No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Literacy and the Electorate
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2014
Extract
Expansion and Contraction of the Franchise. Between the theory and practice of the American Revolution there was a wide breach. The ruling caste of property owners retained control in spite of the legendary democratization of that era. Jefferson's declaration of the equality of man was not fully applied to suffrage requirements until the time of Andrew Jackson. Since then, suffrage restrictions of property, color, and sex have suffered the fate of houses built upon sand. The floods of democracy have now smitten upon these limitations for more than a century. In the rise of the common man, both the property-owning and taxpaying qualifications for voters disappeared even in the original commonwealths. Once these restrictions which separated the old aristocracy from the new proletariat had been vanquished, the requisites of color and sex were likewise abandoned.
With few exceptions, suffrage had been granted to practically all adult male white citizens before the Civil War. Yet counter-attacks were waged by the advocates of a limited electorate. The theory prevails that a steady swing toward universal suffrage characterizes the American franchise. The pendulum has also swung in the opposite direction. Connecticut and Massachusetts, where the reaction against suffrage extension was rapid, were the first states to retrench on the policy of adult male white suffrage. In place of property qualifications, literacy restrictions appeared. The purpose of these restrictions set up by Connecticut in 1855 and Massachusetts in 1857 was to bar the ignorant immigrants from the voting class.
- Type
- American Government and Politics
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1930
References
1 Conn., Public Acts (1851–1854), pt. 4, p. 138Google Scholar; Mass., Acts and Resolves (1856–1857), p. 852Google Scholar.
2 Cf. Haynes, G. H., “Educational Qualifications for the Suffrage in the United States,” 13 Pol. Sci. Quar. 496 (1898)Google Scholar, and his article on “The Causes of Know-Nothing Success in Massachusetts,” 3 American Historical Review 75 (1897–1898)Google Scholar.
3 Modern Democracies (1921), I, 71Google Scholar.
4 One of the stock methods of administering the literacy test outside the Southern states is in operation in Massachusetts. The applicant for registration draws a pasteboard slip from a box. He must read the five lines printed on the slip and write his name in a register (Mass., Acts and Resolves (1894), chap, 291. sec. 1). New Hampshire has substantially the same requirement, except that the voter must, in addition, write one of the lines printed on the slip (N.H., Pub. Laws (1905), chap. 53, sec. 1; in Primary and Election Laws (1926), at p. 4Google Scholar). The method of testing literacy in Oregon is much like that of Massachusetts (Oregon, Laws (1923), chap. 126 at p. 183Google Scholar). However, in Oregon the county clerks, deputy county clerks, and judges of election boards do not have to put the test unless an applicant is challenged by an elector or they have reasonable cause to suspect illiteracy (Ibid.). Connecticut, the first state to adopt the literacy test, now requires that every person prior to registration must “read at least three lines of the constitution or of the statutes of this state, other than the title or enacting clause, in such manner as to show that he is not prompted, nor reciting from memory” (Conn., Laws (1925), chap. 57, sec. 1). Maine stipulates that an applicant for registration must read “in the English language, other than the title, so much as may be necessary from an official edition of the constitution in such a manner as to show that he is neither prompted nor reciting from memory.” He must also enter his name on the register (Maine, Qualifications and Registration of Voters (1925), sec. 15 at p. 6Google Scholar). In Arizona, the voter must be able “to read the constitution in the English language in such manner as to show that he is neither prompted nor reciting from memory, and to write his name” (Ariz., Election Laws (1928), sec. 14 at p. 5Google Scholar). In California, the applicant “must sign a statement that he can read and write, or that he is qualified by reason of other provisions in the law” (Harris, J. P., Registration of Voters in the United States (1929), p. 203Google Scholar). Washington requires that the applicant furnish satisfactory evidence that “he is capable of reading and speaking the English language so as to comprehend the meaning of ordinary prose” (Wash., General Election Laws (1927), sec. 17 at p. 7Google Scholar).
5 Modern Democracies (1921), I, 71Google Scholar.
6 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 2nd Sess., pt. 1, p. 104.
7 A Treatise on the Right of Suffrage (1842), pp. 132–133Google Scholar.
8 Delegate Simmons proposed a literacy test for voters. He was reminded that:
“A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.”
(N.Y. Const. Conv. (1846), pp. 820-823.)
9 Conn., Public Acts (1851–1854), pt. 4, p. 138Google Scholar.
10 Sept. 22, 1855.
11 Cf. Haynes, G. H., “Educational Qualifications for the Suffrage in the United States,” 13 Pol Set. Quar. 496 (1898)Google Scholar.
12 For an account of the humorous practices that developed, see McCook, J. J., “Venal Voting: Methods and Remedies,” 14 Forum 172 (1892–1893)Google Scholar.
