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 Confederate States of America 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.
From 1900 to 1937, 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. 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. 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.
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 3933 vote in favor of the bill, but the filibuster required a two-thirds supermajority to break at the time; a 4824 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.
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." 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.
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.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 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 original post here:
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ...
- Quinn: Supreme Court should clarify Fourth Amendment rights in the digital age [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- Fourth amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia ... [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment is destroyed by the Roberts led Supreme Court. - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- Protections for e-data clear Senate committee [Last Updated On: April 27th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 27th, 2014]
- Weighing The Risks Of Warrantless Phone Searches During Arrests [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 29th, 2014]
- Court may let cops search smartphones [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 29th, 2014]
- Supreme Court to hear case on police searches of cellphones [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 29th, 2014]
- Fourth Amendment in the digital age: Supreme Court to decide if police can search cellphones without a warrant [Last Updated On: April 30th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 30th, 2014]
- What Scalia knows about illegal searches [Last Updated On: April 30th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 30th, 2014]
- Should police be allowed to search your smartphone - Video [Last Updated On: April 30th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 30th, 2014]
- The Shaky Legal Foundation of NSA Surveillance on Americans [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules police don't need warrants to search cars [Last Updated On: May 3rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 3rd, 2014]
- Local police: Updated vehicle-search law still requires probable cause [Last Updated On: May 3rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 3rd, 2014]
- Liberal Supreme Court Justice Comes To The Defense Of Scalia [Last Updated On: May 3rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 3rd, 2014]
- Smartphones and the Fourth Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: May 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 4th, 2014]
- Fourth Amendment Defined & Explained - Law [Last Updated On: May 6th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 6th, 2014]
- I-Team: Do police seek search warrant friendly judges? [Last Updated On: May 8th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 8th, 2014]
- Is Big Brother Listening? Applying the Fourth Amendment in an Electronic Age - Video [Last Updated On: May 9th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 9th, 2014]
- Magistrate waxes poetic while rejecting Gmail search request [Last Updated On: May 10th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 10th, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: May 10th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 10th, 2014]
- License reader lawsuit can be heard, appeals court rules [Last Updated On: May 15th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 15th, 2014]
- Seize the Rojo - Video [Last Updated On: May 16th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 16th, 2014]
- NSA Spying Has a Disproportionate Effect on Immigrants [Last Updated On: May 16th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 16th, 2014]
- Motorists sue Aurora, police in 2012 traffic stop after bank robbery [Last Updated On: May 18th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 18th, 2014]
- Judge Says NSA Phone Surveillance Likely Unconstitutional - Video [Last Updated On: May 21st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 21st, 2014]
- New York Attorney Heath D. Harte Releases a Statement on Fourth Amendment Rights [Last Updated On: May 22nd, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 22nd, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment Rights - Video [Last Updated On: May 23rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 23rd, 2014]
- Bangor Area School District teachers vote no to random drug [Last Updated On: May 24th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 24th, 2014]
- I Don't Care About The Contitution, Take Your Fourth Amendment And Shove It The Hills Hotel - Video [Last Updated On: May 27th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 27th, 2014]
- Lonestar1776 at Illegal Checkpoint 80 Miles Inside Border - Standing UP & Pushing Back! pt 2/2 - Video [Last Updated On: August 31st, 2014] [Originally Added On: August 31st, 2014]
- Suit charges Daytona Beach's rental inspection program violates civil rights [Last Updated On: September 3rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 3rd, 2014]
- 4th Amendment - Laws.com [Last Updated On: September 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 4th, 2014]
- YOU CAN ARREST ME NOW (cops refuse, steal phone) - Video [Last Updated On: September 7th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 7th, 2014]
- The Feds Explain How They Seized The Silk Road Servers [Last Updated On: September 8th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 8th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Does obtaining leaked data from a misconfigured website violate the CFAA? [Last Updated On: September 9th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 9th, 2014]
- Defence asks judge in NYC to toss out bulk of evidence in Silk Road case as illegally obtained [Last Updated On: September 10th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 10th, 2014]
- Family of a mentally ill woman files lawsuit against San Mateo Co. after deadly shooting [Last Updated On: September 10th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 10th, 2014]
- Minnesota Supreme Court upholds airport drug case decision [Last Updated On: September 12th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 12th, 2014]
- Law Talk - Obamacare Rollout; Fourth Amendment, NSA Spying Stop & Frisk DUI Check Points lta041 - Video [Last Updated On: September 12th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 12th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: The posse comitatus case and changing views of the exclusionary rule [Last Updated On: September 15th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 15th, 2014]
