Photo via John Morgan/Flickr

Today we celebrate a constitutional ratification twofer: the 15th Amendment (ratified February 3, 1870) and the 16th Amendment (ratified February 3, 1913). Here’s what you need to know.

The 15th Amendment

What it does:

It prohibits the state or federal government from using race as a voting qualification.

Why it was added:

The 15th Amendment was one of the “Reconstruction amendments,” and was an important step in ensuring African Americans’ right to vote. Unfortunately, change didn’t happen overnight, and it would take further measures, such as the 24th Amendment, which nixed the use of poll taxes, to foster true equality.

Word-For-Word:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The 16th Amendment

What it does:

It allows Congress to levy an income tax.

Why it was added:

An 1895 Supreme Court decision had ruled that an income tax law was unconstitutional because it violated the provisions in Article 1 of the Constitution requiring that direct taxes be apportioned according to state population. A constitutional amendment was the only way to make an income tax happen.

Interestingly, one of the arguments made for an income tax was quite similar to the today’s rhetoric of income inequality. For example, in promoting a new national tax system consisting of an income tax and inheritance tax, Theodore Roosevelt stated this:

As a matter of personal conviction, and without pretending to discuss the details or formulate the system, I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual — a tax so framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of these enormous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount to any one individual; the tax, of course, to be imposed by the National and not the State Government. Such taxation should, of course, be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits.

You can check out more of Roosevelt’s statements here.

Word-For-Word:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

For the full text of the Constitution, visit the Interactive Constitution here.

Civic holidays are occasions to commemorate America’s history, celebrate our rights and responsibilities as citizens, and learn about our constitutional ideals. Download a PDF of the 2013 Civic Calendar here.

Holly Munson is Assistant Editor of Constitution Daily, the blog of the National Constitution Center.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

Yes, it was 100 years ago that we wound up with a national income tax

Debt-ceiling deal passes despite constitutional concerns

Background checks could be gun control deal breaker

10 interesting facts about young Franklin D. Roosevelt

A poll tax receipt from Louisiana. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Today we celebrate the ratification of not one, but two constitutional amendments: the 20th Amendment (ratified January 23, 1933) and the 24th Amendment (ratified January 23, 1964). Here’s what you need to know.

The 20th Amendment

What it did

It reduced by several months the time between the election and inauguration of the president and vice president, and clarified who should act as president if the president-elect dies or hasn’t been chosen yet.

Why it was added

Originally the president and vice president were not inaugurated until March 4. This gap in time allowed the president-elect to get his affairs in order and make the sometimes burdensome cross-country journey to the capital. Later, as transportation and technology advanced, this gap proved to be burdensome on government efficacy, with the so-called “lame duck” presidency and Congress languishing in the lengthy interim.

Word-for-word

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

The 24th Amendment

What it did

It prohibited the use of poll taxes in federal elections.

Why it was added

Following Reconstruction, poll taxes were used throughout the South to attempt to prevent African Americans from voting.

Word-for-word

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

For the full text of the Constitution, visit the Interactive Constitution here.

Holly Munson is assistant editor of Constitution Daily, the blog of the National Constitution Center.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

Washington state ponders next moves in marijuana standoff
Defining protected classes: Same-sex marriage and judicial scrutiny
Happy birthday, 20th and 24th Amendments
Constitution Check: Can one word make constitutional history?

24th Amendment is signed, outlawing the poll tax

In 2012, the voter eligibility debate is over new state-issued rules that require strict forms of identification at the polls. Voter ID supporters say the laws will stop election fraud; opponents say voter ID laws impose burdens on poor, elderly, and disabled voters.

Occasionally, the words “poll tax” are tossed into the debate by voter ID opponents, including recent statements from Attorney General Eric Holder. But how many current voters even know what the poll tax meant, or how long it took for a massive expansion of our electorate?

In September 1787, the constitutional framers left the details about voting to the states. They did establish a framework to elect the president and Congress, using indirect elections for the chief executive and the Senate. But voting rights aren’t part of the original, unamended Constitution.

By some estimates, only 10 percent to 16 percent of Americans were eligible to vote in early elections, because states limited voting rights to white, adult males who owned property (and in some cases, who could pass religious tests).

