Liveaboard voting rights threatened in Clay County FL

[sailorboy1]

Btw - broke ass cruisers being regristred residents of GCS probably greatly increase its per capital income :-)

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by sailpower

Agree with most of your points.

The law is vague as to what constitutes "good faith" intent.

"Immediate" intent as you stated might narrow it down but "immediate" would then have to have parameters.

Avoiding state taxes is unlikely to be successful if one continues to live and earn taxable income in another tax state.

RV's, Cruisers, who are traveling away from a tax state might benefit from a SBI address but, talk about being murky, lots of if's there.

Sorry, I inadvertently added "immediate". Probably because someone suggested they might move there in a few years so that should count.

Yes, it's a bit vague but this is where the court will generally consider what is "reasonable". "Reasonable" is a legal term and allows the court to consider these issues without the law detailing every possible nuance that could come up and usually the court will give you the benefit of the doubt if it's borderline.
- If you show that you have done background work to move there next month (got a local job, visited to check it out, set up an account with a local bank, etc...)...the court will probably give you the benefit of the doubt (plus by the time it gets to court, you would either be living there or not).
- If you think you might move there in 6-8yrs, you've never been there, you have absolutely no connection other than a mail forwarding service...the court is likely to determine that a "reasonable" person would say you are not a resident.

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Sorry, I inadvertently added "immediate". Probably because someone suggested they might move there in a few years so that should count.

Yes, it's a bit vague but this is where the court will generally consider what is "reasonable". "Reasonable" is a legal term and allows the court to consider these issues without the law detailing every possible nuance that could come up and usually the court will give you the benefit of the doubt if it's borderline.
- If you show that you have done background work to move there next month (got a local job, visited to check it out, set up an account with a local bank, etc...)...the court will probably give you the benefit of the doubt (plus by the time it gets to court, you would either be living there or not).
- If you think you might move there in 6-8yrs, you've never been there, you have absolutely no connection other than a mail forwarding service...the court is likely to determine that a "reasonable" person would say you are not a resident.

Those all sound like likely outcomes.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

The real answer to this SBI voter thing is for cruisers to actually vote and get rid on the aholes causing the problem.

You just proved the local authorities point. You just suggested having non-residents vote in elections against what the residents want.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by sailpower

You are able to do that because owning the house, which then led to the drivers license and voter registration fulfills the overt act part of the law.

Owning property is not a requirement but it does make a statement (as would renting) particularly as you are also living on your boat and cruising. You even spend time on the boat in FL.

No one can reasonably infer that you do not have a good faith intention so you appear to be in compliance.

Given what that he indicated that he never resided there, it doesn't qualify. Owning property is merely supporting evidence.

What owning a residential property does is make it difficult for the authorities to determine if you live there. Unless someone calls them up and notifies the authorities, just looking at the record books, there is nothing that jumps out to indicate that he's not a resident.

This is different from a mail forwarding service where you have hundreds of people living at a PO Box, so it's obvious something isn't legit.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

You just proved the local authorities point. You just suggested having non-residents vote in elections against what the residents want.

That’s how republics work, vote them out

[hellosailor]

Voter registration in the US is keyed to residency. And that applies to all 50 states and the insular possessions as well. The flaw is, no one ever intended for transients and vagrants to be able to vote, particularly when voting meant changing *local* officials.

Logically the only way to correct this would be at the Federal level, where some system would have to be implemented to allow federal citizens the right to vote in federal elections (and federal only) where residency was not a factor. So, all the SBI clients would be able to vote for president--but not for Senator, or dogcatcher, since they really should have no say in those offices.

I suspect SBI don't have the interest in being the folks who bring that fight all the way up to the US Supreme Court, because that will be ten years of lawsuits before Congress is ordered to do something. And then again, they still might lose the case.

Remember that in the US, only 20% of the population were originally deemed to be full citizens worthy of having the power to vote. If 80% of the people don't have the right to vote, why should transients get any better? That 80% has only been whittled down over the course of 200+ years by incremental amendments, something that takes a lot of work to have done.

Now, if SBI bought a field and built 5000 "tiny homes" in it...then the legal fiction that they've been using, could continue. Otherwise? Yeah, legal fictions come to an end.

[sailorboy1]

In the meantime, all you SBI (and other mail box places boat and RV cruisers use) vote out the local politians till they start doing something helpful to you.

Btw- I bet GCS makes money charging the SBI boaters for drivers listeners and boat regristrations. That’s probably at least as much as they make off the public housing people across from the grocery store there. My wife went to school in GCS and we got married there. GCS has more important things to concerned over than regristred boat voters that don’t vote.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

That’s how republics work, vote them out

If you are a resident, yes.
If not, you don't get a say in the matter.

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Logically the only way to correct this would be at the Federal level, where some system would have to be implemented to allow federal citizens the right to vote in federal elections (and federal only) where residency was not a factor. So, all the SBI clients would be able to vote for president--but not for Senator, or dogcatcher, since they really should have no say in those offices.

POTUS/VPOTUS are selected by Electoral votes not National total votes.

Electoral votes are mostly determined by winning a state total and thus that state's Electoral votes.

So, If a non resident should not have the ability to vote for a US Senator in a state that they are not a resident of, shouldn't that same logic preclude a non resident from affecting the Electoral vote of that same state?

[hellosailor]

sailpower-
All that stuff is just part of the complications that would need to be addressed. The whole concept of whether we should be using an electoral college has been a hot-button issue for ages. Not to dissemble, that's not part of the issue at hand, just a speedbump.

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

sailpower-
All that stuff is just part of the complications that would need to be addressed. The whole concept of whether we should be using an electoral college has been a hot-button issue for ages. Not to dissemble, that's not part of the issue at hand, just a speedbump.

Changing our voting system would require a Constitutional Convention of States so hardly just a speed bump.

Besides, the 2016 election illustrated perfectly why the founders went with the Electoral system.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

If you are a resident, yes.
If not, you don't get a say in the matter.

I’m a citizen, I get a say! Not my fault really that I had to become a resident of a “place” to do it. If gcs doesn’t like it they need to take it up with their Federal Representations and Senators who of course will make it their mission to get the rest of the House and Senate to write a bill and get approved to change the system.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I’m a Fl resident, pretty sure of that.
I don’t think you can get a drivers license for a State without residing there. Car is registered in Fl using St Brendan’s Isle address, as is the boat.
Way I see it is the State of Florida has accepted me as being a resident, have they not?

Many possible contextual complications.

You can get many states to "accept" you.

But if you had tax liabilities in the past you are now escaping, you need to be legally certain of the previous jurisdiction "releasing" you.

Especially if you still spend time there or own property etc.

Ultimately a judge would decide where your legal domicile is if you didn't do it properly.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Way past that I think

I was not making any comments in reference to any specific situation.

Just providing general information for anyone interested and maybe new to the topic.