New South Dakota law could ban some full-time RVers from voting

We’ve been following the actions of South Dakota’s legislature as they apply to full-timers. With its low taxes, the Mount Rushmore state has been a popular domicile for many full-time RVers. However, the 2023 legislative session brought threats to full-timers’ ability to vote there. Two bills were shot down before even reaching the floor. But one, Senate Bill 139, has passed and received the blessing of Governor Kristi Noem’s signature. While the law will have definite effects on those wanting to become South Dakota voters, it could possibly disenfranchise some existing voters—full-timers who are registered there.

July 1—Existing voters, circle that date

The new law goes into effect July 1, 2023. When that happens, it will change existing voter law in the state. Here’s how the current law reads:

“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 reads this way:

“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.” (Emphasis ours)

The crux of the matter is this—unless a person has an “actual fixed permanent dwelling” they may not register to vote in South Dakota. Private mailbox company addresses don’t meet the definition. This could definitely snafu anyone who is not a current registered voter. But what about existing voters? They’re not out of the woods.

“Justification to remove thousands of voters”

Writer Cory Allen Heidelberger writes in the Dakota Free Press, “SB 139 thus provides Secretary of State Monae Johnson justification to remove thousands [of] voters registered at a handful [of] residency-mill addresses from the voter rolls. Johnson promised during her 2022 campaign to remove RV voters from the rolls.” Heidelberger cites an e-mailing from Johnson. We reviewed it, and found this line that could be what Heidelberger is pointing to: “Residency requirements should be tightened so that non-South Dakotans cannot register to vote using campgrounds, mail forwarding services and businesses like Walmart as their residential addresses.”

Heidelberger rounds out his concern this way: “If Johnson wants to distinguish herself from Governor Noem by actually following through on her campaign promise, she will query the voter database for addresses at which more than 50 voters are registered, identify the places that are mere mail-forwarding services and not actual abodes, and strike those ersatz voters from the rolls the moment SB 139 ersatzifies them on July 1.”

In comments below the referred-to article in the Dakota Free Press, Heidelberger replied to this question posted by “Hayley” on March 29: “If the Fulltime RVers that are currently Registered Voters in South Dakota (but at a PMB address) are removed from the voter rolls, does that prevent them from voting in National Elections as well?” Heidelberger responded on March 30: “Hayley, yes, if Secretary Johnson follows SB 139 when it is enacted on July 1 and purges the rolls of RV voters, then those voters would be unable to vote in any election until they either live in South Dakota for 30 days and re-register or find another state that will recognize their itinerant residency and allow them to register. You can’t vote if you’re not registered.”

“More than 1,000 voters in two precincts … they’re the majority of voters”

How much of an effect might this have if Secretary Johnson did decide to “purge” rolls of existing voters using private mailboxes? Last fall, Tom Cool, who was then Johnson’s opponent for the office of Secretary of State, made this comment in an interview quoted by keloland.com: “We’ve got two precincts in District 15, where we’ve got over 1,000 voters in each precinct that are mailbox voters,” Cool said. “You can’t communicate with them because their mail is forwarded … People say they don’t vote. Yes, they do. I’ve looked those numbers up, too, and in most cases, they’re the majority of voters in those two precincts.”

District 15 is in Sioux Falls. How many of those “mailbox voters” are full-time RVers is anyone’s guess, but it could be significant.

Thirty-day rule

How about those full-time RVers who are not existing voters in South Dakota, but want to become such? The new law also slaps a time regulation: “Every person who maintains residence as provided [under this law] within the state for at least thirty days prior to submitting the registration form … ” Under the current law, you can register as a voter in South Dakota the same day you “prove up” residency with, say, getting a driver license. How many wannabe South Dakota voters will be willing to sit tight in the state for 30 days prior to registering to vote? And, as we warned in our last story, “fudging” on your application as a voter makes you guilty of perjury.

Supreme Court ruling might come to the rescue—or not

This part of the law could find itself dragged before a court. Some argue that the U.S. Supreme Court decision Dunn v. Blumstein (405 U.S. 330) would shoot down South Dakota’s 30-day hold on registering. The case, was brought to the court by a fresh-out-of-law-school student, James Blumstein.  He was more than frustrated when he moved from New York to Tennessee and was told he couldn’t register to vote for a full year.

Blumstein argued the law violated his 14th Amendment Right to Equal Protection. The Supremes by majority sided with him. “Since the requirements deny some citizens the right to vote, “the Court must determine whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest.” And, “Absent a compelling state interest, Tennessee may not burden the right to travel by penalizing those bona fide residents who have recently traveled from one jurisdiction to another.” And finally, “Since there are adequate means of ascertaining bona fide residence on an individualized basis, the State may not conclusively presume nonresidence from failure to satisfy the waiting period requirements of durational residence laws.”

However, a closer reading of the decision of the opinion reveals this caveat. “A period of 30 days appears to be ample to complete whatever administrative tasks are needed to prevent fraud and insure the purity of the ballot box.” While South Dakota allows nearly instant registration, the new law requiring a 30-day wait, might pass the muster of Dunn v. Blumstein.

In any event, what happens after the new law goes into effect on July 1 will be crucial for those who want to become South Dakota voters. Add that for those existing voters, if these are fulltime RVers.

##RVT1098b