A near impossible literacy test Louisiana used to suppress the black vote

Note: there are questions about this test's authenticity. Per a note on https://www.crmvet.org/info/la-test.htm:

> [NOTE: At one time we also displayed a "brain-twister" type literacy test with questions like "Spell backwards, forwards" that may (or may not) have been used during the summer of 1964 in Tangipahoa Parish (and possibly elsewhere) in Louisiana. We removed it because we could not corroborate its authenticity, and in any case it was not representative of the Louisiana tests in broad use during the 1950s and '60s.]

Each parish in Louisiana implemented their own literacy tests, which means that there wasn't really much uniformity in the process. Another (maybe more typical) test: https://www.crmvet.org/info/la-littest2.pdf

That literacy test seems reasonable. But I do note that this particular one must predate 1942.

One of the questions is "Congress cannot regulate commerce ..." and the answer is within a state. Which I agree with, but SCOTUS does not (Wickard v Filburn, 1942).

This is super interesting. The Slate author who originally posted the Tangipahoa test followed up, with a bunch of extra information, and a pointer to a '63 Louisiana District Court case ruling the constitutional interpretation test you linked to unconstitutional:

https://web.archive.org/web/20161105050044/http://www.laed.u...

It's interesting that the Slate and crmvet pieces have updates about the search for authenticity, but this piece published today doesn't mention it.

It's been cited in other scholarly work that cites crmvet, so it's not surprising that, if it's not authentically a Louisiana test, it'll take awhile to clean up in the literature.

The original Slate article: https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/06/voting-rights-and-t...

The follow-up, in which the author chronicles their (unsuccessful) search for an original: https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/07/louisiana-literacy-....

The follow-up explicitly notes that the word-processed version shown in the original article is a modern update; a typewritten version that is supposedly closer to the original is shown at the bottom of that article (and available at https://web.archive.org/web/20160615084237/http://msmcdushis...), although the provenance of this version is also unclear ("McDonald reports that she received the test, along with another literacy test from Alabama, from a fellow teacher, who had been using them in the classroom for years but didn’t remember where they came from.")

Right, and you'd assume that if it was widely delivered in Louisiana, there'd be contemporaneous records; what that test is doing is pretty obvious.

It may be from after 1942 and the "correct" answer is simply wrong.

I think it's surprising because the piece is new and it links to the Slate and crmvet articles.

> That literacy test seems reasonable

Except not, because any test whatsoever should be disallowed when it comes to voter registration.

It's definitely not reasonable. You shouldn't lose your right to vote because you don't know which office of government pays USPS mail carriers or the term length of US judges. There are lots of likely-disqualifiers mixed in with the gimmes like "Who is the first president?".

Right, but they're rehashing coverage they had of this exact test 10 years ago.

Why would you assume that?

Because the test we're talking about is comically unfair, and people were complaining in the press about multiple-choice constitutional knowledge tests that were only subtly unfair.

This one seems deliberately difficult to answer correctly, even with the requisite civics knowledge:

> The President of the Senate gets his office

> a. by election by the people.

> b. by election by the Senate.

> c. by appointment by the President.

The Vice President is the President of the Senate, but the duties are typically exercised (save the tie-breaking vote) by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, a Senator chosen by whichever party currently has a majority. It seems both a. and b. could be considered correct.

Agreed. This test is not reasonable.

Even "who is the first president" knowledge shouldn't be a bar to voting. Do you think they offered this literacy test in the native languages of all taking it? Do you think all people in the US had the opportunity to learn, in their language, the history of the country?

At the time there were systemic barriers to education that meant that many folk were probably not even taught who the first president was. Let alone how old you have to be to be president.

I'd argue even C could be seen as correct. The president chooses his running mate, after all.

C is also literally what happens if a new VP is needed for any reason (needs to get confirmed by Congress though).

I'd say C is the only correct answer actually. Neither the President nor his running mate are elected by the people; they're elected by the Electoral College. And the question isn't about the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.

