Right, and you'd assume that if it was widely delivered in Louisiana, there'd be contemporaneous records; what that test is doing is pretty obvious.

I think it's surprising because the piece is new and it links to the Slate and crmvet articles.

There is no ambiguity, (b) is unambiguously correct (more precisely, it puts it in that hands of State legislatures).

The test comes with an answer key. See the second half of https://www.crmvet.org/info/la-littest2.pdf.

C is also literally what happens if a new VP is needed for any reason (needs to get confirmed by Congress though).

Few people know that the first president was Peyton Randolph.

Agreed. This test is not reasonable.

Even "who is the first president" knowledge shouldn't be a bar to voting. Do you think they offered this literacy test in the native languages of all taking it? Do you think all people in the US had the opportunity to learn, in their language, the history of the country?

At the time there were systemic barriers to education that meant that many folk were probably not even taught who the first president was. Let alone how old you have to be to be president.

I think voter registration itself should be disallowed and banned. Why should voters need to register beforehand? You should be able to just show up on election day and cast a vote. The entire process of voter registration is nothing more than a means to disenfranchise voters.

A literacy test in which language?

The person was Egon Kisch, a Czechoslovak communist, who arrived in 1934 for a speaking tour to raise awareness of what was happening in fascist Germany, and who the Australian government found far too 'revolutionary' to let in.

The full story is quite fun. He was initially refused permission to disembark, which he solved by leaping five metres from the ship, thereby making landfall (rather literally). The government then tried to exclude him using a dictation test, which could indeed be in any European language, and the test he failed was administered in Scots Gaelic. Some controversy arose when it turned out that the person giving the dictation test couldn't themselves understand Scots Gaelic, but the High Court ultimately ruled in Kisch's favour for the somewhat amusing reason that Scots Gaelic was 'not a European language' (at least within the meaning of the relevant law). [0]

Australia has a long and not-particularly-storied history of extreme border restrictions. Laws banning non-white migration persisted in one way or another until 1973, and in the subsequent fifty years Australia has done progressively more insane things to keep people out, including removing all of Australia from the Australian migration zone (so migrants never actually 'arrive' in such a way that might give them a right to seek asylum), using the navy to put people that arrived by sea back on boats and launching them vaguely in the direction of other countries, keeping people actually accepted to be refugees (!) off-shore in remote Pacific island concentration camps for years, and - during COVID - criminalising its own citizens leaving Australia for two years (and briefly even the return of Australian citizens home). [1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_exclusion_of_Egon_Ki...

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56953052

To fit the 80 character limit, something like the following might work:

A Near Impossible 1964 Literacy Test Louisiana Used to Suppress the Black Vote

I will take any day Germany self-blaming itself over Germany's Hegel and Nietzsche Kultur that killed tens of thousands of Belgian and French civilians in the first world war and millions of Jew, Russian, Polish, Ukrainian, etc... civilians in the second world war.

Germany is self-blaming only to some extent or for some definitions of this notion.

Yes, they are well aware of what happened in 1930s and that there was Hitler, etc.

And still they conveniently fail to see any connection with today times. It is some unclearly defined Nazis who took over the control of Germany and did all the killings and destroyed a few countries around. But not anyone's grandfather was involved. And supposedly the companies which built their wealth on slave work and death of thousands continue to prosper.

German honesty regarding its past is a modern phenomenon, if not outright propaganda. During the Cold War they were a lot less honest; the Nazi regime was often used as propaganda against the other side. e.g. West Germany would downplay Germany's capitalist class's role in Hitler's rise to power and emphasize the racial nature of the Holocaust. East Germany[0] would do the opposite, emphasizing capitalism and de-emphasizing antisemitism[1]. These different spins on the same events were intended to downplay their side's role in the Nazi regime, shifting all the blame to the other.

This is especially true in the West. Large swaths of the German capitalist class actively backed Hitler and the Nazi party, and got away with it. How they got away with it is particularly appalling. One of the most common defenses at Nuremburg was "I was just following orders", an excuse that was usually rejected. But there was one very specific kind of order that would reliably keep Nazis (Hugo Boss, IG Farben, etc) out of the noose: shareholder duties. In the name of anticommunism, there was an active campaign in the First World[2] to downplay the war crimes of German capitalists after WWII.

The AfD is not a result of Germany being tired of remembering. They're a result of Germany's denazification being incomplete - and politically influenced by the exact same economic forces[3] that put Hitler in the chancellor's seat in the first place. States create liberal democracies with free markets, businesses figure out how to exploit those markets, they get unfathomably rich before someone can stop them, they coopt or overthrow democracy, and then replace liberalism with tyranny.

