Dear Editor: El Dorado Registrar of Voters Bill O’Neill’s letter to “Clarify registration eligibility” (see here) fails to address the issue I have repeatedly requested clarification about “retirement homes” that affects many of the property owners. I requested the Registrar to clarify the issue so that those who are legally qualified to vote at their retirement homes would not be afraid to do so.

So far he has not. O’Neill also seems to be unaware of Federal law governing voter registration which supersedes California law.

O’Neil’s response is still intimidating eligible voters from registering at legal domiciles. Perhaps he is just incapable of understanding the difference between a “vacation home” and a “retirement home”, or he is intentionally switching the subject to avoid telling people they can register and vote at their retirement homes?

I specifically requested clarification for those who “Have lived in their properties and intend to retire there “even though they may live somewhere else temporarily (as permitted by the elections code). The code is actually very clear that these people can designate their future retirement homes where they intend to retire and live permanently as their legal domicile.

The problem is that O’Neil’s rhetoric is intimidating them and making them fearful of registering where they have a lawful right to do so. All I sought was a statement that would remove their fear of legally registering at their retirement homes.

For example, I purchased my home as a retirement/vacation home/VHR years ago. When I retired, I moved into it. Should I have been prosecuted if I registered to vote here? I was after all simply holding my future house where I intended to retire, so it would be available when I eventually retired.

Many others have also purchased their retirement homes before retirement because the prices and taxes are continuously climbing. The cost of my home doubled between the time I purchased it and when I was able to retire and move into it. They may even live in rentals until they can retire and move into their own home.

As I pointed out in all of my correspondence, O’Neill repeatedly cites People v. Superior Court and EC Section 349, over and over. But he deliberately ignores the word “intention” in both of these citations and throughout the entire voting code. I guess you could say he is substituting his opinion for their intentions. In fact, he pretty much ignores the rest of the code.

O’Neill states this frivolous information: “A residence, on the other hand, can be a fixed place where one resides for a period of time but without the intention of remaining. It is not typically the place where one works, enrolls children in school, sees their primary health care provider, where their vehicles are registered, where one receives their homeowner tax exemption or the address listed on a driver’s license.”

The italicized portion is merely reputable presumptions and doesn’t prove anything:

1. It is not typically the place where one works – Even working overseas is considered a residence;
2. Enrolls children in school – Where you enroll your children really has no bearing on domicile;
3. Sees their primary health care provider – Not relevant at all;
4. Where their vehicles are registered – In California, you are required to register your vehicle “Where the vehicle is primarily garaged or kept”, not where you live. i.e. If your vehicle is stored in LA – that is where you must register it regardless of where you live, with no relevance to domicile at all;
5. where one receives their homeowner tax exemption – “homeowner’s tax deduction”. California Constitution Article XIII – Taxation Section 3. “The following are exempt from property taxation: (k) $7,000 (regardless of the value), when occupied by an owner as his principal residence, unless the
dwelling is receiving another real property exemption.” Note: It specifically states “principal residence” not domicile. You must occupy the dwelling as your principal residence as of January 1 of each year to qualify for the Homeowners’ Exemption for that year. There is no requirement that you take the Homeowner’s tax deduction even if you qualify. The savings is only about 1% of the $7,000.00 deduction or about $70.00. I have had tax assessors tell me that if I had more than one home, I could just choose the one I wanted to apply it to;
6. Or the address listed on a driver’s license – You are required to update your residence address within 10 days of moving, even if it is only a temporary address. Failing to update your address is a violation of the law, often treated as a traffic infraction. You may be required to pay a small fine if you fail to update your address with the DMV. It is a statement of your residence, not your domicile.

I don’t see where O’Neill’s explanation helps at all. On the other hand, State and Federal laws are quite specific about things that can be used to establish a domicile.

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Civil Rights Division | The National Voter Registration Act Of 1993 (NVRA) (justice.gov) was signed into law by President George W. Bush On October 29, 2002.

HAVA creates new mandatory minimum standards for states to follow. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) was charged with (1) developing and maintaining a national mail voter registration form.

In order to comply with the above Federal law, the California Secretary of State has enacted the following provisions regarding voter registration:

20107. Standards for Proof of Residency or Identity When Proof Is Required (https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/hava-id-standards) does provide some legal information about what you can use to establish where you can vote. It lists a large number of specified forms of accepted proof that you can register to vote including among many others:
•A. utility bill;
•R. property tax statement issued by a governmental agency;
•S. vehicle registration issued by a governmental agency; or
•T. vehicle certificate of ownership (pink slip) issued by a governmental agency.

And many others.

John Messina
TahoeTaxpayer.com