North Carolina Voter Residency Law Similar to South Dakota – Dakota Free Press

The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation is investigating whether former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows committed criminal perjury in claim a false residence on his North Carolina Voter Registration Form in September 2020 and voting that he was not qualified to vote in the 2020 North Carolina general election. His wife may also be subject to investigation and prosecution to claim the same false residence for voting purposes.

The Meadowses’ case may weigh on tens of thousands of “South Dakotans” who claim voter residency in a variety of South Dakota mail forwarding storefronts while traveling the country in recreational vehicles and living on the road. North Carolina’s voting residency status is much like that of South Dakota. I below I quote the first four main clauses of North Carolina General Status 163-57 and the four clauses of the noticeably less verbose South Dakota Codified Law 12-1-4:

SNCG 163-57 SDCL 12-1-4
This place is considered as the residence of a person in which the dwelling of this person is fixed, and to which, whenever this person is absent, this person intends to return… For the purposes of this title, the term residence designates the place where a person has established his dwelling and to which he intends to return, when he is absent.
A person will not be deemed to have lost his residence if that person leaves his domicile and travels to another state, county, municipality, precinct, ward, or other electoral district within that state, for temporary purposes only, with the intent to come back. A person who left home and traveled to another state, territory, or county within that state for temporary purposes only has not changed residence.
A person shall not be deemed to have obtained residence in any county, municipality, precinct, ward, or other electoral district of this State, to which such person comes for temporary purposes only, without the intention of rendering such county, that municipality, that constituency, ward or other electoral district a place of permanent residence. A person is considered to have obtained residence in any county or municipality of that state in which the person actually lives, if the person has no current intention to leave.
If a person moves to another state or county, municipality, precinct, ward, or other electoral district within that state, with the intent of making that state, county, municipality, precinct, ward, or other electoral district a permanent residence, that person will be deemed to have lost residence in the state, county, municipality, precinct, ward, or other electoral district from which that person left. If a person moves to another state, or to one of the other territories, with the intention of making it their permanent home, they lose their residence in that state.

North Carolina and South Dakota define voter residency in terms of fixed habitation and intention to return after temporary absences. Both states refuse to vote residency to someone who moves in temporarily but has no intention of staying. North Carolinians and South Dakotans lose their electoral residency if they move with the intention of staying somewhere else permanently.

Both states’ voter registration forms outline the requirement for real and permanent residency. North Carolina is asking residents who register to vote for “provide your residential address – where you physically live.” South Dakota requires voters to declare under penalty of perjury that they “currently lives at the above address and does not intend to leave the above address.”

Sentences live physically and actually live appear to give the courts sufficient leeway to reject residency claims based on occasional visits and require proof of what any reasonable person would consider to be a regular and daily dwelling, the place where a voter sleeps each night or, at the very least, the primary residence the voter maintains as the place the voter will return to once their job or college education or vacation or other interruptions are over. As the Supreme Court of South Dakota ruled in Heinemeyer v. Heartland 2008occasionally sleeping, eating, and receiving mail in a place where rent is paid—the basis for RVers’ claim that they “live” in South Dakota—are not sufficient to establish residency.

Mark Meadows and his wife do not physically live in the residence they claimed when they registered to vote in North Carolina in 2020. The high-profile investigation into this bogus residency claim could shed unwanted light on the dozens of thousands of individuals who do not actually live in South Dakota mailbox rental showcases but have been vote in south dakota elections.

Comments are closed.