Residency and voters rights in South Dakota

[Community Alumni]

OK Let me try this:

Proposed bills House Bill 1232 and Senate Bill 124 contain language which will affect RVers who use South Dakota for their domicile, but most importantly will impede their right to vote.

Sponsored by Karla Lems, a District 16 Republican, HB1232 declares “the term, residence, means the place in which a person has fixed the person’s habitation and to which the person, whenever absent, intends to return.” Additionally, the bill states “no person may register to vote using a business location or campground as a registration address.”

Introduced by Julie Frye-Mueller, a Republican from District 30, SB124 is to “ensure that the address provided in the voter registration application is confirmed as a residence and not a commercial or industrial address…”

This is not the first time that South Dakota has had legislation along these lines introduced. Fortunately, similar bills have not been voted into law in the past. There may be a need to reach out to SD legislators. These bills are not out of committee yet.


House Bill 1232, Representative Karla Lems- Karla.Lems@sdlegislature.gov

Senate Bull 124, Senator Julie Frye-Mueller- Julie.FryeMueller@sdlegislature.gov

South Dakota proposes law to end full-time RVers’ domicile, voting rights

South Dakota has long been recognized as a haven for full-time RVers. With no state income tax, low fees on vehicle registration and other privileges, many RVers from other states have “set up shop” with one of the state’s many private mailbox services to officially establish residency there. But proposed legislation, if passed, will likely end such benefits for both existing and future full-timers.

Both a House and Senate bill would, for example, if passed as written, wipe out a full-time RVer’s ability to vote in the Mount Rushmore state. The other bill would essentially ban anyone from establishing residency there unless they actually lived in the state.

Just FYI

JimR

[Community Alumni]

yba.bill.linsenmeyer wrote:
Are there any new laws in South Dakota that affect my ability to become a resident, or to vote?
There are no laws on the books that affect anyone’s ability to obtain South Dakota residency or restrict the ability to vote. Some people are pointing to Senate Bill (SB) 139. The only thing that SB 139 does is to slightly change the process for residents to register to vote in South Dakota. What SB 139 does is it sets a thirty (30) day period from the time someone obtains a South Dakota driver's license (and becomes a resident of South Dakota) to when they are able to register to vote. Thirty days after someone obtains their driver’s license, they can then mail in their voter registration form to the Minnehaha County Auditor’s Office. That was the only legislative change made regarding voting in the last legislative session.
Bill Linsenmeyer www.yourbestaddress.com

I was addressing these bills:
Proposed bills House Bill 1232 and Senate Bill 124

Where did you get SB 139?

[yba_bill_linsen]

Are there any new laws in South Dakota that affect my ability to become a resident, or to vote?
There are no laws on the books that affect anyone’s ability to obtain South Dakota residency or restrict the ability to vote. Some people are pointing to Senate Bill (SB) 139. The only thing that SB 139 does is to slightly change the process for residents to register to vote in South Dakota. What SB 139 does is it sets a thirty (30) day period from the time someone obtains a South Dakota driver's license (and becomes a resident of South Dakota) to when they are able to register to vote. Thirty days after someone obtains their driver’s license, they can then mail in their voter registration form to the Minnehaha County Auditor’s Office. That was the only legislative change made regarding voting in the last legislative session.
Bill Linsenmeyer www.yourbestaddress.com

[bucky]

Not so far.

[Horsedoc]

Are we getting into political discussions? Just asking.

[JRscooby]

Pre-dating even the Constitution is the idea nobody should be forced to pay taxes if have no chance of representation about the taxes.
AFAIK, the advertised reason for declare you live in SD is to avoid taxes.
Of course, "Representation Without Taxation" is a reasonable idea /sarcasm

[valhalla360]

stickdog wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:

stickdog wrote:
Strange so many against democracy and the right to vote. Hell, Walaby wants only land owners to be able to vote. Do I see any hands for a poll tax? Hey we tried that allowing women to vote how is that working? Glad this bunch isn't writing the voting laws.

Lots of hyperbole but ethically, should you be voting in a location where you don't reside (reside in reality not by legal technicality).

