From Government of the State of Washington by Mary W. Avery, published in 1955 by the State College of Washington General Extension Service in Pullman, pages 201 & 202 (emphasis mine):
Qualifications for VotingPosted by Andy MacDonald at May 04, 2006 06:57 PM | Email ThisThose who vote should be responsible at law and old enough to undertand the problems which their community, State and nation have to meet. Consequently, there must be some qualifiactions set for voting. The writers of our State Constitution decided that each person should be mature enough at the age of twenty-one to take seriously his reponsibitileis as a citizen of the State of Washington...
Besides being old enough, a person should be familiar with the area in which he is voting. Otherwise, his opinion on local questions would not have much value. As a result, residence requirements for voting were placed in the State Constitution. In order to vote a person must be a citizen of the United States; he must have lived in the State for one year, in the county for ninety days, and in the city, ward, or precinct where he wished to vote for thirty days. The Constitution also requires that every voter be able to read and write English. Because the majority of our newspapers, our radio and television broadcasts, and our publiic discussions are in English, a person might have an excellent education in another language but still not be well enough informed on local questions to be able to vote intelligently.
Certain groups of people are not allowed to vote even though they may have the above requirements. These are: Indians who do not pay taxes; insane persons; idiots; and criminals whose civil right have not yet been restored...
Permanent Registration System
...Each person registering takes an oath that he will answer truthfully the questions asked him concerning his qualifications for voting. If the registration official is satisfied the the applicant is a United States citizen, has lived in the area the required length of time, can read and write English, and does not come in any of the groups who are not allowed to vote, he asks the registrant to sign his name on three registration cards...
This is why Progressives and Marxists like David Goldstein want to register as many illegals and other inarticulate voters as possible. They know that these voters are uneducated and they are easily preyed upon with the ideas of the left. Ideas that sell socialism and pit the haves against the have nots in a class warfare to make Marx proud.
Voting simply to reach a majority is a gross perversion of the very idea of a representative republic that was by design different from the chaos and anarchy of a true democracy.
Not only do we have representatives to cast our votes in the federal legislature and in the electoral college, but we ourselves are stewards and representatives of the incredible responsibility of electing fit persons to office.
When that responsibility is perverted in to the ugly face of GOTV where those who don't care or who are completely ignorant of the ballot are encouraged to vote for a particular party, we've gone most of the way down the road towards utter chaos.
The Democrats would have been appalled at the thought of non-citizens and non-english speaking immigrants voting!
The Democratic party has fallen so incredibly far from the tree of common sense!
Posted by: Deborah on May 4, 2006 08:51 PMBut if we're winding back the clock, why stop there?
I'm sure that most of y'all here (wink wink, nudge nudge) would be far more comfortable back in the day when women and those with insufficient property were denied the franchise.
The wet dream, of course, would be the Borkean "jurisprudence of original intent," when we could get back to that old three-fifths of a citizen thing.
Turn up the Lyrnd Skyrnd, dude. I'm sure that Southern Roots and Mark the Redneck can ably second and amplify Andy's sentiments. Git er done!
Posted by: bartelby on May 4, 2006 08:58 PMPerhaps if you weren't in such a hurry to scoff and attack, maybe you would have had time to present an actual argument as to why the items Andy pointed out are not valid today.
Now, to "ably second and amplify Andy's sentiments", this document appears to have been produced by the state to help educate the public on not just the "rights" of a voter, but also the responsibilities of the voter.
Since it was written in 1955, it isn't quite current, but not much has changed in our election laws. What has changed is the "evolving" standards of "interpreting" those laws.
Back in 1955, the printed words probably actually meant something and most people could understand it. Today, who really knows? With the way elections managers and courts re-re-interpret the words, you never know until you get there.
The "right" to vote did not exist for everyone upon the ratification of the Constitution. Over time, this changed - through the adoption of Amendments. Amendments are part of the Constitution, so if anyone were to try to go back to the "early" days as you suggest, they would be violating the Constitution, I think - I guess it would depend on the latest reinterpretation some liberal comes up with tomorrow or the next day....
By the way, Toby Keith will do just fine.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on May 4, 2006 09:36 PMIt's enlightened of you to acknowledge that amendments actually affect the constitution. Do you concede that the Civil War had a definitive end, or are you one of those Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond folks? Do tell please, Big Boy.
