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.
WATCH VIDEO BELOW FOR FULL EXPLANATION OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION.
“Fixed the person’s habitation”
Both bill titles are cast in a similar way. House Bill 1232 is entitled, “An Act to revise provisions related to residency for voter registration.” Senate Bill 124, “An Act to update maintenance and verification requirements for voter registration files,” covers more area, but has a similar crimping action. Here are the points of the bills that could affect full-time RVers.
House Bill 1232, sponsored by Karla Lems, a District 16 Republican, would amend existing South Dakota law. It focuses on residency issues, declaring, “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.” Here are some key definitions from the bill of particular interest to RVers who want to be voters.
“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.” And another, “The person maintains a domicile with long-term sleeping accommodations at the location, unless the person is homeless and lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence or domicile.”
Are you “homeless”?
Some full-time RVers could make the argument that by some definition, they are “homeless and lacking a fixed and regular nighttime residence.” The proposed law would make allowance for folks like that. But the allowance is limited to those living in a temporary shelter, or those who are “institutionalized.” A final, somewhat vague exception is this one: “A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation.” Living in your RV, under this legislation, doesn’t make you homeless.
No person may register to vote using a business location or campground as the registration address.
What about rolling into a South Dakota RV park, plunking down rent, and then registering to vote? A section in the bill reads, “No person may register to vote using a business location or campground as the registration address.” That would seem to rule out using a private mailbox service as an address, as well.
“Not a commercial or industrial address”
Senate Bill 124, introduced by Julie Frye-Mueller, a Republican from District 30, also casts a cloud over those full-time RVers who want to vote. If enacted into law, South Dakota state auditors would get some new orders. They would be tasked to “compare the address listed or described on each new voter registration application with county tax records to ensure that the address provided in the voter registration application is confirmed as a residence and not a commercial or industrial address, an undeveloped lot, or the address of property owned by a local government, state government, or the federal government.”
“Not a commercial or industrial address.” This would eliminate private mailbox addresses for full-time RVer-voters. Temporarily encamping in a publicly-owned campground would rule out using that as an address, too. And for those who might use the address of a relative living in South Dakota as their mail drop, that’s another way to possibly raise a “red flag.” “Each county auditor shall verify the accuracy of a voter registration application for an individual who lives at the same address of another registered individual with a similar name to ensure that the individual registration application does not represent multiple registrations by the same individual.”
Will they make it up for a vote?
Both of these bills have been sent to committees. Will they come out and make it to the legislative floor for a vote? That remains to be seen—they could simply die off before a vote. And for those full-time RVers who have no interest in being South Dakota voters, it’s all a moot point. These proposed laws would have no other effect on RVers. If you are concerned, and want to make your voice heard, you can contact the sponsors of these bills. Representative Karla Lems can be emailed at Karla.Lems@sdlegislature.gov, or call her office at 605-773-3851. Senator Julie Frye-Mueller’s email address is Julie.FryeMueller@sdlegislature.gov, and her office phone is 605-773-3821.
We’re grateful to Mark Koep of campgroundviews.com for letting us know about these bills. Mark, who was a full-time RVer for many years, provides his own take on the matter on a YouTube video (above) just last Friday.
If you appreciate this type of article, typically only available to the RV community on RVtravel.com, please consider supporting us by becoming a voluntary subscriber. You choose the amount. It all adds up and helps us continue our mission to educate RVers about matters critical to them.
##RVT1090b
They both belong to the party that is trying to stomp on voting rights
Exactly and the same people who support these people are the very ones that end up getting hurt by them. Americans, as a whole, are probably the most uninformed, self-centered, low information citizens of any industrialized nation.
!00%,Saved me some typing.
Agree with all the above. So true!
In a single word, Fetterman?
It’s always amazing people never see the truth. Not that I enjoy the other party either. Both want to prevent a third, moderate party, because it would wipe them both out as that is the majority.
Yup, I can’t say I support either party but funny the one that accuses everyone of voter fraud are the one’s going to prison for voter fraud. It’s been that way for a looong time too. Being independent is as American as you can get, Yet few are.
The demonization of fellow Americans to acheive maximum power is the strategy. Dehumanization is a strategy to silence opposing views. Conformity is the goal.