13 Conn., General Statutes (1902), p. 58Google Scholar (Amendment 29).
14 Eighth Census of the United States, Population (1860), p. 508Google Scholar.
15 Haynes, G. H., “The Causes of Know-Nothing Success in Massachusetts,” 3 American Historical Review 75 (1897–1898)Google Scholar.
16 Feb. 21, 1856.
17 Boston Daily Advertiser, March 31, 1856.
18 Ibid., March 15, 1856.
19 Mass., Acts and Resolves (1856–1857), p. 852Google Scholar.
20 April 29, 1857. As Porter, Kirk H. has written, “It was the ignorant, poverty stricken, famished, unwashed Irish Catholic rowdy whom the country may thank for bringing forth literacy tests. … They originated practically for the benefit of the Irishman.” Suffrage in the United States (1918), pp. 118–119Google Scholar.
21 Official figures certified by E. H. Redstone, state librarian, Massachusetts.
22 While the literacy test was not put into effect in any other state from 1857 to 1890, it was nevertheless under consideration. Missouri, in 1865, adopted a reading and writing test to take effect in 1876 (Mo. Conv. (1865), Journal, p. 261Google Scholar). But the constitutional convention of 1875 abolished it (Mo. Conv. (1875), Journal, vol. 1, p. 350.Google Scholar) A literacy test for the voters of the District of Columbia was proposed by Senator Dixon of Connecticut in 1866. This, of course, was never adopted (Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 2nd Sess., Senate; Dec. 12, 1866; pt. 1, p. 84.) Before the Fifteenth Amendment went into effect on March 30, 1870, the literacy test was debated in the constitutional conventions of Alabama, Virginia, Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida. In Florida alone was it adopted; and even in this state it never went into effect. A futile attempt was made to incorporate a reading and writing test into the Louisiana constitution in 1879 (See Ala. Const. Conv. (1867), Journal, p. 45Google Scholar; Va. Const. Conv. (1867–1868), Debates and Proceedings, vol. 1, p. 461Google Scholar; Geo. Const. Conv. (1867–1868), Proceedings, pp. 279–282Google Scholar; So. Car. Const. Conv. (1868), Proceedings, pp. 825–832Google Scholar; Fla., Const. (1868), Art. XIV, sec. 4Google Scholar; La. Const. Conv. (1879), Journal, p. 309.Google Scholar)
23 “The Exercise of the Suffrage,” 7 Pol. Sci. Quar. 312 (1892)Google Scholar.
24 The constitution of Mississippi required that after January 1, 1892, “every elector shall … be able to read any section of the constitution of this state or he shall be able to understand the same when read to him or give a reasonable interpretation thereof” (Miss. Const. Conv. (1890), Journal, p. 676Google Scholar). The South Carolina literacy test required the applicant to “read and write any section of the constitution submitted to him or her by the registration officer.” There was an alternative tax-paying clause (So. Car., Const. (1895), Art. II, see. 4, par. c, d, and e). The Louisiana provision of 1898 required the registering voter to make, under oath, a written application in the English language or his mother tongue. An alternative $300 property clause and a temporary grandfather clause rounded out the qualifications (La., Const. (1898), Art. 197, sec. 3, 4, 5). In 1921 Louisiana made a good character and understanding clause also an alternative to the literacy requirement (La., Const. (1921), Art. VIII, sec. 1, d). In North Carolina, the applicant for registration must be able “to read and write any section of the constitution in the English language” (No. Carolina, Const., Art. VI, sec. 4 (as amended in 1900). Of course there was a temporary grandfather clause for the whites. As for Alabama, the literacy test stipulating that voters be able to read and write any article of the constitution in the English language was combined with a clause calling for regular employment (Ala., Const., Art. VIII, sec. 181). There was a temporary old soldier clause and another alternative—the $300 property qualification. Virginia stipulated that the person seeking registration must “make application to register in his own handwriting, without aid, suggestion or memorandum, in the presence of the registration officers. …” Until 1904, temporary alternatives were established, namely, an old soldier clause, an understanding clause, and a property qualification (Va., Const. (1902), Art. II, sec. 19, 20). Georgia demanded ability to read in English a paragraph of the United States constitution and to write the same when read by a registrar. A temporary grandfather clause was incorporated. Other alternative qualifications were an understanding clause and a property requisite (Geo., Laws (1907), pt. 1, title 3, no. 124, par. 4). Oklahoma in 1910 called for ability to read and write any section of the Oklahoma constitution, with a permanent grandfather clause as an alternative (Okla., Primary and Election Laws (1913), p. 1Google Scholar). This was declared unconstitutional in Guinn and Beal v. U.S. (1915, 238 U.S. 347).
25 The suffrage requirements enacted by Southern states from 1890 to 1910 have been so often reviewed in standard treatises that the subject is dismissed in this summary manner.
