DOCSLIB.ORG

The Constitutionality of National Anti-Poll Tax Bills

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Constitutionality of National Anti-Poll Tax Bills University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1949 The onsC titutionality of National Anti-Poll Tax Bills Janice E. Christensen Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Christensen, Janice E., "The onC stitutionality of National Anti-Poll Tax Bills" (1949). Minnesota Law Review. 1583. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/1583 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW Journal of the State Bar Assoczatwn VOLUME 33 FEBRUARY, 1949 No. 3 THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NATIONAL ANTI-POLL TAX BILLS JANICE E. CHRISTENSEN* V ITAL constitutional issues are posed by the anti-poll tax bills debated in Congress during the past decade. These bills seek to abolish the requirement now prevailing in seven southern states that a poll taxi of one to two dollars be paid before voting in national elections.2 In providing for the abolition of the poll tax requirement for voting, the bills raise the broad constitutional issue of the relative powers of the nation and states in national elections under our federal system. The issue is raised primarily because the bills propose to broaden national control of voting qualifications and requirements hitherto largely within the province of the states. That unprecedented national control is envisaged is indicated by *Instructor in Government, University of Texas. Author of The Con- stitutionality of Proposed National Legislation to Abolish the Poll Tax as a Requirement for Voting in National Elections. (Thesis on file in University of Minnesota Library, 1946.) 1. The poll tax (also "capitation" or "head" tax) is a uniform, direct, and personal tax levied upon the person, head, or poll as the object of taxa- tion. See Shoup, Poll Tax, 12 Encyc. Soc. Sci. 227 (1933), Dewey, The Poll Tax 2 Cyc. American Government 732 (1914) , Lutz, Public Finance 454 (2d ed. 1930) ; Cooley, The Law of Taxation 18 (1879). 2. (a) Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia require payment of a poll tax of one to two dollars be- fore voting in national and other elections with the exception of primaries in South Carolina. In three states the tax is cumulative. In Alabama a tax of $36.00 may be required of an intending voter inasmuch as the tax is cumula- tive for the entire period of liability; in Mississippi, a tax of $6.00 may be required at the end of two years; and in Virginia, one of $5.01 may be re- qtured at the end of three years. Library of Congress, Legislative Reference Service, Bulletin No. 15, The Poll Tax as a Prerequisite to Voting, Outline of Legal Provs.ons 1-16 (1942). (b) The constitutional and statutory provisions making payment of the poll tax a requirement for voting are cited in Kallenbach, Constitutional Aspects of Federal Anti-Poll Tax Legislation, 45 Mich. L. Rev. 717 (1947). MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 33.217 the fact that the bills, if passed, would for the first tiime" abolish by Congressional action alone a voting requirement established as a voting qualification in state constitutions. In the past, amend- ment of the national Constitution rather than statutory action by Congress has been employed when the national government has sought to remove qualifications prescribed in state constitutions. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY The first anti-poll tax bill was introduced on August 5, 1939, during the first session of the seventy-sixth Congress by Repre- sentative Lee S. Geyer, Democrat, of California, at the request of the Southern Conference for Human Welfare.4 Although hear- ings were held on the bill before a special subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, the bill died in committeeY Geyer's anti-poll tax bill, H.R. 7534, "A Bill to Amend an Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities," was a proposed amendment to the First Hatch Act.0 As this might suggest, the bill was based entirely on the assumption that the poll tax require- ment resulted in fraudulent political practices at the polls. In the bill it was stated that "frequently such taxes are paid for the voters by other persons as an inducement for voting for certain candi- dates." "Existing legislation prohibiting the making of expendi- tures to induce persons to vote for certain candidates has failed to prevent this practice." Congress must, therefore, abolish the poll tax requirement "in order to insure the honesty" of elections for national officers, i.e., President, Vice President, or electors for President or Vice President, Senator, or member of the House of Representatives of the United States. Inasmuch as Congressional 3. Congress has passed legislation suspending the poll tax requircment for voting and the requirement of presence at the polls for members of the armed forces "at time of war." See Act of Sept. 16, 1942, 56 Stat. 753 (1942), as amended, 58 Stat. 136 (1944), 50 U. S. C. 302 (1946) But this action would not appear to be identical with abolishing outright a requirement prescribed as a voting qualification in state constitutions as is the intention of the anti-poll tax bills. 4. 84 Cong. Rec. 11229 (1939). The Southern Conference of Human Welfare describes itself as "an organization of representative southerners interested in improving the social, educational, agricultural, and industrial conditions in the South." American Council on Public Affairs and Southern Conference for Human Welfare, The Poll Tax 2 (1940). The Southern Conference for Human Welfare was responsible for be- ginning in 1938 agitation for national action to eliminate the poll tax require- ment in the poll tax states. Foreman, Georgia Kills the Poll Tax, 112 New Republic 291 (February 26, 1945) 5. The proceedings of the Hearings were not published. 