Florida Department of State advisory opinion

[Kirk W]

I just saw the following on the Escapee facebook page.

Quote

We first became aware of the Florida Department of State advisory opinion that affects RVers’ ability to use a mail service as their domicile, for voting purposes, about two weeks ago. Since receiving the advisory opinion, we have begun our own legal research into the claims asserted and the conclusions drawn in that opinion. Please be patient and know that we are working diligently to frame our position and to formulate a plan of action for this advocacy effort. 
However, please know, we believe that no one should have to choose between their freedom to travel and their constitutional rights. We will never give up our efforts to ensure that the government, even in an earnest attempt to protect us, does not strip away the very liberties that make us a free nation. While we cannot fight every fight; and, we will not win every time we chose to fight. We will continue to vigorously defend RVers’ rights, where and when we can.
Monitoring legislation, defeating detrimental laws, and educating city, county, state and federal officials about the amazing community of full-time RVers is a long-term commitment. It’s a commitment that Escapees has fulfilled for the past 40 years.

 

[chindog]

I also saw this post, and it is very disturbing.  Although the particular mail forwarding service under fire is SBI, the opinion issued by the Florida State Director of Elections could impact all full timers who use any Florida mailing service address as their domicile.  From a news report, it appears Clay County will be purging their voting rolls of full timers who use SBI as their domicile.

This means that SBI customers will no longer be able to exercise their right to vote in state and national elections.  And, it seems possible that if this opinion is challenged and upheld, all other FL mail forwarding service customers could suffer the same fate.

[packnrat]

maybe time to vote with your wallet.

move to a better more rv frendly state, and send a letter ( not email) to the gov telling why the state is loosing some much needed tax moneys.

[remoandiris]

1 hour ago, packnrat said:

maybe time to vote with your wallet.

move to a better more rv frendly state, and send a letter ( not email) to the gov telling why the state is loosing some much needed tax moneys.

So you think those registration fees add up to a lot of state revenue?  I highly doubt it is much in the grand scheme of things.

[JimK]

When I was a full timer I picked South Dakota as a State for my mail drop and residency.  They are a State with a small population and  have tens of thousands of residents who travel.  It was a very welcoming situation.  Even the agents at the DMV seemed happy to have us sign up.  Years later when we had IDs and driver's licenses stolen, the South Dakota DMV could not have been more helpful.  With a phone call we got temporary licenses by email and paper licenses came to a general delivery address within a few days.  A friendly attitude, a great State except for the climate, low insurance costs, no vehicle inspections, no income tax, good choices for mail handling, easy renewals for licenses.  Voting was not an issue.  

Even though I am no longer a resident, I will stick up for South Dakota as a friendly State and a State that is especially friendly to full time RVers. 

[Kirk W]

This seems like history repeating as that same thing happened in TX back in 1998/2000 as the result of an election that shifted political results and the losing party believed that Escapees in Livingston were the cause. The result was that the loser and his allies took that case all of the way to the supreme court and the right to vote in TX was upheld. Since this is a state issue, that case has little or no effect in FL but it does assure those using TX mail services that it can be done legally. After the case the TX legislature passed a law to define exactly what a mail service must do in order to meet their residency requirements for acceptable legal status for all activities in the state. 

Escapees were very involved in that process so perhaps eventually that will happen in FL as well, but it took 3 years in TX and who knows if the result will be the same in FL? But it is clear that Escapee's organization will be doing all that they are able. 

[JRP]

All true JimK and I'm also  a 10 yr  SD resident. But several years back we did have one SD state rep who tried to make the same argument that the FL AG is now making. It never got any further than one Rep talking about it in a lower committee, before everyone turned against the idea.  SD values its thousands of "full time travelers" and does what it can within reason. 

