Liveaboard voting rights threatened in Clay County FL

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Assuming I am a “qualified voter” the question becomes defining “the state in which you are qualified to vote...”

How do you define the above?

If Fl is removing you from the roles, and you have no better connection, then they are removing your right to vote. I don’t see how this policy solves the problem.

If you claimed residency in Florida when you did not qualify and they catch on, then it reverts back to your most recent place of residency.

By incorrectly claiming residency, you likely created a mess that will be a hassle to fix.

[a64pilot]

I just left SBI, had a talk with the owner. they have retained counsel.
he feels optimistic apparently the site in Tx has been through this already and won.
for those of you worried about people not living there voting on local elections, don't. it apparently is already against Fl election statue according to the SBI owner. We can only vote on Federal level
seeing as how no one spoke up here and said that, it tells me that nobody has tried

[hellosailor]

sailpower-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conven...s_Constitution
No, a Constitutional Convention is not required to pass an amendment, just legislative action will do it.
And the speedbump I'm referring to, is the discussion of whether to change the whole system, as opposed to addressing the simpler smaller issue at hand.
Florida is one of the states where there is no single binding definition of "residency" or "resident". They allow each state agency to write their own definition, for their own purposes, and the agencies are not required to harmonize definitions, or to honor the ones of other agencies.
That nail was firmly driven in about five years ago in Miami-Dade, where one of the voting rights groups won a court case allowing "Under the McArthur Causeway" to be sufficient as a legal residency, because that's where some homeless people were in fact residing. Their board of elections is now bound by court order to accept that as a sufficient residency, but their DMV uses other definitions.
So part of the problem is federal. Part is Floriduh. North Dakota does things differently, you can stay overnight, file a declaration of intent (truthfully or not) and become a resident with an in-state mail forwarding address, but actually be "absent with leave" for decades. The difference being, that's done with the express intent and consent of their state legislature. Florida *could* do the same thing, but the general Florida preference is to push taxes on the snowbirds and tourists, and leave real physical residents with real bargains.
IIRC NYC actually mandates (whether you like it or not) that anyone physically residing there is a resident, after just 30 days. Other places may do the same, just as simply, even if they may require 183 days out of 365, or 183 contiguous days, all sorts of options.
Bottom line is that there are not always laws defining who is a resident, in which case you can be in a pickle. And where there ARE laws, yes, it really is just a matter of fulfilling them. All citizens do not automatically always have a right to right. A potential right, perhaps. If they meet all the other requirements.
It it like turning 18, walking into a poll and saying "I want to vote today". Eh, might be naive, it doesn't quite happen without some process. Disqualifying voters, in order to make sure that just your own folks can vote, has been a fine game for hundreds of years. Read tip O'Neil's fine book "Speaker of the House" for a merry history of how the game has been played. There's nothing new here.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

If this plan ever did get the numbers required, I would expect it to be quickly struck down as unconstitutional.

Not possible. It is explicitly left to the states to specify on what basis their electors cast their votes for President.

[sailorboy1]

it suddenly occurs to me that this thread doesn't really matter

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Not possible. It is explicitly left to the states to specify on what basis their electors cast their votes for President.

14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Voting is a privilege of citizens.

You can debate if the electoral college should be winner take all or proportional to the statewide vote but either could reasonably be claimed that their privilege to vote hasn't been abridged.

On the other hand, if the state votes 90% for candidate A but the legislature says too bad, we are giving our electoral college votes to candidate B because other states voted for candidate B, it's fairly straight forward for any citizen who voted for candidate A to claim their privilege to vote for the presidential electors has been abridged.

[hellosailor]

"Voting is a privilege of citizens."
So, the various laws that forbid me to sell my vote to the highest bidder (which used to be common and legal) and the laws that closed Boston's bars on election day (to prevent the opposition party from buying free drinks for their loyal voters, and even more, stronger free booze to inebriate the opposition voters and keep them too drunk to vote, would be illegal?
State residency laws don't affect the privilege of voting. They "merely" question the eligibility of someone to vote in a particular place or time. Sometimes the polls are open from 5AM to 9PM. Other places, 8AM to 7PM. Perhaps unequal, perhaps egregious for factory working families, but nevertheless, legal. So far.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

"Voting is a privilege of citizens."
So, the various laws that forbid me to sell my vote to the highest bidder (which used to be common and legal) and the laws that closed Boston's bars on election day (to prevent the opposition party from buying free drinks for their loyal voters, and even more, stronger free booze to inebriate the opposition voters and keep them too drunk to vote, would be illegal?
State residency laws don't affect the privilege of voting. They "merely" question the eligibility of someone to vote in a particular place or time. Sometimes the polls are open from 5AM to 9PM. Other places, 8AM to 7PM. Perhaps unequal, perhaps egregious for factory working families, but nevertheless, legal. So far.

I would have to see the wording of the laws you are referring to but I'm betting it is illegal for the purchaser not the voter. The voter is still free to cast his vote any way he chooses, so the privilege is not abridged. Of course the law in some jurisdictions may have been written poorly but if challenged there is a simple fix. (the bar example is just a variation where booze is the payment or you have a non-governmental group trying to manipulate the vote which would be a different issue unless state sponsored).

As far as the polling times, this goes back to the legal determination of "reasonable". Either time frame would pass the reasonableness test...in the context of this discussion, it's irrelevant as cruisers without a traditional residence are going to be requesting an absentee ballot anyway

[john61ct]

If your argument against the NPV compact is that the voters' choice actually has some intrinsic importance, then you are arguing against the Electoral College.

The constitution's EC system is that the state's chosen Electors are free to vote however they like for President; there is zero obligation to consider how that state's residents voted.

That is its whole point.

