[{"command":"add_css","data":[{"rel":"stylesheet","media":"all","href":"\/sites\/default\/files\/css\/css_veuEhhb1658wti0_ZAig66JOyixENU-N9zhjLQSLfOQ.css?delta=0\u0026language=en\u0026theme=heritage_theme\u0026include=eJwrTi1LzdNPzkksLq7Uy8tPSQUAPMsGtA"}]},{"command":"invoke","selector":null,"method":"openEssay","args":["10000185","\n\n\u003Carticle about=\u0022\/constitution\/amendments\/24\/essays\/186\/poll-taxes\u0022 class=\u0022node node--type-constitution-essay node--promoted node--view-mode-embedded clearfix\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Ch1 class=\u0022title\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan\u003EPoll Taxes\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/h1\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-location\u0022\u003E\n      Amendment XXIV\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-context\u0022\u003E\n      \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ESection 1. 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.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ESection 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-body\u0022\u003E\n    \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ESouthern states enacted poll taxes of one or\u0026nbsp;two dollars per year between 1889 and 1966 as\u0026nbsp;a prerequisite to voting. A citizen paid the tax\u0026nbsp;when registering and then annually thereafter;\u0026nbsp;some laws required payment up to nine months\u0026nbsp;before an election. Furthermore, many states had\u0026nbsp;a cumulative feature that required an individual\u0026nbsp;to pay all previous years\u2019 poll taxes before he\u0026nbsp;could vote in the instant year.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EPrior to the enactment of poll taxes, property\u0026nbsp;ownership was frequently a prerequisite to voting.\u0026nbsp;States instituted the poll tax early in the nineteenth\u0026nbsp;century as a device to grant voting rights\u0026nbsp;to individuals who did not own real property.\u0026nbsp;Although most states had dispensed with both\u0026nbsp;property qualifications and the poll tax by the\u0026nbsp;time of the Civil War, the tax resurfaced in the\u0026nbsp;South to dilute the effect of race-neutral voting\u0026nbsp;provisions required in Southern states\u2019 constitutions\u0026nbsp;as a condition for readmission to the Union\u0026nbsp;following the Civil War.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EBeginning in 1889, Southern states reintroduced\u0026nbsp;the poll tax as a method of disenfranchising\u0026nbsp;black voters. As delegate Carter Glass declared\u0026nbsp;during the Virginia constitutional convention of\u0026nbsp;1902, the tax was designed \u201cwith a view to the\u0026nbsp;elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten\u0026nbsp;rid of, legally, without materially impairing\u0026nbsp;the numerical strength of the white electorate.\u201d\u0026nbsp;Additionally, poll taxes had the effect of disenfranchising\u0026nbsp;the poor in general, including whites;\u0026nbsp;later, it fell upon some women after the passage of\u0026nbsp;the Nineteenth Amendment.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ELegislation to eliminate poll taxes in federal\u0026nbsp;elections was introduced in every Congress\u0026nbsp;beginning in 1939, but no bill made it into law.\u0026nbsp;By the time of the Twenty-fourth Amendment\u2019s\u0026nbsp;ratification in 1964, only five states retained a poll\u0026nbsp;tax. Nevertheless, Congress deemed the amendment\u0026nbsp;necessary inasmuch as poll taxes had previously\u0026nbsp;survived constitutional challenges in the\u0026nbsp;courts, \u003Cem\u003EBreedlove v. Suttles\u003C\/em\u003E (1937), and they had\u0026nbsp;become a notorious symbol of black disenfranchisement.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EDuring the debates, some members of\u0026nbsp;Congress argued that because poll taxes were\u0026nbsp;racially discriminatory, Congress should outlaw\u0026nbsp;them directly under the enforcement powers\u0026nbsp;of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.\u0026nbsp;However, Congress eventually decided against\u0026nbsp;using its Fifteenth Amendment enforcement\u0026nbsp;power because it did not directly reach the disenfranchisement\u0026nbsp;of the poor. Early drafts of\u0026nbsp;the Fifteenth Amendment had, in fact, sought\u0026nbsp;to proscribe devices like poll taxes. Ultimately,\u0026nbsp;however, the Fifteenth Amendment\u2019s drafters\u0026nbsp;had settled on language forbidding only racial\u0026nbsp;discrimination in the enjoyment of the franchise.