Polling tax, and other requirements to vote

I agree with OP premise but there are some caveats or total disagreements here. I'll go in order from how the points of argument are presented. In general I do believe that the more people who can vote is better since in a democracy opinions of many are valued (saving whether America is a real democracy anymore for a separate discussion) 1. Poll Tax - as long as it is very minimal (not to exceed $10 in my opinion since as is well not not everyone has that great of an income level) I don't see why it wouldn't be a very viable source of funding every 2-4 years (notably every four). Only an extreme "anti-elitist" would see this is a significant barrier to vote. The complexity with this one would be simply - where does the money go. 2. Education - With the education I agree with the premise as well but I wouldn't put an education status on it. I just find it a slippery slope. Granted I personally don't see either a HS diploma or GED as a particularly difficult or "high" education status but putting even that would open the door to "why not make it a two year / vocational degree". People are going to have varying degrees of education and it is also a very slippery slope to try to make elections based from "educated elites" as there could be great room for discrimination for less funded areas. A caveat I have with educated is that (especially if two people are on opposite sides of a debate on an issue) it is definitely plausible that each person is going to see the other as uneducated whether there is any truth to it or not. I would however support that there be a "civics" test that would have to be passed at least once (maybe once every X years or so) that merely tests how well a person knows the government structure (for example - name the three branches of government) and things about the Constitution. Being able to pass this test would bypass the need for an "education status" limitation since with respect to this it is whether they understand our government structure and civics being the factor here and not how well they know how to graph a polynomial function and other things that play a much bigger part in our educational system. It would be optional but in my opinion so important that our legal system structure be a part of this test. 3. Employment - this is by far the biggest caveat I have against the OP's argument and I will give OP benefit of the doubt to have some exceptions to this rule for the retired and those laid off from work as well as those legitimately trying to find work. In my opinion it is just far too much of a slippery slope to separate by employment status since it is totally possible for someone who even willingly chooses not to work for whatever reason (even something as "reasonable" as the stay at home mom/dad as opposed to "I can't be bothered to work") to be an informed voter and able to understand civics. 4. Citizenship - I do completely agree that there should be some requirement for how long someone has lived in America (legally) before they could vote. Ten years to me does sound reasonable but I wouldn't argue much against a shorter five years. I also support needing an identification of some sort to be able to vote.

I would leave the polling tax flat whether it is a Presidential year or not and just kind of know that off-year elections just generate less voters. I wouldn't put a tax of $10 on Presidential elections and $5 for mid-terms. I like the idea of a civics test being the thermometer for education in this case since it more directly pertains to the voting matters at hand than do other measures of formal education. Whether this test would have to be retaken every now and again or not I could go either way with.

With the civics test we would have to be somewhat careful what we put in it that is purely functional things that aren't going to be subject to some bias since we don't want this test being politically slanting. For example we would need/want/expect people to know how Supreme Court Justices are appointed but not what a "liberal" versus "conservative" Supreme Court means for our Constitution (and therefore our laws) which is totally for the individual to decide.

Irrespective, it disenfranchises select groups of people, thus violating their constitutional rights. Besides, I know many people with diplomas/GEDs, as well as college grads who are dumber than a sack of bricks. Why should people like them be allowed to vote over someone who never finished high school?

If the amount was higher I would buy into the disenfranchising argument but even to the lowest income people 5-10 dollars isn't that much of a burden every 2-4 years. So to me it being some violating burden is an extremely nit picky argument (as long as it is flat per person - the same for everyone). EDIT: I'd also be careful about calling a poll tax (or having to pay something) as violating a Constitutional right or the Second Amendment would like to have a few words with you. In my opinion the people who are going to vote and who are going to vote are going to do so regardless of a 5-10 dollar (or other very minimal amount) poll tax / fee. Sure the impact of that 10 dollars will be felt greater to some than others. I'm not the biggest proponent of a poll tax but if its very minimal I'm hardly going to shout from a rooftop. Also a tax/fee would also give an incentive to be a more informed voter.

The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, abolished the use of the poll tax (or any other tax) as a pre-condition for voting in federal elections, but made no mention of poll taxes in state elections. In the 1966 case of Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, the Supreme Court extended its decision in Breedlove v. Suttles to also include state elections as violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.