←back to thread

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

(www.openculture.com)
243 points rcarmo | 6 comments | 21 Oct 24 21:29 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
nneonneo ◴[21 Oct 24 23:35 UTC] No.41909665[source]▶
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

replies(5): >>41909723 #>>41909737 #>>41909771 #>>41911081 #>>41915908 #
InvaderFizz ◴[21 Oct 24 23:44 UTC] No.41909723[source]▶
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).

replies(4): >>41909870 #>>41909911 #>>41909921 #>>41914699 #
kelnos ◴[22 Oct 24 00:15 UTC] No.41909911[source]▶
> That literacy test seems reasonable

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

replies(1): >>41911539 #
shiroiushi ◴[22 Oct 24 05:49 UTC] No.41911539[source]▶
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.
replies(7): >>41911604 #>>41911731 #>>41912875 #>>41914058 #>>41914062 #>>41914620 #>>41916026 #
M4v3R ◴[22 Oct 24 06:03 UTC] No.41911604[source]▶
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?

replies(3): >>41911644 #>>41912260 #>>41915476 #
shiroiushi ◴[22 Oct 24 06:11 UTC] No.41911644[source]▶
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.
replies(2): >>41911872 #>>41911873 #
1. pmontra ◴[22 Oct 24 06:58 UTC] No.41911873[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>41912834 #
2. sokoloff ◴[22 Oct 24 10:11 UTC] No.41912834[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>41913127 #
3. jncfhnb ◴[22 Oct 24 11:09 UTC] No.41913127[source]▶
Millions of voting age Americans do not have a non expired photo ID.
replies(1): >>41914065 #
4. Thorrez ◴[22 Oct 24 13:29 UTC] No.41914065{3}[source]▶
I wonder how that compares to Italians.
replies(1): >>41914527 #
5. gruturo ◴[22 Oct 24 14:14 UTC] No.41914527{4}[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>41915284 #
6. gruturo ◴[22 Oct 24 15:31 UTC] No.41915284{5}[source]▶
....ahem, obviously I meant Passport... not Password...