\u0026nbsp;A specific poll tax amendment would be\u0026nbsp;both more sweeping and have greater symbolic\u0026nbsp;status. In addition, the amendment\u2019s supporters\u0026nbsp;attacked the poll tax as a vehicle for fraud\u0026nbsp;because the tax facilitated political corruption\u0026nbsp;through vote buying by political machines that\u0026nbsp;had made block payments of the tax. Some\u0026nbsp;states allowed third parties to pay an individual\u2019s\u0026nbsp;poll tax, so some businesses interested in\u0026nbsp;the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment were\u0026nbsp;able to pay the poll tax for their patrons. Similarly,\u0026nbsp;unions, frustrated with the resistance to\u0026nbsp;unionization in the South, encouraged registration\u0026nbsp;of their members in some cases by paying\u0026nbsp;their poll taxes. Defenders of states\u2019 rights,\u0026nbsp;however, fended off any attempt to extend the\u0026nbsp;amendment\u2019s application to local elections.\u0026nbsp;Nonetheless, not long after the ratification of\u0026nbsp;the amendment, Congress enacted the Voting\u0026nbsp;Rights Act of 1965, which made problematic the\u0026nbsp;continuing validity of the poll tax as a qualification\u0026nbsp;in state elections.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EIn \u003Cem\u003EHarman v. Forssenius\u003C\/em\u003E (1965), the Supreme\u0026nbsp;Court for the first time construed the Twenty-fourth\u0026nbsp;Amendment, giving broad effect to its\u0026nbsp;prohibition. In anticipation of the amendment\u2019s\u0026nbsp;adoption, Virginia had enacted a statute amending\u0026nbsp;its election laws to provide that a qualified\u0026nbsp;citizen might vote in federal elections only if,\u0026nbsp;at least six months prior to each election, he\u0026nbsp;had either paid a poll tax or filed a certificate\u0026nbsp;of residence. In declaring the new Virginia voting\u0026nbsp;law unconstitutional, the Court stressed the\u0026nbsp;broad language of the Twenty-fourth Amendment,\u0026nbsp;which prohibits not only the denial but\u0026nbsp;also the abridgement of the right to vote. The\u0026nbsp;Court noted that the Twenty-fourth Amendment,\u0026nbsp;like the Fifteenth, \u201cnullifies sophisticated as well\u0026nbsp;as simple-minded modes of impairing the right\u0026nbsp;guaranteed.\u201d Continuing, the Court also found\u0026nbsp;that the Twenty-fourth Amendment applies to\u0026nbsp;\u201conerous procedural requirements\u201d that effectively\u0026nbsp;handicap, impede, or impair the \u201cexercise\u0026nbsp;of the franchise by those claiming the constitutional\u0026nbsp;immunity.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe drafters of the amendment carefully limited\u0026nbsp;its scope to federal elections. Two years after\u0026nbsp;its ratification, the Supreme Court announced\u0026nbsp;that the use of poll taxes as a prerequisite to\u0026nbsp;voting in state elections violated the Equal Protection\u0026nbsp;Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,\u0026nbsp;even though it was evident that the conclusion\u0026nbsp;was at odds with the original understanding of\u0026nbsp;the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, a\u0026nbsp;position emphasized in the dissents of Justices\u0026nbsp;Hugo L. Black and John M. Harlan. \u003Cem\u003EHarper v.\u0026nbsp;Virginia State Board of Elections\u003C\/em\u003E (1966). In \u003Cem\u003EHarper\u003C\/em\u003E,\u0026nbsp;the Court dealt with a Virginia statute requiring\u0026nbsp;the payment of a poll tax not to exceed $1.50 as a\u0026nbsp;precondition for voting, an amount that Virginia\u0026nbsp;argued was minimal and thus not a significant\u0026nbsp;burden on the right to vote. Admitting \u201cthe right\u0026nbsp;to vote in state elections is nowhere expressly\u0026nbsp;mentioned,\u201d the Court nevertheless invalidated\u0026nbsp;the statute because \u201cit is enough to say that once\u0026nbsp;the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines\u0026nbsp;may not be drawn which are inconsistent with\u0026nbsp;the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth\u0026nbsp;Amendment.\u201d Justice William O. Douglas, writing\u0026nbsp;for the Court, explained: \u201c[A] state violates\u0026nbsp;the Equal Protection Clause . . . whenever it makes\u0026nbsp;the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an\u0026nbsp;electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no\u0026nbsp;relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying this\u0026nbsp;or any other tax.