Overthrow is possible because society has vulnerabilities that can be exploited through propaganda and outrage porn. You socially engineer the public into abolishing their own liberty to hurt the other that they hate. In America, that vulnerability was African Americans. In Nazi Germany's case, it was deeply rooted antisemitism. In today's Germany, it's immigration[4].

[0] The Stazi wants to know about your dancing skill and computer memory speed

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Uni...

[2] As in, "aligned with American capitalism" world

[3] America's business elite were not that far behind Germany's in terms of planning to overthrow democracy. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_collaboration_with_Na...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

[4] German immigration policy - and, to a larger extent, most EU external immigration policy - is built entirely for rich, self-motivated knowledge workers who can navigate bureaucracy and do all the integration work themselves. As a result, it has lots of poorly integrated immigrant populations with lots of scary right-wingers that the German right can use to scare German liberals into, themselves, becoming scary right-wingers. Fnord fnord fnord.

> The current German state has an excellent track record

"Current state" is a convenient wording to exclude 1933-1990

Check nneonneo's comment [1]. The test pictured in the featured article was retyped and reformatted from an earlier version, though the test itself might not be authentic.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41909793

Sorry, no votes for you; it was "word".

No, wait, you needed to underline every occurrence of the word "line".

Again, no idea if this test is real, just, that's the gimmick.

It reminds me of the Simpsons episode with the spelling bee: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Sn5wyBDxn4

> "Your word is 'weather'."

> "Which one? Can you use it in a sentence?"

> "Certainly! 'I don't know whether the weather will improve.'"

(obviously the joke doesn't work as well written out)

What's even worse about this is this test wasn't given to everyone who wanted to vote, only those who gained their right to vote after the civil war.

White people were "grandfathered" in, literally.

A prime example of why "unionization" is good: You only need two people to do this differently and be told the opposite by the administrator (preferably the same one but not necessarily) and you've proved that it's BS.

That's all theory of course and in practice I bet people did talk about this afterwards and figured out it's BS and it didn't help either way. But it's easy to "find out" (and then try to do something about it) if you stick together. But if nobody sticks together on it and tries to do better for themselves by themselves, everyone does worse for themselves in the end.

Great, and now that you realize this you also realize why all these other right-wing schemes to suppress the vote are also unconstitutional. If you put some random jerk in a position to deny someone the right to vote based on ID card or signature rules, you have created a system for discriminatory disenfranchisement.

It’s awkward, sure, but other questions use commas in that way. Question 19, immediately prior:

> Draw in the space below, a square with a triangle in it, and within that same triangle draw a circle with a black dot in it.

In that case, “a square with a triangle in it” is fairly unambiguously the object, which would make the sentence construction “[verb] [adverb], [object]” — exactly the same as the second interpretation of “Spell backwards, forwards”.

It seems inapplicable to you, but it will probably seem very applicable to the test administrator who doesn’t want people like you voting.

Question 29 is particularly cruel - even if someone somehow managed to provide "good" answers for the preceding 28 questions within ten minutes, then they were surely almost out of time, and just parsing that sentence took me about four readings.

On 15, shouldn't the dot be above the O?

That's one trick part of the the question (a common trick, a lot of people don't read two "the"s in a row), but the other answer could be "what you read in the triangle below" as that's what the question states.

The other trick is that the line could be too short depending on your handwriting, in theory disqualifying the tested person regardless of what they write down.

That's diabolical. But it's not certain if even that's correct. Depends on how the comma should be interpreted.

In Texas, there used to be DPS offices in most mid-sized towns and everyone just had to wait in line to get their driver’s license (principal ID for most Texans) or non-driver ID card.

Now, they’ve concentrated them into a few larger service centers that are often miles away from the cities they serve and require appointments, sometimes not available for several weeks… but with a few that spontaneously crop up at short notice.

Guess what does not work for people reliant on the meager public transportation infrastructure or getting rides from also time-strapped friends and family?

Germany, by contrast, requires every resident to register in the city or town they live in for an ID, whether they intend to vote or not, but even small towns have such an office, and as someone else pointed out, every citizen receives a letter 30 days before each election telling them exactly who/what is being voted on, where they are to go on Election Day (always a Sunday), and how to vote absentee if they’re not going to be in town that day.

Like many such policies it's not explicitly racist .. as a procedure it simply disenfranchises some demographics more than others; lower income brackets, people that have had difficult housing and record keepng pasts, indigenous voters on reservation lands lacking mailbox addresses, etc.

It's a mystery how that appears to proportionally exclude along racial and ethnic lines but it's assuredly not that by delibrate intent.

Just a happy accident really?