I suspect this FL opinion will meet the same fate eventually. Our right to vote is constitutionally guaranteed. There have been many state court & US court rulings that being homeless or using alternative housing can not be used to deny voting rights.  On the other hand courts have also found that states can apply reasonable qualifications, such as time within the state to qualify for State benefits and rights.  So a compromise that may pass the courts approval could require proving you spent so many days living in the state to qualify for voter registration. Just as we SD residents have to prove an overnight stay for a DL, or a 30 day stay for a CCW, or 90 days for in-state fishing or hunting or tuition, etc

Edited July 7, 2018 by JRP

[Kirk W]

3 minutes ago, JRP said:

There have been many state court & US court rulings that being homeless or using alternative housing can not be used to deny voting rights.  On the other hand courts have also found that states can apply reasonable qualifications, such as time within the state to qualify for State benefits and rights. 

Which is what has happened in TX. I don't see it as a sure thing, but you can be sure that Escapees will do all that they can. And there is no guarantee that it won't come back in SD again since it didn't go to the state courts. 

[Kirk W]

Here is the latest from the Florida domicile situation. 

Quote

In response to the recent Florida Department of State advisory opinion regarding the use of a mail forwarding service address for voter registration (http://dos.myflorida.com/media/699707/de1809.pdf), we, at Escapees, contacted the Sumter County Elections Supervisor, Bill Keen—as our mail service is located in Sumter County. Mr. Keen noted that the advisory opinion does not apply to the Escapees Florida mail service because our services are offered at a campground. The advisory opinion concludes that a person must be capable of residing at the address they use to register to vote. And, because a campground offers a person the ability to reside at that location, it may be used to register to vote. Mr. Keen was quick to note that a person seeking voter registration must still meet the other requirements, as required by Florida law: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm…. We are grateful to Mr. Keen, and his staff, for their quick and thoughtful attention to this matter.

While the advisory opinion does not affect our services directly, we realize it does continue to impact some RVers. As part of our commitment to advocacy, we will endeavor to provide updates, if there are important developments that appear to impact the community at large.

 

[sandsys]

So, if you are concerned about voting in South Dakota, America's Mailbox in Box Elder (Rapid City) may be your best bet since they have a campground.

Linda Sand

[Dutch_12078]

9 hours ago, sandsys said:

So, if you are concerned about voting in South Dakota, America's Mailbox in Box Elder (Rapid City) may be your best bet since they have a campground.

Linda Sand

Is the AM street address used by mail forwarding clients the same as the campground address as it is for the Escapees FL service?

[Zulu]

On 7/7/2018 at 6:34 AM, Kirk Wood said:

. . . the TX legislature passed a law to define exactly what a mail service must do in order to meet their residency requirements for acceptable legal status for all activities in the state. 

I've heard this before. Do you have a source for this law?

[TCW]

6 hours ago, Zulu said:

I've heard this before. Do you have a source for this law?

Here is a link to what I believe is the current TX Administrative Code regarding establishing domicile for the purpose of obtaining a driver's license. Section (g), (2) states

Quote

… the individual may submit a Texas residency affidavit submitted by: …  A representative …  certifying to the address where the applicant resides or receives services. The organization must provide a notarized letter verifying that they receive mail for the individual.

Here is a link to the section on Address. I can not find any other section/statement that specifically mentions use of a mail forwarder or that seems to apply specifically to full time RVers.

Edited July 28, 2018 by TCW

[Kirk W]

11 hours ago, TCW said:

I can not find any other section/statement that specifically mentions use of a mail forwarder or that seems to apply specifically to full time RVers.

We were using the Escapee mail service at the time, joining it in early 2000 and before the court case, Speights vs Willis was still being appealed. That case was finally settled by the TX Supreme Court in October of 2002 and the following year was addressed in the TX legislature. If someone were to actually have a need to know exactly what was done, I am sure that a TX attorney could locate the details of the action. I followed it closely in the news from Escapees and the news media at the time and know that it happened. I am not willing to join an argument over exactly what happened or when. 

[TCW]

46 minutes ago, Kirk Wood said:

...We were using the Escapee mail service at the time, joining it in early 2000 and before the court case, Speights vs Willis was still being appealed. That case was finally settled by the TX Supreme Court in October of 2002 and the following year was addressed in the TX legislature...I am not willing to join an argument over exactly what happened or when... 