I think voter registration itself should be disallowed and banned. Why should voters need to register beforehand? You should be able to just show up on election day and cast a vote. The entire process of voter registration is nothing more than a means to disenfranchise voters.

There is an actual SCOTUS case on these tests, confirming that they indeed actually exited, see Louisiana vs. U.S. (1965).

Also this sample test (https://lasc.libguides.com/c.php?g=940581&p=6830148) is from the Law Library of Louisiana, aka, the State Bar of Louisiana. Are you accusing the State Bar of Louisiana and the Louisiana Supreme Court of lying about the history of their state?

And this article (https://www.nola.com/news/politics/civil-rights-victory-50-y...) by NOLA actually goes through the history of the tests, citing contemporaneous reporting of the tests over several decades, though you would probably need physical access to the microfiche archives to confirm them yourself.

Unless you are suggesting that SCOTUS, SCLA, and the biggest newspaper in Louisiana are all conspiring together to make up these tests, the historical record for these tests existing is very well established.

In many parts of the world voter registration is a perfectly normal practice and no one challenges it. The biggest reason for having it is that it disallows voting multiple times.

What in your opinion makes the voter registration disenfranchising for voters?

It's an additional step that must be completed well ahead of election day, making voting a two-step process. It shouldn't be necessary: you can determine on election day whether someone's already voted or not before they cast a vote.

The question is whether the test in the article is a real example of a literacy test, not whether literacy tests existed.

And indeed, the way it's done somewhere else on this planet is you show up, vote, get your thumb inked so you can't go to another poll and vote a second time, and that's all there is to that.

You think it is unlikely that a famously problematic-in-terms-of-race state issued a problematic-in-terms-of-race literacy test?

Or are that just the typical high standards of proof that coincidentally pop up whenever rightwing opinions receives legitimate criticism? Standards that they themselves never even remotely hold themselves to ("my sisters aunts dog heard on facebook")?

In places with more modern technology, instead of relying on ink on thumbs, we can just have a computerized system informing all the voting precincts that John Doe has now voted at Precinct X, perhaps with a face photo in case someone alleges fraud.

No, they don't think that. The previous commenter simply misread my comment.

> you can determine on election day whether someone's already voted or not before they cast a vote.

Can you suggest a specific mechanism to do it that would be transparent to the public?

I don't know about the US specifics but in Russia people voting multiple times was the main strategy of fraud in 2010s (that is before they gave up all the pretence). Before this scheme came into being, the system of isolated voting points where every action was observable and verifiable based solely on the local context had worked reasonably well, to the displeasure of authorities.

That requires some preparation. Example: in Italy the state knows where everybody live (this is self reported but it could be inferred in many ways) and, more importantly for this case, where everybody has residence (that might not be the correct English word, sorry.)

I could have residence in a city because I was born there but I could live in another one because for one year I have to work in that other city. But I don't sell my home, terminate contracts with utilities etc, also because maybe I go back home once or twice per month to visit friends and parents. Ok, so when I have to vote I do it in my city of residence, in a given place and not in any other one, and I have a card that I have to present together with my photo id. They have a register with the voters that are expected to vote there and they check my name on the list, stamp my card, give me the ballot.

Note that this is a process that starts when one is born and keeps going through all the life of a person. It's quite an effort but it makes participating to elections very low effort for a voter. If we had to register to vote... Who would vote, only very interested people. It's amazing that so many people vote in the USA given the process.

Well good luck voting-out the government that controls that system.

I think that's the point of these questions, to have no clear answer.

So a presidential candidate picks a vice president running mate. Voters vote for the pair. The electoral college then, usually but not always, cast votes matching the voters.

So who decided? Technically the electoral college. Who were guided by the voters. Who voted for someone the president picked.

The problem isn't necessarily voter registration per se, but how easy or hard you make it. Giving politicians or bureaucrats the power to disenfranchise voters by requiring jumping through seemingly arbitrary hoops or based on vague rules will always lead to abuse.

