Former Speaker of the House and Ambassador to Japan Tom Foley continues to vote in Spokane, 10 years after he left Congress even though he hasn't lived in his old district for years. He votes absentee, listing an address on E. 14th Ave, Spokane as his residence, with a mailing address on C St SE in Washington, DC. But his C St. SE address in DC appears to be more than a temporary mailstop [look up Square 1017 Lot 0100] . Oddly enough, the mailing address he lists for his C St. residence is ... the Spokane address that forwards his mail to DC.
Foley has been a partner in the DC office of Akin Gump since 1995, interrupted only by his term as Ambassador to Japan from 1997 - 2001. His Akin Gump bio states that he and his wife "reside in Washington, D.C., and Spokane, Washington", but another of his online autobiographies states only that he "currently resides in Washington, DC", with no mention of Spokane.
Does Ambassador Foley really still live in Spokane and is it fair for him to keep voting there?
After doing some initial online research, I spoke with Ambassador Foley and here is what I learned:
* Ambassador and Mrs. Foley's Spokane "residence" isn't exactly their residence. They are registered to vote at the Spokane home of Foley's former assistant. The Foleys have never lived at this address.
* The Foleys most recently owned a condominium in Spokane, but sold it during his term as Ambassador, which ended in April 2001. They do not own any other residence in Washington state.
* Foley says that he started voting in Spokane when he was 21 years old and has maintained an "unbroken record of voting and registration" there ever since.
* I told him that I would not challenge his registration, but raised the possibility that another voter might challenge his registration. I asked if he would defend his registration should he be challenged. He stated that he certaintly would, that he's always considered Spokane his home, and pointed to his many years of service to the district. But when pressed on what current facts still tie him to Spokane other than his long voting record and his history of service, he declined to say.
First of all, I've always admired Tom Foley. He's a great American and I think he was a fine Speaker of the House and diplomat. I'm not writing this to attack him or to detract from his many years of honorable service to his country. But his case does illustrate an important issue and people might pay more attention to this issue on account of his celebrity. Should someone be permitted to vote in a community long after they stop maintaining a bona fide physical residence there? I was born and raised in Madison, WI and I will always think of it as a kind of home. But my "permanent address where I physically reside and maintain my abode" is in Seattle. That's why I vote in Seattle and not in Madison. Similarly, I don't think it's fair for my vote in Seattle to be diluted by the votes of people who feel a sentimental attachment to the place but clearly live elsewhere.
As our legislators work on election reform, I would encourage them to tighten up and clarify the rules regarding voting residence. Perhaps they'll want to make an explicit provision for former Congressmen to continue to vote in their former districts indefinitely. In the meantime, I'd be interested in hearing from readers. Leaving aside the cases of people who are away on obviously temporary assignments, is it or is it not fair (not to mention legal) for the right to vote in this state to be limited to those who actually have a permanent physical abode here?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 22, 2005 01:36 AM | Email ThisInteresting open ended question.
However, there are thousands of military members and expatriates that hold a much more tenuous connection to Washington than Foley. They are often absent for a dozen years or more even if they are located in the US.
Here's one concept you might want to keep in mind: A residence, once established, is not changed unless it is affirmatively established elsewhere.
Therefore, if one establishes a residency in Washington, it will not change by absence or moving around alot even for decades in the future. There has to be another residence to replace Washington for it to change.
Thus, a residence does not fade away as there has to be a place to vote.
Foley certainly meets the first part of the test as he did once live in Washington for a long time. Whether it changed or not depends on his intention and actions establishing a residence elsewhere. The difference with DC is that most political types go there to work only, a sort of civil deployment.
I don't know if a contest against him to vote would prevail but I doubt it.
Posted by: Erik on February 22, 2005 02:02 AMAbsence from the state on business shall not affect the question of residence of any person unless the right to vote has been claimed or exercised elsewhere.
Being located in Japan certainly qualifies as on business. Working in a law firm in DC is a closer issue.
Posted by: Erik on February 22, 2005 02:09 AMIt does stand in stark contrast to the good doctor from Atlanta.
Perhaps Foley also intends to ultimately retire to the Seattle area - I can see this as giving himself some mental coverage for his current arrangement.
Still - when his terms of public service ended, he in actuality lost all reasonable justification for maintaining his WA voting priveleges. Drawing on my own experience, via military service, I was registered and voted from my 'home of record' state for the entire 24 year period. And then filled out the application and changed my 'residence' to where I currently live the week after my retirement became effective.
Portable, permanent residency might appeal to the sentimental side, but it isn't the way things run otherwise.
Does Foley hold a WA state issued driver's liscense? Probably not. Most likely, it's either VA, DC or Maryland.
As for voting, however, your point on the extension of the right to do so for long serving Congressmen that retire but don't immediately return to their districts has some merit - however, what constitutes 'long term'? Should Hillary get permanent NY voting privelege for her term(s)?
