Should there be a test to vote?

A test for voting violates a civilian’s right to vote

Question: Should there be a test to vote?
Position‹2 of 2: No, there shouldn't be a test to vote
Argument1 of 3›: A test for voting violates a civilian’s right to vote

Civilians have a right to say how they want to be governed. In the past, people have been kept from voting because of their race by using tests against them. If there are tests now, people could become offended.

The argument

Tests for voting violates a person’s right to vote. During the Jim Crow laws, African Americans were subject to voting tests. For years, a lot of African Americans weren't able to vote because of the tests. If tests were allowed again, what type of people would be excluded? It wouldn't be right if people were denied their rights because of their level of intelligence, race, or gender.

Premises

[P1]Voting tests violate a person's fundamental right to vote, as shown under Jim Crow when literacy tests kept many African Americans from the ballot for years. [P2] Reviving such tests would again exclude people based on intelligence, race or gender, unjustly denying them their rights. [C] Because a voting test violates a civilian's right to vote, there should not be a test to vote.

Counter-arguments

The tests would not discriminate against people because of their identity. The tests would make sure that people who know how important voting is would be allowed to vote. When people want to get a job, sometimes employers can test them to see if they're good for the job.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] The country’s political health is more important than a civilian’s rights. In fact, it’s a civilian’s duty to make sure the country runs smoothly.