Thanks for sharing the truth that is not so obvious to 49% of the voters
The lead in even acknowledged that S. Dakota was one of the only states left currently acting as a tax free residency “haven”. We recently pushed to shut down overseas shell companies seeking protection from taxation. How is this different?
I live in Georgia where we pay a % of value vehicle tax at registration. Not that unusual to see Dakota and Montana license plates here on luxury and high end cars driving the morning commute (clearly skipping out on taxes).
I get the idea that the portion of RV owners who truly roam around the country full time without staying in one place for a long enough period to establish residency are going to have a hard time registering to vote generally. And some probably really appreciate that a loop hole exists for them currently in N Dakota. But frankly- cry me a river. Your choices are yours. S Dakotas are theirs. And they would be glad for you to actually live in the state paying sales taxes and generating revenue in the state.
They get revenue via registrations they would not otherwise have. All the years I have been over taxed in States like Arizona, Illinois, and Indiana.. this is a welcome break for me at 70.. Heck, I should be tax exempt.. how much are illegals paying in taxes?
How about you ask their employers that question.
You choose to live in those states no? You could have chosen to live in another state and you still can. You were never “over taxed” although you certainly could have a great political argument for reducing government spending and then allowing for less taxation. I’m all for that!
Well said. I’m surprised they’ve let this scam go on this long.
South Dakota residents DO pay vehicle registrations. There’s no income tax, but they use sales tax to make up for that.
They pay sales tax only if they buy goods – if they don’t live there they are not paying sales taxes there.
And if someone registered a vehicle in a low tax haven but lives full time in a another state they are 100% stealing resources from the state they live in – tax evasion pretty clearly.
No, it’s effective tax management, not evasion or cheating.
Perhaps, one will need to domicile in Florida or Texas?
Misleading article: “full time RV’ers who have no interest in being a South Dakota voter, it’s a moot point.” Read Robert’s comments below.
*above.
No, ten comments below.
Click on “oldest first” and read it in chronological order.
Bills by the party suppressing voter rights.
I think if you actually read some of the proposals, you would see in many instances, it actually improves voter access. And is it really too much for all of us to want to ensure that only US residents vote in our elections?
A tear in the sheep’s clothing covering the Wolf (or elephant).
There are 70 representatives. Only 8 are Dems. Law of averages says most bills will be sponsored by Pubs. Stop looking for something that isn’t there.
Stop turning a blind eye to what’s right in front of you. A Democrat wouldn’t sponsor a bill that dis-enfranchises a group of people that choose a different lifestyle than what is typical.
No one is being disenfranchised. SD had a right to tighten up their residency rules. Find another state.
Have you been asleep for the last 6 years? Use Georgia as the example if you choose. Highest voter participation rate in generations.
It’s not that Democrats sponsor bills, it is that they circumvent the entire democratic system using unelected beaurocrats to write the rules.
We just met a couple in Quartzsite last week who told us about all the advantages of registering in SD. They’ve been doing it for almost 10 years. Hmmm.
Thanks so much for reporting on this! And thank you Mark Koep!
So, lets try to boil this down.
Fulltime RVer’s use South Dakota (and other states), as a way to minimize taxes. South Dakota, as a state, gets nothing out of this arrangement. Nothing.
Fulltimers who do this, who have no intention of returning to their “domicile”, want to vote in South Dakota elections, have a say in South Dakota politics, without having any ties to the state other than a free ride.
And people are complaining?
I don’t have a problem if there was a way for people in this situation to vote for President. That would be and should be the ONLY race they are allowed to vote in. Why should someone who has no intention to really stay in SD vote and influence the elections of the state or the states representatives?
If you want to take advantage of the tax shelter, fine.. not begrudging that. It’s your decision. But it comes with consequences and you have to decide if the consequences are worth it.
Mike
You make a good point. They shouldn’t be voting in state/local if they have no skin in the game. Maybe allow pres/vice President vote but require minimum 90 days of presence inside the state to vote in state/local elections? I don’t know how it would be proven though. Looking at campground bills is a lot of tedium on the part of a govt. Isn’t there a residency requirement to get a drivers license and register a vehicle? Could it be tied to either or both since a full timer is assumed to live in a registered vehicle and have a drivers license?