In many countries if you are a citizen (or permanent resident, depending on the election), old enough, and registered as living in the country you are automatically registered to vote. No need to do anything, your form shows up in the mail before every election. The only times you might have to do something is if you've very recently moved to a different part of the country or if you live abroad.

You should apply a large permanent mark to people that already voted. It must last one day or so. But that could infringe the right of not to vote, unless voting is mandatory. Or make impossible to vote twice because everybody is tied to exactly one anonymous ballot. See my reply to parent, about the voting system in Italy. However if some party control a part of the voting system, they can do whatever they want in several ways. For example vote with the ballots of people that didn't go to vote. In my country they'll have to get the photo id number of those people but it's not difficult to get if they have access to official data.

The answer key is included, and the correct answer according to the test is indeed "the people".

The key issue and the whole purpose of that question is that also both a. and b. could be considered wrong.

If the person answers A, then the grader can state that this is correct if they like them, or assert that instead B is correct if they don't, so that the test can always provide the desired outcome.

Some time ago every election or referendum simply put a stamp in the passport when voting, but that was before plastic ID cards. Now they have an online verification process before handing you the ballot papers; this also reports your ID for the invalidation of any pre-election votes (e.g. mail-in ballots) elsewhere.

Do you really think Black people would have been covered fairly in the press in the 1960's?

In the Netherlands at least, you just get a voting card sent to you by mail, and you have to hand that in to vote. Since you just have a single card, you can only vote once.

So I can vote in these places when I am on vacation there? Of course just once.

This is what is done in essentially all of the Western world (except USA and the UK) and it works just fine with free and fair elections and peaceful transfers of power.

Merely requiring photo ID is controversial in the US (and not done in MA where I vote).

Additionally having a continually up to date registry of persons would definitely not fly here.

As I understand it the US doesn't have a giant federal government database that tracks everyone who is eligible to vote and their current postal adress.

Millions of voting age Americans do not have a non expired photo ID.

Few people know that the first president was Peyton Randolph.

since what that test was doing was trying to illegally deprive black people of their right to vote I'd think they'd try to keep it as hidden as possible, which is what I would recommend one do when breaking the law.

How hidden can you keep a test that many thousands of voters take?

Nonsense, of course they were in some press.

There were many white Americans fighting for equality for all. Heck, look at the recent BLM movement, the woke discussions, #metoo and more.

All of these things were possible because of the 60s, because of white legislators, white judges, white supreme court judges, pushing for change, enacting change, creating the US today which, while imperfect, is quite supportive of equality, both legally and culturally.

So yes, there was all sorts of main stream media pushing for equality.

Heck, the first interracial kiss on US primetime was in the 60s on Star Trek ToS.

Not John Hanson?

We just had an election in BC, Canada, and the way it worked here is that everyone has a "home" polling location which is responsible for ensuring that their vote is counted once and only once.

If the distributed system is not partitioned, you can show up to vote anywhere and they tell your home precinct that you've voted; then during vote counting the precinct where you voted tells your home precinct "add the following to your vote totals".

If the system is partitioned -- either from network outages or remote polling locations or mail-in ballots -- then your ballot goes into an envelope and is physically sent to your home precinct in the week following the election, to be verified and included in the count.

Voter registration is reasonable, but it should be possible to register on Election Day, at a polling location, and it shouldn't take more than 5 minutes.

> Why should voters need to register beforehand? You should be able to just show up on election day and cast a vote.

Well, open borders for one.

I wonder how that compares to Italians.

You used to need a passport to vote? 42-47% of Americans have passports currently. In 1990, only 5% of Americans had passports.

Going from memory:

In Italy you're meant to always carry a valid, officially accepted form of ID (and as far as I know, only ID card and Password fully qualify, but driving or nautical licenses, gun permits, and some forms of railway employee ID are also generally accepted as they're ultimately made by the government) and it's a crime (with up 2 months in jail, though it's usually just a fine) to refuse to show it upon request to on-duty "public security officials" (Italy has a bunch of entities in addition to the normal police) and in a few other rare categories (a bus or train inspector has the power to demand your ID if you're travelling without a ticket and need to be fined).