Compare that to 2008, when 65 percent of eligible people in the United States were registered to vote.

Until the Civil War, the fight over voters’ rights was about how many white male adult voters each state would allow to cast ballots and if they had to own property.

Then in the aftermath of the Civil War, the 15th Amendment to the Constitution was passed in 1870, saying the right to vote—at least in theory—could not “be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

Poll taxes and literacy tests

In practice, states had tools like literacy tests and the poll tax to keep blacks and other voters from the polls. Literacy tests were actually developed in the North before the Civil War to bar Irish immigrants from voting.

The poll tax was used as part of a set of Jim Crow state laws that targeted blacks. States used “grandfathered” clauses to allow poorer white votes to skip the tax.

The 15th Amendment also didn’t apply to women or Native Americans, and it took more than two generations to change that.

In the wake of Prohibition, the 19th Amendment in 1920 gave women the right to vote, and in 1924, the Indian Citizenship Act extended voting rights in federal elections to all Native Americans.

In 1943, Congress repealed an act that barred Chinese immigrants the right to vote and become citizens.

Still, the battle raged on as civil rights advocates sought realistic voting rights for minorities, particularly in the South.

The passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1957 set up a federal commission to investigate voter discrimination. In 1964, the 24th Amendment was passed to prohibit poll taxes. The landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 expanded efforts to protect minority voters.

In 1966, the Supreme Court, in the case of Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, effectively eliminated poll taxes in state elections, expanding the ban on poll taxes in federal elections established by the 24th Amendment.

It took nearly another decade for the courts to end literacy tests.

Also, in 1971 the 26th Amendment extended voting rights to people who are at least 18 years of age.

Another key landmark was the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, which requires polling places to offer access for disabled voters.

The debate today is centered on a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld Indiana’s voter ID law.

In the case of Crawford v. Marion County, the Court said Indiana had the right to require government-issued photo IDs at the polls, and that the state had a right to take efforts to prevent voter fraud.

The court also rejected the idea that a burden was placed on voters who needed to gather documents to get a free photo ID.

The current voter ID cases involve lawsuits in Pennsylvania and Texas, and a voter referendum in Minnesota in November.

The Pennsylvania ruling was the latest in a string of legal victories for the supporters of voter ID.

Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

How a Democratic Super PAC and social media made the Todd Akin story viralStorm clouds nothing new for political conventions
Troubled history of polling rights fuels voter ID battle
How do voter ID laws correlate to swing states?

And in one case that has Supreme Court ramifications, it might be a great-great-grandmother’s testimony that could settle the voter ID issue in a key swing state.

Viviette Applewhite, 93, is the lead plaintiff in the ACLU’s lawsuit in Pennsylvania, in a case that could have long-term implications for stricter voter ID laws.

Viviette Applewhite, great-great-grandmother

Currently, there are pitched battles in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Texas over photo IDs as a requirement to vote.

The issue will get a lot of attention as state court rulings are issued later this summer in Minnesota and Pennsylvania. The Texas case was heard by the District of Columbia federal appeals court and a ruling there is also expected by Labor Day.

“This November, restrictive voter ID states will provide 127 electoral votes—nearly half of the 270 needed to win the presidency,” The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York Center for Law said in a report issued on July 18. “Therefore, the ability of eligible citizens without photo ID to obtain one could have a major influence on the outcome of the 2012 election.”

The Brennan Center says as many as 500,000 voters could be affected at the polls, in just 10 states this November. It says 10 percent of voters, in those states, didn’t have government-issued photo IDs required by newer voter ID laws, including 25 percent of African-Americans and 18 percent of Americans over 65.

Pennsylvania is one of four states that falls into the category of “strict” photo identification requirements, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Georgia, Tennessee and Kansas also have narrow laws on polling IDs requiring a state-approved photo.

Five other states require or request photo IDs at the polls: Florida, Michigan, Louisiana, South Dakota and Idaho.

Ohio, Virginia and Arizona fall into the category of “strict” non-photo ID states, where a bank statement or utility bill must be presented, in place of a government-issued photo ID.

Two arguments about voter ID cards

Law supporters believe the voter ID requirements will prevent fraud at the polls. Opponents say the voter ID laws are unconstitutional because they are a version of the “poll tax” outlawed by the 24^th amendment.