If you have any genuine interest you'll find a sobering corrective to your blithely dismissive rhetoric here:
http://www.crmvet.org/info/litques.htm
What you characterize as "the latest reinterpretation some liberal comes up with tomorrow or the next day...." would most likely be the Voting Rights Act.
I'm sure most of y'all here will be opposing its reauthorization, but if perchance you have the SLIGHTEST bit of intellectual curiosity you may wish to look at this:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/lynching/end_5.html
Posted by: bartelby on May 4, 2006 10:33 PMARTICLE VI
ELECTIONS AND ELECTIVE RIGHTS
SECTION 1 QUALIFICATIONS OF ELECTORS.
All persons of the age of eighteen years or over who are citizens of the United States and who have lived in the state, county, and precinct thirty days immediately preceding the election at which they offer to vote, except those disqualified by Article VI, Section 3 of this Constitution, shall be entitled to vote at all elections. [AMENDMENT 63, 1974 Senate Joint Resolution No. 143, p 807. Approved November 5, 1974.]
SECTION 3 WHO DISQUALIFIED.
All persons convicted of infamous crime unless restored to their civil rights and all persons while they are judicially declared mentally incompetent are excluded from the elective franchise. [AMENDMENT 83, 1988 House Joint Resolution No. 4231, p 1553. Approved November 8, 1988.]
Your examples show how bad it can be when people ignore laws, or interpret them carelessly. Or does it show that some areas can pass their own laws that make it worse for some of their citizens?
Once again, I ask you to point out what you disagree with.
What was posted has nothing to do with Alabama or Tennessee from almost 100 years ago.
As far as I know, Washington law today is in compliance with the VRA, so again, what's the issue? I haven't paid attention to it since my concern is how our state manages its election laws.
Washington law says:
that you must be a citizen to vote. Agree or disagree?
that you must be 18 or older to vote. Agree or disagree?
that you must not be a felon (without rights restored). Agree or disagree?
that you must register in the precinct where you live. Agree or disagree?
that you show an approved form of ID to register to vote. Agree or disagree?
that, if you do not have ID you may still register to vote. Agree or disagree?
that, if you do not have a residence, any location you say is acceptable. Agree or disagree?
that an illegal ballot can only be discounted if you can prove that it was cast illegally and can prove what the votes were on the ballot? Agree or disagree?
that a private mailbox is a legal place of residence, unless you can prove where the person actually lives? Agree or disagree?
that, if you are caught voting twice in the same election, you should receive a stern letter that uses the word felony only in a footnote. Agree or disagree?
that, if you can slip a provisional ballot into an accuvote machine without being caught, then that ballot will count as much as any other ballot. Agree or disagree?
that, if you are not enlightened, your vote counts only half as much as the chosen ones? Agree or disagree?
Actually, which of these are laws and which of these are interpretations, and which of these just happen?
By the way, some of my "Roots" were Civil War veterans. They came to Washington Territory in the early 1880's to homestead. My web name doesn't mean you know anything about me slick.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on May 5, 2006 07:05 AMMy comments originally only went back as far as the 1955 story. I tried to compare it with what I have seen more recently. Bartlesby is the one that appears to be stuck in the past...
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them." J.B. Books (John Wayne) - "The Shootist""
Wise men talk because they have something to say...Fools talk because they have to say something.
Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on May 5, 2006 08:38 AMLets clear up one thing about the three fifths person rule in the original Constitution. That only applied to the apportionment of representation to the states. Slaves not voting shouldn't have counted at all for that. Counting them as a whole person would have been even worse. That would have given a slave owner with a hunderd slaves the equivalent of 101 votes in congress since he's the only one of those 101 people who would have selected his representitive. To use that part of the constitution to try to imply that conservatives long for the days of oppressing blacks simply shows your ignorance of history.
Posted by: RBW on May 5, 2006 09:34 AMNice to see you haven't lost your touch for irrelevancy.....
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 5, 2006 09:47 AMBTW, I have a question for all of you fans of the literacy requirement. A typographical error appears in the original citation. Was it in the original, or did the poster introduce it? Either way, it makes for a great irony. Please surrender your voter registration cards now, or be exposed as hypocrites!
