The End of the Poll TaxAnd, mark your calendars: Substack Live with Andrew Weissmann, Wednesday morning at 9am ET
First, a quick note: Tomorrow morning at 9 am. ET, my former DOJ colleague Andrew Weissman and I will be together with you for a Substack Live. Bring your coffee, and of course, there will be video afterwards for the folks on the West Coast. Now, on to poll taxes. Today marks the 60th anniversary of the official demise of the poll tax at the hands of the Supreme Court of the United States. On March 24, 1966, the Court banned their use in state and local elections in Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections. The Court held that “wealth or fee paying has . . . no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned.”
Harper was necessary because there was a loophole in the 24th Amendment, which had been ratified two years earlier. The Amendment abolished poll taxes in federal elections, but failed to address state and local ones. The Court slammed the door shut on any notion that states could discriminate against voters’ fundamental rights when the federal government was forbidden to do so. “Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized." Today’s Harper anniversary is ironic, with Donald Trump pushing the SAVE Act and Senate Republicans considering it, although it seems to be foundering. The Act, which would require voters to prove they are citizens, functions like a poll tax. Voters would need passports or other forms of identification that are expensive to obtain in order to exercise their right to vote. Additional costs would be borne by certain voters, like married women, whose current name doesn’t match the one on their birth certificate. It’s clear Republicans understand what the SAVE Act is about: it’s not preventing non-citizens from voting, because that’s not a real problem. It’s about maintaining Republican control despite what the voters want.
Harper: “To introduce wealth or payment of a fee as a measure of a voter's qualifications is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor. The degree of the discrimination is irrelevant. In this context -- that is, as a condition of obtaining a ballot -- the requirement of fee paying causes an "invidious" discrimination…that runs afoul of the Equal Protection Clause.” Today, Democracy Docket reported that Texas Republican Chip Roy, one of the leading proponents of the SAVE Act in the House of Representatives, and someone who has repeatedly dismissed “concerns that millions of Americans would face unnecessary barriers while registering to vote if the draconian bill became law,” took a different view in private. In a video obtained by independent media organization Call to Activism, Roy discusses how difficult it was for one of his employees, a woman, to obtain the identification she needed to get a REAL ID, which is similar to what the SAVE Act requires. In the recording, Roy says, “So, she had to go through a bunch of hoops. She’s gonna have to go back to the DMV twice because they want the paperwork. That’s just part of the issue with how we try to set up the ability to identify people.” This March 13 exchange between Senators Cornyn and Durbin is illustrative:
The Court in Harper: “In a recent searching reexamination of the Equal Protection Clause, we held, as already noted, that ‘the opportunity for equal participation by all voters in the election of state legislators’ is required…We decline to qualify that principle by sustaining this poll tax. Our conclusion, like that, in Reynolds v. Sims, is founded not on what we think governmental policy should be, but on what the Equal Protection Clause requires.” We shouldn’t have to “go through a bunch of hoops” to exercise a fundamental right. Republicans know exactly what they’re doing with the SAVE Act and other measures designed to make it more difficult for Americans to vote. The Court concluded Harper like this: “[T]o repeat, wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned.” If Civil Discourse helps you think through moments like this—drawing on history, law, and a long memory from years inside the justice system—I hope you’ll consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support makes it possible for me to keep doing the research and careful analysis these pieces require, and it helps sustain a community of people who believe that understanding what’s happening is the first step toward doing something about it. We’re in this together, Joyce You're currently a free subscriber to Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance . For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
Tuesday, March 24, 2026
The End of the Poll Tax
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Whims of a Single Man
Listen now (14 mins) | ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...
-
On Monday, Leon County Circuit Judge Angela Dempsey rejected Bear Warriors United's request for a temporary injunction to halt the s...
-
Police say information from a Reddit tipster who had a strange encounter with another man on a sidewalk outside Brown University provi...
No comments:
Post a Comment