I am not arguing with you or any one else. A question was asked, I tried to provide an answer and  links which you apparently did not like. Any changes to TX law should be included in the Texas Administrative Code which is why I posted the link to what appears to be the current version. The note at the bottom of the page states

Quote

The provisions of this §15.49 adopted to be effective April 19, 2011, 36 TexReg 2414; amended to be effective September 14, 2017, 42 TexReg 4657

The note at the bottom of the section on Address states: 

Quote

The provisions of this §15.25 adopted to be effective January 1, 1976; amended to be effective July 24, 1992, 17 TexReg 4960; amended to be effective October 24, 1996, 21 TexReg 10217; amended to be effective February 15, 2000, 25 TexReg 1125; amended to be effective September 19, 2006, 31 TexReg 8007; amended to be effective May 20, 2008, 33 TexReg 4008; amended to be effective December 13, 2009, 34 TexReg 8784; amended to be effective September 18, 2011, 36 TexReg 5943; amended to be effective April 12, 2012, 37 TexReg 2429; amended to be effective March 5, 2015, 40 TexReg 938; amended to be effective March 15, 2017, 42 TexReg 1150

I can find no evidence that  Speights vs Willis was settled by the TX Supreme Court in October of 2002. The very opinion that you linked to is from

Quote

Court of Appeals of Texas,Beaumont… Decided: October 24, 2002

not the Texas Supreme Court.

Edited July 28, 2018 by TCW

[Kirk W]

The Supreme Court declined to review which upholds the lower court ruling. 

[Blues]

 

On 7/7/2018 at 8:34 AM, Kirk Wood said:

After the case the TX legislature passed a law to define exactly what a mail service must do in order to meet their residency requirements for acceptable legal status for all activities in the state.

On 7/28/2018 at 7:47 AM, Kirk Wood said:

We were using the Escapee mail service at the time, joining it in early 2000 and before the court case, Speights vs Willis was still being appealed. That case was finally settled by the TX Supreme Court in October of 2002 and the following year was addressed in the TX legislature.

Zulu asked, and I'll ask, too:  Do you have a citation to the law or the legislative action that you're referring to?

I tried, and can't find anything.  Since the date of the court decision, the Legislature hasn't amended any of the statutes that were cited in the court decision.  So they didn't address this issue there.

Maybe the Legislature passed a new statute.  I tried searching for the following terms in the statutes, to find a law relating to what a mail service must do in order to meet the residency requirements, and none of these terms appear in the Texas statutes:

"mail service"

"mail forwarding"

"forwarding service"

"mail-forward"  [the way the term was spelled in the court decision]

"forward service"

"receive mail"

"Residency requirement" is in the statutes five times, but not in any context pertinent here.

I tried, and I'm stumped.  So can you provide any more information on where that law might be found?

 

On 7/27/2018 at 7:54 PM, TCW said:

Here is a link to what I believe is the current TX Administrative Code regarding establishing domicile for the purpose of obtaining a driver's license.

Here is a link to the section on Address. I can not find any other section/statement that specifically mentions use of a mail forwarder or that seems to apply specifically to full time RVers.

Just an FYI--the Administrative Code isn't the same as the statutes.  The Legislature passes laws/statutes, and has given state agencies the authority to adopt rules to administer those laws/statutes.

So any action taken by the Legislature would be found in the statutes and not in the Administrative Code.

 

On 7/28/2018 at 7:47 AM, Kirk Wood said:

That case was finally settled by the TX Supreme Court in October of 2002

On 7/28/2018 at 8:25 AM, TCW said:

I can find no evidence that  Speights vs Willis was settled by the TX Supreme Court in October of 2002.

On 7/28/2018 at 12:28 PM, Kirk Wood said:

The Supreme Court declined to review which upholds the lower court ruling.  

The citations I've found to the Speights case say "no pet," which means a petition was not filed with the Texas Supreme Court, and the Texas Supreme Court has nothing to do with the lower court's decision.  Do you have contrary information?