Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's no way I'm going to read through this thread, but I do have a comment to make on the topic.
The Democrats are screaming right now about making sure that "every vote counts." Their hysteria about this has grown so fervent, they don't seem to care about the issues of integrity related to their proposals/demands. Their only priority appears to be making sure all votes count, and rest assured, there will be MANY lawsuits all over the country about just that issue, after the election.
With that said, I find it remarkably hypocritical that this even came up as a topic of conversation. "Every vote counts." Does it really matter where a single ballot is cast, when we're facing unprecedented problems with the mail-in ballots which is affecting thousands of voters?
Stuff like this is why we've written off the latest incarnation of the Democrats. They're not even pretending to be honest anymore. They need a reality check, a-la 1972. They need to recenter themselves as a party. They've shot off to the left like a rocket.
Some Indiana residents have raised the question that it may not be.
He’s using the governor’s mansion as his address, however, the governor’s mansion has had a new occupant for some years.
“ Under Indiana law, a person cannot have residency both inside and outside of the state, so Hoosiers have questions.
...
Pence's team cites Indiana Code 3-5-5-1, "A person does not lose residency in a precinct in Indiana by reason of a person's absence on business of the United States. But the state's residency law also says in IC 3-5-5-9, "if a person is physically present within another state with the intention of remaining in the other state for an indefinite time...the person loses residency in the precinct…"
Per the article, Pence’s team has not said whether he plans to return to Indiana, but he owns no property there and since he lives in “temporary government-provided housing” his address reverts to his last legal address, which is the governor’s mansion.
Of course, they’ll let him and Mother vote, but, seriously?
Is this really worth citing Indiana Code enforcements and writing articles about? Ok, run him off, he'll just go vote in another state. Nuff said. The things that people are hung up about is borderline stupid sometimes.
He’s not in Virginia, so Virginia laws are immaterial. Regardless, he is a federal employee (yes, he is, even though he was elected into the job) on a time limited assignment living in assigned government owned quarters. Here are the guidelines:
He is not a service member, which is who the guidelines you posted apply to.
Indiana's requirements are
Quote:
You have the right to vote in Indiana if:
You are both a U.S. citizen and a resident of Indiana; and
You will be at least 18 years of age on or before the next General or Municipal Election, and
You are not currently in prison after being convicted of a crime; and
You have lived in the precinct where you vote for at least 30 days prior to the election; and
You are registered to vote.
If there is an exception for someone serving in the Federal Executive Office, who does not maintain a residence in Indiana, no one has been able to find it and post a link to it so far
Again, no one has said Pence should not be able to vote. But like the rest of us, he should be doing that based on his current residence and no one has provided any proof of residence in Indiana for him or any proof that he is allowed to claim a former residence 4 years later. He is not overseas, he is not serving in the military. He lives in government provided housing which should be where he registers to vote if he does not have ongoing residence in a different location.
If there is an exception for someone serving in the Federal Executive Office, who does not maintain a residence in Indiana, no one has been able to find it and post a link to it so far
Again, no one has said Pence should not be able to vote. But like the rest of us, he should be doing that based on his current residence and no one has provided any proof of residence in Indiana for him or any proof that he is allowed to claim a former residence 4 years later. He is not overseas, he is not serving in the military. He lives in government provided housing which should be where he registers to vote if he does not have ongoing residence in a different location.
Indiana law:
IC 3-5-5-5
Absence due to state or federal business
Sec. 5. As provided in Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, a person is not considered to have lost residence in a precinct in Indiana by reason of the person's absence on the business of:
(1) the state of Indiana; or
(2) the United States.
As added by P.L.12-1995, SEC.10. Amended by P.L.3-1995, SEC.10.
Quote:
II. DOMICILE DEFINED
A person has only one domicile at a given time even though that person maintains more than one residence at that time. Once a domicile has been established, it remains until the conditions necessary for a change of domicile occur.
In order to establish a new domicile, the person must be physically present at a place, and must have the simultaneous intent of establishing a home at that place. It is not necessary that a person intend to remain there until death; however, if the person, at the time of moving to the new location, has definite plans to leave that new location, then no new domicile has been established.
