South dakota residency bill

Not surprised....thanks

Well, that bill reads just about the same as the residency rules for acquiring a library card at my local library! I personally don't see anything unusual about it.

DutchmenSport wrote:
Well, that bill reads just about the same as the residency rules for acquiring a library card at my local library! I personally don't see anything unusual about it.

It effectively denies people the right to vote at their legal residence, for those who have legally established domicile in SD. I doubt that it would survive a constitutional challenge.

It's also pretty stupid. Like every other state, SD gets grant money for all manner of things based on the number of people who live there. The state would benefit from all the residents it can get, especially those who use essentially zero state services. Instead this bill would discourage people from establishing domicile there.

My guess is that some state rep is pizzed off because districts with mail forwarding services get more money, or caused re-districting, to that person's disadvantage.

I wonder if South Dakota will refuse to take any tax money you give them because you're not really a resident? :@

What is surprising is the people who introduced the bill are both Republicans. We were told the Democratic Party Committee Members in Minnehaha County were the ones that challenged full timers voting in local elections in the past, since for the most part they voted very conservatively.

Oldme wrote:
All about Fedal compliance.

Absolutely nothing there about voting.

It doesn't say anything about denying registrations, or license, or any other issues full-times might need. It only denies voting ... people that want to vote in that state will find a way around it.

OR, maybe become an Escapee?

coolmom42 wrote:

DutchmenSport wrote:
Well, that bill reads just about the same as the residency rules for acquiring a library card at my local library! I personally don't see anything unusual about it.

...........It effectively denies people the right to vote at their legal residence, for those who have legally established domicile in SD. I doubt that it would survive a constitutional challenge..........

And it's also why, when I've previously cautioned folks about changing their domicile, that they look at every possible consequence of their actions. Additionally, the Feds are making it more difficult for real full-timers to manage their personal affairs in the name of Homeland Security vis-a-vis the banking laws.

Note that said Senate SB 164 was referred to the Committee on State Affairs.
Makes it harder to find the people to complain to.