A near impossible literacy test Louisiana used to suppress the black vote

Nature and Purpose of the Literacy Test

• Many commenters stress the test was not a real assessment of literacy but a tool to disenfranchise Black voters.
• Questions are designed so that any answer can be deemed “wrong,” giving administrators arbitrary power.
• White voters were often exempt via “grandfather” or education clauses; Black voters faced extra hurdles plus intimidation and violence.

Ambiguity and “Impossible” Questions

• Multiple questions have inherently ambiguous interpretations (e.g., “Spell backwards, forwards”; “Write what you read in the triangle” with “Paris in the the spring”; “draw a line under the last word in this line”).
• Commenters show how each plausible reading can be used to fail a test-taker.
• Even where an answer key exists, others highlight that many marked “correct” answers are themselves arguably wrong or poorly executed, reinforcing that the goal was fail-at-will.

Authenticity and Provenance

• Several posts note serious doubts about whether this specific brain‑twister test was widely used, or used at all.
• Civil rights archival sites and a Slate follow‑up could not corroborate an original; some removed the test as unverified or unrepresentative.
• There is consensus that literacy tests in Louisiana and elsewhere were real and documented, but that this particular version may have been local, rare, or even apocryphal.

Broader Jim Crow System

• The test is framed as a “tiny archival curiosity” within a much larger system: good‑character clauses, constitutional interpretation tests, discretionary “understanding” requirements, and extra-legal violence.
• Earlier racist laws continue to have downstream effects (e.g., redlining, lost generational wealth).

Modern Parallels and Voter ID

• Many draw parallels to current voter ID and administrative barriers (DMV closures, complex ID processes) that disproportionately affect Black and poor voters.
• Others argue voter ID is neutral or mainly class‑biased; debate centers on intent vs effect, and whether new ID rules are de facto voter suppression.
• Cases like Shelby County v. Holder and failed federal reforms are cited as weakening protections.

Democracy, Competence, and Who Should Vote

• Some toy with the idea of restricting or weighting votes by literacy, logic, or taxes paid; others strongly reject this as a route to plutocracy and renewed disenfranchisement.
• Several note that democracy’s core purpose is to give everyone a voice and prevent civil conflict, not to optimize for “best” technocratic decisions.