←back to thread

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

(www.openculture.com)
243 points rcarmo | 2 comments | 21 Oct 24 21:29 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
fragmede ◴[22 Oct 24 06:28 UTC] No.41911731[source]▶
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.
replies(3): >>41911793 #>>41912808 #>>41915243 #
shiroiushi ◴[22 Oct 24 06:40 UTC] No.41911793[source]▶
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.
replies(3): >>41912085 #>>41912722 #>>41914038 #
Vinnl ◴[22 Oct 24 09:48 UTC] No.41912722{3}[source]▶
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.
replies(2): >>41914754 #>>41916583 #
1. Cthulhu_ ◴[22 Oct 24 14:37 UTC] No.41914754{4}[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>41915304 #
2. Vinnl ◴[22 Oct 24 15:32 UTC] No.41915304[source]▶
True, the guard rails there are that you can only do that for at most 2 people, limiting the impact of potential fraud there.