Fair. It disenfranchises the poor across racial boundaries.

It certainly is, because the laws are passed with the intent that they won't be applied equally.

Incidentally, this is one of the things critical race theory actually talked about: how laws can be non-discriminatory on the surface, but deliberately created and applied in a discriminatory manner.

To trot out Wilhoit's Law again: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

It absolutely is. Go look at the racial demographics of the neighborhoods where DMVs are being opened and closed. And then ask yourself which racial groups, at large, are more likely to have time in their day to sit at an inconveniently located DMV and what party they most often vote for.

[dead]

The implication that acknowledging statistical reality that certain income groups and racial groups have less ID is in it of itself racist is, well, racist. Because then you can use this adject dismissal of reality to apply racist laws and claim they're not racist.

In the naivest, most shallow analysis Voter ID is not racist because black Americans are just as capable of receiving ID. The logic is fine, but purposefully ignorant.

The barrier to ID IS NOT just "do you have the physical/mental ability to get ID". The barriers are economic and geographic. When you don't put DMVs in black areas that becomes a barrier. When IDs cost money that becomes a barrier. When a motor vehicle is required that becomes a barrier.

Assuming that you’re sharing this in good faith, the claim “it’s difficult for black folks to get identification” is a compressed way of saying “ease and necessity of accessing civil services like DMVs is not evenly distributed across the country e.g. very GOOD accessible civil services in Harlem, Manhattan and NOT very accessible civil services in rural Appalachia, and the unevenness tends to correlate with other forms of inequality in our society such as along rich/poor and white/black lines, meaning some types of voter ID laws create systematic bias in who is able to exercise their constitutional right to vote, and given that it is effectively impossible to make any impact in any election via voter fraud even without voter ID laws, the mass disenfranchisement of a non-random sampling of Americans is not worth the upside.”

Hope that helps!

From a statistical standpoint, there are proportionally less black people with ID than other racial groups.

It's not a matter of capability, it's purely a factual matter. It's not up for debate black Americans would be disproportionality affected, and as such you can easily argue the policy has racist intentions. What some black Americans say, and what some politicians say, does not matter.

Weird how young-ish people in a particularly dense urban setting with plentiful public transit and many DMV offices to choose from — TIL: several exclusively for AAA members — may have a different lived experience than, say, older people in a rural county roughly half the size of Rhode Island with no public transit and a single DMV office.

Tho the county I refer to barely has any black residents so there couldn't possibly be any racial motivations. Just like the nearby restaurant plastered with a bunch of "rules" in giant lettering on the exterior, such as "No sagging pants", isn't owned by a racist. /s

Ruby Bridges is still alive and younger than our last president.

One disproportionately effects black voters, with an (arbitrary guess) 80% effectiveness rate.

One disproportionately effects black voters with a (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/impa...) ~10% effectiveness

Just because one is working better then the other doesn't mean they are any different in their purpose

The reason that it is impossible is that there is no possible set of answers that would require the test-giver to acknowledge that a test-taker passed the test. Anyone the test-taker does not like can be failed.

"Impossible" is apt, because it is not possible to answer all the questions on the test in an unambiguously, objectively correct manner.

"Impossible" also refers to how the test administrators used it: in order to make voter registration impossible for some people.

> That comment is a reflection of my pedantry

Stop with this sort of thing, please. It's just noise, and doesn't add to the discussion.

Clearly racists are just living in non-euclidean space.

The first question I see is:

1. Draw a line around the number or letter of this sentence.

I have no idea what "the number of this sentence" or "the letter of this sentence" even means.

"Paris in the spring" is the one I fixated on, but lots of other examples downthread.

"Spell backwards, forwards"

Both "backwards" and "forwards" could be correctly interpreted as the adverb in this one. It could be asking you to "Spell the word backwards, in a forwards manner" or "Spell in a backwards manner, the word forwards".

It's ambiguous enough that someone grading the test who wanted the disqualify you could make the case you got it wrong, no matter if you wrote "backwards" or "sdrawrof".

“Spell backwards, forwards.”

"Write right from the left to the right as you see it spelled here"

Could be answered with:

right

right from the left to the right

right from the left to the right as you see it spelled here

Indeed, I was thinking of an elective republic, which is also how I think the founders conceived it. Example from Federalist 57:

>>> The elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government.

We can debate how electors are chosen, but if the elected choose their own electors, then it's not a republic.

> no excuse to allow illiterates and incompetents to determine the course of our civilization

Just a random question: what are your thoughts on eugenics?

> The fact that literacy and competency testing were misused in the past is no excuse to allow illiterates and incompetents to determine the course of our civilization.