6. H.R. 7534, 76th Cong.. 1st Sess. (1939) "A Bill to Amend an Act to prevent pernicious political activities." 1949] "9]4NTI-POLL TAX BILLS power over primaries had been denied by court interpretationj the bills did not attempt to abolish the poll tax requirement in primaries. Geyer introduced the same bill in the seventy-seventh Congress in 1941.' The bill, now H.R. 1024, was passed by the House of Representatives on October 12, 1942, by a vote of 252-84.1 In the Senate, this bill was completely amended by the substitution of S. 1280, the anti-poll tax bill introduced by Senator Claude Pepper, Democrat, of Florida, in the same seventy-seventh Congress.'0 Pepper's bill was recommended to pass by the Senate Judiciary Committee,1 but filibustering tactics of the southern Senators and failure to invoke cloture prevented the bill from coming to a vote 2 on the floor of the Senate.1 The Pepper bill 3 differed in important respects from the Geyer bills. It was not an amendment to the Hatch Act, although it did state that fraudulent practices resulted from the poll tax require- ment for voting. But the Pepper bill was based principally on the contention that the poll tax requirement "is not and shall not be deemed a qualification of voters or electors within the meaning of section 2 of article I of the Constitution." The poll tax require- ment, read the preamble to the bill, bears "no reasonable relation to the intelligence, ability, character, wealth, community-conscious- ness or other qualification of voters." Rather, the requirement is an interference,-with the manner of holding elections, and a tax 7. Newberry v. United States, 256 U. S. 232 (1921), overruled it United -States v. Clas'sic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941). 8. 87 Cong.-Rtc. 18 (1941). 9. 8g Cong. Rec" 8174 (1942). 10. 87 Cong. Rec. 2698 (1941). 11. 88 Cong. Rec. 8656 (1942). 12. Id. at 9065-72. 13. The preamble of the Pepper bill read m part as follows. "Whereas the [poll'tax] re4uirements ... have deprived many citizens of the right and privilege of voting as guaranteed to them under the Constitution, and have been detrimental to the integrity of the ballot in that frequently such taxes have been paid for the voters by other persons as an inducement for voting for certain candidates, and Whereas these requirements have no relation to the intelligence, ability, character, wealth, community-consciousness or other qualifications of -voters; and Whereas such requirements do deprive many citizens of the right and privilege of voting for national officers, and cause, induce, and abet practices and methods in respect to the holding of primaries and elections detrimental to the proper selection of persons for national offices.. ." Section 1 of the bill provided that the poll tax requirement is not a qualification but an interference with the manner of holding elections and a tax on the right to vote. Sections 2, 3, and 4 provided that it %as unlawful for any State or other government subdivision or any person to require poll 'tax payment before voting in national elections or primaries preceding those elections. Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Judiciary on S. 1280, 77th Cong., 2d Sess. pt. 1, 1-2. (1942). MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW IVol. 33.217 upon the right to vote. Also, it denies to many citizens the right and privilege of voting in national elections, including primaries, a right and privilege guaranteed to them by the Constitution. In 1943 in the seventy-eighth Congress 14 and in 1945 in the seventy-ninth Congress15 the most important anti-poll tax bill, H.R. 7, was introduced by Representative Vito Marcantonio, American Labor Party, of New York.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mass Taxation and State-Society Relations in East Africa
    Chapter 5. Mass taxation and state-society relations in East Africa Odd-Helge Fjeldstad and Ole Therkildsen* Chapter 5 (pp. 114 – 134) in Deborah Braütigam, Odd-Helge Fjeldstad & Mick Moore eds. (2008). Taxation and state building in developing countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.cambridge.org/no/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/comparative- politics/taxation-and-state-building-developing-countries-capacity-and-consent?format=HB Introduction In East Africa, as in many other agrarian societies in the recent past, most people experience direct taxation mainly in the form of poll taxes levied by local governments. Poll taxes vary in detail, but characteristically are levied on every adult male at the same rate, with little or no adjustment for differences in individual incomes or circumstances. In East Africa and elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa, poll taxes have been the dominant source of revenue for local governments, although their financial importance has tended to diminish over time. They have their origins in the colonial era, where at first they were effectively an alternative to forced labour. Poll taxes have been a source of tension and conflict between state authorities and rural people from the colonial period until today, and a catalyst for many rural rebellions. This chapter has two main purposes. The first, pursued through a history of poll taxes in Tanzania and Uganda, is to explain how they have affected state-society relations and why it has taken so long to abolish them. The broad point here is that, insofar as poll taxes have contributed to democratisation, this is not through revenue bargaining, in which the state provides representation for taxpayers in exchange for tax revenues (Levi 1988; Tilly 1990; Moore 1998; and Moore in this volume).