One argument over the voter ID issue is about “free” ID cards offered by states to voters who don’t have a driver’s license or a government-issued ID card.

Supporters of the voter ID laws say people seeking ID cards need to supply the kind of same proof they would need for other  basic social functions, like attending a school or getting a job. They also say states offer free alternative ID cards, and voters have plenty of time to make arrangements to get the cards.

Opponents says states with voter ID laws require paid copies of birth certificates to obtain a “free” card, which is enough to keep lower-income voters away from the polls.

Another argument is over accessibility.

The Brennan Center says long travel distances to approved ID offices are barriers on many levels to people of color, senior citizens, and the disabled. It estimates 13 percent of voters in 10 “strict voter ID” states don’t have access to a motor vehicle and live more than 10 miles from an office that offers IDs.

The court case in Texas has been contentious, since its proposed voter ID laws are strict, and they must be approved by the federal government because the state is on a review list as part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

For example, Texas won’t accept student IDs as proof at the polls, but it will accept gun permits.

Pennsylvania as a Supreme Court test case

Pennsylvania is a big test case for voter ID laws. It requires photo ID cards issued by the Commonwealth and it also accepts student IDs from accredited colleges.

But if a voter wants a free voter ID card, the state requires four documents submitted in person at a Department of Transportation office. The process gets more complicated for voters without a certified birth certificate. Voters don’t have to buy a birth certificate copy, but they have to provide the same information on a form, which is then investigated by the state within 10 days.

It is the problem of getting a timely birth certificate in Pennsylvania that is at the center of Viviette Applewhite’s case.

A state court will hear arguments from the administration of Governor Tom Corbett and the American Civil Liberties Union on July 25 in the Applewhite case.

The ACLU says Applewhite has tried three times to buy a copy of her birth certificate from the state. It never arrived before she joined the lawsuit in the case, even though Applewhite paid for the documents.

The Pennsylvania trial should last a week, and the 93-year-old Applewhite will be at the heart of the testimony, along with other plaintiffs.

The Pennsylvania case will be tracked by Supreme Court watchers, since the state is seeking a higher level of proof from voters than was required by Indiana when it passed its voter ID law.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Indiana law in 2008, saying it didn’t require burdensome acts from voters.

The Pennsylvania case also got national attention in June, when a state GOP leader said voter ID restrictions would help Mitt Romney win the state.

“Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. (Mitt) Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: Done,“ he said at a party meeting.

Stephen Miskin, a spokesman for Turzai, clarified the statement.

“Rep. Turzai was speaking at a partisan, political event. He was simply referencing, for the first time in a long while, the Republican Presidential candidate will be on a more even keel thanks to voter ID… Anyone looking further into it has their own agenda,” he said.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

What will be the next constitutional amendment?
Constitution Check: Does denial of TV coverage of the Supreme Court violate the First Amendment?
Constitution Check: Does Congress have the authority to require universities to monitor campus crimes?

As America remembers her greatest presidents, it’s worth reflecting on the presidency itself, both to celebrate its glories and to ponder its glitches.

In 1787, nothing quite like this office existed anywhere on earth. Hereditary monarchs and feudal lords held sway across the Old World, and American states generally allowed only propertied men to vote for or serve as governors. By contrast, the framers opened the presidency to rich and poor alike, and imposed no constitutional property qualifications on presidential electors or ordinary voters. In the 1960s, the Constitution’s Twenty-fourth Amendment went a step further, freeing presidential and other federal elections from poll taxes that might limit voting by the poor.

This openness has been more than a formality. Many founding fathers lived to see low-born men vie for America’s highest office. The ascent of Abraham Lincoln, a self-taught lawyer with almost no formal education or early economic advantages, dramatizes a larger pattern: Roughly one third of America’s presidents rose from the lower-middle or bottom of the heap. Few of the world’s other great democracies can claim a similarly robust tradition of upward political mobility.