Posted by: Paddy Mac on May 7, 2006 08:55 AMAnd furthermore we can't expect the naturalization service to actually require anything of those people before they become citizens. They're giving U.S. citizenships away in crackerjacks boxes these days for god's sake. There are tens of millions of citizens out there who don't speak any english at all and we need to keep them from voting at all costs. It's obvious!
Posted by: Hummer War on May 7, 2006 10:25 AMThe Southern states' literacy requirements did not prevent Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and Trent Lott from voting, so obviously no connection between literacy tests and ignorance exists.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution gives our citizenship requirements. Language proficiency does not appear there. A state cannot add requirements, especially when those requirements would disenfranchise selectively.
BTW, in the sense that you used it, "English" is a proper noun, and should be capitalized.
As for paddy-whacked, who would like to believe that racial segregation was a Republican invention, show me where Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, or Trent Lott voted or advocated against blacks with anywhere near the intensity of George C Wallace (D), Albert Gore (D), or Robert KKK Byrd(D)?!
You won't because you can't. Strom Thurman and Jesse Helms were products of their time, both Dhimmicrats who rejected their party (Thurman said at the time he had made the move because Democrats were "leading the evolution of our nation to a socialistic dictatorship.") Hardly racist, but certainly prescient!
Dolts like paddy-whack would have you believe that the Dixicrats left the Dhimmicrats so that they could continue to pursue segregationism, but it was Dhimmi's like Wallace, Gore, and Byrd who continued outright government-sponsored racism, not Thurman.
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 7, 2006 11:16 AMAnyway, the 14th amendment provides for a process of naturalization which has since been made to include living in the country for a certain amount of time (not long enough, you ask me), paying fees (not hight enough, you ask me) and passing a civics test (not civic enought, you ask me!). The requirement of "strong moral character" is also mentioned but who knows what that means anymore. My point is, just because a person is a citizen and has a constitutionally guaranteed right to vote, it doesn't mean that it should be necessarily easy for them to vote. That's what this whole arguement is about and that is where I wholeheartedly aggree with Stefan.
The homeland security dept. now publishes its guides to naturalization in Chinese and Tagalog and some other fruity tounges. We're basically asking for the rest of the world's tired, poor and huddled masses to come here to America where we breathe freedom. I say that goes against everything this country stands for. Bin Laden could become a U.S. citizen if he wanted to because it's that easy! We need to erect laws to keep Bin Laden from being able to vote because I know he'll definately vote for Darcy Burner and that I cannot stand!
link:
http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/guide.htm
What happened to the days when you had to speak english before you even get to America (capitolized just for you paddy)? Ever since the State department commissioned the translation of America the Beatiful into spanish in 1919, we've been giving forigners free reign over this country. I say enough!
Posted by: Hummer War on May 7, 2006 11:36 AMIt's liberal RINOs like alphabet who pander and apologize for the great conservative minds of the 20th century by saying the the 1965 civil rights bill didn't really change the ballance of the parties, that it was really social policy that drove thurmond and helms into our arms. The libruls who passed that abomination should be held accountible for driving conservatives to become republicans, lord knows the RNC had no say in the matter.
Robert Bird has completely let down his buddies in the KKK for these four decades that he's been a Senator. And George Wallace and Gore Sr. have been doing a horrible job of affecting policy (or breathing) recently. These so-called democrats totally let down the concervative cause by breaking their promise to keep the brown people from voting.
Posted by: Hummer War on May 7, 2006 11:55 AMIt's liberal RINOs like alphabet who pander and apologize for the great conservative minds of the 20th century by saying the the 1965 civil rights bill didn't really change the ballance of the parties, that it was really social policy that drove Thurmond and Helms into our arms. The libruls who passed that abomination should be held accountible for driving conservatives to become republicans, lord knows the RNC had no say in the matter.
Robert Bird has completely let down his buddies in the KKK for these four decades that he's been a Senator. And George Wallace and Gore Sr. have been doing a horrible job of affecting policy (or breathing) recently. These so-called democrats totally let down the concervative cause by breaking their promise to keep the brown people from voting.
Posted by: Hummer War on May 7, 2006 11:57 AMDo you think this dum-a$$ is dim-witted enough to believe that we don't know what he is doing?
