"ACLU sues to block Florida's vote-reform law," the headline proclaimed. Apparently the new law requires a literacy test which the Florida Equal Voting Rights Project says discriminates against minorities.
You'll recall that literacy tests of old were designed to prevent blacks from voting. Does the new law require prospective voters to take a reading exam? Not exactly. Does it confound voting at the polls, which this statute was intended to correct after the 2000 presidential election debacle in the Sunshine State? Not exactly.
Our friends at the ACLU are concerned that a list of "voter responsibilities" advises voters to "study and know candidates and issues," "bring proper identification," and "know how to operate voting equipment properly." Apparently these instructions violate the Voting Rights Act, which bans any directive that voters show an "ability to read, write, understand or interpret any matter."
Off to the Internet I scooted and found the Voting Rights Act. Based on this layman's interpretation, violations result if different standards are applied to different classes of voters. There's a reference to completing 6th grade, as a prerequisite, and even allowing some sort of specific literacy tests if state law feels it's relevant and, again, applied to all people.
But, as we know, if you have two lawyers read a law, they'll come up with three divergent interpretations. Imagine how the ACLU corps can spin this baby.
Let's assume that the ACLU's got it right. Let's assume that voters ought not to have any "ability to read, write, understand or interpret any matter." Gosh, I hope these folks aren't driving to the polls. There could be some road signs they should interpret to get there safely without killing you, me, or themselves. Well, no matter, I'm digressing and probably missing the ACLU's point.
Where were we? Ah, yes, the ACLU's right. Reading is an unnecessary encumbrance in a democracy. Forget Socrates, Aristotle and Jefferson who believed that citizen education and intelligence were needed for responsible self-government. What do old, dead white dudes know about real life anyway? If they were so smart, they'd still be alive, right?
I'm sorry, I still digress. The ACLU's right and folks need not read or reason.
How would this work?
Actually, it's ingenious. Show voters symbols, not words. Rather than having candidate names, have a picture of the party and what it stands for. It'd be like going to McDonald's or Burger King. You look at pictures and order by number. And if you don't know numbers, you just point. Smart, eh? Perhaps these restaurants already have been sued by the ACLU and learned their lesson.
Fortunately, our two major political parties have symbols that people already know -- a donkey and elephant. What about the minor parties? Won't they be hurt? Not necessarily.
Imagine how creative and effective these independent candidates can be. One party could use a dollar sign. Voters might expect economic prosperity rather than the unseemly and malodorous byproduct which emanates from an elephant, donkey, or any living thing.
This could help people appeal to voters who look like them. A likeness of an African-American, Hispanic, Asian, or Native American could entice those minorities to vote for 'one of their own.' Of course, campaign literature may expose this candidate as conservative WASP, but voters wouldn't be required to "understand or interpret any matter."
Candidates going for the male vote, irrespective of race, could have a silhouette of a shapely female resembling those we see on the back windows of pick-up trucks or tractor trailer mudguards.
The more I think about this, the more I like it. Voting becomes fun. Turnout rates increase. Democracy wins!
Voting wouldn't have to be restricted to polling places. Fast-food joints and other businesses would love to help and maybe even sell voters their products, too.
Of course, there's a problem with voting at McDonald's. The clerk would undoubtedly ask if you wanted fries with your vote or a drink to wash down the sour taste left in your mouth after casting your ballot. But that's a small price to pay. Besides, if such behavior became problematic, we know that the ACLU would sue the unfeeling corporations for harassment and discrimination. They'd claim that requiring caloric intake violates the Voting Rights Act.
++++
Fred W. Apelquist, III
Approximately 710 words.
© 2001