South dakota residency bill

I am told that there was absolutely no support for this bill and it is now dead.

Keep in mind that most full time RV'ers claiming SD as their domicile have submitted a notarized affidavit under penalty of perjury attesting to the fact that they are a resident of SD and intend to return there after an absence. Taking away their resident voting rights could open some serious legal issues. There may be a legal remedy to the local voting issues, but denying them their right to vote completely is not the answer.

As a full timer, I don't want to vote in the local elections. For starters I'm not really up to speed on the various issues. And frankly, I don't like the idea that a bunch of non-residents could skew what should be a locals voting for locals election. I just really want to vote in the national elections.

was_butnotnow wrote:
As a fulltimer and a progressive my vote just doesn't count in SD anyway.

Why don't you change residency to California. So much more freedom and liberty there.

As a fulltimer and a progressive my vote just doesn't count in SD anyway. I don't vote local elections as locals should have that say. But it may if brought up again impact left leaning voters more so by not being counted.

He has basically said that he understands some problems with that version of the bill - but he doesn't believe that people who use South Dakota as an address of convenience - i.e. they don't physically reside in the state - should be allowed to vote in South Dakota.

I think one of the tactics Escapees used is that the bill as written might have conflicted with federal law concerning the rights of members of the armed forces to vote while away from their homes of record.

Even though the bill wasn't passed, Solano vowed to bring it back.

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.

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.

Much more likely the issue is these mailbox residents vote in local elections. They can skew the results of things like bond issues, school board elections, local ordinances and such. Personally, I wouldn't want anyone who did not have a vested interest in my community voting on issues that only concern that community.

Latest and greatest:

SB 164: revise certain residency requirements for voter registration.

Presented by: Senator Tieszen

MOTION: TO TABLE SB 164

Moved by: Otten (Ernie)
Second by: Soholt
Action: Prevailed by roll call vote. (8-1-0-0)

Voting Yes: Hunhoff (Bernie), Sutton, Brown, Holien, Otten (Ernie), Soholt, Tieszen, Cammack

Voting No: Solano

MOTION: ADJOURN

Moved by: Brown
Second by: Soholt
Action: Prevailed by voice vote.

Rena Ortbahn

____________________________

Committee Secretary
Gary Cammack, Chair

coolmom42 wrote:
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.

Forty-seven states require that you actually reside in the state (not just rent a 4"x4"x12" box from a business and claim that is your residence) in order to vote in their state. None of these state laws have been overturned. I have read some arguments about no taxation without representation. All the states that have an income tax, tax non-residents without extending them voting rights. These tax laws have not been overturned. Likewise, paying sales tax in a state does confer voting rights. If South Dakota chooses to change their laws regarding residency/domicile and voting requirements, I seriously doubt that it would be overturned in the courts.