton County Bd. of Elections, 360 U.S. 45 (1959). We have also concluded that other measures protecting voting rights are within Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, despite the burdens those measures placed on the States. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, supra (upholding several provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965); Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (upholding ban on literacy tests that prohibited certain people schooled in Puerto Rico from voting); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970) (upholding 5-year nationwide ban on literacy tests and similar voting requirements for registering to vote); City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156 (1980) (upholding 7-year extension of the Voting Rights Act's requirement that certain jurisdictions preclear any change to a '"standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting"').
It means that for all intent and purposes literacy tests are neither necessary nor constitutional. Beyond that, the public outcry that would be created if any politican attempted to legislate for mandatory literacy tests would be quite loud.