America’s presidency has also always been open to all religions. When the Constitution was written, eleven states had religious qualifications for office-holding, and around the world kings and czars headed government-established churches. But the Constitution outlawed “religious tests” for the presidency and all other federal posts. True, only “natural born citizens” as opposed to naturalized immigrants can be President. Seven of the Constitution’s thirty-nine signers were themselves foreign-born Americans, and several criticized this limitation. Perhaps future Americans will one day discard it.

The other key constitutional limitation, requiring presidents to be at least thirty-five years old, has worked to promote equality. As evidenced by two separate constitutional bans on “Titles of Nobility,” the founders took pains to prevent the seeds of monarchy and aristocracy from taking root in American soil. Without a constitutional age limit, young men with famous last names might have won the presidency before they had proved their merit. Part of the reason that George Washington was “first in the hearts of his countrymen” was that they knew that he lacked dynastic ambitions: He became father of his country because he was not father of any would-be successors. Of the first five presidents, only one had any (acknowledged) sons. That one was John Adams, whose heir John Q. did indeed become president, but only in his mid fifties after a distinguished political career in his own right.

Another defining feature of the presidency is that it ends on a date certain. Four years really means four years; incumbents have no right to manipulate election timing. Lincoln held a fair election on schedule in the midst of a civil war, and later presidents held regular elections throughout depressions and world wars. Many other democracies have yet to match this extraordinary tradition. Britain, for example, postponed elections during World War I, and held no elections between 1935 and 1945, leading Winston Churchill to remark in October 1944 that no Englishman under thirty had ever had a chance to vote.

Of course, the founders implicitly limited the presidency to men; they worried aloud about presidents becoming kings but never mentioned queens. Black slaves were wholly excluded from the process. But subsequent amendments have affirmed the right of all races and both sexes to vote and hold political office, and a biracial American is now president. True, America has never had a woman at the helm; along this axis we lag behind India, Israel, Britain, Norway, New Zealand, and Germany for example. But in the last dozen years, America has had no fewer than three female secretaries of state—Madeline Albright, Condoleezza Rice, and Hillary Clinton. (Prior to the Civil War, half of those who held this post for four years went on to become president.)

And then there’s the electoral college. In the nineteenth-century, this curious contraption systematically worked against blacks and women. The more slaves a state bought or bred, the more electoral votes it received. Whereas a system of direct national election would have enabled any state that enfranchised its women to double its clout, the electoral college gave no bonus to states with woman suffrage. But nowadays, it is unclear whether the electoral college systematically hurts any race, gender, or political party. Its main effect is to add to the political deck a pair of jokers—one red, one blue—who randomly surface to invert the national popular vote.

Many Americans (myself included) have long viewed the electoral college with disdain. But on a day dedicated to our greatest leaders, it’s worth remembering one thing that can be said for America’s odd election system: It gave us President Lincoln.

Akhil Reed Amar is Sterling Professor of constitutional law and political science at Yale, and author of “America’s Constitution: A Biography.”

A poll tax receipt from Louisiana. Image via Wikimedia Commons.

Throughout 2012, we’ll be celebrating the 225th anniversary of the Constitution. But the Constitution drafted and signed in 1787 was just the beginning–since then, we, the people have amended the Constitution 27 times.

Today we celebrate the ratification of not one, but two constitutional amendments: the 20th Amendment (ratified Jan. 23, 1933) and the 24th Amendment (ratified Jan. 23, 1964). Here’s what you need to know.

The 20th Amendment

What it did

It reduced by several months the time between the election and inauguration of the president and vice president, and clarified who should act as president if the president-elect dies or hasn’t been chosen yet.

Why it was added

Originally the president and vice president were not inaugurated until Mar. 4. This gap in time allowed the president-elect to get his affairs in order and make the sometimes burdensome cross-country journey to the capital. Later, as transportation and technology advanced, this gap proved to be burdensome on government efficacy, with the so-called “lame duck” presidency and Congress languishing in the lengthy interim.

Word-for-word

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

The 24th Amendment

What it did

It prohibited the use of poll taxes in federal elections.

Why it was added

Following Reconstruction, poll taxes were used throughout the South to attempt to prevent African Americans from voting.

Word-for-word

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

For the full text of the Constitution, visit the Interactive Constitution here.

Holly Munson is Assistant Editor of Constitution Daily, the blog of the National Constitution Center.

