South Dakota voter's rights! (From Escapees Club News)

[TXiceman]

When we were full time travelers, based out of Livingston, we seldom voted on any local issues for Polk County.  We did exercise our right to vote in all of the state and local elections.  We felt like we did not know enough about the local issues and left that up to the locals.

Ken

[Blues]

On 3/5/2023 at 11:36 AM, LovinRVing said:

Reading the comments on this thread reminds me of the old neighborhood axiom "Not in My Backyard" or NIMBA.

I think you're thinking of NIMBY.  Or maybe NAMBLA.

 

16 hours ago, bigjim said:

Therefore I normally vote almost all the ticket in Polk county if I am able to be informed in my choice. I make no apologies for doing so. I have been a Texas resident most of my life and domiciled in a number of Texas counties over the years. They get my tax money, they get my vote.

But really, how much "tax" do you pay to a Texas county if you don't actually live there?  Texas doesn't have an income tax, and it doesn't have a personal property tax.  If an RVer doesn't own property in his Texas county of domicile, he's not paying property tax which is a local tax.   

Even if you include fees as taxes, are you paying anything other than the registration on your vehicles?  My understanding is that the counties merely collect it on behalf of the state; Texas counties are allowed to assess a fee of about $10 in addition to the state registration fees. 

What other taxes or fees would a fulltime RVer be paying into the county coffers?

[bigjim]

I don't want this to be a major conflict but that logic doesn't seem logical to me.  Just off the top of my head I have been a resident of Dallas cty, Kaufman cty, Angelina cty, Bowie cty. and Polk cty. Some I paid a lot of taxes in some less. How does the amount of taxes I paid determine whether I should vote in the county or not.  That would set a standard that could exclude almost everyone if the threshhold was set high enough.  I get what you are trying to say and respect you for stating your case but wonder if you have considered it completely. When I was a pvt in the Corps I paid very little tax as I was paid so poorly.

[Blues]

20 hours ago, bigjim said:

How does the amount of taxes I paid determine whether I should vote in the county or not.

I don't think it should.  You're the one who said, "They get my tax money, they get my vote."

[bigjim]

3 hours ago, Blues said:

I don't think it should.  You're the one who said, "They get my tax money, they get my vote."

True and some got more and some got a lot less.😄 Now it is evident why you have not seen me on the comedy tour.

A side note on voting I have considered. A friend lived in Mesquite, Tx but operated a garage in Dallas.  Plenty of things that affected his business were voted and passed by Dallas. Some good, some bad but he had no vote on the matter at all.  I sort of see that as somewhat unfair but thats just the way it is. I can't think of a better solution.  Of course we could live in Washington DC where we could be disenfranchised federally which don't seem right. Maybe they should throw a tea party to call attention to the situation.  NIMBY or rights for me but not for thee.😉

[Kirk W]

13 hours ago, bigjim said:

A friend lived in Mesquite, Tx but operated a garage in Dallas.  Plenty of things that affected his business were voted and passed by Dallas. Some good, some bad but he had no vote on the matter at all.  I sort of see that as somewhat unfair but thats just the way it is. I can't think of a better solution.

Since I live in Mesquite, I know that your friend lived in the same county, because Mesquite, TX is in Dallas County, TX so there was not a lot that he could not vote on.  But your friend chose to live in a different city from his business. He is only allowed to vote in the place that he actually lives, while you do not live where you vote? One thing about living in the USA is that you can easily move where you wish or you could move your business. In fact, it isn't all that uncommon for businesses to move based mostly on taxes and government. There are people who choose to live in one state and commute to work across the state line, so where would you have them vote? Members of Congress actually live and work in Washington DC so where should they vote? In the real world, it is impossible to write rules about who can vote and where they should vote that are fair to everyone in every situation. Who should get to make the rules and who defines what fair means?   🥴 If you don't like the rules where you are, just move! And if you didn't learn what the rules are before you moved, who is to blame? 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Kirk W
repair a typo

[Hayley]

Now that SB139 has been signed in to law, Will we not be able to vote in even National Elections? 

