Wed, Nov 12 · 7:00 PM PST
This is a cross-post from the Straight Talk About Politics Group. Original event link can be found here:
Last Tuesday, Nov 4, New York got a Socialist mayor, and we will no longer have an independent redistricting commission in California. Did the election turn out the way you wanted? If not, could it at least partially be because the voters are woefully gullible and uninformed? Does it make sense to require citizens to pass a basic civics test before they can register to vote? After all, we require the same of would-be naturalized Americans just for the right to call themselves that. Isn’t it then only fair to ask of natural-born citizens to know the basics of America’s constitution, government and history before they are allowed to take part in electing its leaders, those who may well have a major impact on their lives?
Proponents of this idea point out that voting should be a thoughtful act based on understanding, not mere participation. Just as drivers must pass a test before operating a vehicle, citizens should demonstrate civic literacy before shaping public policy. A democracy depends not only on participation but also on informed participation. Voters who understand government structure and history are less likely to be swayed by misinformation, demagogues, or populist appeals. This could result in more consistent, policy-focused voting outcomes rather than purely emotional or partisan ones.
They also contend that many citizens lack basic civic knowledge (for example, studies showing low scores on questions about the Constitution or government branches). Linking voter registration to a civics test might motivate schools and individuals to prioritize civic learning. Over time, this could strengthen national civic literacy.
Finally, the supporters argue that voting is not just a right but also a duty requiring engagement. Passing a civics test symbolizes a commitment to understanding and participating responsibly in governance. It elevates the seriousness of voting, similar to naturalization requirements for immigrants.
The opponents of the motion may claim that voting is a fundamental constitutional right, protected by multiple amendments (15th, 19th, 24th, 26th). Conditioning that right on passing any test — even a neutral-sounding one — violates the principle that suffrage cannot depend on education, knowledge, or property. Moreover, there was historical abuse of literacy and civics tests in the US (especially in the South) to disenfranchise black voters and poor whites before the Voting Rights Act of 1965. So even if a new test were designed to be fair, it would carry the stigma and potential of discriminatory impact. The Supreme Court and Congress rejected such mechanisms as fundamentally incompatible with equal suffrage.
Furthermore, they contend, education inequality makes the test unfair, as access to civic education varies widely across schools, states, and socioeconomic backgrounds. It would reinforce class and racial disparities in political participation.
Last, but not least, knowledge doesn’t guarantee good judgement. Even well-educated voters make biased or uninformed choices. Political reasoning is often emotional, cultural, or moral, not purely factual. A test measuring rote knowledge wouldn’t ensure “better” voting decisions - it might just favor those with test-taking skills.
So what do you think? Come and share your opinion in a passionate, but respectful discussion. Or just bring your popcorn, sit back and listen to the others talk it over. We’ll have two designated speakers for and against the motion giving opening and closing statements, and an open floor discussion in between. Zoom credentials will be provided the day of the event.