In a continuing series of posts, Lyle Denniston provides responses based on the Constitution and its history to public statements about the meaning of the Constitution and what duties it imposes or rights it protects. Today’s topic: the new wave of laws to require photo IDs as a condition for voting.

The statement at issue

“If a state requires voters to buy a photo identification card from the state department of motor vehicles or other agency in order to vote, then this essentially constitutes a poll tax, which is specifically prohibited by the 24th Amendment.”

–Richard Harlan of Taos, N.M., in a letter to the editor of The New York Times, published December 30 as a comment on the announcement by the Justice Department a week earlier that it would not give legal approval under the federal Voting Rights Act to a new voter photo ID law in South Carolina. The letter did not spell out whether the writer was discussing the application of a photo ID law in a state or a federal election.

We checked the Constitution, and…

The letter-writer clearly overstated the impact of the anti-poll tax Twenty-Fourth Amendment, first because that Amendment does not apply to elections for state offices, and, second, because the Amendment is silent on whether a state may charge a voter a fee to obtain an ID card. In fact, very little of the constitutional controversy over photo ID requirements for voters has had to do with the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, anyway.

The signing of the 1965 Voting Rights Act

The reality is that, if photo ID requirements are going to be struck down, it would probably be either under the guarantee of legal equality under the Fourteenth Amendment, or under one of two provisions in the 1965 Voting Rights Act which seek to assure voter equality. It actually was after the Twenty-Fourth Amendment had been ratified, in 1964, that the Supreme Court struck down poll taxes for voting in state elections (in the 1966 case of Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections); it did so under the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection guarantee.

And what is at least implicit in the Harper decision (and made explicit by later Supreme Court rulings) is that it would also violate the Fourteenth Amendment if a state were to charge a fee for a photo ID card when such a card was required for voting. The Court said in the Harper ruling: “To introduce wealth or a fee as a measure of a voter’s qualifications is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor.”

The Twenty-Fourth Amendment, it should be pointed out, was used by the Court in a 1966 decision (Harman v. Forssenius) to strike down a Virginia law — applied to federal elections — requiring the payment of a $1.50 poll tax or, alternatively, offering notarized proof that the voter lived in the state. The Amendment thus did provide a real remedy against poll taxes in federal elections — something that Congress had been trying, unsuccessfully, since 1939 to do by simple legislation.

More recently — and, particularly, within the past year — the campaign in state legislatures to impose conditions on the right to vote have been based on the more respectable argument that fraud in voting had become a serious problem, and ways had to be found to combat it. Indeed, the state legislators who turned to a photo ID requirement as an anti-fraud device had been encouraged to do so by the 2005 report of a federal Commission on Election Reform on which former President Jimmy Carter served as co-chairman. The commission, though, said that such a photo ID card should be available to any voter for free.

Opponents of the new photo ID requirements for voters have challenged the argument that these were necessary to combat fraud, since — the challengers insist — there is very little evidence of fraud in voting anywhere.

But those challengers also have to accept the reality that the Supreme Court has not rejected the anti-fraud rationale. Indeed, just three years ago, in the case of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Court upheld Indiana’s photo ID requirement for voters in that state. The Court said that, while Indiana had not brought forth strong evidence that voter fraud was a problem that could be cured by a photo ID requirement, the Court was willing to accept — as a general proposition — that fraud in voting does occur, and that states must be free to respond to it.

During the past year, perhaps at least partly encouraged by the Court’s decision upholding the Indiana law, five states adopted new photo ID requirement, and that idea was also considered in a dozen other states. Louisiana was one of the states adopting such a requirement, and that is the state law that the Justice Department in late December challenged.

The Department did so under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, arguing that the Louisiana requirement fell more heavily upon minority voters because data gathered in the state showed that minority voters were 20 percent more likely than white voters to lack an ID card issued by the state motor vehicle department.

With Louisiana vowing to fight this rejection in court, the controversy over the expanded use of the photo ID requirement is sure to continue as this year’s elections unfold across the Nation.

Lyle Denniston is the National Constitution Center’s Adviser on Constitutional Literacy. He has reported on the Supreme Court for 53 years, currently covering it for SCOTUSblog, an online clearing house of information about the Supreme Court’s work.