26 The specific provisions may be found as follows: Wyo., Const. (1889), Art. VI, sec. 9; Maine, Const., Amendment 29; Cal., Amendment to Art. II, sec. 1, in Heming, , Constitution of California (1899) at p. 113Google Scholar; Wash., Amendment to Art. VI, sec. 1, in Remington, , Compiled Statutes of Washington, vol. I, p. 131Google Scholar; N.H., Const., Art. XII, pt. 1; Ariz., Acts (Special Session, 1st legislature, 1912), chap. 83, sec. 1; McKinney, , Consolidated Laws of New York, book 2, p. 25Google Scholar; Oregon, Amendment to Art. II, sec. 2, in Oregon, Laws (1923), p. 495Google Scholar.
27 A literacy test was first proposed in New York in the constitutional convention of 1846 (N.Y. Const. Conv. (1846), p. 820). Such a requirement was introduced also in the convention of 1867-68 (N.Y. Const. Conv. (1867–1868), Proceedings and Debates, p. 491Google Scholar). It was resurrected in the convention of 1894, where it was vigorously opposed by the Democratic members of the committee on suffrage (N.Y. Const. Conv. (1894), Record, vol. II, p. 713)Google Scholar. Again it bobbed up in the convention of 1915. On this occasion, “Al” Smith, argued: “If the ability to write one's name is a test of good citizenship, there are hundreds of men in Mr. Osborne's home for wayward men on the Hudson able to qualify, for not only have they proved their ability to write their own names but the names of others” (New York Tribune, Aug. 26, 1915). Ranged behind Smith, “the Democrats almost to a man stood solidly against the proposal” (Ibid.).
28 McKinney, , Consolidated Laws of New York, book 2, p. 25Google Scholar.
29 The figures were: Assembly, 109 Republicans and 36 Democrats; Senate, 30 Republicans and 21 Democrats. Cf. New York Tribune, Nov. 6, 1919.
30 See New York Times, April 18, 1921.
31 New York State, Legislative Manual (1929), p. 826Google Scholar.
32 New York, Laws (1922), chap. 588, sec. 166. The State Board of Regents was given the power to draw up rules governing the issuance of literacy certificates. If the new voter elected to be examined by the election board, he must read a constitutional extract of fifty words and write ten of the words legibly.
33 Editorial, “Triumph of the Literacy Law in New York,” Educational Review, vol. 67 (1924), p. 40Google Scholar.
34 This was reported by Deputy Attorney-General A. S. Gilbert. Cf. N.Y. State Assoc., State Bulletin, vol. III, no. 3, p. 5Google Scholar.
35 N.Y. Laws (1923), chap. 803, sec. 166. The text of this law is as follows: “A certificate of literacy issued to a voter under the rules and regulations of the Board of Regents of the state of New York to the effect that the voter to whom it is issued is able to read and write English, or is able to read and write English save for physical disability, which shall be stated in the certificate, shall be received by election inspectors as conclusive of such fact except as hereinafter provided. But a new voter may present as evidence of literacy a certificate or diploma showing that he has completed the work of an approved eighth-grade elementary school or of a higher school in which English is the language of instruction. But the genuineness of the certificates and the identity of the voter shall remain questions of fact to be established to the satisfaction of the election inspectors and subject to challenge, like any other fact relating to the qualifications of a voter. The inability of a voter, save for physical disability only, obvious to the election inspectors, to write his name in a poll book or register, shall be deemed conclusive proof of inability to read and write English, notwithstanding the presentation of proof of literacy as herein provided.”
36 People v. Voorhis, 236 N.Y. 437 (1923).
37 This summary is based on the instructive and interesting analysis of the New York procedure by Alfred Rejall, E., “A New Literacy Test for Voters,” reprinted from School and Society, vol. XIX, no. 479, March 1, 1924Google Scholar.
38 University of the State of New York, Bulletin No. 911 (Nov. 1, 1928), p. 15Google Scholar— “Regulations and Directions Governing the Issuance of Certificates of Literacy and Conduct of New York State Regents Literacy Test.” This is the official bulletin issued to superintendents and examiners. (Hereafter cited as Bulletin No. 911.)
39 Bulletin No. 911, p. 14.
40 Ibid., p. 11.
41 Bulletin No. 911, p. 9.
42 State Department of Education, Administration of the Literacy Law for New Voters (a statistical table prepared by Dr. A. E. Rejall). As a general rule, 20 per cent of those taking the Regents test have failed, while 10 per cent failed in 1928. This can be explained by the fact that thousands of new women voters, obviously literate, were unable to present eighth-grade or higher diplomas. Owing to the closely contested election in 1928, strict adherence to the letter of the law was maintained. Such new voters were required to take the literacy test and passed with ease.
43 Fourteenth Census of the United States (1920), II, 1246Google Scholar.
44 Illiteracy Report of the Illiteracy Commission, issued by the National Educational Association, July, 1924, p. 13Google Scholar.
45 National Academy of Sciences, Memoirs, XV, 100Google Scholar.