Talk:Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

message: Was there a reason why Texas didn't ratify the ammendment? --24.167.124.5 (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Extremely belated response: Texas *has* since ratified the amendment.  See Gregory Watson.  As for why not at the time...  because too much of the voting populace and the legislature were racist and elitist?  Look at the states that ratified the amendment and those that didn't.  This was the rest of the country passing an amendment to put the South in line with modern democratic norms. SnowFire (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas 

message: The article says that the Supreme Court had already ruled poll taxes illegal before this amendment passed.  What then was the purpose of the amendment? --Jfruh (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 24th Amendment was adopted in 1964.  The Harper decision came down in 1966. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unconstitutional? 

message: it would help some of us a great deal if you could put in the info like who proposed it and stuff like that.
:Also, why were federal elections only covered by the amendment? --SMP0328. (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the federal government has no power to regulate state and local elections.  Schoop (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is a constitutional amendment; it could have abolished the states altogether. It was a choice, for whatever reason, to only regulate federal elections.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  24 amendment 

message: The Reconstruction link goes to a disambiguation page.  Is this the article that is meant? 24.78.40.191 (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconstruction 

message: In Washington State, the 37th legislative district of King County, there is a case where Poll Tax was used.  Chairwoman, Lori Sotelo instituted a last minute “poll tax” of ten dollars, during the recent 2012 Presidential Caucuses held on  March 3rd.  I am terribly confused on how this happened, and why it was legal.  I must not be understanding the 24th amendment correctly.  Could someone please explain this to me?
File077 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused Please Help 

message: One question on the bill: Why does the image not show the signature of President Johnson? THis image proves that he signed the law in February 1964. Any explansions? --78.50.211.19 (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the President has no role in the constitutional amendment process. Any presidential signature of a constitutional amendment is symbolic only. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't answer the question.  The image in the article is of the Joint Congressional Resolution proposing the XXIV Amendment, which the President does not need to sign.  The photo linked to is of LBJ signing the Certificate of Ratification, which he signed as a witness, for his signature is not required here either.  He signed as a witness, a symbolic gesture only, plus a good PR photo-op as well.Drdpw (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signing of the Bill 

message: The article contends that Poll Taxes were instituted to disenfranchise African-Americans following the Civil War. While that have been their effect at that time, poll taxes existed at least as early as 1846, 20 years before Emancipation. Henry David Thoreau was jailed in that year for refusal to pay a poll tax because the funds from it helped support the Mexican American War, which he opposed. 50.82.62.86 (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no.  The poll tax that Thoreau refused to pay isn't really comparable to the poll tax implemented in the American South, is the thing.  Thoreau's "poll tax" was a mandatory tax-per-head, not an optional fee that allowed voting.  If Thoreau had been in the American South in 1905, refusing to pay the poll tax wouldn't have landed him in prison - it'd just have denied him voting rights.  It's confusing that the same term is used for two distinct kinds of taxes.  Anyway, the 24th banned specific-fee-for-voting, it doesn't ban the style of taxes of 1840 that were also called "poll taxes." SnowFire (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll Taxes 

message: Substituted at 09:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Some US states disenfranchise felons for life, and all but two disenfranchise prisoners while they are actually serving their sentences.  Does this amendment mean that those in prison for non-payment of taxes (and no other reason) must still be permitted to vote in federal elections? Grover cleveland (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good question.  The thing is, just not that many people are convicted of tax evasion - a random website on the Internet claimed it was around ~2500 a year in the US.  (Get audited and have to refile and pay a penalty, sure, but convicted of a felony?  Rarer.)  And a very civicly-minded tax evader who really wants their right to vote back is not going to be entirely satisfied w/ the 24th; it's rarely litigated on for a reason - this amendment will earn your right to vote back in *federal* elections only, at best.  (The phrasing on Harper v. Virginia isn't "non-payment of tax", it's more general "payment of a fee" which is unlikely to matter for the tax felon case.)  I can't imagine many people who'd want to spend the money to litigate this out in hopes of merely being able to have your vote not really matter in the end.  (I imagine the state election board will hate you if you do this too, since they'd have to create a special federal-only ballot just for you if you won.  Not really clear how you'd maintain a secret ballot either since you need special handling and checking!)   SnowFire (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Disenfranchisement of felons and prisoners

message: i know that there have been cases on poll taxes in recent years. none of those are listed here.
lake v purdue, georgia's voter ID was declared an unconstitutional poll tax. the legislature amendment the act to remove fees for ID, and the new bill was upheld.
frank v walker, the wisconsin supreme court said wisconsin's voter ID was an unconstitutional poll tax, and ordered the state stop charging fees for birth certificates, drvers licenses, etc, if needed for voter ID. 
crawford v marion county, judge posner said voter ID was not like the poll tax in harmon. he later changed his views on voter ID. 
an 11th circuit decision this week held that needing a postage stamp for an absentee ballot is not a poll tax. black voters matter v georgia.
there was one shadow docket case where ginsburg wrote, with 3 votes, that a texas voter ID program raised 24th amendment issues. 
and those are just the ones that come to mind offhand. i was hoping wikipedia would have more info on these kind of cases, instead it has nothing.
174.86.72.35 (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs update with cases from 1970s to today