I would argue that the state gets funds from the vehicle registrations they would not otherwise get. And if the RV’er doesn’t actually GO there frequently, their tax dollars are being spent on roads they aren’t contributing to the demise of.
South Dakota gets nothing from fulltime RVers? That is a pretty surprising statement. I always thought that you needed to pay fees and taxes to become a resident and register motor vehicles. In addition, a fulltimer that is a resident adds to the population count for things like federal funds and congressional representation.
Seems to me that the state wants the benefits of RVers domiciled in the state without allowing them to vote. If we’re not allowed to vote, kick us out. Don’t let us register our vehicles or receive mail. We’re either residents or we’re not. Don’t define second class citizens (again).
I also thought ‘taxation without representation’ was sort of a thing in the US (kinda like the American revolution).
We would be perfectly fine if SD wanted to only allow us to vote in national elections. But then don’t call me up for jury duty in SD either!
Our right to vote for who we want for President is a sovereign right of being a US citizen and the law says we must domicile somewhere to do this. We could care less about the financial advantages–we are on SS and small pension incomes and never make enough to make a difference than if we were in a state income taxable state or not–and believe me there are a lot of us in the USA in this same position. Not all RVers are wealthy or have huge expensive rigs and looking to skirt paying their share.
Lastly….beware as i suspect if this law passes in SD then the other two states will soon follow and we will have tens of thousands of full time RVers losing their right to vote.
Yes, same here. And totally agree with your last paragraph.
South Dakota benefits from RV residents in vehicle registration fees and sales tax from “Box Fees” imposed by mail forwarding services. Most important is the benifit of having more representation in Washington DC.
Being a full-time resident of South Dakota all my like of 74 years, I fully support this legislation. If these people want to take advantage of the tax rates here they should move here and set up a permanent residence. An alternative might be to consider the RV as a residence and charge them the going rate of property tax at that value in the county they set up a mailing address.
Full timers want their cake and eat it too.
Only because full-timers are required by the law to HAVE some form of domicile. Most wouldn’t truly care, other than being able to vote and have their say. Why do you feel @Gary, that full timers shouldn’t be able to full time AND have a residency state?
Camper Jack, Wouldn’t it make more sense for full-timers to domicile in the state in which they spend the majority of time (where they benefit most from the use of state public resources?)
The Federal government distributes federal funding to states based on their population, so not only are the phantom residents of states like S. Dakota evading taxes in their “home” state, they are also redirecting Federal funds and political clout to their “declared” state.
IMO state residency requirements should be uniform nation wide.
Perhaps those willing to “sell” their residency should forfeit their voting privileges?
IMO state residency requirements being uniform nation wide opens the door for gerrymandering at a federal level. I’m a believer that the more local something is, the closer to the people who are affected it is.
You don’t reside there. You are just using them for tax purposes. If you want to be a full timer nomad, great. Sounds like fun.
But you have to sacrifice some things to be able to do that. It’s not all about you.
The State of S. Dakota wants their cake and eat it too. They have taken advantage of those willing to sell their residency by benefitting from their phantom population, and now want to strip those “non” residents of their voting privileges.
This is just another example of the tricks politicians play to their advantage.
Don’t even get me started on jerrymandering!
SD is not taking advantage of anyone. You, as a non resident, are taking advantage of SD.
Yes, that darn gerrymandering, like the time Zuckerberg spent $400,000,000 on ballot drop boxes.
Like having to pay taxes and fees and having a say in how they are spent?
So…if I decide to move to South Dakota by buying or renting a home I can vote, but if I live full-time in an RV park in South Dakota or if I travel for some or all of the year I can’t vote?
There’s logic here? This is about money and power. Simple as that.
I posted a longer version of this over on the YouTube video… I will try to get it all in via subsequent comments.
If someone is using SD residency for “nefarious” purposes (as Mark suggests in the video), then I’m all for hunting down and excluding those folks. But this legislation could potentially affect law-abiding citizens in a very negative way.
