# Amendment 14 **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 1, 2005, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-14/324365 "2005-10-01T19:28:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-14/324365/1 "2005-10-01T19:28:07Z")
> [@14th Amendment](#): > > 1. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Have the provisions in the above section have ever been enforced? That is, has any state had its population for calculating its Congressional representation reduced because of denial of voting? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-14/324365/2 "2005-10-01T20:31:57Z")
Probably not. Various efforts to prevent people from voting were generally framed in ways that were considered “regulating” rather than “abridging.” Such things as poll taxes and literacy tests were probably viewed as the prerogative of the state to administer elections. (Any person could _in theory_ come up with the money for a poll tax and any person could _in theory_ acquire literacy. The fact that an individual polling clerk might demand that an applicant “read” a page of Chinese text would not have been seen as an _abridgement_ by the _state_. Similarly, armed thugs roaming the night in white sheets burning the houses or hanging the inhabitants if they had the temerity to attempt to register to vote would not have been seen as _state_ actions. It would have been interesting to see how the courts would have ruled had anyone attempted to sue a state under this provision of the Constitution, but I suspect that no one did. In other words, everyone maintained the “polite” fiction that no effort by the state had actually abridged anyone’s rights to vote. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2005, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-14/324365/3 "2005-10-02T01:59:27Z")
> [@dtilque](#): > > Have the provisions in the above section have ever been enforced? That is, has any state had its population for calculating its Congressional representation reduced because of denial of voting? No. This was debated seriously only once, after the census of 1900. During the decade of the 1890’s, several Southern states amended their constitutions to disenfranchise large portions of their adult male populations. The principle devices used were literacy tests and disqualification of poll tax delinquents. The obvious purpose was to disenfranchise African Americans, but the measures had the incidental (and not entirely unintended) effect of discouraging many poor whites from voting as well. Representative Edgar Crumpacker, Republican of Indiana, introduced an amendment to the decennial reapportionment bill to reduce the representation of the relevant Southern states. Even though Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, and would have benefited from reducing the number of Southern Democrats, the measure was defeated in the House and never came to a vote in the Senate. One objection was that it was impossible to precisely quantify the number of people disenfrachised within each state. (And, as **tomndebb** points out, many disenfranchised people could _in theory_ qualify by passing a test or paying their taxes.) The more serious stumbling block was that many northern Republicans (and/or their constituents) had prejudices of their own and didn’t have the stomach for picking fights with the opposition over racial exclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-14/324365/4 "2005-10-02T20:55:28Z")
To fill in the details, Crumpacker’s action took the form of a motion to recommit the reapportionment bill to committee with instructions to reduce Southern representation as appopriate, which was rejected 136 to 94 by the House of Representatives on January 8, 1901. > [@tomndebb](#): > > It would have been interesting to see how the courts would have ruled had anyone attempted to sue a state under this provision of the Constitution, but I suspect that no one did. I can’t imagine how that could have succeeded. The “reduction of representation” clause was a grant of power to the federal government, not a restriction on the power of state government. At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, Congress was unsure whether it wanted to impose biracial suffrage on the South. The reduction of representation clause was a compromise, allowing states to continue to limit voting to white men if they wanted to, but in turn allowing (or perhaps even requiring) Congress to reduce their representation if they did so. If one were to sue anybody, it would be to challenge the constitutionality of the reapportionment bills which failed to enforce the clause. But in the legal climate of the time, such suits would have been nonstarters.