[Blues]

On 2/13/2023 at 12:59 PM, DanZemke said:

Hopefully, this thread is much ado about nothing.

I suspect it is.

Well, this thread was much ado about nothing, but only because it concerned only HB 1232 and SB 124.  No mention was made of SB 139, which as noted, passed and was signed by the governor. 

SB 139 isn't as explicit as the other two bills in that it doesn't specifically disallow using a business or commercial address on the voter registration application, but at least according to this article, it accomplishes the same thing:

https://dakotafreepress.com/2023/02/07/sb-139-deibert-defines-residency-to-exclude-rv-voters-registered-at-mailbox-offices-campgrounds/

The current law says this:

"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."

The new law says this:

"For the purposes of this title, the term, residence, means the place in which a person is domiciled as shown by an actual fixed permanent dwelling, establishment, or any other abode to which the person returns after a period of absence."

Interestingly, SB 190's sponsor lives in Spearfish, which has a KOA that operates a mail forwarding service.  Maybe campgrounds' influence isn't as far reaching as some seem to think.  Or maybe their sway applies only to keeping people from parking at Walmart. 

Also, in an announcement quoted upthread, Escapees thanked "Senator Castleberry" for reaching out over a weekend to inform them HB 1232 and SB 124 were dead.  Not sure who that is, but if it's Senator Jessica Castleberry who represents Box Elder, she voted for SB 139.

[docj]

It appears that this new law will only affect voter registrations.  I don't see any provisions that would affect license and vehicle registrations.   I seriously doubt that not having my liberal vote will change the outcomes in any SD election. LOL

[Kirk W]

The following was posted on Escapee Facebook:

Escapees recently informed the members about two bills that were introduced in the South Dakota Legislature (HB 1232 and SB 124) that would restrict citizens from using a commercial address and/or campground for the purposes of registering to vote in South Dakota. We were pleased to report that both bills were defeated.

Unfortunately, a third bill (SB 139) recently passed the House, Senate and the Governor has now signed the bill. Escapes did send a letter explaining the problems with the bill and how it will affect new residents. While the language is not as restrictive as the other two bills, it could cause a burden to RVers who decide to make South Dakota their domicile.

In the past, South Dakota allowed new residents to register to vote after a one-night stay. New law, SB 139 states that to qualify to vote, a resident must spend at least thirty days in the state prior to submitting a registration to vote.

We called the South Dakota Secretary of State office for details and confirmed that this affects new residents only. If you have already registered to vote, you will not be required to do anything different. As of July 1, 2023, new residents will be required to spend at least 30 days in the state within the calendar year prior to registering to vote the first time. We asked what proof would be required and were told that it will most likely be a legal affirmation; however, they are still working on the details. Our discussions with the SD Secretary of State's office continue. As they release more details, we will share anything that pertains to our mail service members.

[kb0zke]

So, since we established residency in South Dakota 10 years ago, and have voted regularly ever since, we are still able to vote there? Does this include State and local elections, or only Federal ones? We signed affidavits that said we intend to return to SD when we're done traveling. That means that we have an interest in State and local issues, and vote accordingly.

If the new law effectively disenfranchises us from State and local issues, then maybe we ought to look at another State to call home.

[Saddlesore]

Just updated my forum sign in.. [Former sign in failed]

Edited April 8, 2023 by Saddlesore

[Saddlesore]

56 minutes ago, kb0zke said:

 

If the new law effectively disenfranchises us from State and local issues, then maybe we ought to look at another State to call home.

I Concur....

[bigjim]

21 hours ago, kb0zke said:

If the new law effectively disenfranchises us from State and local issues, then maybe we ought to look at another State to call home.

At the the risk of getting in trouble, I will ask where? They appear to be coming after voters rights everywhere but especially in certain states including Texas. It seems most of the states I have ties to one way or another are that way.  I will let each person that reads this figure out who "they" are. If I was still young enough to serve I bet they would let me but all the while telling me how disloyal I am if I don't believe everything the same way.

