Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution …
The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.
Southern states of the former Confederacy adopted poll taxes in laws of the late 19th century and new constitutions from 1890 to 1908, after the Democratic Party had generally regained control of state legislatures decades after the end of Reconstruction, as a measure to prevent African Americans and often poor whites from voting. Use of the poll taxes by states was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1937 decision Breedlove v. Suttles.
When the 24th Amendment was ratified in 1964, five states still retained a poll tax: Virginia, Alabama, Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi. The amendment prohibited requiring a poll tax for voters in federal elections. But it was not until 1966 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 63 in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections that poll taxes for any level of elections were unconstitutional. It said these violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Subsequent litigation related to potential discriminatory effects of voter registration requirements has generally been based on application of this clause.
Poll tax
Cumulative poll tax (missed poll taxes from prior years must also be paid to vote)
No poll tax
Southern states adopted the poll tax as a requirement for voting as part of a series of laws intended to marginalize black Americans from politics so far as practicable without violating the Fifteenth Amendment. This required that voting not be limited by "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." All voters were required to pay the poll tax, but in practice it most affected the poor. Notably this impacted both African Americans and poor white voters, some of whom had voted with Populist and Fusionist candidates in the late 19th century, temporarily disturbing Democratic rule. Proponents of the poll tax downplayed this aspect and assured white voters they would not be affected. Passage of poll taxes began in earnest in the 1890s, as Democrats wanted to prevent another Populist-Republican coalition. Despite election violence and fraud, African Americans were still winning numerous local seats. By 1902, all eleven states of the former Confederacy had enacted a poll tax, many within new constitutions that contained other provisions to reduce voter lists, such as literacy or comprehension tests. The poll tax was used together with grandfather clauses and the "white primary", and threats of violence. For example, potential voters had to be "assessed" in Arkansas, and blacks were utterly ignored in the assessment.[2]
From 19001937, such use of the poll tax was nearly ignored by the federal government. Some state-level initiatives repealed it. The poll tax survived a legal challenge in the 1937 Supreme Court case Breedlove v. Suttles, which ruled that "[The] privilege of voting is not derived from the United States, but is conferred by the state and, save as restrained by the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments and other provisions of the Federal Constitution, the state may condition suffrage as it deems appropriate."[3]
The issue remained prominent, as most African Americans in the South were disenfranchised. President Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke out against the tax. He publicly called it "a remnant of the Revolutionary period" that the country had moved past. However, Roosevelt's favored liberal Democrats lost in the 1938 primaries to the reigning conservative Southern Democrats, and he backed off the issue. He felt that he needed Southern Democratic votes to pass New Deal programs and did not want to further antagonize them.[4] Still, efforts at the Congressional level to abolish the poll tax continued. A 1939 bill to abolish the poll tax in federal elections was tied up by the Southern Block, lawmakers whose long tenure in office from a one-party region gave them seniority and command of numerous important committee chairmanships. A discharge petition was able to force the bill to be considered, and the House passed the bill 25484.[5] However, the bill was unable to defeat a filibuster in the Senate by Southern senators and a few Northern allies who valued the support of the powerful and senior Southern seats. This bill would be re-proposed in the next several Congresses. It came closest to passage during World War II, when opponents framed abolition as a means to help overseas soldiers vote. However, after learning that the US Supreme Court decision Smith v. Allwright (1944) banned use of the "white primary," the Southern block refused to approve abolition of the poll tax.[6]
In 1946, the Senate came close to passing the bill. 24 Democrats and 15 Republicans approved an end to debate, while 7 non-southern Democrats and 7 Republicans joined with the 19 Southern Democrats in opposition. The result was a 39-33 vote in favor of the bill, but the filibuster required a two-thirds supermajority to break at the time; a 48-24 vote was required to pass the bill.[clarification needed] Those in favor of abolition of the poll tax considered a constitutional amendment after the 1946 defeat, but that idea did not advance either.[7]
The tenor of the debate changed in the 1940s. Southern politicians tried to shift the debate to Constitutional issue, but private correspondence indicates that black disenfranchisement was still the true concern. For instance, Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo declared, "If the poll tax bill passes, the next step will be an effort to remove the registration qualification, the educational qualification of Negroes. If that is done we will have no way of preventing the Negroes from voting."[8] This fear explains why even Southern Senators from states that had abolished the poll tax still opposed the bill; they did not want to set a precedent that the federal government could interfere in state elections.