When I moved, my permanent address also moved.
Should someone continue voting who is not a permanent resident? No.
Simple.
Lawrence
Posted by: Lawrence Kellie on February 22, 2005 04:44 AMA literal reading of the above RCW makes it clear that once a person establishes residence in Washington state, even a protected absence ALONE (at least for business reasons) is insufficient to diminish their right to vote.
So focusing on the above provision of law alone, whether or not it would be appropriate for Tom Foley to vote in Spokane would depend on whether or not Tom Foley has registered to vote elsewhere. As you have not accused Tom Foley of double voting, I will assume that he is not registered elsewhere. I would definitely consider double voting by anyone highly unethical and inappropriate.
There is an interesting twist in the law here. It seems that if you move to Florida on business it’s OK to continue voting in Washington, but if you move to Florida to retire then it’s probably not.
The question of whether or not this is the way the law should read is another matter. I definitely agree with the position that a person should have to deal with both the tax consequences, and the effects on the community, of their votes. Say a person thinks libraries are a good idea and they vote for a library bond measure. If they don’t live in the community then it is unfair for them to impose a tax on others that they do not have to pay themselves. Conversely, if the person thinks spending on parks is a waste of money, but the majority of people in the community want more parks, it is unfair that this person’s vote might help to circumvent the will of the majority in the community.
So allowing people in general to vote elsewhere for “sentimental reasons” is generally preposterous and stupid. Having said that, I would not be terribly opposed to making some exceptions for certain select classes of (ex)-government officials.
Unfortunately, I can’t immediately come up with an alternate proposal as to how I would like to see the law rewritten. There are certain classes of people such as the military who may have protracted tours of duty outside the country. Where should they be entitled to vote? I can’t answer that question unless it’s the place in the US where they last resided, whether or not that was recently.
This is a problem with snowbirds. To call Washington home not Yuma Arizona they have a minimum time of physically residing here. What is the differnce between them and others like Foley? None.
No live-no vote.
Posted by: mel on February 22, 2005 05:01 AMGeorge Bush (41) lives in Houston most of the year. He is seen frequently at Astros games and elsewhere. He lived here for years before becoming V-P and then Pres. So, to review, he lived here, kept a voting residence while he was away and then moved back. Problem?
Posted by: Jack Wayne on February 22, 2005 06:09 AMNo way. No special rules for the governing class.
Posted by: ScottM on February 22, 2005 06:12 AMThe idea that there's some sort of gray area here is ridiculous.
Posted by: ScottM on February 22, 2005 06:16 AMConversely, the Clintons stopped being Arkansas ages ago. 41 and 43 are Texas, and Jimmah is pure Georgia (loony though). I don't think that Foley is a hill you want to die on.
Posted by: dkpcowboy on February 22, 2005 06:40 AMWhen he finally gave up the pretense and sold his last residence in Spokane (because, after all, why would he ever come back to this backwater burg?), he was merely making it official.
So now he lives and works in Washington, DC and does not bother to maintain even a fictive residence in Washington State. I don't understand how anyone can think he should have any part in choosing our state's elected officials.
Posted by: ScottM on February 22, 2005 06:49 AMAs for Foley, I think he should give up his Washington voting registration unless he shows more current links to the district.
(Oh, and judging by the recent scandals in Wisconsin, perhaps Stefan should just go ahead and vote in Madison, too! Thousands of others who weren't legal voters did last November.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on February 22, 2005 07:21 AMYou continue to amaze. Great work. I don't know him or of him, but he shouldn't be voting here if he is maintaining a permanent residence elsewhere. It is obvious that the current state laws all over the US have created this nightmare. The NY Post found tens of thousands of voters in NYC who also voted in Florida in the elast election. Snow birds are a lot more common and only a Federal voter database apparantely will catch them all, or states sharing information and I can't see that happening.
Posted by: sgmmac on February 22, 2005 07:50 AMThe expections should be those away on Federal service, whether military, governmnet, diplomatic, public health service, etc.
If we are sending an absentee ballot to someone for any other reason, and I'm sure there are some exceptions that are legitimate that I'm not thinking of, they ought to be a limit ballots that includes only Federal and perhaps State Wide offices. No local county or community issues. We had a Parks and Police tax initiative on the ballot here in Duvall this last election. I wouldn't want someone who doesn't live here deciding whether or not I get to enjoy my local parks or local police protection.
Posted by: Jason on February 22, 2005 07:55 AM"expections" should be "exceptions"
Posted by: Jason on February 22, 2005 07:57 AMI was born in Wisconsin and lived there for 20 of my first 22 years. I wouldn't have even thought about maintaining my voter registration there. My guess is someone will challenge this Stefan.
It's time for someone who actually lives in that Spokane District to do the challenging........
will anyone do that?
All other issues aside, does not this alone disqualify the Foley's???