    [Show full text]
  • Exorbitant Privilege and Exorbitant Duty∗
    Exorbitant Privilege and Exorbitant Duty∗ Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas Hel´ ene` Rey Nicolas Govillot University of California at Berkeley London Business School Direction Gen´ erale´ du Tresor First dra: August 2010. is Version: October 25, 2017 Abstract We provide a quarterly time series of the historical evolution of US external assets and liabilities at market value on the 1952-2016 period. e center country of the International Monetary System enjoys an “exorbitant privilege”, a sizeable excess return of gross external assets over liabilities that signicantly weakens its external constraint. In exchange for this “exorbitant privilege” we document that the US provides insurance to the rest of the world, especially in times of global stress. We call this the “exorbitant duty” of the hegemon. During the 2007-2009 global nancial crisis, wealth transfers from the US to the rest of the world amounted to about 19% of US GDP. We present a stylized model that accounts for these facts and links the shrinking size of the hegemon in the world economy to the decline in the world real rate of interest. ∗We are very grateful to our discussants Jesus Fernandez Villaverde and Fabrizio Perri. We also thank Hanno Lustig and Adrien Verdelhan as well as 2017 NBER Summmer Institute participants for useful comments. Pierre- Olivier Gourinchas acknowledges nancial support from the International Growth Center grant RA-2009-11-002. Contact email: [email protected]´ ene` Rey is grateful for the funding of the European Research Council (grant number 695722). Email: [email protected] 1 Introduction Understanding the structure of the International Monetary System is an important task.
    [Show full text]
  • HVPE Prospectus
    MERRILL CORPORATION GTHOMAS// 1-NOV-07 23:00 DISK130:[07ZDA1.07ZDA48401]BA48401A.;44 mrll.fmt Free: 11DM/0D Foot: 0D/ 0D VJ J1:1Seq: 1 Clr: 0 DISK024:[PAGER.PSTYLES]UNIVERSAL.BST;67 8 C Cs: 17402 PROSPECTUS, DATED 2 NOVEMBER 2007 Global Offering of up to 40,000,000 Shares of 1NOV200718505053 This document describes related offerings of Class A ordinary shares (the ‘‘Shares’’) of HarbourVest Global Private Equity Limited (the ‘‘company’’), a closed-ended investment company organised under the laws of Guernsey. Our Shares are being offered (a) outside the United States, and (b) inside the United States in a private placement to certain qualified institutional buyers (‘‘QIBs’’) as defined in Rule 144A under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the ‘‘U.S. Securities Act’’), who are also qualified purchasers (‘‘qualified purchasers’’) as defined in the U.S. Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the ‘‘U.S. Investment Company Act’’) (the ‘‘Global Offering’’). We intend to issue up to 40,000,000 Shares in the Global Offering. In addition, we intend separately to issue Shares to certain third parties in a private placement in exchange for either cash or limited partnership interests in various HarbourVest-managed funds (the ‘‘Directed Offering’’ and, together with the Global Offering, the ‘‘Offerings’’). We will not issue, in the aggregate, more than 85,000,000 Shares in the Offerings. The Shares carry limited voting rights. No public market currently exists for the Shares. We have applied for the admission to trading all of the Shares on Euronext Amsterdam by NYSE Euronext (‘‘Euronext Amsterdam’’), the regulated market of Euronext Amsterdam N.V.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Public Finance: Double Neutrality Instead of Double Dividend
    Journal of Environmental Protection, 2016, 7, 145-159 Published Online February 2016 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/jep http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jep.2016.72013 Sustainable Public Finance: Double Neutrality Instead of Double Dividend Dirk Loehr Trier University of Applied Sciences, Environmental Campus Birkenfeld, Birkenfeld, Germany Received 27 November 2015; accepted 31 January 2016; published 4 February 2016 Copyright © 2016 by author and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Abstract A common answer to the financial challenges of green transformation and the shortcomings of the current taxation system is the “double dividend approach”. Environmental taxes should either feed the public purse in order to remove other distorting taxes, or directly contribute to financing green transformation. Germany adopted the former approach. However, this article argues, by using the example of Germany, that “good taxes” in terms of public