President Harry S. Truman established the President's Committee on Civil Rights, which among other issues investigated the poll tax. Considering that opposition to federal poll tax regulation in 1948 was claimed as based on the Constitution, the Committee noted that a constitutional amendment might be the best way to proceed. Still, little occurred during the 1950s. Members of the anti-poll tax movement laid low during the anti-Communist frenzy of the period; some of the main proponents of poll tax abolition, such as Joseph Gelders and Vito Marcantonio, had been committed Marxists.[9]
President John F. Kennedy returned to this issue. His administration urged Congress to adopt and send such an amendment to the states for ratification. He considered the constitutional amendment the best way to avoid a filibuster, as the claim that federal abolition of the poll tax was unconstitutional would be moot. Still, some liberals opposed Kennedy's action, feeling that an amendment would be too slow compared to legislation.[10]Spessard Holland, a conservative Democrat from Florida, introduced the amendment to the Senate. Holland opposed most civil rights legislation during his career,[11] and Kennedy's gaining of his support helped splinter monolithic Southern opposition to the Amendment. Ratification of the amendment was relatively quick, taking slightly more than a year; it was rapidly ratified by state legislatures across the country from August 1962 to January 1964.
President Lyndon B. Johnson called the amendment a "triumph of liberty over restriction" and "a verification of people's rights."[12] States that maintained the poll tax were more reserved. Mississippi's Attorney General, Joe Patterson, complained about the complexity of two sets of voters - those who paid their poll tax and could vote in all elections, and those who had not and could only vote in federal elections.[12] Additionally, non-payers of the poll tax could still be deterred by requirements that they register far in advance of the election and retain records of such registration.[13] States such as Alabama also exercised discrimination in the application of literacy tests.
Ratified amendment, 196264
Ratified amendment post-enactment, 1977, 1989, 2002, 2009
Rejected amendment
Didn't ratify amendment
Congress proposed the Twenty-fourth Amendment on August 27, 1962.[14][15] The amendment was submitted to the states on September 24, 1962, after it passed with the requisite two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate.[12] The following states ratified the amendment:
Ratification was completed on January 23, 1964. The Georgia legislature did make a last-second attempt to be the 38th state to ratify. This was a surprise as "no Southern help could be expected"[13] for the amendment. The Georgia Senate quickly and unanimously passed it, but the House did not act in time.[12] Georgia's ratification was apparently dropped after South Dakota's ratification.
The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states:
The amendment was specifically rejected by the following state:
The following states have not ratified the amendment:
Arkansas effectively repealed its poll tax for all elections with Amendment 51 to the Arkansas Constitution at the November 1964 general election, several months after this amendment was ratified. The poll-tax language was not completely stricken from its Constitution until Amendment 85 in 2008.[16] Of the five states originally affected by this amendment, Arkansas was the only one to repeal its poll tax; the other four retained their taxes until they were struck down in 1966 by the US Supreme Court decision in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), which ruled poll taxes unconstitutional even for state elections. Federal district courts in Alabama and Texas, respectively, struck down their poll taxes less than two months before the Harper ruling was issued.