I’m a 25+ year Air Force veteran with ties to the missile operations world (Ellsworth, Malmstrom, Minot, etc.). When I retired, my wife and I consciously decided to make SD our home and establish our residency, voter registration, consulting business, personal banking, VA care, and estate plans there. We’ve faithfully paid our vehicle excise taxes and annual registration fees. We’ve researched every candidate and bill, and voted in every election for more than a decade. We are actively looking for properties in the Black Hills for our second retirement somewhere down the road. Here’s the rub: For the last decade, we’ve decided to live in a 45′ RV and explore our wonderful country while we are still young and able enough to do so. We don’t have real property anywhere, at least not yet. Our entire life (personal, financial, and business) is tied to a postal mailing “box” in Box Elder. For all intents and purposes, SD is our home. We have, and want, no other. If these bills pass, I will e
If these bills pass, I will essentially be made a non-citizen in my home state. How does that support personal freedom if it eliminates my Constitutional right to vote?
In their attempt to protect voting rights, these bills go too far. Chief Justice Earl Warren, in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964) wrote that “The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. […] Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.” While I’m all for preventing voter fraud, these legislators have crafted bills which go too far.
100% on the money Doc.
exactly correct! well said Dr.!
Nevada has all the same benefits as SD. I am sure other states do too.
The Montana plates on my DP save me tens of thousands of dollars of ‘taxes’ over the lifetime of the rig. I do have a physical home in a state other than Montana however so I vote in that state, not MT. My home state of record has no income tax either but the vehicle registration fees (taxes) are excessive, thus the tax MANAGEMENT strategy. I say pick a state to call home. Vote in that state whether you are FT or not. If the state legislatures pass laws to circumvent your active voting practice, pick a new state. I support anyone navigating the repressive tax codes for benefit while maintaining the right to vote. I also support anyone that chooses to pay more taxes than they need to, with my sincere thank you, whether it is income tax or tags. My fair share is paid every year. My vote counts. Write better laws get better results. Defund the 87k new IRS agents too.
The largest percentage of RV owners seeking TAX AVOIDANCE register their RVs in SD and Montana. It’s sickening to see owners in Prevost running SD or Montana plates. I support this legislation
It’s not tax avoidance, it’s tax management.
EXACTLY! This is a taxation AND a voting issue (but its ALWAYS about the money).
The primary reason for individuals claiming S. Dakota as their state of residency is for Tax Avoidance (EVASION), for NO income tax, and reduced vehicle registration fees.
S.D. and other states with similar lax residency requirements not only STEAL tax revenue from other states, they also STEAL population head count from other states to increase (or prevent the decrease) of their representation at the federal level (Congress).
My understanding; the proposed bills do not close these tax loopholes, but simply prevents transient residents from voting, and influencing local and state elections (politics). They want your head count and money, but not your input and influence.
Most full timers spend the majority of their time in one state. It is only right that it be their state of declared domicile for voting and taxation.
I would argue that most full timers do NOT spend the majority of their time in one state. Hence, the need to domicile somewhere. Why not in a state that gives them better tax strategies? The wealthy have multiple tax evasion strategies to use no matter what state they reside in. Why shouldn’t people a little farther down the scale do so, as well? I do think SD “residents” who don’t physically live there should not be able to vote on local issues, but yes for state races and issues, and federal ballots.
Angelack, I think this would be a good question for a reader poll. I would also be interested to know how many full time RVers actually vote. I would bet those who do, vote only in the major national elections, and vote a straight party ticket, via absentee ballot (none of which I have a problem with).
As for the tax “strategy” issue; two wrongs don’t make a right. I am a retiree on a fixed income who enjoys RVing. I am NOT a full timer, and have no plans to become one (I do not begrudge those who choose to). I dutifully pay my fair share of taxes, believing it is the price everyone should pay to enjoy the benefits of a modern society (that makes me an idiot I suppose). I DO begrudge those who evade paying their share.
Bitter much? Following the rules is, well, rule following I guess. I don’t make stupid laws, I just adjust my life around them. The more congressional seats California loses through hideous laws and policies, the more it makes me laugh. Maybe SDakota gets another seat soon, like Montana just did, from California.
Uhhh… Sven: SD has 2 Senators like all states (no more. no less).
As for Representatives, SD has so few ‘residents’ (real or not) that there is only ONE Representative ‘at large’ to represent the state ‘residents.’ Thus, SD is NOT ‘stealing’ any population head count from any other state. The few ‘not real’ residents coming from other states is inconsequential to their ‘lost’ residents.
27,000 estimated full-time RV’ers taken from say, 20 of the other 49 states would short those states by less than 1,500 residents for each of those states. Divide that by the various counties they would originally come from and one can see how little impact this would have on any election.
