Stan,
How did the RVers create the problem? This county uses these RVers as residents for the purpose of obtaining funds from the state and federal government, and now they want a "residential address"? They sure didn't seem to be to concerned when the money came in. What is the difference between a "motel" address and a PMB??? I wouldn't consider a motel, or an rv park for that matter, as a legtimate address.

I guess I can not sit on the sidelines and not respond. I have read all the Escapees who are using the Escapees mail forwarding and those who call Livingston, TX home. My question is, if you spend 2 months out of the year in Livingston does that make you knowledgeable of specific candidates running for office? How many fulltimers never step foot in Livingston? Some have said that the Escapee park makes an economic difference and is recognized as such...what has that got to do with voting? It is not the money you or the park contribute to a community that gives you the right to vote. and the park is not voting, people vote. I keep seeing Stanley posting the comments that it is the RVer who made the problem and people should not rock the boat. Yes, people are upset that fellow RVers can not vote and they also may see that happening to them in the future. RVers only made the problem by wanting to travel and not be locked into one footprint, that is why they moved out of their sticks and bricks. Stanley, I disagree with you on so many levels on this issue it would take several paragraphs to explain. I will always support those who voice their opinions and raise issues rather than those who say "status quo" is best. Apparently, you can vote, I wonder if you was told that you could no longer vote what your opinion might be, say if parks were no longer recognized as a residence since you may leave that park at any time. As I have said before no one is going to win this one but please do not insult everyone by saying it is the Rvers who are to blame because they choose a different life style.

quote:

The RVers made the problem, then made it worse - not the registrar, why are you blaming the wrong folks?

I am not in "in the know" in this situation. You obviously know more than I do about the underlying facts.

Exactly how did the RVers create the original problem? By registered to vote using an address that they had no reason to believe was illegal? They probably (assumption on my part) used the same address that they had used for several prior years. How did the RVers make the problem worse? By standing steadfast on their right to vote?

What do suggest that the RVers should have done initially that would have been better? After they were refused the right to register to vote, what do you believe that they should have done differently?

I know nothing about these specific individuals and very little about the facts of the case. Lets assume that they are all fulltime RVers that travel throughout the US and only occasionally come back to TN. For some reason, they chose TN as their "home" or domicile. They were concerned enough to register to vote. Yes, they could have chosen SD or TX as a domicile, but they didn't. Don't we have that choice in the US?. Perhaps they had some reason to believe that TN was "home". Perhaps they had no reason to believe that their right to vote was in jeopardy.

Are we going to say that it is OK to remove someone from the voting roles because they have no physical address? In the case of these fulltimers, if they cannot vote in TN, where can they vote? Is it necessary to join a large group (Escapees or Alternative Resources) in order to be "allowed" to vote?

This is a very small number of individuals. Maybe I shouldn't care, but I do.

quote:

once the RVers were willing to use RV parks or hotels as their address for voting purposes all the problems went away.

That seems like a good solution, assuming that there is nowhere on the registration form that indicates that the RV Park or hotel is your actual physical address (perhaps even under penalty of perjury). Further, since you will likely be voting "absentee", you must somehow rely on the RV Park or hotel to forward your mail. IMO, this is not a good solution.

I am not against bending to make the system work for me. However, I dislike the idea that lying or even perjury is necessary to register to vote.

When the system is wrong (and I believe it is), conformity is not the answer. The answer (IMO) is fixing the system.

"If the system doesn't work then fix the system."

That has been my long held belief and one of the main ideas that make this such a great country...historically we fix the problem rather than just eliminating those making noise about it!

Doing a "work around" or "bending the system" doesn't fix the problem...it only fixes the problem for YOU! It may be the practical way or the easy way, but it's not the correct way.

I agree fully with Art; to have to lie to get around a problem is not my idea of a solution.

The fact that we are dealing with one county out of the thousands in the country,that affects a few dozen (or is it a few hundreds?) out of the thousands of full time RV'ers does not appear to me to be a problem created by the RV'ers. It appears to be a problem created by that local government agency.

That local government agency should take steps to rectify the problem.

