This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of tax-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Was there a reason why Texas didn't ratify the ammendment? --188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Because the federal government has no power to regulate state and local elections. Schoop (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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?
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? --184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
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)