Twenty-Fourth Amendment--Abolition of the Poll Tax Qualification
in Federal Elections

[[Page 1989]]


                         TWENTY-FOURTH AMENDMENT
                               __________

      ABOLITION OF THE POLL TAX QUALIFICATION IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS


  Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any
primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors
for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in
Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any
State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
  Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.

                     EXPANSION OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE

        Ratification of the Twenty-fourth Amendment marked the
culmination of an endeavor begun in Congress in 1939 to effect
elimination of the poll tax as a qualification for voting in federal
elections. Property qualifications extend back to colonial days, but the
poll tax itself as a qualification was instituted in eleven States of
the South following the end of Reconstruction, although at the time of
the ratification of this Amendment only five States still retained
it.\1\ Congress viewed the qualification as ``an obstacle to the proper
exercise of a citizen's franchise'' and expected its removal to
``provide a more direct approach to participation by more of the people
in their government.'' Congress similarly thought a constitutional
amendment necessary,\2\ inasmuch as the qualifications had previously
escaped constitutional challenge on several grounds.\3\ However, not
long after ratification of the Amendment Congress by statute had impuned
the continuing validity of the poll tax as a

[[Page 1990]]
qualification in state elections\4\ and the Supreme Court had voided it
as a violation of the equal protection clause.\5\

        \1\Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 538-40, 543-44 (1965);
United States v. Texas, 252 F. Supp. 234, 238-45 (W.D. Tex.) (three-
judge court), aff'd on other grounds, 384 U.S. 155 (1966).
        \2\H.R. Rep. No. 1821, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. 3, 5 (1962).
        \3\Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937); Saunders v.
Wilkins, 152 F. 2d 235 (4th Cir. 1945), cert. denied, 328 U.S. 870
(1946); Butler v. Thompson, 97 F. Supp. 17 (E.D. Va), aff'd, 341 U.S.
937 (1951).
        \4\Voting Rights Act of 1965, 10, 79 Stat. 442, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1973h. For the results of actions instituted by the Attorney
General under direction of this section, see United States v. Texas, 252
F. Supp. 234 (W.D. Tex.) (three-judge court). aff'd on other grounds,
384 U.S. 155 (1966); United States v. Alabama, 252 F. Supp. 95 (M.D.
Ala. 1966) (three-judge court).
        \5\Harper v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663
(1966).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In Harman v. Forssenius,\6\ the Court struck down a Virginia
statute which eliminated the poll tax as an absolute qualification for
voting in federal elections and gave federal voters the choice either of
paying the tax or of filing a certificate of residence six months before
the election. Viewing the latter requirement as imposing upon voters in
federal elections an onerous procedural requirement which was not
imposed on those who continued to pay the tax, the Court unanimously
held the law to conflict with the new Amendment by penalizing those who
chose to exercise a right guaranteed them by the Amendment.

        \6\380 U.S. 528 (1965).