Remember the problem in Laughlin, NV, created by the Clark County Health Dept.? They changed their stance to rectify the problem.

Different subject but basically the same situation here.

This county elections commission should do the same otherwise they are creating and purpectuating the moral injustice of denying the ability to vote.

JMHO

Steve Ball

Maybe I'm not understanding what the problem is?

In Sioux Fall:

1. You stay one night at a qualifying address, one that you could live at for some period of time.

2. You register to vote using your residence address.

3. The registrar sends one letter with your voting card to the address you gave them.

4. The manager of the park or hotel pus your voting card in a new envelope and forwards it to you.

5. When you want to vote you either do it in person or ask that an absentee ballot be sent to your mailing address, not the park address.


Simple, makes the registrar happy, the park owner is happy to have your camping fee and mailing one letter isn't a big hassle for them. Since the registrar was involved in setting up the process I guess I'm missing the fraud and lying issue somehow, where does that come in?

The TN registrar sounds pretty flexible from everything I've read, has no issues with getting homeless on the rolls and such. Given that attitude an approach to them to work out a compromise might provide acceptable results. Huffing, puffing and suing sure hasn't, actually it has made voting tougher due to the precedent that was set.

I don't know TN law but in SD it is pretty clear the registrar doesn't have to let you vote from somewhere you can't live but they have to let you vote from somewhere you can live. Some SD counties ignore the whole issue and let you vote using your mailing service address too.

Hi Stan,

I have not been following the TN issue except here on this thread, so my actual knowledge here is limited, I'll admit.

You say that the registrar sounds flexible. That's a good thing and anyone involved with the voting problem there likely should have started by discussing the issue with the registrar. I don't know if this was done or not.

Regardless, the system is obviously broke and needs to be fixed.

You just pointed out that Souix Falls has developed a local fix for the voting problem. You also say that some of the counties in S.D. just ignor the problem.

THAT IS ONE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

The system is broken and the system needs to be fixed, not just a "work around" by one county. Until the system is fixed then, then, at times in some places, some voters will be dis-infranchised.

As a beliver in this great country and in our wonderful democracy, I, personally, find this unacceptable. I would think, like Stan, that all fulltime RV'ers would feel the way.

In the Laughlin situation I memtioned all RV'ers could send in emails or write letters because we all potentially travel there.

In this case, only those who reside in Tennessee can complain because they are the only ones whom this affects. But, man, I would sure love to send an email to those officials!!!

Steve Ball

quote:

In the Laughlin situation I memtioned all RV'ers could send in emails or write letters because we all potentially travel there.

In this case, only those who reside in Tennessee can complain because they are the only ones whom this affects. But, man, I would sure love to send an email to those officials!!!

But all could send a letter to the effect that since TN disenfranchises people who love RVing but also want to stay TN residents, then TN obviously doesn't need any RVers to stop and spend money.

Barb

Barb,

Ya know,that's not a half-bad idea!

Maybe a letter or two to the editor of the big newspapers; get some folks thinking.

Steve

quote:

First, there are probably thousands of registered voters that are Escapees members that do not "live there" for any time during a year, yet they are allowed to vote. Do you think that the Escapees organization would willingly give up the right to vote for every member that did not spend "several months" or even one night each year at the Livingston address? I think and hope not!

Art is absolutely right on that guess. In eight years as a voter in Polk county, we have spent one day one year, two weeks another, one week the last. But Texas chose to define the ability to register in a way that we qualify.

As much as I would agree that there does need to be some solution to this issue, I can't buy that it is so very simple. I suspect that there are at least a few in Polk county who have misgivings about people like myself voting there. Even though I do not vote in local issue only, cases, I still do influence the outcome of their elections and it should be understandable why there could be some resentment of that.

I have said many times that you need to consider all factors of domicile before you choose a state to claim. Voting is one of those issues. You will have great difficulty in convincing the citizens of most areas that there is some reason that they should allow a person who is using their home town as a domicile for a time with no intention of ever residing there the right to vote in their elections.