finance should be neutral in terms of environmental protection and vice versa. Neutral taxation in terms of environmental im- pacts can be best achieved by applying the “Henry George principle”. Additionally, neutral taxation in terms of public finance is best achieved if the revenues from environmental taxes are redistri- buted to the citizens as an ecological basic income. Thus, distortive effects of environmental charges in terms of distribution and political decision-making might be removed. However, such a financial framework could be introduced step by step, starting with a tax shift. Keywords Double Dividend, Double Neutrality, Tinbergen Rule, Henry George Principle, Ecological Basic Income 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Following the Money: Lessons from the Panama Papers Part 1
    ARTICLE 3.4 - TRAUTMAN (DO NOT DELETE) 5/14/2017 6:57 AM Following the Money: Lessons from the Panama Papers Part 1: Tip of the Iceberg Lawrence J. Trautman* ABSTRACT Widely known as the “Panama Papers,” the world’s largest whistleblower case to date consists of 11.5 million documents and involves a year-long effort by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists to expose a global pattern of crime and corruption where millions of documents capture heads of state, criminals, and celebrities using secret hideaways in tax havens. Involving the scrutiny of over 400 journalists worldwide, these documents reveal the offshore holdings of at least hundreds of politicians and public officials in over 200 countries. Since these disclosures became public, national security implications already include abrupt regime change and probable future political instability. It appears likely that important revelations obtained from these data will continue to be forthcoming for years to come. Presented here is Part 1 of what may ultimately constitute numerous- installment coverage of this important inquiry into the illicit wealth derived from bribery, corruption, and tax evasion. This article proceeds as follows. First, disclosures regarding the treasure trove of documents * BA, The American University; MBA, The George Washington University; JD, Oklahoma City Univ. School of Law. Mr. Trautman is Assistant Professor of Business Law and Ethics at Western Carolina University, and a past president of the New York and Metropolitan Washington/Baltimore Chapters of the National Association of Corporate Directors. He may be contacted at [email protected]. The author wishes to extend thanks to those at the Winter Conference of the Anti-Corruption Law Interest Group (ASIL) in Miami, January 13–14, 2017 who provided constructive comments to the manuscript, in particular: Eva Anderson; Bruce Bean; Ashleigh Buckett; Anita Cava; Shirleen Chin; Stuart H.
    [Show full text]
  • An Optimal Benefit-Based Corporate Income
    An optimal benefit-based corporate income tax Simon Naitram∗ June 2020 Abstract In this paper I explore the features of a benefit-based corporate income tax. Benefit-based taxation defines a firm’s fair share of tax as the returns to the public input. When the government is constrained to fund the public input through the use of a distortionary tax on the firm’s profit, the optimal benefit-based corporate income tax rate is a function of three estimable elasticities: the direct public input elasticity of profit, the indirect public input elasticity of profit, and the (net of) tax elasticity of profit. Using public capital as a measure of the public input, I calculate optimal benefit-based tax rates. Under plausible parameters, these optimal tax rates are quantitatively reasonable and are progressive. I show that benefit-based taxation delivers inter-nation equity. JEL: H21; H25; H32; H41 Keywords: benefit-based taxation; optimal corporate tax; public input 1 Introduction There is no consensus on the purpose of the corporate income tax. This lack of consensus on the purpose of the tax makes it almost impossible to agree on the design of the corporate tax system. Without guidelines on what we are trying to achieve, how do we assess any proposal for corporate tax reform? This concern is expressed most clearly by Weisbach(2015): \The basic point is that we cannot know what the optimal pattern of international capital income taxation should be without understanding the reasons for taxing capital income in the first place... To understand the design of firm-level taxation, however, we need to know why we are taxing firms.” ∗Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow and Department of Economics, University of the West Indies, Cave Hill, St Michael, Barbados.
