By Kiona Brown | The Sunflower
In the United States, 21% of adults are functionally illiterate, or don’t have “the ability to understand, evaluate, use and engage with written texts to participate in society, to achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential.” In other words, 21% of U.S. adults can read, but they don’t necessarily comprehend what they are reading and it impacts their success.
Despite one in five U.S. adults struggling to succeed due to illiteracy, Kansas state government officials write their constitutional amendments to be confusing. On the Kansas primaries ballot on Aug. 4 is an amendment to the Kansas constitution that would change the way Kansas Supreme Court Justices are chosen.
This amendment is confusing and most explanations on what it really means and how it would affect the future of Kansas seem biased and paid.
When you vote on this amendment, the ballot will have an explanatory statement, what a vote for the amendment means, what a vote against the amendment means and what written changes will be made to the amendment. The explanation for voting yes talks about giving Kansans “the right” to do things and makes the fact that the Kansas supreme court nominating commission “consists of a majority of lawyers” is a bad thing.
In the end of the explanatory statement, the ballot will say “The rules applicable for such elections and the designation of position numbers shall be provided by law. Any vacancy on the court for an unexpired term shall be filled at an election as provided by law.” The wording is confusing and inaccessible to voters facing illiteracy. For instance, what does “provided by law” actually mean?
Not only would functionally illiterate people struggle to understand what they are voting on, but it would also be difficult for them to understand how it would change the future of Kansas.
I have family members who I would define as functionally illiterate, and I can guarantee that they would vote on this amendment based on how the internet told them to or based on which side was more convincing, rather than what they would choose if they fully understood it. Literacy is a basic human right and just because someone was failed doesn’t mean that they should be exploited.
Truthfully, this amendment, and many like it, are modern day literacy tests. Literacy tests, abolished after the Voting Rights Act in the U.S. in 1970, were used after Black Americans received the right to vote to discriminate against them and to ensure that some of them would still be unable to vote. They were used along with poll taxes — or being forced to pay to vote — which were declared unconstitutional in 1966.
Now, since literacy tests are banned, politicians can simply write amendments in confusing and biased ways to continue the discrimination against functionally illiterate and illiterate individuals. This constitutional amendment isn’t a fair question because of its intention to confuse and exploit.
The way this amendment is worded is unethical and immoral. This amendment is simply a money grab from start to finish. Illiterate people deserve to be treated with respect, not exploited by officials elected to serve them.
This article was republished here with the permission of: The Sunflower