Here's how they worked:
* Arbitrary and Subjective Standards: The tests themselves varied wildly in difficulty and content. Administrators had significant leeway in deciding what constituted a "passing" answer. This allowed them to fail virtually anyone they chose, regardless of their actual literacy skills. For example, a white applicant might be given a simple passage from the Bible, while a Black applicant might receive an obscure legal document.
* Targeted Discrimination: The tests were explicitly designed to disenfranchise Black Americans, and other minority groups, after the Reconstruction era. They were rarely, if ever, applied fairly or consistently. Even literate people were often failed if the administrator deemed them unsuitable to vote.
* Complex and Unfamiliar Texts: The passages used were often deliberately complex, using archaic language or legal jargon. This made it difficult even for educated people to pass if they were unfamiliar with the specific vocabulary or style.
* Oral Administration and Interpretation: Sometimes the tests weren't just about reading; they also involved interpreting passages or answering questions about them. This again allowed for bias in the administration and grading.
* No Universal Standard: There were no standardized tests or objective scoring methods. The lack of uniformity ensured inconsistent application across different regions and polling places.
In short, literacy tests weren't genuine assessments of reading ability. They were tools of voter suppression, used to maintain power structures and prevent marginalized communities from participating in the democratic process. The subjective nature and deliberate ambiguity of the tests made them easily manipulated for discriminatory purposes.