More problematical is the draw from those states with no income tax, low property tax and low sales tax – oh, and nice climate; Texas and Florida for example.
I’m providing tax revenue for SD and basically not using any of your resources
Lots of other states have no income tax, including my former home state of NH…which also had no state sales tax. South Dakota gets plenty of $ from us for vehicle titling and gives us zero in services.
As others have opined, I see nothing wrong with either of these bills. All these legislatures are trying to do is protect the legitimacy of SD’s voting rights. In the past several years’ ballot irregularities have become an issue in many states, especially with so-called mail-in ballots.
My first motorhome was registered and plated in SD as recommended by the Arizona dealer handling that process for me so I can understand why some would complain. However, I believe the true residents of SD and their rights trump those of travelers looking to maybe save a couple of bucks here and there.
As a retiree I understand why full time RVers would want SD as a place to save money on taxes. But for SD state and local elections I’m not sure they should have a right to vote. Now for all federal political offices they have a right to vote. I myself am so disgusted with our politicians and commander and divider in chief. I feel like I want to quit voting.
Unfortunately, we have to trust each other when it comes to voting. The system is broken, clearly. Vote where you call home, home. Pick a state, vote once and vote in person. If your a fulltimer, find a way home to vote, don’t do it by mail otherwise your vote is sketchy 2 ways.
Yes, we must eliminate the voter fraud occurring in our country, in which there is no doubt, but this is like killing a fly with a sledgehammer.
If you don’t physically spend time in the state, you should not be able to vote there.
Since (in most cases) the voter registration database is also used to compel jury duty, we have temporarily waived our right to vote in our state of domicile so we don’t have to compromise travel plans in order to comply with a jury summons. An added benefit – we also avoid all those pesky spam calls during voting season. For now, it’s a minor compromise to perpetuate the lifestyle we enjoy.
When we do settle down, we will be more educated, conscientious voters due to our extensive travels throughout our amazing country!
Courts routinely wave jury duty to full-timers in SD.
Sorry, I don’t see any injustice in not permitting people who don’t live in, or intend to live in, a state, voting rights. Granted we are not FT, but to call this unfair is simply wrong. SD has every right to change a policy that they have to come to see as a problem for the full time citizens of the state. It’s not the state of SD’s responsibility to provide a voting venue for non-residents.
I knew that eventually, states would start putting a halt to the practice. But I don’t see it as a voting issue – that’s a very minor point since rampant voter fraud is a myth concocted to make people mistrust elections. This is really about the fading right of people to live without being required to pay rent/mortgage, utilities and real estate property taxes. I expect someday in the not-so-distant future, it will be illegal to live on the road full-time without a physical domicile.
Rampant? What exactly is the acceptable number of illegal votes? Are 2 dead people voting acceptable but 200 are not?
Well said!
Although I do not have “standing”, I personally have no issue with the proposed changes to the law. Basically says if you don’t have skin in the game, you shouldn’t vote. Although I can sympathize with those that are true SD residents that are full timers.
As someone who lives by a saying of my father “buy land God isn’t making any more” and owner of land in several states I would LOVE to be able to vote on local issues in all of those locations that affect my property. One vote in federal elections but a vote in each state, county, town, city I have a financial interest in.
As a full timer ( not S. Dakota) I keep up with things in my home state. I do vote in Federal and state elections. I don’t vote on stuff like county Sheriff or local city councilman. State officials can determine the direction the state is going politically. Local school board members not so much. I have long maintained there needs to be a database or something that full timers can plug into. There are so many things just seem unfair. Why should I be paying a high road tax for a state I travel through maybe once per year. So many things that just need to be changed.
Things to think about.
First, let’s remember the old adage: follow the money. Who is pushing these bills and why? Yes, I know the article gives the names of the authors of the bills, but some constituent wants this.
Second, what is the motivation? Why has this become an issue all of a sudden? If this is a disguised attempt to force full-timers to buy a home or condo in SD, it is probably unconstitutional. If the law passes, the businesses of the people who host the mailboxes would be severely impacted if not destroyed.