I'm glad we both agree that more money should abundantly be allotted to education budgets, and making higher quality education more accessible — without discrimination — to the masses.

I do view the literacy and competency tests as a tool that should be pointing in the other direction: at all elected and non-elected officials; exhibit A, the United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology of 2014 [0] (relevant timestamp: 02:47).

[0]: https://youtu.be/lPgZfhnCAdI?t=167

As opposed to allowing people who are naive enough to believe such tests will be deployed equitably to vote. Perhaps, if you believe in the concept of restricting voting, you can feel the inspiration to begin with yourself. Somehow though, I imagine you don't like that idea. Which makes me wonder why you would then even believe in disenfranchisement in the first place.

How would you answer question 20?

> If education played some role you would probably might have seen an alternative party/form of government emerging over time as people became more educated.

But there are plenty of alternative parties / forms of government, it's just that in the existing political systems - especially in the US - it is reduced to a two-party system. First-past-the-post voting naturally leads to a two party system.

Basically, the US is doomed to stay in a two party system unless one of them decides to change the constitution or whatever dictates this system, or there's a successful revolution. (I don't think Jan 6th would be a successful revolution even if they, for example, killed all the senators).

Knowing facts and applying algebraic formulas indeed doesn't seem to be doing much, but I guess education about logic, critical thinking, biases, fallacies and debate _would_ play a role _if such education was emphasized_.

Plenty of democrats are trying to enable Ranked Choice Voting in the US, and that is a good step towards improving how the US voting system works, and reducing the power that the parties have.

Ranked choice voting for example means that Republicans in mostly Democrat states like california could be better represented than they currently are, by voting for a "more conservative" candidate who will still get democrat votes.

The republican party is explicitly against ranked choice voting despite this.

Why shouldn't illiterates and nincompoops have a say?

There are politicians that I think are morons (without naming specifics, think about any politician that you think is dumb), and that only morons would vote for, but morons live here too, and they're affected by the laws as well. Shouldn't they have some say in how things are run?

I know the "two wolves and a sheep choosing dinner" argument, but I think giving some voice to everyone is pretty important. People deserve to have their voices heard.

And we should work to remove such disenfranchisements from the system rather than simply accept them as a law of nature.

No no, I turn to the nepo baby of a nepo baby of a nepo baby of a nepo baby of a man who once had a plot of land that happened to sit on top of an oil field.

They know what’s going on, and you can tell by their credit score.

I’m not sure “seeking the best advice on how to run a government” would even make the top-5 reasons to have a democracy, if you polled political scientists.

This is frankly dangerous thinking. You're committing a cardinal sin, you're looking down on other people. An unemployed and homeless uncle might have more wisdom than a 30 year old with 4 degrees.

Obviously democratic voting should be as equal as possible. In fact, with today's technology we should be striving for "direct democracy" more than ever.

Not allowing poor people to vote is just such an obvious recipe for disaster I don't understand how anyone can't see this. Homeless people and your unemployed uncle NEED to vote so that people like you, who evidently hate them, don't vote to toss them into the Bone Crusher 9000.

I guess it depends on the advice you're looking for but ...

* Unemployed uncle, I just got laid off from my FAANG company because the board needs to boost profits. Can you help me understand our welfare system so I can get on medicaid and unemployment?

* Homeless guy on the street, thanks for doing all that Occupy Wall Street stuff back in '11. What did you learn about organizing the fringes of society to try to change an unjust system? Any tricks I could apply to disenfranchised voters?

* Homeless guy on the street, I just found a giant sack of bagels in the dumpster. Are they good to eat or should I let them rot? By the way do you want some?

* January 17, 2038: Unemployed uncle, nobody can program anymore because we all just use AIs, however apparently talking into my tablet won't solve this Unix timestamp bullshit. What do you recommend?

Point is, sure, not all opinions of are equal value, but laying out judgements on others' opinions based on over-simplified mainstream prejudices narrows your ability to get good advice. That's partially what the article is about: blocking non-mainstream voters from making their voices heard.

The US talks up its history of freedom, but wasn't really a fully democratic country until the moon landings.

Many states are in fact letting resident aliens vote in local elections now.

It is, but it's one to protect a country, else a foreign entity could, for example, move a million people temporarily to the country to vote for policies or politicians that benefit them.

I mean it would be a huge undertaking etc etc, but there's people and state actors with infinite means to do so.

Citation:

  Your implicit premise is that we vote for policy. Democracy works despite the ma. . . | Hacker News. (n.d.). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41914604

It's far from perfect but most democratic societies haven't collapsed yet. Yet, because project 2025 and its proponents are calling for an end to democracy.