If you don't actually refuse, but you explain you just forgot your ID at home, you can still provide your details verbally and are usually allowed to go, and "invited" to show your ID within XX days at any police post. But if you were driving a car, there will be a small fine anyway.

If the officer has any suspicion you lied, or that your ID is fake, you can be taken to a police station for identification.

This is how it works in most EU countries afaik (at least where I live).

You're automatically registered essentially. You only need to show up with the form/ballet you were sent and your ID. Your vote is anonymous, just registered that you voted.

Personally I like the Aussie way even more, which is compulsory.

I feel this is necessary in a democracy. Voting needs to be easy, swift and free for that to work though.

I like the abstract idea of literacy tests but then I also think some questions in this particular literacy test is unnecessarily tricky. And some could be considered historical trivia.

The commerce question is supposed to be answered by reading the constitution by itself, not by reading SCOTUS opinions. So this is different from actual constitutional scholars. That makes this question unsuitable for literacy tests.

At a minimum: I think people should be given ample time to complete a literacy test, at a date and time chosen by the test taker, and also have multiple attempts available. And for the content of the test, they should have actual elementary school students attempt it to make sure it isn't too difficult.

Question 5 is also quite (intentionally) ambiguous:

> The Constitution of the United States places the final authority in our Nation in the hands of...

> a. the national courts.

> b. the States.

> c. the people.

The answer key says c. is correct, but I think I would have answered a. You could also argue the States is correct, since they have the authority to amend the Constitution. The very concept of "final authority" is sort of antithetical to the Constitution.

> I certainly hope you're not so naive

There is absolutely no need to take this tone, especially seeing as the person you are replying to is clearly in good faith.

And if there is a tie in the electoral college, then the senate elects the Vice President. I would argue that A, which is what the answer key says is correct, is the least correct of these three incorrect answers.

Unless you get someone else's card and forge their signature on the back side, which is a permission form indicating that you can vote on their behalf; I don't believe there's enough checks and balances in place for this voting-on-behalf-of system, but then again I don't know what checks and balances there are.

Some examples of racism were documented in some progressive outlets, therefore all examples of racism would have made it into the public record?

Maybe there was concern, when progressives were fighting this sort of thing, that if they picked the most unbelievable example, the naive public (those not familiar with the residents of a typical Klan-era backwater Louisiana parish) would question its veracity… as we see today…

Imagine you were going to forge a such a test? I don’t think I could make up something this ridiculous if I tried. I’d have to be practiced in generating trick questions, and motivated by malice to come close. Realistically, I’d give up and pick one of the readily-available real examples of poll tests to use.

If there is a credible threat of retaliation (violence, employment, housing) for even trying to vote, then this is very effective. Why take a big risk if you won’t get to vote anyway? This way you don’t actually have to give the test very often, everyone quickly figures out the “rules” and falls into line.

The example literacy test you link to is dramatically more level headed than the one in the article. It's what you would expect a fifth grade level assessment to be.

In fact the site you link to even calls out the test mention in the article, stating that it seems it was used in one parish for one summer.

> get your thumb inked so you can't go to another poll

This can't possibly be a serious solution. A quart of acetone costs $2.

....ahem, obviously I meant Passport... not Password...

True, the guard rails there are that you can only do that for at most 2 people, limiting the impact of potential fraud there.

The Political Party chooses the vice presidential candidate for its Elector.

Voters vote for an Elector, not a President/Vice President.

An Elector could pledge a different vice presidential candidate, and might get votes.

The vast majority of voters do not actually know truly how President and Vice President are elected

There's also a few typographical issues I noticed that might have been an issue for uneducated folk. For instance, in one question, government is written as "governm ent" What's a government ENT?

That's kind of a weird paradox in general and it's how we lose a lot of information. Things that were ubiquitous didn't necessarily become recorded. Because it's just the way things were.

