{"id":204457,"date":"2016-12-29T00:51:53","date_gmt":"2016-12-29T05:51:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/uncategorized\/twenty-fourth-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitution.php"},"modified":"2016-12-29T00:51:53","modified_gmt":"2016-12-29T05:51:53","slug":"twenty-fourth-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/fourth-amendment-2\/twenty-fourth-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitution.php","title":{"rendered":"Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution &#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    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.  <\/p>\n<p>    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.  <\/p>\n<p>    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.  <\/p>\n<p>          Poll tax        <\/p>\n<p>          Cumulative          poll tax (missed poll taxes from prior years must also be          paid to vote)        <\/p>\n<p>          No poll tax        <\/p>\n<p>    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.  <\/p>\n<p>    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]  <\/p>\n<p>    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.  <\/p>\n<p>    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.  <\/p>\n<p>    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.  <\/p>\n<p>    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.  <\/p>\n<p>    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.  <\/p>\n<p>    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.  <\/p>\n<p>          Ratified          amendment, 196264        <\/p>\n<p>          Ratified          amendment post-enactment, 1977, 1989, 2002, 2009        <\/p>\n<p>          Rejected          amendment        <\/p>\n<p>          Didn't          ratify amendment        <\/p>\n<p>    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:  <\/p>\n<p>    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.  <\/p>\n<p>    The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following    states:  <\/p>\n<p>    The following states have not ratified the amendment:  <\/p>\n<p>    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.  <\/p>\n<p>    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]  <\/p>\n<p>    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.  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>See the original post here: <\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution\" title=\"Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ...\">Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ...<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> 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.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/fourth-amendment-2\/twenty-fourth-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitution.php\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"limit_modified_date":"","last_modified_date":"","_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[261461],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-204457","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-fourth-amendment-2"],"modified_by":null,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204457"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=204457"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204457\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204457"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204457"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204457"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}