The state of Virginia accommodated the amendment by providing an "escape clause" to the poll tax. In lieu of paying the poll tax, a prospective voter could file paperwork to gain a certificate establishing a place of residence in Virginia. The papers would have to be filed six months in advance of voting and the voter had to provide a copy of certificate at the time of voting. This measure was expected to decrease the number of legal voters.[17] In the 1965 Supreme Court decision Harman v. Forssenius, the Court unanimously found such measures unconstitutional. It declared that for federal elections, "the poll tax is abolished absolutely as a prerequisite to voting, and no equivalent or milder substitute may be imposed."[18]
While not directly related to the Twenty-fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court case Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) ruled that the poll tax was unconstitutional at every level, not just for federal elections. The Harper decision relied upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the Twenty-Fourth Amendment. As such, issues related to whether burdens on voting are equivalent to poll taxes in discriminatory effect have usually been litigated on Equal Protection grounds since.
See the article here:
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ...
- Permissibility of Cross-Border Share Swap: Understanding the Fourth Amendment of the NDI Rules and its Implications - SCC Online - November 23rd, 2024 [November 23rd, 2024]
- Does the Fourth Amendment protect smartphone users? - Lewiston Morning Tribune - October 12th, 2024 [October 12th, 2024]
- The Fourth Amendment shouldn't stop once you get up to drone level: Albert Fox Cahn - Fox Business - September 21st, 2024 [September 21st, 2024]
- The Reasonableness of Retaining Personal Property Post-Seizure and the Ascendancy of Text, History, and Tradition in Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence -... - September 21st, 2024 [September 21st, 2024]
- Gujarat's Proposes Fourth Amendment To Net Metering Regulations For Rooftop Solar Systems Up To 100 KW - SolarQuarter - July 26th, 2024 [July 26th, 2024]
- Nearly 96% of Private Property Is Open to Warrantless Searches, New Study Estimates - Reason - March 15th, 2024 [March 15th, 2024]
- Heres what to do (and not do) if you get pulled over in California. What are my rights? - Yahoo Movies Canada - December 12th, 2023 [December 12th, 2023]
- FBI Seized $86 Million From People Not Suspected Crimes. A Federal Court Will Decide if That's Legal. - Reason - December 12th, 2023 [December 12th, 2023]
- Digital justice: Supreme Court increasingly confronts law and the internet - Washington Times - December 12th, 2023 [December 12th, 2023]
- MCHS goes on lockout after weapons found on campus - Mineral County Independent-News - November 19th, 2023 [November 19th, 2023]
- Cops Stormed Into a Seattle Woman's Home. It Was the Wrong ... - Reason - November 19th, 2023 [November 19th, 2023]
- Ron Wyden, U.S. Senator from Oregon The Presidential Prayer ... - The Presidential Prayer Team - November 19th, 2023 [November 19th, 2023]
- Bill Maher Slams Critics of the West Amid Israel Conflict: Marginalized People Live Better Today Because of Western Ideals (Video) - Yahoo... - November 5th, 2023 [November 5th, 2023]
- Surveillance authority change could harm ability to stop attacks, FBI ... - Roll Call - November 5th, 2023 [November 5th, 2023]
- New York's progressive chief judge joins with conservatives to ... - City & State - November 5th, 2023 [November 5th, 2023]
- Should domestic abusers have gun rights? | On Point - WBUR News - November 5th, 2023 [November 5th, 2023]
- The Biden administrations latest executive order calls for a ... - R Street - November 5th, 2023 [November 5th, 2023]
