56 Comments
User's avatar
South Dakota Voice's avatar

Blake thank you for expressing your concerns. It is nice to hear from you. My understanding is when you are in the military you can pick any state you like for your residence. Once you retire you live where you reside. If your issue is income tax, there are several states that are low/no tax. One of the big issues right now is we have a lot of people who do not live in the state voting in our elections which as you might imagine makes it frustrating for the people who really live here. Also, the people who live in the state are a bit upset with the amount their auto insurance has escalated (part of which is accidents that happen in more expensive areas). And I am sure the community where you land will want a military veteran involved in the community (including voting).

Expand full comment
Edwardbadlands's avatar

It’s way too simple to acquire SD state residency under the current state requirements.

https://www.outsidenomad.com/how-to-claim-south-dakota-residency/

Interestingly, Nevada is also a popular state to claim residency in as well.

However, I believe what inspires many people to take South Dakota as their fake domicile is the car insurance is much cheaper in SD than Nevada.

https://www.carinsurance.com/state-car-insurance-rates

Expand full comment
SDGal's avatar

The point is you don't live here...but you want to vote in our city, county. State elections and other than licensing your vehicles here you are not a citizen of South Dakota. If you want to live here...then really live here, but your $7000.00 doesn't mean you should be able to vote as if you are a South Dakotan. You need to vote where you actually live and sleep.

Expand full comment
Vince Wagner's avatar

I think the real issue is that many are claiming S Dakota residency to avoid state income taxes in places like CA, MN, IA, etc

Expand full comment
South Dakota Voice's avatar

Thank you for summarizing the frustration many people seem to be feeling -- people who do not live in the state are helping to elect people that control local issues.

Expand full comment
Michael Welsh's avatar

This should be an easy problem to solve.

Cell phone data is available to prove where people spend most of their time.

Simply identify the people who have a mail forwarding service to the states where they actually live (The forwarding address.).

I'm sure the tax man in those states will be happy to fix the problem.

Expand full comment
South Dakota Voice's avatar

I am curious, have the tax people in other states already started this process?

Expand full comment
Michael Welsh's avatar

I don't know, but if they haven't, they're incompetent.

However, I do know that SD Game, Fish and Parks has used this kind of data to prove that out of state hunters/fishermen have falsely claimed to be SD residents for licensing.

As far as invasive oversight is concerned, I don't like it either, but I can't wish it away.

This is reality, and it is used for all sorts of nefarious purposes by corporations. If we can catch a few tax cheats in the process, good for us.

Expand full comment
Meredith Lockhart's avatar

So you want more invasive oversight?

Expand full comment
South Dakota Voice's avatar

Good question about invasive oversight.

Expand full comment
Tod Gohl's avatar

Never even thought of this scenario! I do know for sure that car and home insurance are double here than in CA when we lived there. Vehicle registration is half here what it was there. Property tax assessment percentage is a tad higher here than there and actually the combined state tax and property tax in CA wasn't too much more than the property taxes assessed here without the state tax.

Expand full comment
South Dakota Voice's avatar

Thank you for sharing that information. It is helpful.

Expand full comment
SOUTH DAKOTA CANVASSING GROUP's avatar

Good research! $ talks!

Expand full comment
Michael G Trier's avatar

You should be claiming residency wherever you spend most of your time.

Expand full comment
Bill's avatar

The other option is to quit voting for people who intentionally harbor out-of-state residents for financial gains…

Expand full comment
South Dakota Voice's avatar

Interesting comment. Would you be so kind as to provide a little more explanation.

Expand full comment
South Dakota Voice's avatar

Thank you for all the lively discussion! Perhaps I missed something along the way, but I have not heard any discussion about active duty military members picking South Dakota as their place of residence. I think the concern is people who are using South Dakota as a tax haven and live and work in high density places with high taxes. Since South Dakota is small, tens of thousands of people in this category can impact everything from insurance rates to election results.

Expand full comment
David Summers's avatar

Just a thought.... Could it be our insurance is excessive due to the amount of hail damage claims in the last few years?

I would think that has something to do with it but 🤷‍♂️

Expand full comment
South Dakota Voice's avatar

Interesting point. We have had quite a few storms recently. Has anyone looked at the historic data. It would be fascinating to review it.

Expand full comment
Kay Kohlhepp's avatar

It seems that military and rv’ers are popular in SD. I am not sure about military but if SD is not happy with rv’ers in SD they can change their residency. Is that a savings for SD??

Is that really good for SD????

Expand full comment
Chuck Haberer's avatar

I agree, SD makes a lot of money off from RVrs and some of them very seldom use our roads. I was in the insurance business over 30 years and this was never a problem. I can’t imagine someone out of state caring who we are voting for in SD. I think we should let well enough alone since we are getting free money!!!

Expand full comment
South Dakota Voice's avatar

Sadly, these out of state people are participating in local elections and changing the outcome. Also, local people (people who live here) are being told their insurance is increasing due to accidents out of state. This is why people are upset. Do you have any suggestions on how we address these issues other than residency?

Expand full comment
Chuck Haberer's avatar

The problem is that we never had $100,000 vehicles before that insurance companies had to replace when they are totaled!

Expand full comment
South Dakota Voice's avatar

Interesting. I don't know many South Dakota residents (people that really live here) that have $100,000+ cars or trucks. Most of us have vehicles that are well below that number. Are the $100,000+ vehicles being purchased by the people who really live out of state? Also we are being told the rate increases are due to out of state accidents, not accidents inside South Dakota. Could you share some data that shows this is not the case?

