Posted on 06/29/2013 6:30:34 PM PDT by Wellington VII
This week’s Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder overturned Section 4(b) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which mandated federal oversight of changes in voting procedure in jurisdictions that have a history of using a “test or device” to impede enfranchisement. Here is one example of such a test, used in Louisiana in 1964.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
That is an interesting statement. Those questions were mostly a serious study in ambiguity.
If one wrong answer is a fail, and I get to arbitrarily interpret and grade the answers and mine is the final word, you may try three or four times, and it's a guaranteed fail each time.
I just hope the author(s) of that test did some serious jail time.
There is another serious lesson here. If a trick test is reprehensible, or absurd, so is no test at all. If any test at all was legally justified, it stands to reason to conclude that the clinically insane or feeble-minded were never intended to be allowed to vote. This must have been such a self-evident rational conclusion that every normal human being would be unable to imagine that it would ever be challenged.
And you know this how?
That's scary. That statement is fact if, and only if you are allowed to score your own test.
And you know this how?
I took the Louisiana 1964 test
It would be impossible for someone illiterate
And for someone with an IQ under mid 90s
And black mean IQ is rather low
An unfair test agreed....regardless of race
This is important today why mister been here 2 weeks ?
X. ....you two should meet
wellington meet X
X say hi to wellington
X ...you can introduce him to the gang at your leisure
Ciao
Semantically you would be more accurate. In so far as the case cited in this test, a box will mean a square.
>> If you can’t see what is wrong with that
I do see what is wrong with the concept of unfair and unequal tests, and I said so — several times.
>> you seem to have impaired reading comprehension
One of us does, yes. Not me though.
I disagree with everything Franken says but he is a country mile from illiterate.
Ah, the snide name calling; here it comes. But minus the courage to write it directly to me.
I think I have a few things about you figured out. You have a personally gored ox, don’t you?
If you are referring to the lady in the Zimmerman case, she is not an expert witness. An expert witness is someone called upon to give their expertise in a specific field.
I guessed that is who you were talking about, but wasn’t certain.
>> That statement is fact if, and only if you are allowed to score your own test.
The 100% passing score and the arbitrary nature of *some* (not all) of the questions make it problematic.
I’ve taken quite a few tests that have similar questions, though. And passed them.
Someone with low IQ who owns a trailer should qualify because they own a trailer?
Sadly, for better or worse, everyone has to have the right to vote. We can sit here and come up with whatever rules we want and claim that that is the way we should determine who should be able to vote, but putting something like that into practice would be funny and tragic to watch unfold in reality.
I know it’s a cheap shot to take, but reading a couple of responses here that argue for qualifications of intelligence in order to vote, while they make mistakes in grammar and in in spelling is kind of funny. I realize that I am more than capable of making similar mistakes, but it’s still pretty funny to read.
So, let’s take your example.
Let’s say that for some reason you live in an overwhelmingly black voting district and they come out with a literacy test written in hip-hop terminology. You take the test and fail. You are denied the right to vote. Do you believe that would be constitutional?
Thanks for the help.
>> Sadly, for better or worse, everyone has to have the right to vote.
That’s one of those “truism” statements that one tosses out like it came down the mountain on stone in the arms of Moses.
We’re supposed to just nod and agree but not question it.
Well, I’m questioning it. The privilege of voting is far from an endowment of the Creator.
One’s skin color should not determine one’s voting status. Nor should one’s gender.
One’s intelligence, ability to functionally read and write, such like that? You can make a STRONG case that a democracy will function better when its leaders are chosen by those with understanding. Of course, such a qualification can be abused too.
One’s wealth? Probably should not be a qualifier, put like that. But again, those with SKIN in the game — tax payers vs benefit takers — should have more say. Or the system degenerates into a mob “voting themselves largesse”.
Call me a heretic, but philosophically I disagree with you that “for better or worse everyone has to have the right to vote”.
Practically, of course, I know my position doesn’t stand a chance of ever being implemented in this country again.
This was a hard test? Good grief. It’s not really tricky at all. It just tests your ability to read. I say bring back the literacy test — and make them all like this one. Talk about the racism or prejudice of low expectations. This article, in attacking this literacy test, tells you everything you need to know about the left.
Yes, a line is straight. Also, you can't draw a line; you can represent a line with arrows at each end of a segment. You can't bisect a line; it's infinite. The test also gives a triangle corners instead of vertices.
The test is poorly written. It's a test of comprehension, not one of knowledge. It's pretty good for that. I suspect the idea was to make sure voters could understand what they were voting on.
The inherent problem with your logic of deciding who gets to vote is that depending upon who is in power, those rules will inevitably change.
You will be quite satisfied with your limitations of voting rights right up until the moment when those limitations are redefined in a manner that works against you instead of for you.
Tinkering with something as fragile as this stuff usually leads to bad things.
My point is that no matter how bad things are, enacting changes similar to what you are suggesting could lead to far worse scenarios. Obviously, this is just my opinion.
>> The inherent problem with your logic of deciding who gets to vote is that depending upon who is in power, those rules will inevitably change.
I understand and agree there’s a *risk* of that happening. Practically speaking any changes would need to clear a high bar — e.g. a constitutional amendment. I also understand that I’m just flapping my gums here. Talking abstract philosophy. Ain’t NEVER gonna happen.
>> My point is that no matter how bad things are, enacting changes similar to what you are suggesting could lead to far worse scenarios.
Maybe, but I’m a problem solver with a can-do attitude by nature and trade, so I’m reluctant to accept what is in evidence as a big problem for this country without at least thinking about ways to address it.
FRegards
What’s funny, is that if you were given two hours to take this test instead of ten minutes, with an open book, even after reading this thread, it’s 50-50 as to whether you would get a perfect score. I’d bet on the losing 50 percentage. I would bet a lot.
There are questions here that you seem to believe are clearly understandable that are not.
This is not just about you. I have no idea how smart you might be other than your claim that this test is a no-brainer to ace in under ten minutes.
Earlier in the thread I wrote that I believed that half of America could not pass this test. After reading other’s posts here that pointed out troubling parts of the test, I would say that less than 5% of Americans could pass this test in the allotted time. Probably closer to 1%. I sincerely doubt I would have passed it after reviewing all of the questions and I am a particularly good test taker.
Look. I am not arguing that this is an appropriate test.
I think the test is stupid, the concept is stupid, and requiring someone to pass the test in order to vote is stupid, but let’s not get our expectations too high. What did we expect? It was a test designed and administered by liberals.
But the test is not impossible unless you are required to get every answer correct, and then it wouldn’t be impossible, just very hard. My objection is with Slate characterizing it as impossible. I concede that it WILL be impossible for someone with little or no reading skills or intellectual comprehension skills.
And we should note that nowhere in the article does it say what a passing grade would be.
I don’t think question #27 is a good example of an illogical question. It is a question designed to trip you up, but it is a completely solvable word puzzle. That question simply requires that you INTERPRET (not “guess”) what they are asking you. To have to “guess” means it is uninterpretable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.