The 24th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States proclaims: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election … 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.” Our understanding of the word “tax” as it applies to the 24th Amendment is key to the law’s scope and applicability. If our conception of what constitutes a tax is too narrow then we are left with a 24th Amendment that would be potentially ineffective in protecting the right to vote.

When we hear about taxes, we usually think of the money we pay to government. Indeed, thanks to the 24th Amendment it is now illegal for a citizen of the United States to be required to pay money to vote. However, “tax” has many more interpretations besides money we pay to government. A broader definition of the word refers to any burdensome demand, monetary or not. Since its inception, the 24th Amendment has been interpreted in a manner consistent with the narrow meaning, as a prohibition against only poll taxes paid with money. But what about other burdensome demands, other taxes? Would it not be unconstitutional if citizens in some precinct were required to do 20 push-ups before being allowed into the voting booth? Under the right interpretation of the 24th Amendment such a ridiculous, burdensome demand would be unconstitutional.

Using the exclusively monetary interpretation of “tax” we have left open the possibility of non-monetary poll taxes and the voter suppression that would go along with them. Of course no vote suppressing official would ever dream of requiring voters to do push-ups. But they have found more subtle ways of abridging the right to vote. For example, there have been numerous cases over the years where voters were required to stand in line for several hours because polling places were insufficient in number or resources. The long lines in Arizona’s recent primary represent only the most recent case in a long history of such practices. Another notable example of a non-monetary poll tax is the various voter identification laws that have been proposed and enacted across the U.S., one of which has recently been cited as denying hundreds of thousands the right to vote in North Carolina’s primary.

These long waits and voter identification laws effectively impose taxes on the act of voting, taxes citizens pay with their time and energy. Although these taxes do not directly involve money, they do place burdensome demands on those who wish to exercise their right to vote, so under a more general reading of the 24th Amendment they would be unconstitutional.

As any student of economics can tell you, opportunity costs are central to shaping our behavior. Costs we explicitly pay with money are often just the tip of the iceberg. The opportunity cost of voting rises with the imposition of these burdensome demands. There are always other things we can do with our time and energy besides waiting in line, enduring the voter identification bureaucracy, and navigating the other needless obstacles they place between us and our ballots. By increasing the opportunity cost of voting, these non-monetary poll taxes abridge (and in some cases deny) the right of citizens to vote, just as monetary poll taxes once did.

By using only the narrowest interpretation of the 24th Amendment we have neutralized it, as it has clearly not allowed us to achieve the objective for which the law was written: the ability to exercise the right to vote, unencumbered by government interference. I propose that we utilize a broad definition of “tax” when interpreting the 24th Amendment, so that any unnecessary, burdensome demand imposed by government upon voters is illegal. Doing so would boost voter turnout and help ensure that our government remains of the people, by the people, and for the people — as our forefathers intended.