A poll tax is a fee required for voting, originally used to generate revenue but later implemented in the United States as a tool to disenfranchise poor citizens, particularly African Americans. This practice was outlawed in federal elections by the 24th Amendment in 1964 and in all state elections by the Supreme Court in 1966, although some argue that the cost of voter ID and transportation to polls today functions as a modern poll tax. Primarily used in Southern states by Democrats after the Civil War to prevent newly enfranchised African Americans from voting, despite the 15th Amendment. Historically, the term "poll tax" was most strongly associated with the Democratic Party in the American South, where the party used poll taxes to disenfranchise Black voters after the Civil War. Today, the phrase is used by Democrats to describe modern voting restrictions they believe act as a "poll tax" by creating barriers and costs to voting for certain groups. For example, some Democrats have described the costs and effort required to obtain certain voter IDs as a modern poll tax. Southern Democrats implemented poll taxes as a method to prevent African Americans from voting, as many were poor and could not afford the fee. Amendment Twenty-four to the Constitution was ratified on January 23, 1964. It abolished and forbids the federal and state governments from imposing taxes on voters during federal elections. The official text is written as such:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
On January 23, 1964, the South Dakota Senate cast the deciding vote in the ratification process of the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The amendment ended the poll tax as a condition of voting in federal elections. The real function of the tax had been to deny civil rights to racial minorities, especially Southern blacks. The Twenty-fourth Amendment, passage of which began in 1962, was only one part of a larger campaign of civil rights reform that came to a head with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The process of reform had to begin somewhere, and Northern Democrats, acting upon inspiration from the Kennedy administration, began with the anti-poll-tax amendment process early in 1962. There was strong opposition from a Southern bloc of conservatives, mostly Democrats led by Richard Russell, Jr., a Democrat from Georgia, but it was not as strong as might have been expected.
Democrats reforming Democrats.
Voter ID and the Motor Voter Act are two different voting laws with distinct purposes. The Motor Voter Act is a federal law, I believe is unconstitutional, that makes it easier for Democrats to manage and to register to vote, while voter ID laws, which vary by state, require citizens to show identification at the polls to cast a ballot. The two concepts have opposing effects on voter access and are often central to debates about voting rights.
Arguments against free Voter ID:
“We are witnessing a concerted effort to place new obstacles in front of minorities, low-income families and young people who seek to exercise their right to vote. A poll tax by another name would smell as vile.” — Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, Nov. 14, 2011
Controversial voter ID quotes
Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday said about voter ID laws, "We call those poll taxes.” Here are seven other notable quotes about voter ID.
“We are witnessing a concerted effort to place new obstacles in front of minorities, low-income families and young people who seek to exercise their right to vote. A poll tax by another name would smell as vile.” — Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, Nov. 14, 2011
In a blog post for the League of Women Voters, Brady Horine wrote, "...time and time again, voter photo ID laws are proven to be ineffective tools to fight voter fraud — in the rare instances it does take place. "
"Your water fountain is voter ID." — Rev. Al Sharpton, March 16, 2012
Driver's license costs vary by state, with recent prices ranging from around $10 in Missouri to $89 in Washington, and many other states falling in between. The final price can depend on the license type, duration, and local fees, so it is best to check with your specific state's DMV for exact costs.
The high cost of drivers' licenses, traffic fines, and associated fees disproportionately harms Black communities, trapping individuals in a cycle of debt and further involvement with the justice system. This economic burden is a result of both systemic issues like income inequality and discriminatory policing practices. Due to the racial wealth gap and persistent discrimination in employment, Black households often have fewer financial resources than white households. This disparity means that paying off even small fines can be a significant and devastating financial shock. For example, a 2021 report on Washington, D.C., highlighted that the median white household had a net worth 81 times higher than the median Black household.
A valid driver's license is essential for many jobs, and employers may use a license as a proxy for responsibility. Suspension makes it difficult or impossible for individuals to get to work, limiting job opportunities, especially in areas with inadequate public transit. Research on license suspensions for unpaid debt in New Jersey found that 42% of people lost their jobs within six months of the suspension. Of those who found another job, 88% reported a decrease in income. A study in Phoenix saw a $12,700 median annual earnings loss for participants whose licenses were suspended.
In modern times, the Radical Left has convinced America and the Courts that all police racially profile.Racial profiling can occur in the process of obtaining a driver's license, primarily through strict, and sometimes restrictive, documentation requirements that disproportionately affect racial minorities and immigrants. This can manifest as limitations on the types of documents accepted, or through the misidentification of individuals, leading to a cycle of discrimination and mistrust. The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) believes Congress should not enact legislation that would require state driver's licensing agencies to check and verify the immigration status of individuals applying for driver's licenses. NCLR believes that "a state-issued driver's license should be reliable proof of an individual's identity and proof of authorization to drive a motor vehicle; it should not be tied to an individualís immigration status. There are legitimate and sound avenues for individuals to prove identity which would allow state Departments of Motor Vehicles to fulfill their mission of ensuring safe roads without creating new licensing requirements that would make the driver's license a de facto proof of legal residency in the United States."
Isn't this the road trip to voter fraud? I am asking for an illegal alien friend of mine.
We need to ask the Court to decry the end to the Motor Voter law, better known as, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), a U.S. federal law designed to make voter registration more accessible. It mandates that states provide citizens with the opportunity to register to vote through several convenient methods. After the Civil War, Black men were granted the right to vote by the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870, leading to a period of political participation during Reconstruction. However, this right was systematically suppressed in the South through tactics like poll taxes, literacy tests, and violence. These barriers, established during the Jim Crow era, effectively disenfranchised most Black voters until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. We don't need the Radical Left to continue fixing what the Democrats historically broke.
Motor Voter is unconstitutional.
Comments
Post a Comment