However, my parents and my extended family are pure "Tar heel," and I missed being born in North Carolina only by a couple months. Having visited family in the Great Smoky Mountains of NC, I have a certain affinity for that state. Since I was obviously conceived there, perhaps I should be allowed vote there. Ridiculous? Yes. Brings new meaning to "Home is where the heart is." People should vote where they live, with the exception of public servants on active duty.
Posted by: JG on February 22, 2005 09:07 AMIt's ridiculous that the Spokane address isn't even one he lived at, and for that reason alone, it should not be used as a residence for voting purposes. There are cases where a non-property owner might live overseas for a time. A student who goes to teach english in another country for a while for example. They might teach for a couple of years, or even extend it a year or two.
I just checked out "Stealing Elections" by John Fund from the library and highly recommend it. If your library doesn't have it yet, put in a request for it. With our lax WA state laws, and no proof for the so called requirements for voting(age, citizenship, residence), it seems that addresses are often not updated after moving. Until more is done to verify the information on voter registrations, there will be out of date, inaccurate information either from bogus registrations, outdated info, etc. Probably a lot of people move without cancelling their voter registrations. During the last week I discovered three former residents who have moved, but still have their old addresses on the voter roll.
The honor system isn't working. Dishonorable people easily jump through the gaping holes in the system to register even though they don't meet the qualifications. Our society is mobile. Re-registration for existing voters and new registrations both with proof of voting requirements(age, citizenship, and residency) is needed to weed out the Foley type voters.
When it comes to money, banks, merchants, companies don't rely on the honor system. Votes are valuable and require careful verification.
Why? To big a fish?
is it or is it not fair (not to mention legal) for the right to vote in this state to be limited to those who actually have a permanent physical abode here
Expatriates should not be disenfranchised. The only way they can vote is through the state they last lived in. They can only vote for federal positions anyway: congress, senate, president.
What is unfair is being an American citizen of voting age who cannot vote. There are thousands of such citizens around the world who have never lived in the States, but pay U.S. taxes and face the repercussions of U.S. policies. Only 12 States allow such people to vote. Washington isn't one of them and should be. I just wrote about this issue a couple of days ago.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 22, 2005 10:12 AMOf course CURRENT public servants should be able to maintain their home-state voting rights, if their service requires them to temporarily relocate (in order to represent their home state or country). This includes the president and vice-president. After all, the people own the white house and vice-president's residence. Also, citizens who are living overseas should be able to claim a U.S. residence. But anyone else who is not living in the state is not a resident. That includes the doctor from Georgia. His situation is no different from anyone who accepts a job out-of-state, temporary or permanent.
By the way, I still think of Wisconsin as home, but I don't vote there.
Kathy
Posted by: Kathy on February 22, 2005 10:46 AMLOL, I think you need to relook the definition of "Expatriate". It means:
"nationals of one country who live for an extended period of time in another country"
Last time I checked, Washington D.C., and even Georgia for that matter, were not other countries.
I would argue that by being an expatriate, by personal choice vs. Federal service, you aren't being disenfranchised, you are choosing to vacate your franchise. If you choose to retain your citizenship you can still vote in Federal elections, but what gives someone who has been living abroad for years, with no intention of returning, the right to have a say in State or local matters? Tina Turner has lived in France for years, should she really have a say in how the local school board is run where ever it was she last maintained a residence in this country?
Posted by: Jason on February 22, 2005 11:03 AMYet, perhaps you should read a comment before dismissing it.
Sure, I know that Foley is not an expatriate. However some people commented on expatriates, and my comment was intended to point out that if you choose to discuss fairness and who can vote in Washington state, you have to also consider expatriates and their right to fairness.
As I pointed out, an overseas voter can only vote on federal positions, not the local positions. And whether you like it or not, they pay their taxes and have the right to vote.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 22, 2005 11:33 AMSo, what?
You're clutching at straws. There are millions of ex-pats (out-of-state as well as out-of-country) that have been gone for years that choose to vote from their home town via mail. It's not wrong. It's not illegal.
Pick another fight - this ain't worth the effort.
Posted by: Al Hedstrom on February 22, 2005 11:41 AMThere's the first strike against The Shark. I suppose anyone who was born and raised in MadTown is going to have a somewhat warped perspective, but being a fellow Cheesehead and alumnum of the real UW, I won't give him a second strike for his geographic origin.
Posted by: Bill on February 22, 2005 11:56 AMIf that is true, perhaps that's the problem.
I did read your comment, you were replying to Stefan's comments about Tom Foley and then started talking about Expatriates. Thus my comment. Try getting your own story straight next time.
Posted by: Jason on February 22, 2005 11:59 AMMy husband was born & raised in Spokane. He went to school with Mr. Foley. Until 1995, we lived, voted in Spokane. Tom Foley showed up in Spokane very seldom all those years. We now RESIDE in SW Washington and we VOTE where we reside, even though we still have alot of ties to Spokane. Our daughter and family live there. We have alot of friends there. BUT...we RESIDE elsewhere!