And more importantly, to prevent a popular but incompetent, corrupt, amoral and unbalanced sociopath from becoming President.

At this point, the EC is today just a rubber stamp of the political parties, and that **most certainly** is the opposite of what the Founders intended.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by john61ct

If your argument against the NPV compact is that the voters' choice actually has some intrinsic importance, then you are arguing against the Electoral College.

The constitution's EC system is that the state's chosen Electors are free to vote however they like for President; there is zero obligation to consider how that state's residents voted.

That is its whole point.

And more importantly, to prevent a popular but incompetent, corrupt, amoral and unbalanced sociopath from becoming President.

At this point, the EC is today just a rubber stamp of the political parties, and that **most certainly** is the opposite of what the Founders intended.

Actually, you are voting for the electors when you vote for president. The parties nominate the electors and you are voting for them in reality...presumably they will vote for the parties candidate.

NVP proposes is to override the state citizens right to elect the electors of their choice to represent the state. Particularly for small states where they will be unable to sway the national popular vote most years, it would result in the legislature taking away the state voters right to elect the electors of the president.

So while yes, an elector can vote for someone else, you are still taking away the voters right to determine how their state selects electors.

The problem trying to apply the logic that it should be popular vote at the national level is the constitution specifically calls out that it's the electoral college at the national level not popular vote.

While the founding fathers didn't want mob rule, they also wanted the will of the people to be considered. The current system does that.

[john61ct]

OK so the current system cedes control of the EC process to the parties.

So the states passing the NPV at least puts the authority back in the hands of that state government.

In most cases that process requires the support of both parties.

Directing how those Electors vote is explicitly **not** specified, the Founders intention was that be left between the Electors and those who are empowered by each state to decide how they are selected. Ultimately it is up to the conscience of each Elector.

If they all resolve to abide by the NPV then that is in line with the Founders intentions and the Constitution.

There is no denial of the right to "vote for Electors".

Originally Posted by valhalla360

While the founding fathers didn't want mob rule, they also wanted the will of the people to be considered. The current system does that.

So does the NPV, in fact more effectively.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by john61ct

OK so the current system cedes control of the EC process to the parties.

So the states passing the NPV at least puts the authority back in the hands of that state government.

In most cases that process requires the support of both parties.

Directing how those Electors vote is explicitly **not** specified, the Founders intention was that be left between the Electors and those who are empowered by each state to decide how they are selected. Ultimately it is up to the conscience of each Elector.

If they all resolve to abide by the NPV then that is in line with the Founders intentions and the Constitution.

There is no denial of the right to "vote for Electors".


So does the NPV, in fact more effectively.

No it doesn't cede the electoral college process to the parties. Voters must vote for those electors. The parties simply nominate the electors but voters get to select electors (you can even do write in if you don't like any of the party candidates but not sure how those electors get selected).

The state govt is only supposed to set up the process but that process can't completely override the voting public and still meet the intent.

I never said the electors wouldn't have the choice but its false to imply that the founding fathers didn't think the electors would have an affiliation to a candidate. That was never the case. This was more of a fall back if the candidate was truly so bad that he was unacceptable.

Sure, NVP allows you to vote for state electors... but then it throws out the results of the voting...net effect is the voters have lost the right to elect the electors who elect the president and that clearly violates the constitution.

[Nicholson58]

Originally Posted by sailpower

Murky? Poorly defined interest?

It seems that no one is required to own land or real property in order to vote in Clay county. One does have to have an intent to actually live there. Seems pretty straightforward.

When applying the law they seem to be stating that not actually living there or even intending to live there is in fact not a good faith intention to live there. Hard to argue with that?

“To establish legal residence, a person must have a ‘good faith intention’ to reside in a particular place, coupled with ‘positive overt acts’ that demonstrate that intention…. Such ‘overt acts’ could include the person buying a home in the county, applying for homestead in the county, registering his or her vehicle in the county, receiving mail at an address in the county, or undertaking any other activity normally associated with home life."

I retired.
I moved onto my boat.
I sold my house, cars, kids, dog.
Boy do we miss the dog.
The boat is in the Caribbean.
My daughter in Ohio receives and opens mail, pays bills, has power of attorney.
I have no intention of owning a home.
We cannot vote in any election.

It was suggested that the government would figure this out and find a way for us Ex Pats to vote as they have military and other folks living abroad. I have a bridge I’d like to sell you. Those Bozos can’t even decide what to do with illegal voters or a host of important issues. A few thousand of us are miles below their radar. Neither the left or right despots will ever even notice us.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Nicholson58

I retired.
I moved onto my boat.
I sold my house, cars, kids, dog.
Boy do we miss the dog.
The boat is in the Caribbean.
My daughter in Ohio receives and opens mail, pays bills, has power of attorney.
I have no intention of owning a home.
We cannot vote in any election.

It was suggested that the government would figure this out and find a way for us Ex Pats to vote as they have military and other folks living abroad. I have a bridge I’d like to sell you. Those Bozos can’t even decide what to do with illegal voters or a host of important issues. A few thousand of us are miles below their radar. Neither the left or right despots will ever even notice us.

So why is it that other cruisers who sold all and use a friend/relative/service to receive mail have no problem getting absentee ballots from the state they last resided in? Our mail goes to Green Cove Springs, FL, including our absentee ballots from Washington state. It was very easy to setup.

[john61ct]

Exactly.

Too many seem to think there is or should be a connection between your forwarding service and your official domicile address.

The commercial services **cannot** offer a permanent valid residential address that works for all your needs.

Some sketchy ones may seem to promise that, but it is simply not within their power to do so.

We each need to go to that little bit of extra effort to make our own - ideally **personal** - arrangements to accomplish that.