Nor did he refute the proposition that there is nothing "inalienable" about our right to vote.  If you are locked up in a prison, you may believe you have a right to vote, but do not--the right has been taken away--perhaps forever.  I see nothing in the Constitution which lists reasons to deny the vote as the word itself is not found in the original document.  It is up to the states to set the rules and a test for civic knowledge seems reasonable to me.

 You agree with me, although not for exactly the same reason.  Still, I like the logic path you take.  What is worse?  An ignorant man voting because he can and not knowing the issues to voted on, or an informed man making decisions that are obviously against his own self-interest.  I would say the latter, because he is at least being an idiot with his eyes wide open.I am increasingly convinced that if people took the time and effort to make themselves aware of the issues many things would not be law and many people would not be sitting in congress or elected office.  I could just be fooling myself though and people are really as willfully stupid as I fear they are.  I remain the optimist though and hope that people will see that they must inform themselves and do so voluntarily, thus eliminating the need for a poll test.