Tom Foley does NOT reside in Spokane. He resides elsewhere and that's where he needs to vote!!
Posted by: Susu on February 22, 2005 12:19 PMI would think a man of Tom Foley's experience and accomplishmennts would know he has spent his life serving a nation of laws, not of men. But then I WOULD BE WRONG!
I can sympathize with his feelings but not with his actions. This is wrong! Tom Foley, either move here and live here or stop stealing the votes of those who do!
Posted by: Chuck Miller on February 22, 2005 01:04 PMHe might as well be registered in precinct 1823.
Posted by: Michele S on February 22, 2005 01:08 PMMy opinion: sometimes I think that we expect a whole heck of a lot out of Stefan. I don't know where he finds the energy and the time to do half of what he does.
Perhaps if we hired him full time, never let him have an opinion that differs from our own, and never allowed him any rest...
For example, residence is much different here in Washington than, say, California. If I maintained my "residence" for voting in California because I grew up there, you can bet that California would come after me to pay state income taxes as a "resident" there, regardless of where the income is being earned.
Posted by: Michael on February 22, 2005 01:27 PMI live one county north from Spokane, but wouldn't have a clue on how to challenge this (poor excuse, I know).
I would also expect a lot of negative press directed at the person(s) brave enough to challenge Tom Foley's voting status. He/she must be confident that this is indeed something that should be done in the interest of fair elections for Washington (State that is). What may be legal, is not always fair.
Posted by: JG on February 22, 2005 01:40 PMI feel a need to come to the defense of Mr. Sharkansky. While I could probably just take a nice nap and get over it, he's always struck me as an honorable person that simply has some views that I disagree with. So here goes:
Mr. Foley has resided out of the state for many years, but it does appear that this is due to either business or government positions, as allowed for in the law.
On a side note. I disagree with Mr. Sharkansky about the Georgia doctor, as he is a commissioned officer with the Public Health Service, which it will surprise many to know is considered to be a "uniformed service", in the same manner as the Coast Guard. Essentially, that fellow is in the military, although in a rather obscure branch. (I'd also be willing to concede that his uniform gets very little wear.) Ever noticed that the Surgeon General is often seen in what appears to be a Vice Admiral's uniform? (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/aboutoffice.html#biosg)
Back to Speaker Foley. He maintains close ties to Washington State, and we have no reason to believe that he does not stay informed about local issues. We also have no reason to believe that he does not intend to return upon completion of his business activities.
Mr. Sharkansky's stated admiration for Mr. Foley does not indicate that he agrees with the former Speaker's politics, any more than my admiration for Gerald Ford (the last President I really liked in office) indicates that I agree with his.
Anyone wishing to give Spokane Democrats a rather minor rallying point, feel free to challenge Mr. Foley's registration.
I'm just waiting for the conspiracy buffs to come out of the woodwork, as Mr. Foley is currently the Chairman of the Trilateral Commission. C'mon, guys, we're counting on you! This thread is getting a bit dull.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 22, 2005 02:39 PMHis fraudulent registration should be challenged precisely because of his being a "big name". What better way to draw attention to the issue?
Posted by: Jim on February 22, 2005 03:18 PMHappens occassion even to the best conservatives.
Looking through the past posts reminds me of a whole line of politicians who rented an apartment just to run for an office and likely had no intention of living there had they lost. The list includes Cheney, Hillary Clinton, and Alan Keyes.
Foley's connection to Washington looks pretty strong compared to the above candidates to the state where they ran or claimed a residence.
Posted by: Erik on February 22, 2005 05:36 PMPerhaps it is time for some real election reform, then.
Thank God Sen. Clinton did not choose Washington State instead of NY. However, we do have her political twin residing in Olympia (without a clear, legal, honest, fair win, I might add).
Posted by: JG on February 22, 2005 07:00 PMI mean as long as we only vote there and not somewhere else too, it's OK, right?
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on February 22, 2005 07:49 PMIt's offensive to any fair-minded person.
Posted by: Michele S on February 22, 2005 08:05 PMThe fact is that the candidates you list met the minimum residency requirements to run for office in those states, including actually living there for the prescribed time before the election. The law does not require them to intend to maintain that residence after the election. If the law is unsatisfactory, it may be changed throug the legislative process.
Foley, on the other hand, lives in DC and does not maintain a residence in Washington State. "Strong connections" are neither here nor there. He is not a resident of Washington State and should not be interfering in our elections.
Posted by: ScottM on February 22, 2005 09:58 PMWhen did Cheney ever run for office in a state in which he did not reside? I believe the only elective offices he has held are U.S. Representative from Wyoming and Vice President. (I'm proud to have voted for him four times, and would happily vote for him one more time--for President!) He and his wife are natives of Wyoming, and I believe he still owns land there and intends to retire there.