Expand full comment
Keith Stevenson's avatar

Can make residency requirements more stringent ... Insurance won't go down though. It's a money thing ...

Expand full comment
South Dakota Voice's avatar

Good point! Some of the data I saw suggests it is going down in some states. It would be interesting to know how those states accomplishing a reduction.

Expand full comment
Edwardbadlands's avatar

It’s way too simple to acquire SD state residency under the current state requirements.

https://www.outsidenomad.com/how-to-claim-south-dakota-residency/

Interestingly, Nevada is also a popular state to claim residency in as well.

However, I believe what inspires many people to take South Dakota as their fake domicile is the car insurance is much cheaper in SD than Nevada.

https://www.carinsurance.com/state-car-insurance-rates

Expand full comment
Meredith Lockhart's avatar

South Dakota has already made it practically impossible for active duty military and their dependents who claim SD as their home of record. My family and all dependents are licensed and insured in SD. We all vote in SD. Every year it gets harder. We have lived in different overseas locations for 10 years and have to fight this invisible residency war. Do what you have to do, but don’t forget not everybody is cheating the system.

Expand full comment
Cole Kruseway's avatar

Gotcha and thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated!

Expand full comment
Blake's avatar

The bill has a minor flaw. I’m active duty of 26 years. My only ever state of residence has been SD. At the moment I don’t intend to return to SD when I retire. I honestly have no idea where I’m going after I retire. Under this bill I couldn’t claim SD as my state of residence.

Expand full comment
SDGal's avatar

Your active duty and haven't established a residence in another state.... your still a South Dakota resident... Military is a different situation. Please check with JAG

Expand full comment
Tod Gohl's avatar

Correct. My whole 20 years all over the world and country, I was still a South Dakota Resident.

Expand full comment
Blake's avatar

Under current law I am. Under this bill it could possibly be stripped. Hence my concern for the specific verbiage in this law.

Expand full comment
Michael G Trier's avatar

Blake, I think federal law is involved in keeping you a SD resident for so long as you remain on active duty. If I'm right, the state of SD can't take your federal rights away. Thanks for serving. Are you by any chance at Ft Leonard Wood where I attended basic 55 years ago.

Expand full comment
Blake's avatar

SCRA should trump if SD did try. But technically they could by the bill. I don’t think they would do it, but they could. I’d wind the court battle but I’d prefer that statement be removed.

I’m actually at Leonard Wood as an instructor!

Expand full comment
Michael G Trier's avatar

Wow, small world, I'm living in Custer SD. I'll voice our concerns to a local legislators who is retired army.

Expand full comment
Chris J. Larson's avatar

Respectfully Blake, when you retire you should be voting in elections in the community that you live, so that you can have better local control. Living in Florida & voting for SD mayor, governor, legislature makes no sense.

Expand full comment
Blake's avatar

I don’t disagree with you and under current laws I can’t. Even if I’m stationed in Florida and retire at the same location, I just register as a Florida residence. Where I retire will dictate how long I have to register. Most places it is 90 days. That’s not my concern for the wording of this law.

I’m currently in Missouri and retire in 2 years. I do not intent to move back to SD right away when I get out as my daughter has 2 years after that to graduate. After that we may move back, we don’t know. But under this proposal SD could technically revoke my residency since I’m not intending to return.

Expand full comment
Chris J. Larson's avatar

I would think the military would have exceptions.

Expand full comment
Meredith Lockhart's avatar

They should but South Dakota is very narrow sighted on the impacts these laws have on military families. I’m sick of listening to Noem say she supports military families when that is far from the truth.

Expand full comment
Blake's avatar

There are exemptions in this proposed bill to include military. But it includes “and intends to return to the individual’s residence”. Technically my residence is my mom’s house… I’m 47 and left for the military at 20. I do not intend to return. That wording in the proposed bill is my concern.

Expand full comment
Chris J. Larson's avatar

If you've not lived in this community for 27 years, & don't plan on returning, do you have an interest in deciding who the elected officials are? Mind you, I don't want to infringe on your rights, I'm just asking if you actually care enough to research the candidates & make an informed decision?

Expand full comment
Michael G Trier's avatar

Chris, SCRA, federal law gives Blake the right to maintain his SD residency for so long as he's active duty army. His uncertainty about where he will live immediately upon retirement doesn't change that. Once he's off active duty, he'll have 90 days to elect a residence. I've contacted my local legislators in SD asking that they avoid any conflict with SCRA. I haven't looked at SCRA for a very long time, but I think it expressly provides that the home residence continues until a new residence is elected regardless of intent to return, same for a military spouse. I'm retired USAR JAG.

Expand full comment
Meredith Lockhart's avatar

Exactly. Where are we supposed to list? That’s the point of HOR. We haven’t been stationed stateside for 10 years. We can’t just have every adult dependent on the house have a different residency based on where the were when they get a license or register to vote.

Expand full comment
Cole Kruseway's avatar

Well it looks like HB1066 was Adopted with 7-6 close vote.

1) So when does it actually go into effect?

2) What does this mean for folks who use mailbox forwarding services?

Expand full comment
South Dakota Voice's avatar

I believe this bill just came out of committee. I believe it will go to the house floor next.

Expand full comment
Michael G Trier's avatar

Cole, that vote was to come out of committee. It hasn't yet been voted on by the full House. Then it must go to the senate and be signed by the governor to become effective.

Expand full comment