Certainly not for local elections and even national elections are questionable since it dilutes the votes of actual residents for federal representation. This is particularly an issue in lower population states where a few thousand out of state voters can sway statewide elections.

I don't have to follow your imagined ethics on my voting preference the state cannot take my vote away. I'm surprised not a single response has consulted the constitution. I know it's an old document and many would like to tear it up and I am totally surprised so many have views on this site want to shred it. Who knew?

You can choose to be unethical but it's a real concern for small jurisdictions.

Of course it's messy now that this messed up residency has gone on for a long time but it's been expanding lately and the flaws in allowing it are bubbling to the surface.

More hyperbole suggesting the constitution be torn up...reality is a change of residency without actually changing residency should never have been allowed in the first place. The legal method is if you move overseas or start to travel full time, your residency remains unchanged. This avoids odd concentrations of non residents voting and covers your false fears of the constitution failing.

The proposed law is flawed as it allows residency to be changed without residing in the state but then wants to deny voting rights. Doesn't mean the current system isn't flawed and it could be argued violates the constitution as it allows non residents to vote in elections they have no right to vote in.

[stickdog]

FYI Average voter turnout the last four presidential elections 56.925 percent. Why aren't you voting or maybe you thought you could skip it cause your guy was a shoe in or you didn't bother cause you knew your guy wouldn't win.

I got the right to vote when I turned 21 the same year the gave 18 year old's the vote. The same year my 18yr old brother got the vote. I felt a little cheated I had been paying income tax for three years and been denied that right. Yes I know the change in age was in response to 18 year old drafted and sent to Viet Nam. Unlike many folks, I have made my support of our democratic republic my duty and haven't missed an election in 52 years.

[stickdog]

valhalla360 wrote:

stickdog wrote:
Strange so many against democracy and the right to vote. Hell, Walaby wants only land owners to be able to vote. Do I see any hands for a poll tax? Hey we tried that allowing women to vote how is that working? Glad this bunch isn't writing the voting laws.

Lots of hyperbole but ethically, should you be voting in a location where you don't reside (reside in reality not by legal technicality).

Certainly not for local elections and even national elections are questionable since it dilutes the votes of actual residents for federal representation. This is particularly an issue in lower population states where a few thousand out of state voters can sway statewide elections.

I don't have to follow your imagined ethics on my voting preference the state cannot take my vote away. I'm surprised not a single response has consulted the constitution. I know it's an old document and many would like to tear it up and I am totally surprised so many have views on this site want to shred it. Who knew?

[Community Alumni]

Both of these bills have been Deferred:

to the 41st legislative day

An act to send a bill to the day after the last day of the Legislative Session for discussion, ultimately defeating the bill.

Just FYI

JimR

[Dtank]

Easy solution (answers):

Call Americas Mailbox in Box Elder. They built their own campground from "scratch" - Spent big $ on same.
They should be very tuned in to the "situation" & your concerns!

Nice, well informed & helpful folks.

:C

[ItsyRV]

JRscooby wrote:
Never thought about it before, but where are full timers counted on the censes?

Depending on how they get their mail, they may be counted at a regular address if they were using their own, a friend or relative's address. If their legal residing address was flagged as a mail drop. they didn't get any notification. Even when people were able to login to compete the form, if the address was flagged as a mail drop only, it didn't count for that state as a resident.

[Walaby]

ferndaleflyer wrote:
That’s my deal. Homes in 3 states + RV. I claim 1 as my primary residence and show up there for every election. No mail ins

I applaud you sir for the effort and willingness to show up at your primary residence for every election. Wish more would see it as you do.

Mike

[ferndaleflyer]

That’s my deal. Homes in 3 states + RV. I claim 1 as my primary residence and show up there for every election. No mail ins

[propchef]

Walaby wrote:
I think in order to vote in local and state elections (including Senator/Congressmen), then one should have a stick and brick residence in the state and community.

One of the issues is that many have a property in more than one state. In that case, you must declare your primary residence and then your polling place is set. PO boxes don't work.

Politicians and celebrities blur this line all the time and it isn't uncommon, especially if one of those properties is in FL. One well-known person claimed NY as their primary, voted in Palm Beach, and then complained about fraud.

As long as we the people allow it, it will continue to happen.