- DPS Presents Purple Hearts, Medal of Valor and Other Prestigious ... - the Texas Department of Public Safety - November 5th, 2023 [November 5th, 2023]
- Senators Katie Britt and John Kennedy Call for Investigation into ... - Calhoun County Journal - October 15th, 2023 [October 15th, 2023]
- Trump and Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment: An Exploration ... - JURIST - October 15th, 2023 [October 15th, 2023]
- Expert Q&A with David Aaron on FISA Section 702 Reauthorization ... - Just Security - October 15th, 2023 [October 15th, 2023]
- A Constitution the Government Evades - Tenth Amendment Center - October 15th, 2023 [October 15th, 2023]
- Imagine If Feds Hunted More Real Terrorists, Not Conservatives - The Federalist - October 15th, 2023 [October 15th, 2023]
- Lake Orion Voters Could Decide Removing TIF Funding for ... - Oakland County Times - August 24th, 2023 [August 24th, 2023]
- A marriage of convenience: Why the pushback against a key spy program could cave in on progressives - Yahoo News - August 24th, 2023 [August 24th, 2023]
- Iowa Public Information Board accepts one complaint against ... - KMAland - August 24th, 2023 [August 24th, 2023]
- Burleigh County weighs OHV ordinance to crack down on reckless ... - Bismarck Tribune - August 8th, 2023 [August 8th, 2023]
- AI targets turnstile jumpers to fight fare evasion, but experts warn of ... - 1330 WFIN - August 8th, 2023 [August 8th, 2023]
- As of July 1, police won't be able to stop people for smell of cannabis - The Baltimore Banner - May 20th, 2023 [May 20th, 2023]
- Baby Ninth Amendments Part V: Real Life, Potpourri, and the Big ... - Reason - May 20th, 2023 [May 20th, 2023]
- COA affirms SVF firearm conviction, finds stop and search by police ... - Indiana Lawyer - May 20th, 2023 [May 20th, 2023]
- BARINGS BDC, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet... - May 20th, 2023 [May 20th, 2023]
- Column: : Justice, tyrants and the mob (5/19/23) - McCook Daily Gazette - May 20th, 2023 [May 20th, 2023]
- Alabama appeals court reverses murder conviction of Ala. officer ... - Police News - May 20th, 2023 [May 20th, 2023]
- Oakland narrows town manager search to five | West Orange Times ... - West Orange Times & SouthWest Orange Observer - May 20th, 2023 [May 20th, 2023]
- The Durham Report Is Right About the Need for More FBI Oversight - Reason - May 20th, 2023 [May 20th, 2023]
- Hashtag Trending May 19- U.S. government use invasive AI to track refugees; OpenAI releases iOS ChatGPT app; Microsoft bets on nuclear fusion - IT... - May 20th, 2023 [May 20th, 2023]
- Collective knowledge doctrine applies to a traffic stop - Police News - May 18th, 2023 [May 18th, 2023]
- Privacy and civil rights groups warn against rapidly growing mass ... - TechSpot - May 18th, 2023 [May 18th, 2023]
- There Is No Defensive Search Exception to the Fourth Amendment ... - Center for Democracy and Technology - May 8th, 2023 [May 8th, 2023]
- Napolitano: Does government believe in the Constitution ... - The Winchester Star - May 8th, 2023 [May 8th, 2023]
- Constitution might as well be abandoned if amendments are not ... - Washington Times - May 8th, 2023 [May 8th, 2023]
- One police officer opens a car door, and another looks inside. Did ... - SCOTUSblog - May 8th, 2023 [May 8th, 2023]
- Biden retains option of invoking 14th Amendment to avoid default - Geo News - May 8th, 2023 [May 8th, 2023]
- North Carolina Legislature Pushing Bill That Would Allow Cops To ... - Techdirt - May 8th, 2023 [May 8th, 2023]
- Letter: Threat to our freedom | Opinion | news-journal.com - Longview News-Journal - May 8th, 2023 [May 8th, 2023]
- Parents file lawsuit alleging civil rights violations after children were ... - The Boston Globe - May 8th, 2023 [May 8th, 2023]
- Nevada moves to strengthen protections around use of sexual ... - This Is Reno - May 8th, 2023 [May 8th, 2023]
