Bills being voted on in South Dakota Escapees notification

[bullfrog !]

Check out the possible changes to voting laws and residency requirements if you are a resident of South Dakota!

 

[wayne49]

Do you have a link to share?

A search returned news about residency and RVers, but nothing about proposed changes.

For the most part, itinerant nomads that do not stay in SD, are not a burden on local and state resources.

The mailbox suppliers pay taxes on their profits, and business licenses, so there's that as a plus.

Only requiring spending one day in five years does seem a bit lax.

 

[user 22017]

Do you have a link to share?

https://rvbusiness.com/south-dakota-bill-jeopardizes-rvers-domicile-voting-rights/

 

[user 22017]

The bills might be related to this:

https://www.lwv.org/newsroom/press-...urt-strikes-down-residency-requirement-ballot

 

[wayne49]

Thanks for the link.

One day/every five years residents wouldn't have been able to circulate petitions to get an issue on a ballot.

They shouldn't be doing that anyway, as a matter of courtesy to the actual residents who live there full time.

I would guess some nomads got in their heads to become involved in local issues.

"Leave no trace"

 

[GoingMobile]

It makes sense legislators would not want people from outside the state to vote unless they were certain about how they would vote. And someone living outside the state would not be immersed in campaign ads and other propaganda to sway their vote in the desired direction. But I wonder if anybody not living in South Dakota is after any more than a cheap way to register their vehicle that doesn't require smog certificates or even returning to the state? and a residence for insurance.

 

[bullfrog !]

^^^You sure you are not thinking of some other forum? This forum before is was sold was in my opinion open to everyone but mainly focused on the cheap RV nomadic lifestyle for many of those that were being forced out of their homes that they were not able to afford many on Social Security. States like South Dakota with few people but 2 senators are how things got so messed up in my opinion. Allowing a few rich oil states with little or no population to represent allow a few to rule over many. Washington DC’s outlying population dwarfs states like North Dakota (ever since I see why there is a north and a South Dakota, 2 more senators is why) and Washington DC doesn’t have any representation. The few citizens there in South Dakota are paying people up to $1,000 to move there and are happy for anyone to help their tax base as their few small cities infrastructure was allowed to fall apart due to lack of a tax base and federal government infrastructure money. I imagine that they will be thrilled to gain new citizens willing and used to the cold to come live and stay there as it is in their best interest and will aid in getting federal money. By the way diversification is not contamination in the United States as everyone unless you are a Native American living traditionally on the reservation has there family roots from another country.

 

[wayne49]

Two senators per state is because the states are equal in the Senate, per the Constitution.

House seats are allocated by population.

Those places which offer money and/or deals on vacant property, are looking for young families. Children are the future and how school funds are allocated.

 

[bullfrog !]

^^^ Absolutely correct but take a close look at the reporting and political news of the time. There was no real good reason to divide the region into so many states especially since there was such a small population. It allowed the Republican Party to take over the Senate a fact they were very proud of at the time I believe.

 

[Markw]

^^^ Absolutely correct but take a close look at the reporting and political news of the time. There was no real good reason to divide the region into so many states especially since there was such a small population. It allowed the Republican Party to take over the Senate a fact they were very proud of at the time I believe.

If you want to talk about dividing a region into too many states, New England pretty much takes first prize on that front.

However, that isn't the issue being discussed.

Please stay on topic.

 

[Firebuild]

Actually, the fact there are two Dakotas has more to do with early trade routes, arguments over where the state capitol should be, and personal disdain by the south toward the north (and vice versa). The two Dakotas entered statehood separately in 1889. As for New England, well, those were all separate colonies before there even WERE states, except that the Plymouth colony became part of MA and Maine separated from it at some point before there even WAS a constituition, so... Off topic, I know.... but I couldn't resist.

 

[wayne49]

Back to the original topic.

Current report on the legislation from Escapees:

Senate Bill 124 and House Bill 1232 are Dead!

"We are happy to announce that the South Dakota Senate State Affairs Committee and the South Dakota House State of Affairs Committee voted to defer SB 124 and HB 1232 to the “41st legislative day.” Since there cannot be more than 40 legislative days in a session, this is a simple way to kill a bill."

 

[egilbe]

Actually, the fact there are two Dakotas has more to do with early trade routes, arguments over where the state capitol should be, and personal disdain by the south toward the north (and vice versa). The two Dakotas entered statehood separately in 1889. As for New England, well, those were all separate colonies before there even WERE states, except that the Plymouth colony became part of MA and Maine separated from it at some point before there even WAS a constituition, so... Off topic, I know.... but I couldn't resist.

Maine was granted statehood as part of the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Try as we might, we still can't get away from massholes. They flood the state every Summer and buy up all the scenic property and start putting up "posted, no trespassing" signs up everywhere.