←back to thread

255 points rcarmo | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
nneonneo ◴[] 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(6): >>41909723 #>>41909737 #>>41909771 #>>41911081 #>>41915908 #>>41918520 #
InvaderFizz ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
caeril ◴[] No.41915243[source]
> 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.

replies(1): >>41917503 #
1. vntok ◴[] No.41917503[source]
Why would you assume that actual election ink is as easily washable as that? Surely other people thought about the problem at hand for more than a minute, right?

It actually stains fingernails in such a way that the ink only truly disappears when the nail grows.

From Wikipedia:

> Election stain typically stays on skin for 72–96 hours, lasting 2 to 4 weeks on the fingernail and cuticle area. The election ink used puts a permanent mark on the cuticle area, which only disappears with the growth of the new nail. It can take up to 4 months for the stain to be replaced completely by new nail growth. Stains with concentrations of silver nitrate higher than 18% have been found to have no added effect on stain longevity, as silver nitrate does not have a photosensitive reaction with live skin cells. This means that the stain will fade as new skin grows.