\u201d The logic of the Court\u2019s opinion\u0026nbsp;has made the Twenty-fourth Amendment superfluous,\u0026nbsp;as Justice John M. Harlan observed in his\u0026nbsp;dissent in \u003Cem\u003EHarper\u003C\/em\u003E.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ERecent attempts to extend the Twenty-fourth\u0026nbsp;Amendment to other contexts have failed. Federal\u0026nbsp;courts have turned aside arguments that the\u0026nbsp;amendment forbids re-enfranchisement of felons\u0026nbsp;contingent upon payment of child support,\u0026nbsp;\u003Cem\u003EJohnson v. Bredesen\u003C\/em\u003E (2010), or payment of past\u0026nbsp;due fines, \u003Cem\u003EHarvey v. Brewer\u003C\/em\u003E (2012), or even a fee\u0026nbsp;to cover the process for reinstatement of voting\u0026nbsp;rights, \u003Cem\u003EHoward v. Gilmore\u003C\/em\u003E (2000). Neither does\u0026nbsp;voter identification laws constitute a poll tax,\u0026nbsp;\u003Cem\u003EGonzalez v. Arizona \u003C\/em\u003E(2010). Voting disenfranchisement\u0026nbsp;claims receive a better hearing from\u0026nbsp;the courts under the Equal Protection Clause of\u0026nbsp;the Fourteenth Amendment.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--media\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--photo\u0022 style=\u0022background-image: url(\/sites\/default\/files\/David_Forte.jpg)\u0022\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--info\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Ch4 class=\u0022con-essay-author--name\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/facultyprofile.csuohio.edu\/csufacultyprofile\/detail.cfm?FacultyID=D_FORTE\u0022\u003EDavid F. Forte\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/h4\u003E\n                  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--job\u0022\u003E\n         Professor, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-tabs\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cul data-tabs class=\u0022tabs\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000185-taba\u0022\u003EFurther Reading\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000185-tabb\u0022\u003ECase Law\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000185-tabc\u0022\u003ERelated Essays\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n      \u003C\/ul\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv data-tabs-content\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000185-taba\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBruce Ackerman \u0026amp; Jennifer Nou,\u0026nbsp;\u003Cem\u003ECanonizing the civil Rights Revolution: The People and the Poll Tax\u003C\/em\u003E, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 63 (2009)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ESteven F. Lawson, Black Ballots: Voting Rights in the South, 1944\u20131969 (1976)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EFrederic D. Ogden, The Poll Tax in the South (1958)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ERonnie L. Podolefsky, \u003Ci\u003EThe Illusion of Suffrage: Female Voting Rights and the Women\u0027s Poll Tax Repeal Movement after the Nineteenth Amendment\u003C\/i\u003E, 7 Colum. J. Gender \u0026amp; L. 185 (1998)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000185-tabb\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBreedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EHarman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 (1965)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EHarper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EHoward v. Gilmore, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 2680 (4th Cir., February 23, 2000) Johnson v. Bredesen, 624 F.3d 742 (6th Cir. 2010)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGonzalez v. Arizona, 624 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2010)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EHarvey v. Brewer, 605 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2010)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000185-tabc\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000003\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EElector Qualifications\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000170\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EEqual Protection\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000175\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ESuffrage\u2014Race\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000180\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ESuffrage\u2014Sex\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n\u003C\/article\u003E\n"]}]