| Rep. Scott Sales' HB 613 is up for third reading today, having narrowly passed second reading 51-49 yesterday.
That's really too bad.
The bill is basically drafted to tighten up residency requirements for voters and public officials. That's all fine-and-dandy for people who have very clear residency situations. Especially headed into a recession where things like couch surfing, temporary residences, etc., become more common, it isn't so great for large swaths of the population.
The bill says a person may only have one residence. Cool. That's current law. The problem comes from the efforts to say certain things cannot be a residence -- a parent's house, for example, once one has reached the age of majority, with only a handful of exceptions.
Normally, I wouldn't be very concerned about a bill like this, but ever since the Montana Republicans challenged 6,000 voters on specious residency grounds last fall, my ears perked up on this bill.
Consider the case of a soldier, stationed in New Jersey, but registered at his parent's new house in Montana, where he has no permanent room, but crashes in the guest room when he returns home. Under this bill, would that soldier's vote be open to challenge? And if it was challenged on Election Day, how would he be able to respond?
Or what about a recent college graduate, working a series of temporary jobs in and out of Montana, planning to return soon to their hometown, but can't afford an apartment and has a permanent bedroom in their parent's house. This individual may be able to consider Montana their residence, unless their wife lives with them in a hotel in Waco, TX, on a 4-week stint of work, in which case El Casa del Waco becomes their residence under this law.
Any problems this reform is trying to solve are minimal. The potential implications are very far-reaching.
Update - The bill died on third reading, with all fifty Democrats opposing it and one Republican in opposition as well. |
