A state enacts an English literacy requirement for voters. The strongest constitutional argument against the requirement is that it violates which provision?

• A. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution
• B. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution
• C. Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
• D. Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Answer: (D)

Voting is a fundamental right, so any state action that conditions the exercise of that right triggers strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. An English literacy requirement acts as a barrier to voting and, in practice, tends to burden groups already disadvantaged in education—often racial minorities. Even if the rule is facially neutral, its application is likely to discriminate in effect, making it unconstitutional under strict scrutiny because the state must show a compelling interest and that the measure is narrowly tailored to that interest. A literacy test is not a necessary or narrowly tailored way to protect legitimate electoral interests, so it fails.

The other provisions either lack a direct link to protecting voting rights from discriminatory barriers (the provisions about representation and election mechanics) or rely on due process rather than equal protection. The true constitutional safeguard against disenfranchisement by such a test, especially where discrimination is a practical consequence, is the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.