I apologize for losing my cool but I just have to vent every once in a while.

[jbh]

An amusing aspect is that the majority political affiliation of RVers using domicile addresses is very likely the same as the political party trying to disenfranchise them.

[2gypsies]

4 hours ago, jbh said:

An amusing aspect is that the majority political affiliation of RVers using domicile addresses is very likely the same as the political party trying to disenfranchise them.

.... and how would you know that?

[Blues]

On 4/7/2023 at 7:58 PM, Kirk W said:

The following was posted on Escapee Facebook:

Unfortunately, a third bill (SB 139) recently passed the House, Senate and the Governor has now signed the bill. Escapes did send a letter explaining the problems with the bill and how it will affect new residents.

 

I wonder when they sent the letter.  They rallied the troops for the other two bills but not this one, so I wonder if this one slipped by them, like the one in Texas that required vehicle inspections before the vehicle registration could be renewed.  That one didn't come to their notice until after it had passed.

 

I also noticed they talked only about the requirement that a person spend 30 days in South Dakota before registering to vote.  As I pointed out in a previous post, the new law also changes the definition of "residence" and when language in a law is changed there is always a reason for it.  In this case, the new definition includes the word "abode" in its definition of "residence."  What is the effect of that change?

 

Also, the new law says "residence" is defined as a place to which a person "returns after a period of absence," while before the new law, the definition was a place where a person "intends to return."  (Interestingly, neither of the other two bills changed "intends to return.")  So, what is the effect of the change this bill did make?

 

It looks to me like the changes are more than just requiring people to spend 30 days in South Dakota before registering to vote, as the Escapees announcement appears to say.  The 30 days obviously affects only new voter registrations, but I can easily see the other provisions of the new law being applied to people who are already registered to vote.

 

And before just brushing this "possibility" aside, be aware that the South Dakota Secretary of State campaigned on tightening residency requirements "so that non-South Dakotans cannot register to vote using campgrounds, mail forwarding services or businesses like Walmart as their residential addresses." 

 

https://dakotawarcollege.com/sos-candidate-monae-johnson-tells-delegates-that-if-elected-her-goal-is-to-disenfranchise-voters/

 

Her letter doesn't make it sound like she'll be content with prohibiting only new people from doing that. 

 

Also, the Escapees announcement said, "new residents will be required to spend at least 30 days in the state within the calendar year prior to registering to vote the first time."  "Calendar year" is not in any version of the bill or any of the amendments, so where did that even come from?  Was it just a sloppy (and inaccurate) way of describing "a year"?  But even "a year" isn't applicable.

 

As originally introduced, the bill required a person to maintain his residence in South Dakota "for at least thirty consecutive days immediately prior to the day the person registers to vote."  The "consecutive" was taken out early in the amendment process. 

 

Later during the process the requirement was maintaining residence "for at least thirty days in the year prior to submitting the registration form."  But the "in the year" was taken out, and the final bill (and now law) says that the residence must be maintained "for at least thirty days prior to submitting the registration form."  There's nothing about a year.

 

So where is this "30 days in the year prior" coming from?  Is it the Secretary of State?  If so, that should be alarming, since it would be applying language that was proposed during the amendment process but explicitly removed by the Legislature, which is no bueno.  Or, no bueno to people who care about laws, anyway. 

 

Or maybe Escapees misspoke.  If that's the case, they need to review their announcements more carefully.  Just reading version of the bill that was signed by the governor would show that there's no mention of either a year or a calendar year.  People pay little enough attention to details as it is; at least give them the correct details to ignore, if nothing else so you're not part of the problem.

[rynosback]

9 hours ago, 2gypsies said:

.... and how would you know that?

Most of the RVers that fulltime that I have met over the past 8 years are the same party. Like 90-95%. 

[rynosback]

14 hours ago, jbh said:

An amusing aspect is that the majority political affiliation of RVers using domicile addresses is very likely the same as the political party trying to disenfranchise them.

100% agree. 