    [Show full text]
  • Percentage Tax Designation Institutions. on Sugden's
    International Review of Economics (2021) 68:101–130 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12232-021-00364-2 RESEARCH ARTICLE Percentage tax designation institutions. On Sugden’s contractarian account Paolo Silvestri1 Received: 12 September 2020 / Accepted: 27 January 2021 / Published online: 27 February 2021 © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract “Percentage Tax Designation Institutions”, also known as “Percentage Philanthropy Laws”, are fscal institutions through which taxpayers can freely designate a cer- tain percentage of their income tax to organizations whose main activity is of public interest: churches, third-sector organizations, political parties, etc. A comprehensive explanation of such systems is still lacking. In The Community of Advantage, Robert Sugden provides an original theoretical account of the Italian “8 × 1000” institution as one of those forms of regulation that “would be justifed as ways of expanding opportunity for mutually benefcial transactions” and, more particularly, as a lib- eral and “contractarian approach to the provision of public goods”. This article is an attempt to expand and deepen the understanding not only of the 8 × 1000 but also of the 5 × 1000 and 2 × 1000 institutions, by refecting on and possibly refning Sug- den’s contractarian account, at least with regard to the part that relies on and devel- ops the voluntary exchange tradition (Wicksell, Lindahl and Buchanan). To remain faithful to two normative premises of Sugden’s approach—the opportunity criterion and the correlated freedom of choice—we must introduce some theoretical adjust- ments to take into due account the way in which taxpayers’ freedoms—not only freedom of choice but also autonomy—are afected by default rules and the related redistribution procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • Ocument’’) and You Are Therefore Advised to Read This Carefully Before Reading, Accessing Or Making Any Other Use of the Attached Document
    NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN OR INTO THE UNITED STATES OR TO ANY U.S. PERSON IMPORTANT: You must read the following disclaimer before continuing. The following disclaimer applies to the attached prospectus (the ‘‘document’’) and you are therefore advised to read this carefully before reading, accessing or making any other use of the attached document. In accessing the document, you agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions, including any modifications to them from time to time, each time you receive any information from us as a result of such access. You acknowledge that this electronic transmission and the delivery of the attached document is confidential and intended only for you and you agree you will not forward, reproduce or publish this electronic transmission or the attached document to any other person. The document and the offer when made are only addressed to and directed at persons in member states of the European Economic Area (“EEA”) who are “qualified investors” within the meaning of Article 2(1)(e) of the Prospectus Directive (Directive 2003/71/EC) (the “Prospectus Directive”) (“Qualified Investors”). In addition, in the United Kingdom (“UK”), this document is being distributed only to, and is directed only at, Qualified Investors (i) who have professional experience in matters relating to investments falling within Article 19(5) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005, as amended (the “Order”) and Qualified Investors falling within Article 49 of the Order, and (ii) to whom it may otherwise lawfully be communicated (all such persons together being referred to as “relevant persons”).
    [Show full text]
  • Preparing for Land Value Taxation in Britain Stage 2
    Mega urban transport projects and land-value capture: a ‘solution’ to infrastructure funding and investment in the UK “Let the Beneficiaries Pay” Dr Tony Vickers [email protected] Professional Land Reform Group www.plrg.org Why me? ‘map man’ “Visualising Landvaluescape: developing the concept for Britain” – PhD thesis, now available at www.landvaluescape.org under “Recent Papers” Professional Land Reform Group – formed by Vice Chair Transport for London David C Lincoln Fellow of Land Value Taxation 2000-2003 www.lincoln.edu Adviser to Liberal Democrat Party + local councillor / lead member on planning 2013 Global Report on Human Settlements (Sustainable Urban Transport) assisted Harry Dimitriou with chapters on Spatial Planning & Governance + Institutions Mission Professional Land Reform Group “To debate and develop ideas and policies on land use and tax reform, among professionals of all kinds, in order to promote land value capture to finance infrastructure and the fair and efficient use of all natural resources on a sustainable basis.” Four Processes – and a policy How land value arises. How land information is made available How regional and local government finance policy has evolved How funding decisions about major infra projects are made An economically efficient and fair way to finance major infrastructure How does Land Value arise? A ‘positive externality’ of the actions of labour & capital on land. Pigou (1920): environmental taxes are “the way to incorporate externalities into market prices” “The Economics of Welfare” Every ‘where’ decision can cause land value changes Value ‘overspill’ (windfall gain) recycled by a ‘Location Benefit Levy’ What happens with new public infrastructure Immediate value transfer to site owners (over wide area) when decision to invest is announced Short-term blight affects property occupiers and transport users Secondary investment decisions Further value uplift over long term Complex network effects (esp.