- Guest: Why the privacy of a public employees cellphone matters [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 16th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Apples dangerous game [Last Updated On: September 19th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 19th, 2014]
- Judge expounds on privacy rights [Last Updated On: September 20th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 20th, 2014]
- Great privacy essay: Fourth Amendment Doctrine in the Era of Total Surveillance [Last Updated On: September 20th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 20th, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment By Maison Erdman - Video [Last Updated On: September 20th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 20th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: When administrative inspections of businesses turn into massive armed police raids [Last Updated On: September 22nd, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 22nd, 2014]
- The chilling loophole that lets police stop, question and search you for no good reason [Last Updated On: September 23rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 23rd, 2014]
- Pet Owners Look to Muzzle Police Who Shoot Dogs [Last Updated On: September 27th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 27th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: A few thoughts on Heien v. North Carolina [Last Updated On: September 29th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 29th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Third Circuit on the mosaic theory and Smith v. Maryland [Last Updated On: October 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 1st, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Third Circuit gives narrow reading to exclusionary rule [Last Updated On: October 2nd, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 2nd, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Supreme Court takes case on duration of traffic stops [Last Updated On: October 3rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 3rd, 2014]
- Search & Seizure, Racial Bias: The American Law Journal on the Philadelphia CNN-News Affiliate WFMZ Monday, October 6 ... [Last Updated On: October 3rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 3rd, 2014]
- Argument preview: How many brake lights need to be working on your car? [Last Updated On: October 3rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 3rd, 2014]
- The 'Barney Fife Loophole' to the Fourth Amendment [Last Updated On: October 3rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 3rd, 2014]
- Search & Seizure: A New Fourth Amendment for a New Generation? - Promo - Video [Last Updated On: October 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 4th, 2014]
- Ap Government Fourth Amendment Project - Video [Last Updated On: October 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 4th, 2014]
- Lubbock Liberty Workshop With Arnold Loewy On The Fourth Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: October 5th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 5th, 2014]
- Feds Hacked Silk Road Without A Warrant? Perfectly Legal, Prosecutors Argue [Last Updated On: October 7th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 7th, 2014]
- Supreme Court Starts Term with Fourth Amendment Case [Last Updated On: October 7th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 7th, 2014]
- Argument analysis: A simple answer to a deceptively simple Fourth Amendment question? [Last Updated On: October 9th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 9th, 2014]
- Feds Say That Even If FBI Hacked The Silk Road, Ulbricht's Rights Weren't Violated [Last Updated On: October 9th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 9th, 2014]
- Mass Collection of U.S. Phone Records Violates the Fourth Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: October 9th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 9th, 2014]
- Leggett sides with civil liberties supporters [Last Updated On: October 10th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 10th, 2014]
- Search & Seizure / Car Stops: A 'New' Fourth Amendment for a New Generation? - Video [Last Updated On: October 10th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 10th, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment- The Maininator Period 4 - Video [Last Updated On: October 10th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 10th, 2014]
- Judge nukes Ulbricht's complaint about WARRANTLESS FBI Silk Road server raid [Last Updated On: October 11th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 11th, 2014]
- Montgomery County will not hold immigrants without probable cause -- Gazette.Net [Last Updated On: October 13th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 13th, 2014]
- Debate: Does Mass Phone Data Collection Violate The 4th Amendment? [Last Updated On: October 14th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 14th, 2014]
- Does the mass collection of phone records violate the Fourth Amendment? [Last Updated On: October 19th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 19th, 2014]
- When Can the Police Search Your Phone and Computer? [Last Updated On: October 21st, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 21st, 2014]
- Supreme Court to decide if cops can access hotel registries without warrants [Last Updated On: October 22nd, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 22nd, 2014]
- Third Circuit Allows Evidence from Warrantless GPS Device [Last Updated On: October 22nd, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 22nd, 2014]
- US court rules in favor of providing officials access to entire email account [Last Updated On: October 24th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 24th, 2014]
- EL MONTE POLICE OFFICER VIOLATES ARMY VETERAN'S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT - Video [Last Updated On: October 25th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 25th, 2014]
- FBI demands new powers to hack into computers and carry out surveillance [Last Updated On: October 30th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 30th, 2014]
- Fourth Amendment (United States Constitution ... [Last Updated On: November 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: November 4th, 2014]
- Fourth Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: November 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: November 4th, 2014]
- Call Yourself a Hacker and Lose Fourth Amendment Rights - Video [Last Updated On: November 5th, 2014] [Originally Added On: November 5th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Magistrate issues arrest warrants for 17 years but is new to probable cause [Last Updated On: November 7th, 2014] [Originally Added On: November 7th, 2014]