[bigjim]

23 hours ago, jbh said:

An amusing aspect is that the majority political affiliation of RVers using domicile addresses is very likely the same as the political party trying to disenfranchise them.

From one JBH to another I tend to agree though I certainly cannot state it as fact. Nor can I really pick any percentages of who is who even close to reliably.   Late news yesterday and early today makes me feel that my chosen state is getting closer to a dictatorship which is the opposite of what is claimed.

[2gypsies]

12 hours ago, rynosback said:

Most of the RVers that fulltime that I have met over the past 8 years are the same party. Like 90-95%. 

Guess we run in different circles.  I definitely haven't found that.  🤔

[Kirk W]

The following is posted at the request of Jim Koca, Advocacy Director.

Working in the advocacy arena is not an easy task, especially when there are local, state, and federal laws that must be investigated and digested. Escapees tries to stay abreast of the issues that will affect the RVers in the United States, no matter which state is at issue. This is why we rely on members to assist Escapees in identifying issues that can impact RVers.

I take issue with Blues comment about the Texas vehicle inspections when he said that it didn’t come up until it has passed. I personally went to the Polk County Texas Courthouse and talked to Judge Murphy, traveled to Austin, Texas and met with Representative White, met with Senator Nichols’ office, met with the trucking industry lobbyist, and attended many TXDOT meetings over the MVIS issue and how it would affect not only RVers, but the military members, traveling nurses, college students and the trucking industry. As we now know you can self-certify that you are out of state when vehicles must be re-registered.

In the past, Escapees have been in contact with the Anchorage, Alaska City Council when they wanted to ban all RVers from overnight parking in commercial parking lots. We sent them the “Good Neighbor Policy” and the issue was tabled.

When California was going to ban gas/diesel generators in the state, Escapees partnered with RVIA and sent a letter explaining the issues that make this a bad decision. Unfortunately, some issues have already been decided before public comment is requested. California moved to ban the use of generators starting in a few years.

Escapees have been in contact with the Bureau of Land Management in Arizona when they wanted to privatize some RV parks along the Colorado River.

There are many other federal bills and issues that Escapees were following last year, but due to the new Congress, they became a non-issue. We are waiting for the bills to be re-filed to start looking at them again and to work with the Representatives and Senators for those bills that affect RVers.

Many of the issues that come to the attention of Escapees, we do not publicize unless there is a need to get the membership involved. So many of the issues that Escapees works on, members are not aware of them. At the present time, Escapees are working on other potentially harmful and helpful bills on the state and federal level. The time is not right to share these with the membership.

When the State legislatures meet, Escapees starts looking at the bills that are filed. There were over 1,786 bills filed in Florida this year. Texas has over 7,971 bills that have been filed and South Dakota had around 500 bills that were filed in their state. Escapees looks for bills that will affect the RVers rights in those states.

For the issue at hand, yes, Escapees looked at the two bills and spread the word about the bills that were not passed. For the third bill involving the 30-day voting requirement, it moved rather fast through the Senate and House that the only chance we had to comment was to send a letter to the Governor listing the problems with the bill. It was sent before the Governor signed the bill. We now know that the bill was signed.

The next step in the process is to determine what will be the ramifications of the bill after passing. Escapees called the Secretary of State several times to get clarification. We were asked to send in the questions via email and they will be answered. This is where we are today, waiting for an answer.

Yes, the new language redefines residence and what is exactly 30-days? These are questions that need to be answered. Not only is the Escapees mail service affected by this new law, but also the other mail forwarding services in South Dakota. I do not believe Escapees misspoke. When talking to the officials in South Dakota, they have the same questions. It is a correct statement that people do not read the details. We see that every day.

One of the greatest things we have in the United States is that we can decide where we would like to make our state domicile. Whether it is the traditional RV friendly states of South Dakota, Florida, or Texas or any other state, it is your choice. As Escapees receives more information about the 30-day requirement for voting, we will share this with the membership.
Should you have any further concerns, please write in directly to: clubbusiness@escapees.com

Jim Koca
Advocacy Director

Edited April 12, 2023 by Kirk W