The determination of a person’s intent in relocating is necessarily a subjective determination. There is no one set of standards that will accurately indicate the person’s intent in every relocation. The determination must be made on the facts presented in each individual case. Relevant facts in determining whether a new domicile has been established include: (1) purchasing or renting residential property; (2) registering to vote; (3) filing a resident state income tax return; (4) receiving public assistance; (5) titling and registering a motor vehicle; or (6) preparing a last will and testament which includes the state of domicile.
Find something else to bellyache about him over. Do you really think he does not have access to people far more knowledgeable than you on the legality of where he votes?
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
He’s not in Virginia, so Virginia laws are immaterial. Regardless, he is a federal employee (yes, he is, even though he was elected into the job) on a time limited assignment living in assigned government owned quarters. Here are the guidelines:
He should Vote in his “ home of record” Feds use this address as your permanent one and just if things go very wrong and must send you home with bad illness or death. I don’t know what he uses, but it won’t be temp quarters.
IC 3-5-5-5
Absence due to state or federal business
Sec. 5. As provided in Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, a person is not considered to have lost residence in a precinct in Indiana by reason of the person's absence on the business of:
(1) the state of Indiana; or
(2) the United States.
As added by P.L.12-1995, SEC.10. Amended by P.L.3-1995, SEC.10.
Find something else to bellyache about him over. Do you really think he does not have access to people far more knowledgeable than you on the legality of where he votes?
I am not engaged to do legal research for Mike Pence and I never claimed to be an expert on it, your personal attack on me notwithstanding.
And I'm not going to bother to do any further research as to the applicability of what you cited.
The fact remains that it is bizarre to non-GOP partisans that a former governor of a state claims the governor's residence as his legal residence 4 years after he left office. And whether he is legally eligible to do so doesn't actually change that perception in any way.
And I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that GOPers would be attacking a Democrat far less politely than the questions raised on this thread if he or she was doing the same thing.
I am not engaged to do legal research for Mike Pence and I never claimed to be an expert on it, your personal attack on me notwithstanding.
And I'm not going to bother to do any further research as to the applicability of what you cited.
The fact remains that it is bizarre to non-GOP partisans that a former governor of a state claims the governor's residence as his legal residence 4 years after he left office. And whether he is legally eligible to do so doesn't actually change that perception in any way.
And I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that GOPers would be attacking a Democrat far less politely than the questions raised on this thread if he or she was doing the same thing.
Not this girl. I would be having the same discussion. Either something is right for everyone or it’s wrong for everyone.
This kind of stuff drives me absolutely nuts because it is nothing more than partisan nitpicking. I get people don’t like a particular politician for one reason or another but find something legitimate to get all outraged over; Lord knows every politician in the country has done something worthy of complaining about. This petty crap just makes the person latching onto it like it is the future scandal of the century look petty.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Not this girl. I would be having the same discussion. Either something is right for everyone or it’s wrong for everyone.
This kind of stuff drives me absolutely nuts because it is nothing more than partisan nitpicking. I get people don’t like a particular politician for one reason or another but find something legitimate to get all outraged over; Lord knows every politician in the country has done something worthy of complaining about. This petty crap just makes the person latching onto it like it is the future scandal of the century look petty.
I'm not aware of anyone who fretted over the possibility of Joe Biden voting in Delaware in 2012 or Al Gore voting in Tennessee in 1996. Nobody cares.
IC 3-5-5-5
Absence due to state or federal business
Sec. 5. As provided in Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, a person is not considered to have lost residence in a precinct in Indiana by reason of the person's absence on the business of:
(1) the state of Indiana; or
(2) the United States.
As added by P.L.12-1995, SEC.10. Amended by P.L.3-1995, SEC.10.
Find something else to bellyache about him over. Do you really think he does not have access to people far more knowledgeable than you on the legality of where he votes?
"Absence due to state or federal business
Sec. 5. As provided in Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, a person is not considered to have lost residence in a precinct in Indiana by reason of the person's absence on the business of:
(1) the state of Indiana; or
(2) the United States.
TDS really IS a mental disease!
I'm constantly amazed at how so many on the left can jump at ANYTHING negative if it is directed towards a repubs which t is so EASY to debunk.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