Or, could there be a concern that people who do not in fact live in SD are voting in state elections and so influencing the course of the state. Maybe actual residents of the state are unhappy about that. This does not appear to have been a problem in the past. Possibly the recent cascade of people buying RVs and leaving their home state to escape high taxes and burdensome regulations has raised this issue in the SD public mind.
We’re already harassed in several ways for not having a “residence”: Closure of bank accounts, cancelling credit cards, not being permitted to purchase a firearm through a dealer… and now they want to remove the vote as well?!
It’s in large part because, for decades, RVers who vote have helped make it near impossible to pass bills that raise taxes for programs that benefit the people who actually live there: school bonds, landscape and lighting districts, public safety districts, road improvement bonds, etc.
Yup. Just like 1 person on welfare gets the same voting power as 1 person that employs 100 people. 2 non-binary blue haired school teachers can offset 2 brain surgeon’s votes.
Pretty sure it’s not the RVers that are making life tough. Typically, those same FT RVers were not FT RVers 30 years ago when they too paid for the social safety net of the previous generation’s shortcomings.
As a fulltime RVer, I am required to have a residence in a state. There is no federal option to reside in “the United States”, so I must pick one. I don’t have a problem paying state taxes, but businesses that offer the services I need don’t form in states with high taxes. I have been a resident of SD for over ten years, and in that time, I’ve voted for every improvement to roads and schools that has come up, as well as paid registrations for trailers and vehicles. I have yet to call 911 from South Dakota, so I haven’t used any public services in that way, and haven’t used state resources other than DMV, so I think SD is coming out ahead on their investment. These bills suggest that the concern is more about the “way” we would vote, not fraud–what legislation should (or could) be introduced to to eliminate people from the voting rolls so they won’t vote the “wrong” way? Either I’m a resident or not–if I am, I get a vote. If not, I move along.
So as I read through the proposed changes before reading this post, I certainly got the feeling it was about voting more than anything else. Kudos if this is an effort to minimize voter fraud, and boooo if it’s about anything else. Regardless, I see this as a multi-faceted issue for SD, and really for any state but the is another discussion. My question here is does, “And for those full-time RVers who have no interest in being South Dakota voters, it’s all a moot point. These proposed laws would have no other effect on RVers.” meant that if I allow my registration to go to inactive status or if I cancel my registration, I can keep on truckin’ claiming SD as my domicile? Thoughts anyone?
For those commenting here who are registered in South Dakota, are you also telling the elected SD legislators how you feel?
If so, I commend you for talking to the ones who make the laws. The SD legislators are hearing at least 6 bills on the matter, and session ends in a few weeks. Each passing day, more bills are being sent to the Governor for signature or are being killed. Things move very quickly!
If the full timer RV loose the chance for residency, and vote is taken away what about the census? Will SD loose any seats in Congress?
Not in DC because a state gets at least one representative and two senators, and that’s what SD already has. Theoretically, it could change district lines for state representatives in Pierre, but I’m hearing that these proposed law changes wouldn’t make a significant change to the districts (but I haven’t personally seen the proof of those findings).
All,
HB 1232 was passed on a roll call vote in the SD Legislature (Y: 11 N: 1 NV: 0 Abs: 1) [PASS]. An amendment did remove the term “campground” from the list of restricted places. I’m not sure exactly how to interpret this, but it may still allow RVers the ability to register and vote. I’m going to reach out to the SD Secretary of State and ask for clarification.
SB 124 was passed by the SD Senate (Y: 9 N: 0 NV: 0 Abs: 0) [PASS]. There was an amendment but it appears to still eliminate the ability for RVers with PMB addresses to vote in SD elections.
I assume these both go to the governor for signature now.
Given the Senate bill, I need to start looking for a new home state. This is unfortunate, because I had my heart set on a ranch in the Black Hills for final retirement. However, I’m not going to give up my ability to vote for the next 10 years….
More to follow.
Thanks for the update!
Stop the press! I was wrong above — this was the committee vote (or at least the first one). Updated info from RV Travel on 25 Feb reads:
“Both House Bill 1232 and Senate Bill 124 died in committees before they could reach their respective floors for a vote. However, existing South Dakota law could still create legal problems for full-timers who claim the Mount Rushmore State as their legal home. We’re waiting for feedback from the state’s attorney general and will report back to you when we get word.”
Said for years if you dont live here you should not vote here. Not fair to those who do actually live here.