Posted by: Amused by slick liberals on May 7, 2006 02:37 PMDo you imply that Jesse was not a racist? Entire generations of whites in Carolina voted for him on that basis, and you now claim that he duped them! Shame on you! Find me a single example of his not acting in support of a hateful, racist agenda.
When the Southern-born LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act, he predicted that he had delivered the South to the Republican Party. The racists Nixon and Gingrich proved LBJ correct, blatantly appealing to white, Southern males' grudges on this point. Dixiecrats like Strom and Byrd then had a choice: drop their racism, and remain in the Democratic Party, or keep their racism, and become Republicans. Byrd chose one way, and Strom the other. The American Conservative movement gladly embraced Strom, Jesse, and Trent. Makes me proud to be a liberal!
"You won't because you can't. Strom Thurman and Jesse Helms were products of their time, both Dhimmicrats who rejected their party (Thurman said at the time he had made the move because Democrats were 'leading the evolution of our nation to a socialistic dictatorship.') Hardly racist, but certainly prescient!"
Actually, he ran against fellow Democrat Harry Truman in 1948, because Truman had desegregated the Army in 1947. (Even then, ol' Strom had a thin, reedy, nasal voice, and whined about "these so-called civil rights".) Posthumously, we learned that he had raped his family's teenaged, black housemaid, who had then borne his eldest child. In Biblical terms, he then despised his firstborn for all of her days, refusing to admit that she was his daughter. His fans, who had long proclaimed that he had upheld the true Southern 'virtues', were proven right after all.
"Anyway, the 14th amendment provides for a process of naturalization which has since been made to include living in the country for a certain amount of time (not long enough, you ask me), paying fees (not hight enough, you ask me) and passing a civics test (not civic enought, you ask me!). The requirement of 'strong moral character' is also mentioned but who knows what that means anymore."
The Fourteenth Amendment simply says, "all persons born or naturalized" are citizens. It sets no minimum time limits on the latter. The phrase "strong moral character" does not appear there. If it means "not lying about one's family", then ol' Strom should not have voted after age 26-- esp. since he was also a rapist.
Personally, I have no problem in imposing knowledge requirements on voting. My preference means nothing against the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, I would revoke the franchise from any citizen who made the false claim, "Bill Clinton signed the largest tax increase in U.S. history." That 'honor' goes to Ronald Reagan, and anyone who does not recognize the latter as the all-time champion of tax increases should not vote on taxes-- or on legislators, who can raise taxes, nor on executives who can sign tax bills into law.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on May 7, 2006 10:46 PMYou lost the argument when you started. The democrat party - originally the Republican - Democrat Party under Thomas Jefferson was committed to slavery from the beginning. No matter what individual instances you try to focus attention on, the Republican party was later formed by conservatives who wanted slavery banned from the inception of our country.
The Democrat Party has acted as a power bloc since the beginning to keep black people enslaved, segregated, belittled and used as a tool to further the aims of socialist communism in America. Modern Civil rights legislation was the brainchild of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Earl Warren, and the Republicans in Congress that voted the original Civil Rights act into law. Democrats openly opposed the Civil rights law and only pretended to be for it after JFK reluctantly signed it into law.
The KKK, formed by remnants of losing rebels from the south in the civil war was created, maintained, and perpetuated as an ad hoc night club for southern Democrats, and its members included Robert Byrd, Democrat of Virgina and David Dukes, Republican, embraced by Democrats in Louisiana, and universally excoriated by the Republican Party.
Nixon and Gingrich have done nothing in their careers to justify being called rascists by a slimy punk like you, and the lies you are telling about Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms hold consistent with the typical careless lying style you use as support for your liberalism.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution declared blacks previously enslaved by the southern democratically dominated states "citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." This has nothing to do with naturalization or so-called rights associated currently with illegal aliens. There is only one part of the 14th Amendment that addresses immigration. The due process right to be heard by an officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service before being deported.
CLASSIC LIBERAL STYLE SLANDER (liberals like Paddy Mac call it logic)
Paddy Mac says, "Do you imply that Jesse was not a racist? Entire generations of whites in Carolina voted for him on that basis, and you now claim that he duped them! Shame on you!Find me a single example of his not acting in support of a hateful, racist agenda.'