Posted by: Bill on February 23, 2005 02:28 AM"Home: That place in which one in fact resides with the intention of residence, or in which he has so resided, and with regard to which he retains residence or to which he intends to return. Place where a person dwells and which is the center of his domestic, social, and civil life."
Restatement of Conflicts, Second, Section 12.
PP, he's registered at his FORMER ASSISTANT'S ADDRESS!! THAT SHOULD mean something to you. Like fraud! that's the problem with getting democrats to fix these things, they see something like this and say 'no big'. There's no sense of right or wrong here. On its face, that attitude automatically disqualifies them from having any moral authority to fix the problem.
Let's see. Speaker Foley, with many years of ties to Washington and after many years of public service, takes a job where his business keeps him in Washington DC. He continues to claim Washington state as his home, as provided for in the law. (RCW 29A.04.151,which states in part: Absence from the state on business shall not affect the question of residence of any person unless the right to vote has been claimed or exercised elsewhere.)
Tell me, are you bothered by the fact that Speaker Foley understands and follows the law, or by the fact that he is a Democrat? I'm trying to fight off an annoying feeling that if Speaker Foley was Speaker Gingrich, your argument would be reversed. (I do wish that man would finish his "1945" series. The first book was pretty good.)
I spent over 20 years active duty in the military. For most of that time, my "residence" for voting purposes was a building that no longer existed. (Heck, even the street was gone. The local college had expanded.)
Somehow, you seem to believe that the portions of the law pertaining to military are "fair", but those pertaining to other circumstances are not.
It's offensive to any fair-minded person.
It seems that "fair-minded" in whatever dialect you're using means "far-right Republican," as even many of the Republicans on this board are saying "no big."
Posted by: John Barelli on February 23, 2005 10:27 AMI mean, come on. We all know what it means to live in one place and not in another place. We know what it means to be "absent from [a place] on business," and what it means to be living full-time in another place.
I cannot believe the number of people who are willing to put on the dunce cap in defense of the indefensible status quo.
Unless one is absent on a presumptively temporary basis (e.g., going to school, serving in the military, serving in a political post, on temporary assignment for a local employer, whatever), one would think that the minimum requirement for being a resident in a certain place is to...y'know, actually have a residence there. I don't know that merely maintaining a physical residence should be enough, but surely it's the minimum. Otherwise, we make a mockery of the whole concept of "residence."
When someone lives full-time in DC, and works in DC, for a firm based in DC, and has not even maintained a residence in Washington State for several years, it is asinine to maintain that that person is a resident of Washington State, and it is a violation of basic principles of representative government to assert that they should have a voice in the affairs of Washington State.
On a more positive note, the Spokesman-Review just called to verify that I wrote a letter on this subject, which generally means they're going to print it.
Posted by: ScottM on February 23, 2005 11:16 AMSorry to disagree, but the plain language of the law does not make that distinction. Perhaps it should, but it does not.
In fact, the possibility that a person might be away from the state on business for so long as to make them eligible to register in a different location is specifically addressed in the law. That would indicate that we are not talking about some sort of oversight or "gray area," but a situation that was deliberately included in the law.
Please read it again. Absence from the state on business shall not affect the question of residence of any person unless the right to vote has been claimed or exercised elsewhere.
Businessmen often take positions away from their "homes of residence," in the same way that military members do. Sometimes these positions are in other countries, sometimes just in other states. By the clear language of the law, this does not change his residency.
In fact, while I will not pursue this, an argument could be made that military members assigned to Washington state should be unable to register here. The law is pretty clear on that, too.
From RCW 29A.04.151 "However, no person gains residence by reason of his or her presence or loses his or her residence by reason of his or her absence:
(1) While employed in the civil or military service of the state or of the United States;"
Seems that we should be checking out voters in military housing for fraudulent registration. Somehow, I doubt that many of the people looking through Mr. Sharkansky's database are checking those voters, and your friendly token liberal is not going to do so either.
You are welcome to disagree with the law, and even encourage your Representative to try and change it. Until it is changed, however, Speaker Foley is following the clear letter of the law.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 23, 2005 11:39 AMAbout the military, you're right. Military personnel do not gain residence simply by being in the state. What that has to do with Foley, I don't know.
Posted by: ScottM on February 23, 2005 11:48 AMAt no time was I ever confused about where I lived. At no time did it ever occur to me that I might really still live in my old house, or my old neighborhood. When I moved from the 3rd Legislative District to the 6th, it never occurred to me that I should--or even that I could--continue voting in the 3rd District, though I'd lived there all my life. It certainly never occurred to me to claim that I was merely "absent on business."
I have somehow managed all my life--even as a child--to know where I live. How is it that Tom Foley and his backers are so confused?
Posted by: ScottM on February 23, 2005 12:00 PMThe fact that it may be allowed by some creative interpretation of the law doesn't make it right.
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on February 23, 2005 12:09 PMCould he claim that he was merely "absent on business" and continue to vote for PCO in 3107? Or would that be a totally absurd claim?