- Feds rethink warrantless search stats and oh look, a huge drop in numbers - The Register - May 8th, 2023 [May 8th, 2023]
- Its literally cost me everything. Missouri man gets jail time in Capitol riot case - Yahoo News - May 8th, 2023 [May 8th, 2023]
- Board Member Rallies to Student Who Vandalized LGBTQ Posters - FlaglerLive.com - May 8th, 2023 [May 8th, 2023]
- 4th Circuit upholds $730K award to Black Secret Service agent - Virginia Lawyers Weekly - April 19th, 2023 [April 19th, 2023]
- Suspected drug dealer who used alias to rent condo wins reversal in ... - Indiana Lawyer - April 19th, 2023 [April 19th, 2023]
- Do Priests Have a Right to Privacy? - Commonweal - April 19th, 2023 [April 19th, 2023]
- This Deceptive ICE Tactic Violates the Fourth Amendment - ACLU - April 13th, 2023 [April 13th, 2023]
- LDF Appeals Grant of Qualified Immunity in Case Involving Invasive ... - NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund - April 13th, 2023 [April 13th, 2023]
- Livestreaming police stop constitutionally protected - North Carolina Lawyers Weekly - April 13th, 2023 [April 13th, 2023]
- F.B.I. Feared Lawmaker Was Target of Foreign Intelligence Operation - The New York Times - April 13th, 2023 [April 13th, 2023]
- Houston police officer who opened fire in Family Dollar parking lot also shot Mario Watts in separate 2021 incident, HPD confirms - KTRK-TV - April 13th, 2023 [April 13th, 2023]
- Jayland Walker: What's legal and what's illegal during protests - Akron Beacon Journal - April 13th, 2023 [April 13th, 2023]
- IMPD officers indicted for death of Herman Whitfield III - WISH TV Indianapolis, IN - April 13th, 2023 [April 13th, 2023]
- You can support Second Amendment and want gun reform, too ... - Straight Arrow News - April 13th, 2023 [April 13th, 2023]
- Does the five-second rule apply to extending a traffic stop to permit a ... - Police News - April 13th, 2023 [April 13th, 2023]
- Charlotte moves to dismiss lawsuit from man injured during 2020 ... - Carolina Journal - April 13th, 2023 [April 13th, 2023]
- TRAVEL & LEISURE CO. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance... - April 11th, 2023 [April 11th, 2023]
- Socialism and the Equal Sharing of Misery | Business ... - The Weekly Journal - April 11th, 2023 [April 11th, 2023]
- Top 10 Court Cases That Changed the U.S. Justice System - Listverse - April 11th, 2023 [April 11th, 2023]
- A new look at the lives of ultra-Orthodox Jews: Shtetl.org provides ... - New York Daily News - April 11th, 2023 [April 11th, 2023]
- VERISK ANALYTICS, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance... - April 11th, 2023 [April 11th, 2023]
- Power Of Arrest In India, USA And UK - BW Legal World - April 11th, 2023 [April 11th, 2023]
- Jalil Muntaqim: The time to end prison slavery is now - The Real News Network - April 11th, 2023 [April 11th, 2023]
- Race and the Fourth Amendment: Defendants Raise Issue in ... - Law.com - April 9th, 2023 [April 9th, 2023]
- Why Founding Fathers passed the Third Amendment to the ... - Tennessean - April 9th, 2023 [April 9th, 2023]
- The journey of the Constitution - Pakistan Observer - April 9th, 2023 [April 9th, 2023]
- Former MPD officer sued - McMinnville - Southern Standard - April 9th, 2023 [April 9th, 2023]
- No, the RESTRICT Act wouldnt give the government access to data from your home devices - WCNC.com - April 9th, 2023 [April 9th, 2023]
- Analysis: How Strict Enforcement of Strict Gun Laws Begets ... - The Reload - April 9th, 2023 [April 9th, 2023]
- New York Court Rules Due Process Must be Considered for 'Red ... - National Shooting Sports Foundation - April 9th, 2023 [April 9th, 2023]
- Opinion: Democracy can't exist without "legal technicalities" - The Connecticut Mirror - April 9th, 2023 [April 9th, 2023]
- Commentary: Police and District Attorneys Dont Want to Give Up ... - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis - April 9th, 2023 [April 9th, 2023]