    [Show full text]
  • The Triumph of Injustice (W.W
    The Triumph of Injustice (W.W. Norton) TaxJusticeNow.org Emmanuel Saez Gabriel Zucman Three main novelties: . How much each social social group pays in taxes, from early 20th century to today . Elements for a new 21st century tax system, reconciling globalization and progressive taxation . Tools for a democratic fiscal debate TaxJusticeNow.org Structure of the book . Forensic analysis of how much each social group pays in taxes in 2018, post-Trump reform (Chapter 1) . How the US went from having one the world's most progressive tax system to one where billionaires pay less than their secretaries (Chapters 2{5) . Our proposed tax reform (Chapters 6{9) All figures, data, computer code, and technical background papers available at TaxJusticeNow.org The rise of income inequality in the United States Share of pre-tax national income 20% Top 1% 18% 16% 14% Bottom 50% 12% 10% 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 The US tax system today: A giant flat tax regressive at the top Average tax rates by income group in 2018 45% (% of pre-tax income) 40% 35% 30% Average tax rate: 28% 25% 20% 15% Upper Working class Middle-class middle- The rich 10% (average annual pre-tax ($75,000) class ($1,500,000) 5% income: $18,500) ($220,000) 0% The US flat tax: Composition by type of tax Average tax rates by income group in 2018 45% (% of pre-tax income) 40% 35% Estate tax 30% 25% 20% Individual income taxes 15% Payroll taxes 10% Corporate & property taxes 5% Consumption taxes 0% Adding health insurance premiums (privatized poll tax) to the picture Since 2010, it is mandatory to have health insurance.
    [Show full text]
  • THE MODERN-DAY POLL TAX: How Economic Sanctions Block Access to the Polls
    digitalcommons.nyls.edu Faculty Scholarship Articles & Chapters 2007 The oM dern-Day Poll Tax: How Economic Sanctions Block Access to the Polls Erika L. Wood New York Law School Neema Trivedi Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_articles_chapters Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons Recommended Citation Clearinghouse Review, Vol. 41, Issue 1 (May-June 2007), pp. 30-45 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. THE MODERN-DAY POLL TAX: How Economic Sanctions Block Access to the Polls By Erika L. Wood and Neema Trivedi Erika L. Wood [LW]ealth orfee paying has Project Director/Counsel ... no relation to voting Right to Vote Project qualifications; the night Brennan Center for Justice to vote is too precious, too 161 Ave. of the Americas New York, NY 10013 fundamental to be so bur- 212.992,8638 dened or conditioned.' erika.wood@nyu edu ver the past two Neema Trivedi centuries, sev- Former Research Associate, Brennan Center for Justice eral de jure re- strictions on the Ameri- 2233 E, Quiet Canyon Drive Tucson, AZ 85718 can franchise have been 203.507.5575 lifted, expanding suf- neema [email protected] frage to white men without property, African Americans and other racial minori- ties, and women. Yet a large segment of the American public is still barred from the political process because of felony convictions. Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have laws limiting the voting rights of people who are convicted of felonies, resulting in the disenfranchisement of 5.3 million American citizens.' Nearly four million of those individuals are not in prison, and two million have fully served their 3 felony sentences but are still unable to vote.
    [Show full text]
  • Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States
    1 Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States GA Res. 3281(xxix), UN GAOR, 29th Sess., Supp. No. 31 (1974) 50 The General Assembly, Recalling that the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, in its resolution 45 (III) of 18 May 1972, stressed the urgency to establish generally accepted norms to govern international economic relations systematically and recognized that it is not feasible to establish a just order and a stable workd as long as a charger to protect the rights of all countries, and in particular the developing States, is not formulated. Recalling further that in the same resolution it was decided to establish a Working Group of governmental representatives to draw up a draft Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, which the General Assembly, in its resolution 3037 (XXVII) of 19 December 1972, decided should be composed of forty Member States. Noting that, in its resolution 3082 (XXVIII) of 6 December 1973, it reaffirmed its conviction of the urgent need to establish or improve norms of universal application for the development of international economic relations on a just and equitable basis and urged the Working Group on the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States to complete, as the first step in the codification and development of the matter, the elaboration of a final draft Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, to be considered and approved by the General Assembly at its twenty-ninth session. Bearing in mind the spirit and terms of its resolutions 3201 (S-VI) and 3202 (S-VI) of 1 May 1974, containing, respectively, the Declaration and the Programmed of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, which underlined the vital importance of the Charter to be adopted by the General Assembly at its twenty-ninth session and stressed the fact that the Charter shall constitute an effective instrument towards the establishment of a new system of international economic relations based on equity, sovereign equality and interdependence of the interests of developed and developing countries.
    [Show full text]