Remember, we're talking about the definition of "absence on business," and it is clearly possible to be absent from one's precinct on business.
If he still maintained his home in 3107 and was merely house-sitting for someone in 3108 (even for an extended period), he would be "absent on business" and would still be a legal resident of 3107 and entitled to vote in that precinct.
But if he sold his home in 3107 and moved his household to 3108, you can see how absurd such a claim would be.
So why is it any less absurd because he moved across the country?
Posted by: ScottM on February 23, 2005 12:16 PMObviously there are advantages to having legal residence in Texas, Nevada, or Washington (state, not DC), as these states have no state income tax. That alone may make them more fussy about who claims legal residence (or it may not).
When I moved out of California in 2003, whether or not I remained a resident (legally) was determined purely by whether I intended to remain a Californian. As I did not, I established residence where I settled (WA state) and continue that residence even though I no longer live in the state. Length of time is irrelevant except as it might possibly show my intent.
Posted by: Evan Robinson on February 23, 2005 02:58 PMI do understand what you mean. The problem, however, is one of devining intent.
If my reason for moving is that my job requires me to live out of state, but I intend to return upon completion of that job, then my residence remains in Washington.
If my reason for moving is that I want to live in the new location, and have taken a job that allows me to do so, then my residence changes.
How we figure out that intent is the problem. There are many ways, but the primary way stated in the law is that I register to vote in the new location.
This is why Speaker Foley's long history with Washington state is pertinant to the discussion. It is one factor in discerning his intent.
There are circumstances where a person may be away from the state for many years, and yet nobody would question his intent to return, and as such, would not question his right to vote here. There are civilian contractors in Iraq right now that will be there for many years. If they sell their houses and move their families, they can still vote here. That Washington DC is a part of the United States is a pertinant factor, but not the only one in discerning intent.
Anyone who visited Washington DC and compared it to Spokane would not question that the Speaker's reason for being there was business, and he intends to return when that business is complete.
You may believe that there should be some sort of time limit, or that the individual should have to maintain a physical residence here in the state. These are valid points, but the law as it is currently written does not contain them. As the situation of being away from the state for long periods due to business is not unheard of (especially for politicians, who wrote the current law), I must presume that the law was written as it is deliberately, with exactly this sort of situation in mind.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 23, 2005 03:12 PMIf I moved from district 3107 into a house in discrict 3108 due to a requirement of my job, but maintained strong ties to district 3107 and stated my intent to return their upon completion of that job, then the fact that I sold my house would not neccesarily change my residence.
Yes, it would be rather silly, (even abusurd) as people do not generally have strong ties to a particular district, overwhelming the ties of the actual place they are currently living. Such intent would be very hard to show.
People often do have strong ties to a particular state and region. That is why it is "less abusurd".
Posted by: John Barelli on February 23, 2005 03:31 PMOK. I think this is obviously ludicrous.
Posted by: ScottM on February 23, 2005 03:39 PMPeople do have strong ties to particular states and regions. That's why, although the scenereo about changing districts is ludicrous, comparing that to Speaker Foley's situation is equally ludicrous.
Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough in my earlier post.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 23, 2005 04:01 PMThere are circumstances under which one may be absent from one's place of residence for an extended period, but Foley's situation is not even in a gray area. He lives in DC. He works--entirely by his own choice, not by assignment--in DC, for a firm based in DC. He does not even have a residence in Washington State. Any rational, reasonable human being would have to conclude that Foley resides in DC, not in Washington State.
Posted by: ScottM on February 23, 2005 04:29 PMAt one time, I had three seperate "residences." One for taxes and voting, one that was my "home of record" and one where I kept my clothing and rested my body at night. As I was military, this was rather common.
Perhaps that's why Speaker Foley's situation doesn't bother me.
Military personnel are given an automatic assumption of intent to return to their original home. For civilians, it is a bit more tenuous. That's why I speak of "strong ties" to a particular area. They help to demonstrate intent.
If I'm living in my home and decide to do a major remodel, I will likely move out of the house while it's being done. There's no question of my intent to return, so my "residence" for voting purposes does not change, even if the place I'm currently keeping my clothes and resting my body is across the state line.
Speaker Foley's situation is not so clear as that, so we need to look at other things to determine whether his sworn statement that he "resides" in Washington is reasonable. The most obvious one would be his registering to vote in DC, but there could be others. Again, we look at the entire situation, including those "strong ties."
For a career politician and current chairman of an important international commission to take a job at a law firm in DC is not unreasonable, even if his intent is to permanently reside in Washington. The intent of the voter has been long held to be the standard whereupon "residence" for voting purposes is determined.
Again, let us look at the civilian contractors in Iraq. Some of those companies do not have Washington state offices. Many of those people will be away for many years. I'm certainly willing to presume that they intend to return to Washington, and have no problem with them voting here. They are away from the state on business.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 23, 2005 05:00 PMYou will undoubtedly fasten in the word "intent" in the first paragraph, but I would quote this definition of "domicile": "The place where a person has fixed his ordinary dwelling, without a present intention of removal."