It requires you to take time to register, either out of your days beforehand to be registered day of; or time out of your day to register to vote at the polling place day-of. This is on top of having to drive potentially a ways to get to the polling place, only to be told you cannot vote because you're unregistered.

It should be a national holiday, or you should be able to vote online. Session IDs would go a long way in preventing voter fraud, I think.

A literacy test in which language?

Agreed, from my limited web research the actual existence of use of this document has been questioned for many years. This is not a new topic, or a new artifact. I've found references to this verbiage going back as far as the 1960's.

Racism and/or vote fixing via the methodology claimed in this article would be a serious and despicable thing, however, as far as I'm aware, we are protected from this now and have been for a long time.

Speaking to many of the outraged commenters, Do you think that the example test is a reasonable analog of any state's voting process currently in use? If not, do you think an analog of this test could be enacted legally under current legal statutes? If so, what additional changes would you propose to supplement current statutes?

How does this mechanism prevent one person voting multiple times in different locations?

The test comes with an answer key. See the second half of https://www.crmvet.org/info/la-littest2.pdf.

> Racism and/or vote fixing via the methodology claimed in this article would be a serious and despicable thing, however, as far as I'm aware, we are protected from this now and have been for a long time.

The protection took a major hit in 2013, when the US Supreme court made a 5-4 decision in Shelby vs. Holder [0], permitting some areas to (re-)start a strategy of imposing unconstitutional and discriminatory laws just before an election, with local authorities knowing that any court-case voiding their law can't arrive in time to matter. Then they just enact the same kind of discriminatory law before the next major election, over and over, with no real punishment.

While state legislatures aren't currently choosing to enact things quite as blatant as before, the same exploit makes it possible.

[0] https://www.naacpldf.org/shelby-county-v-holder-impact/

Quick: how is the President of the Senate selected?

It's a trick question. It's the Vice President, who is elected by the people (a)... but not for the role of president of the senate. But it could also be the President pro tempoire, who is elected by the senate (b).

Also the first question presupposes we all go to church. What about synagogues or temples?

Question #5 is entirely discretionary depending on the context of what power you are discussing.

And that's the point: these literacy tests were filled with questions like these that let the test giver choose the right answer based on whether they wanted the test taker to pass.

> How hidden can you keep a test that many thousands of voters take?

After its taken, and presuming active measures were taken to prevent distribution other than for people taking it who would then return it, pretty easily. Paper is biodegradable, burns easily, can be shredded (and recycled into new paper), etc.

The Vice President is elected by the Electoral College, not the people, and the President Pro Tem of the Senate is not the President of the Senate, despite frequently performing the functions of the President, so, strictly speaking, all of the answers are wrong.

Except in the case where a vacancy occurs in the Vice Presidency during a term, in which case the President does appoint a Vice President who is confirmed by the House of Representatives, so (c) would in that case be correct -- but that wasn't true until 1967.

You might be right

There is no ambiguity, (b) is unambiguously correct (more precisely, it puts it in that hands of State legislatures).

The Amendment making (c) correct in some circumstances was passed in 1967, so presumably would not be referenced by a test written before that date.

What about the Supremacy Clause? And aren't state legislatures elected by "the people"? You could argue about this forever.

But what if I vote three times in three different locations all different from my "home" polling location?

You don't. You'd find contemporaneous accounts from people who'd taken the test and complained about it. That's how the social science of history works. I think the consensus here is that the brain-teaser test is either not real, or was not widely used (nobody has been able to find an instance where it was).

A clarifying bit of context: there were extensive complaints about the multiple-choice constitutional interpretation tests that were given at the time.

Yes. Which is why, even in the 1960s, even in Louisiana, state courts struck these tests down. I agree with you about them. The only disputed fact here is whether the "write backwards forwards" test was ever administered.

It's rare but it does happen.

Fairly? No. At all? Obviously yes, because the unfairness of the tests we know to have been administered was widely covered.

How does the electoral commission knows where to send the voting card? Does the voter need to register with some electoral commission (governmental agency)?