Just received an Escapees Advocacy News email this morning about a bill just recently introduced into the SD legislature. If this passes as written, voting by fulltimers domiciled in SD will be a thing of the past (there is a provision for appealing to the County Auditor, but there's no assurance that they would grant the appeal).

Here is the text of the bill (Senate Bill #164):

http://legis.sd.gov/Legislative_Session/Bills/Bill.aspx?File=SB164P.htm&Session=2016

The Escapees organization is on top of this and is attempting to contact the Senator and Representative who introduced the bill.

Is the purpose of the legislation to target fulltimers?

It looks to be aimed at fulltimers moving to SD from elsewhere and using a mail service, the linked PDF shows exactly what changes are proposed.

If SD becomes unfriendly to folks moving in they are going to miss out on a lot of income, both from taxes and fees and from Federal money based on population. Seems like a dumb thing to be doing unless there is a hidden motive to keep folks from voting.

Here is a printer-friendly version for folks that are wary of loading PDFs but it is missing the change markings that are in the original linked by LindaH above.

  Quote

 

 

State of South Dakota

NINETY-FIRST SESSION

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, 2016

288X0421 SENATE BILL NO. 164

Introduced by: Senator Tieszen and Representative Otten (Herman)

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise certain residency requirements for voter registration.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:

Section 1. That § 12-1-4 be amended to read:

12-1-4. For the purposes of this title, the term, residence, means the place in which a person has fixed his or her habitation and to which the person, whenever absent, intends to return.

No person may register to vote using a business location, campground, or post office box as the registration address. However, if no other residential address or valid physical description of the location of the residence is available, the person may appeal to the county auditor in the county of registration. The county auditor shall determine residency based on the following principles:

(1) The sole basis for the person's presence at the location is not based on a business or a commercial use, such as a mail forwarding service;

(2) The residence of the person is a place in which the person's habitation is fixed and to which the person has a definite plan to return following an absence;

(3) The person is not claiming residency of the state solely for taxation or insurance purposes with no intention of physically remaining or returning; and

(4) The person maintains a physical domicile with long-term sleeping accommodations at the residence.

If the county auditor denies the registration, the person may appeal to the Office of Hearing Examiners as a contested case pursuant to chapter 1-26D for the determination of residency. If the person does not meet the principles listed, the administrative law judge may still choose to allow voter registration if the judge determines circumstances indicate legitimate residence of the state. Prior long-term residence in the state shall be considered proof of intention to return to the state.

A person who has left home and gone into another state or territory or county of this state for a temporary purpose only has not changed his or her residence.

A person is considered to have gained a residence in any county or municipality of this state in which the person actually lives, if the person has no present intention of leaving.

If a person moves to another state, or to any of the other territories, with the intention of making it his or her permanent home, the person thereby loses residence in this state.

This is very simple to me. You take my right to vote away, I will leave your state today.

Texas will have an influx of residents.

We pay somewhere around $6-800 a year for our vehicles and use nothing in return other than being in their database. We also pay our health insurance to their state approved insurer, and vehicle / rv insurance to their approved and licensed company.

You are either considered a resident or not. If you are not a resident you cannot register vehicles or obtain a drivers license or a federal ID or a voters registeration. If that is the case then all full timers currently using SD will need to declare a new domicile and obtain new drivers licens, plates, voter ID, etc.

If you are considered a resident then the state cannot arbitrarily disenfranchise its citizens.

This should be interesting.

  On 2/10/2016 at 7:49 AM, Selah said:

You are either considered a resident or not. If you are not a resident you cannot register vehicles or obtain a drivers license or a federal ID or a voters registeration. If that is the case then all full timers currently using SD will need to declare a new domicile and obtain new drivers licens, plates, voter ID, etc.

If you are considered a resident then the state cannot arbitrarily disenfranchise its citizens.

This should be interesting.

A few friends and I were discussing this and came to the same conclusion. I understand that the legislators don't like foreign influence in their state, but they like the money. I wonder how this was tied to the driver's license issue that Escapees ran into last year?

I wounder if this will just be on future people trying to get in the state if the bill passes. Will the ones who have had SD claimed as there domicile be grandfathered?

This from the other voting thread :

  On 2/10/2016 at 11:55 AM, mrschwarz said:

I wonder how this was tied to the driver's license issue that Escapees ran into last year?

I just reread your post and realized what you were asking as about the flap with SD only issuing a short term license over the address of a building there purchased by Escapees for that purpose. In this case it suree does seem to be the case in SD, based upon the statement of Sen. Tiezen. It sees that at least some of them do want to get rid of RV residents.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Kirk

Kirk, last year when Escapees was trying to set up their mail forwarding service in SD, they ran into a problem. I don't recall now what it was, but it was discussed in these forums. Whatever the problem was, it was finally resolved.

If this bill passes, not only will it affect fulltimers using SD as a domicile, it'll probably put a lot of SD mail forwarders out of business, or at least greatly affect their bottom line.

South Dakota has also attracted a lot of Trusts because of its tax friendly and Trust friendly regulations which help large trusts avoid the federal estate tax. The trusts have to have an actual physical presence so small offices are rented and I have read that many sit empty. I'm wondering how many of these folks with trusts also attempt to establish residency using the rented address as a means to avoid estate and other taxes in other states. This legislation may not just be about fulltime RVers.

Edited February 11, 2016 by TCW

I send the Senator a note reminding him that collecting fees from a citizen without having a voting power is something the future citizens of the United States faced a couple of hundred years ago from King George.

I just received the Senators response:

I think you just made my argument. The colonies didn’t want outsiders such as the King controlling their activities. I don’t want non-residents controlling the decisions of South Dakotans. Senator Craig Tieszen

I guess this Senator doesn't count us as citizens. And can you believe this guy is a Republican.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Mark & Dale Bruss

We are so glad to have moved to Texas from SD.....when this arrogant Senator finds himself answering questions from the various counties on why he put businesses out and that their tax/ fee coffers are reduced maybe he will then get it....

He obviously does not know his history. ...we fought the King because we did not have representation in Parliament but we're being taxed well beyond our means.....So I guess King Tieszen wants us to be royal subjects again.

Another example of an overreaching out of control government!

  On 2/11/2016 at 12:09 AM, Mark & Dale Bruss said:

I send the Senator a note reminding him that collecting fees from a citizen without having a voting power is something the future citizens of the United States faced a couple of hundred years ago from King George.

 

I just received the Senators response:

I think you just made my argument. The colonies didn’t want outsiders such as the King controlling their activities. I don’t want non-residents controlling the decisions of South Dakotans. Senator Craig Tieszen

 

I guess this Senator doesn't count us as citizens. And can you believe this guy is a Republican.

So we fulltimers that are domiciled in SD are "non-residents"? If we're not residents there, then in what state are we residents? We don't have a home elsewhere, we had to swear to that when we signed up for the mail service in Sioux Falls.

I was considering moving from SD this year. Sounds like it's a good time to do so. I guess SD doesn't want us anymore.

  On 2/10/2016 at 11:07 PM, LindaH said:

Kirk, last year when Escapees was trying to set up their mail forwarding service in SD, they ran into a problem. I don't recall now what it was, but it was discussed in these forums. Whatever the problem was, it was finally resolved.

 

If this bill passes, not only will it affect fulltimers using SD as a domicile, it'll probably put a lot of SD mail forwarders out of business, or at least greatly affect their bottom line.

I just realized that the question was not intended as I first read it. There was a problem with a county clerk not wanting to issue licenses to the RV residents under the Escapee plan. This one looks to me as though it would also impact those who use any of the other mail service providers as well, like America's Mailbox and My Dakota Address.