rrc didn't deserve your condescending reply. Many policies were once implemented in a racist way. That isn't an argument against implementing them in a non-racist way. If you want to argue that the next implementation of voter tests will also be racist, you have not made the case.

I'm sorry you consider my reply to be condescending, as that is not my intention. I however find it discouraging when people refuse to learn from history's lessons.

But, rrc has a point about voters requiring something to identify them, even if the reason for the license was problematic. The current system allows fraud which could affect close elections. I don't like the idea of a national ID, nor mark on the head or hand, but maybe just a picture of a registered voter and a date of the picture taken.

I reread rrc's comment, which seems could be interpreted as both ways; either to advocate requirement of positive identification to vote, or to require voters to take an exam to be licensed as a voter, which is what I believe what was meant.

regardless, literacy tests were done before, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws for a background of our (shameful) past.