Mr. Foley's ordinary dwelling, from which he has no present intention of moving, is in DC.
If he still owned a home in Spokane, that's when intent would come into it. He might intend that one residence. and not another, was his domicile.
But when he only has one residence, and he is established there on a long-term basis, and he doesn't fall (any longer) into any of the special categories listed in the next-to-last paragraph, I don't see how it can be claimed that his domicile is somewhere else.
I would also quote this: "RESIDENCE - The place of general abode; principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent."
Again, when one has only one dwelling place, intent doesn't seem to come into it. (Of course one can have more than one residence, but it seems [except in those certain circumstances laid out under "Domicile"] one must actually reside there.)
So, again, Mr. Foley did not change domicile by being "absent on business," he changed it by actually moving to DC.
This is, of course, what I've been saying all along, but not being a lawyer, I thought I could rely on common sense.
Posted by: ScottM on February 23, 2005 05:06 PM---
What does residence mean for purposes of voter registration and voting?
When applied to voter registration, the term residence usually means the place where you physically maintain your home and where you spend the majority of your time. You must have a residence. Once that residence is established, it exists until a new residence is established. You may not have more than one residence.
How do I change my residence?
You must physically leave the previous residence with the intention of establishing a new residence at another location. You do not lose residence for voting purposes simply because you are no longer residing at the physical location where you are registered.
For example, if you leave to begin a job in a new location with the intent of returning you will not lose residency. If, however, you choose to make the new location your residence then the previous residence is lost and you must change your registration. Intention to reside in a particular place - permanently or for an unspecified period of time - is an important factor in determining your residence for voting purposes. Your declarations or testimony, with respect to your intention, must be evidenced by your conduct and the factual circumstances surrounding his or her claim to a particular residence.
---
So, claims of intent must be backed up by actions, and intending to reside in a place for an unspecified period of time--as Foley now intends to reside in DC--is an important factor in determining your residence.
In other words, as common sense (that little pest again) would dictate, intention to return would seem to actually involve having some plan to return, rather than settling down in another place for years and years and making vague noises about possibly, someday, if the stars are right, seeing the old home town again.
Again, this is what I've been saying all along. Foley lives in DC. He has no present plans to return to Washington State. He is a resident where he is currently domiciled: in DC.
As far as your claim that "residence" for voting purposes is generally defined primarily by intent: A quick Google search shows me that it's not defined tha way in Idaho, Maine, Rhode Island, Ohio, or South Dakota. I found no state that determines residence primarily by intent.
Generally, the definition includes something about "fixed habitation" or "abode." Ohio specifically says that if you reside outside the state for four years (unless on government employment, including miltary service), you're no longer a resident.
You know, like I've been saying all along: Except in well-defined circumstances (e.g., military service), your residence is where you live, not where you left your heart.
Common sense is our friend.
Posted by: ScottM on February 23, 2005 05:39 PM"The place of one's domicil. There is a difference between a man's residence and his domicil. He may have his domicil in Philadelphia, and still he may have a residence in New York; for although a man can have but one domicil, he may have several residences. A residence is generally tran-sient in its nature, it becomes a domicil when it is taken up animo manendi."
"Residence is prima facie evidence of national character, but this may at all times be explained. When it is for a special purpose and transient in its nature, it does not destroy the national character."
This is clear?
In using the standard in the definition above, I would be forced to agree with you, however, I would also be forced to state that the civilian contractors overseas have also changed their "residences".
They are there by choice, due to their personal employment decisions. They may well have sold their homes here, as being an absentee landlord is a major hassle (been there, done that), and keeping a home vacant for many years is unwise.
This is one reason that the intent standard in defining residence for voting purposes has been in place for many years.
My argument here is that the legislators understood this when they wrote that section of the law. "Absent on business" is a very wide-ranging statement. Perhaps a narrower standard should be adopted, but it has not been.
It is quite possible that we are, in fact, arguing two different things. My argument is that the law currently allows Speaker Foley to maintain "residence" in Washington for voting purposes. If anyone actually challenges Speaker Foley's right to vote here, it would greatly surprise me to be proven wrong.
If you are arguing that the law should not allow this, then that is a different argument altogether.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 23, 2005 05:42 PMJust to make sure you see it, I posted a second post after the one to which you responded (it begins "From the Secretary of State's website").
Good post. Mine was to your earlier one. A couple of points from yours:
"For example, if you leave to begin a job in a new location with the intent of returning you will not lose residency. (emphasis added)
"Foley lives in DC. He has no present plans to return to Washington State." Unless you have information I do not, we have no way of knowing his plans.
Your information about the laws of other states is interesting, but primarily because of the differences. Ohio chose to put a specific time frame in their law. Washington did not. Without evidence to the contrary, I presume this decision was deliberate. You are welcome to disagree with that decision, but that is not the argument at hand.