As an Escapee and a Texan, I am very pleased that the issue has been settled. I feel empathy for those who have the problem in other locations and know what it is like since I was one of the contested voters in Texas. But Stan has a good point that it might be worth while to try and find some way to meet the local requirements, or to move your choice of domicile. What gives a citizen of California, or any other state the right to tell people in Tenn. that because we choose to get mail there and perhaps to register a vehicle, that should mean they must allow you to vote in their elections, even though you have no plan to ever actually move there permanently?

You can't tell the other states what they must charge in taxes or who can qualify as a resident in other areas, so why should you get to tell them who can vote? Perhaps Texas wants you and some other stated do not?

There is another side to this topic. Here in S. Indiana, Indiana University dominates the city of Bloomington. College students sued to gain the right to vote locally instead of voting absentee in their home of record. They won! For several decades now, local elections are dominated by university-connected politicians. The permanent residents of Monroe County and Bloomington Indiana must live year-round with the consequences of those election results.

Is that fair or equal representation? I don't know, but the permanent residents of those places have a strong opinion.

And don't the residents of those communities benefit from having the universities there? Of course they do - - in fact I would venture to say that they benefit a great deal. I can remember in 1968 when we were denied the ability to vote because we were living in married student housing in a state distant from where we were born. We paid taxes, worked in the community, etc. but because we lived on campus and not in a private apartment, we could not vote. Was that fair?

Yes, the shift has probably been a little more liberal than some in the county would wish. OTOH, it is also true that getting a significant proportion of a student body to vote is extremely difficult - apathy on college campuses is the status quo.

Barb

To deny the right to vote is horrid and a true barometer of the state of things in our country. However it is the responsibility of each individual to make his vote heard, no matter where you live or call home. If I couldn't vote in Livingsston I WOULD find someplace where I could vote. If politicians can't think outside the box I can. Slaves can't do anything except what their masters allow, free men can do what ever they want or desire. Last time I checked there was no one holding a lien on my life.

Firepup-I will disagree with you about Livingston. Whether you spend a day or a lifetime in Livingston if you are an Escapee you are part of the community. The so called everyday residents treat you as such. You see it in your dealings with the "Locals". Go to the bank, and the tellers ask you "Are you an Escapee ?" and tell you welcome to our town. It's that way wherever you go Lowes, Jack in the Box, Walmart , you name it you are always treated as a neighbor. Go to the feed store down the road from Rainbows End, they'll tell you to pull up a rocking chair and they'll start swapping lies and swatting flies, 30 minutes in the rocking chair and you'll know more dirt and gossip on local politicians than any newspaper will ever tell you. That's Livingston

Apparently some local politician used his family's business address ( a funeral home) as his home address for his district purposes. When his co-conspirators (other party politicians) discovered this thay passed a law disallowing the use of business addresses for residence use. Of course campground, escapees parks etc. are businesses so it prevents their use as residence addresses. The new issue of Motorhome magazine covers some of this but of course is a couple of months old. I am not more up-to-date than this.

Several organizations (ACLU etc.) are looking into it and I hope it gets resolved.

I keep hearing this argument about TX/SD vs other states that allow voting to FT RVrs . We are Escapees but we DO NOT use Escapees mail service. Our local RV park allows us to to claim residence in their park for a minimal fee ($15/yr). I use the campgrounds address and a # or "unit" just as if I lived in an apartment or bungalow. After two + years I have no problem voting or any other minutiae connect to domicile even though I have only spent three days in the last two years as I pass through. Now, if you don't believe that a commercial entity (campground/RV Park) can be a residence and domicile, count how many "permanent or long term" residents there are there. In my park there are about 15 out of 128 slots. And please consider, no matter how you slice, dice, fold, spindle, or mutilate yourself, you nor anyone else is EVER gonna live in a PMB, no one is ever, ever, ever gonna spend the night in a PMB, never! An example, if you get a bill in the mail (yes I know you use the internet) for your Dish satellite service it lists a billing address (can be a PMB) and if you dig, a service address, which is where they go to fix it or install it (ALWAYS a physical location) what is so difficult about this concept. Or do I ow the board an apology because I missed the mark?