No one was implying that Paddy Mac rapes Hamsters either. Entire pet stores in numerous areas around Paddy Mac's dumpster hang-out are available to his daily needs and now you say Paddy Mac duped them! Shame on you! Find me a single example of Paddy Mac's not acting in support of a hateful, mindless, small animal raping agenda.
Good job defending your mindless horse$hit Paddy.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 8, 2006 10:04 AMFind me a single example of his not acting in support of a hateful, racist agenda.
Screw you paddy-whack. You want to invent a premise and then demand that I prove the negative? You're ever dumber than I had given you credit for! Go prove you own wacky notions!
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 8, 2006 11:27 AMYou're also right that WE conservatives need to do our supreme duty to represent history and distort it back into the shape of the stars and stripes!
Finally, we aggree on the original subject of this post, which was that no matter what the constitution says about all citizens being allowed to vote, we need to make it much harder for people who may have "earned their citizenship" by a so-called "set of standards" set out by the so-called INS and the so-called "Homeland Security Department" (wait...scratch that last "so-called") but they are still not really Americans.
Alphabet and I are Americans because we have proved that we have "at least have an understanding of english." How hard is that for THOSE liberals to understand?
Posted by: Hummer War on May 8, 2006 05:49 PM"Nixon and Gingrich have done nothing in their careers to justify being called rascists by a slimy punk like you, and the lies you are telling about Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms hold consistent with the typical careless lying style you use as support for your liberalism."
Nixon's (g)utter bigotry sounds loudly in his own voice, dutifully recorded by the Oval Office's tape recorders. This is why his family still tries to limit access to these public records. Listen to this critic of the "liberal media" also rant against dark-skinned citizens. It's all on the tapes.
As for Gingrich, his Republican Party, the Party of the South, had exactly one African-American member of Congress. He was Rep. J.C. Watts of Oklahoma, who quit, announcing that he'd had enough of being a token. Thus, a party centered in the South now has no African-Americans in Congress.
Ol' Strom's OWN DAUGHTER revealed his illicit paternity of her. Good Old Conservative Family Values on display there!
If you want to advocate for literacy tests, fine, but first show some literacy in American history!
P.S. The original spelling error still sits there, in bold-faced type, right under your noses. No one has yet noted it, or corrected it.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on May 8, 2006 11:10 PMActually, the content of the mis-spelled post was that once upon a time, "we" (defined narrowly) employed onerous procedures to keep those "undesirables" (defined broadly) from voting in "our" elections. The Constitution forbade this all along, but "we" lawless Americans ignored our own values.
So, is your beef with this Administration, or this Congress? Please clarify.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on May 9, 2006 07:05 AMNews flash from reality: The Constitution doesn't say all citizens are allowed to vote. Never did. Never should. Never will.
In general, immigrants have no harder time earning citizenship now than they did in the past -- although the requirement should be tightened severely.
It is a privilege to become an American Citizen -- not a right. Obviously, and unfortunatly, people like you have no clue about what this means. You act as if you believe it is all free lunch and entitlements, as though citizenship is some constitutional whim floating in the air like a magic feather.
We aggree [sic] though, you are an idiot with no point.
Make up some more silly liberal horse$hit to throw around.
Either way, they're both a laugh-riot (in a chimpy~flinging~their~own~feces sort of way) ;'}
Whack-job is right about one thing - it is too easy!
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 9, 2006 09:56 AM"If the registration official is satisfied the the applicant is a United States citizen, has lived in the area the required length of time, can read and write English, and does not come in any of the groups who are not allowed to vote, he asks the registrant to sign his name on three registration cards..."
The original spelling error, which no pro-literacy-test commenter found, was "United State citizen". In the original post, it appeared in bold-face type.
The erroneous phrase, "the the applicant" does not appear in bold, and continues to go uncorrected. Soundies, you're doing a heckova job on that literacy thing! Do not vote in the next election, do not pass "Go!", and do not collect $200.
Literately -- not 'literally'-- yours,
wow
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 10, 2006 12:07 AM(That's BFD to you, whack)
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 10, 2006 09:31 AMOK, that is a better phrase than anything ever written by any other advocate of literacy tests.
Grammatically yours,
Crawl back under your rock, whack.....
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 11, 2006 04:15 PM