Tell you what. At this point and with this much publicity, someone is bound to challenge Speaker Foley's registration. Let's see what the County Registrar has to say about the matter. (A decision to revoke his voting registration will certainly make the news.) I think we've beaten each other up enough for one day, and I have to get ready to go to choir practice anyway.
My thanks for a fascinating argument. It's always good when someone makes me rub a few brain cells together.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 23, 2005 06:48 PMFirst of all, my purpose in listing the states was to show that your claim that residency is primarily a matter of intent is not true. Residency is primarily a matter of actual habitation, with certain defined exceptions.
As for Foley's possible intent to return to Washington State: "Intention to reside in a particular place - permanently or for an unspecified period of time - is an important factor in determining your residence for voting purposes. Your declarations or testimony, with respect to your intention, must be evidenced by your conduct and the factual circumstances surrounding his or her claim to a particular residence."
In other words, Foley's declaration that he may someday possibly consider returning (which so far as I know, he hasn't even offered) wouldn't be not enough. His conduct clearly does not indicate any present plan to return (unless you know something about his conduct which I don't), which I think we agree is key in determining whether he is merely "absent on business." He has lived in DC for several years and from all appearances, intends to continue residing there "for an unspecified period of time." This is why he is not merely "absent on business," but living and working in DC.
Again, this is common sense (which seems to be distressingly uncommon): Your residence is the place where you reside, except in certan well-defined circumstances. When there is a commonsensical interpretation of a law and a tortuous intrpretation of a law, it's always a good idea to go with common sense.
Posted by: ScottM on February 23, 2005 07:26 PMI am of the opinion that, in the absence of clear warrant in the text of the law itself, laws should always be interpreted to mean what the plain language of the law itself seems to mean. Otherwise, law is worthless and we are at the mercy of lawyers, God help us.
An average reasonably intelligent non-lawyer, apprised of the circumstances as we know them, would certainly say that Tom Foley resides in Washington, DC. That is his "permanent address where he or she physically resides and maintains his or her abode" (RCW 29A.04.151).
So we're left with the claim that the "absence from the state on business" clause makes an exception to the normal definition of "residence" in this case (certainly, none of the other exceptions apply).
So if our average reasonably intelligent non-lawyer's neighbor sold his house, moved to another state, bought a house there, and took a job there with no indication that the job was temporary, and had lived there for several years with no indication that he was making plans to return, would our ARIN-L tell an inquirer that his neighbor was "away on business," or would he say that the man had "moved"?
Of course, the law sometimes defines terms in ways that defy common sense. I am prepared to consider evidence that the legal definition of "absence on business" is the tortured one Foley's partisans offer, rather than the sensible one I prefer. In the absence of such evidence, I refer you to my second paragraph.
Incidentally, I find the notion of waiting for a government official to tell us what the law says utterly repugnant. I refer you to my second paragraph.
Posted by: ScottM on February 23, 2005 08:03 PMPolitical Pulpit: so you wouldn't mind if me and thousands of my friends all decided to register in your district and voted for every tax levy that came on the ballot and drove your taxes through the roof and also voted out your favorite Congressman in favor of an idiot?I mean as long as we only vote there and not somewhere else too, it's OK, right?
Sure, it would mean that you and your thousand friends wouldn't be voting for an idiot somewhere else. :)
PP, he's registered at his FORMER ASSISTANT'S ADDRESS!! THAT SHOULD mean something to you. Like fraud! that's the problem with getting democrats to fix these things, they see something like this and say 'no big'. There's no sense of right or wrong here. On its face, that attitude automatically disqualifies them from having any moral authority to fix the problem.It's offensive to any fair-minded person.
If it were against the law, you might have a point. However, it ISN'T against the law.
For twenty-two years I was working for the government. I spent ten of those years out of state and out of the country without ever stepping back into the state. I have been registered to vote here in King County for thirty-eight years.
The LAW makes no distinction as to where you hang your hat, it only allows you to be registered in a place of your choosing.
Should the law be changed? Possibly. You could tack that onto voter/election reform if you want.
Posted by: Political Pulpit on February 23, 2005 09:08 PMBalderdash.
"'Residence' for the purpose of registering and voting means a person's permanent address where he or she physically resides and maintains his or her abode."
The LAW goes on to make certain explicit exceptions to this basic rule (including an exception for those in government service), but the LAW most certainly does "make [a] distinction as to where you hang your hat."
Posted by: ScottM on February 23, 2005 09:46 PMThis helps me avoid state income taxes I run into in other locations, changing car plates at every location, and a whole host of other issues. I vote in WA.
Does Mr Foley file a DC tax return?
He should be paying taxes where he's resident, DC has a good case, since he earned the money there, and there is no intent clause in the tax codes of either state or the District.
Posted by: SeriesBrit on February 24, 2005 06:52 AM