In today’s edition of “Things You Won’t Find Linked On As Maine Goes,” here is some audio of GOP Chairman Charlie Webster losing the argument over his voter registration witch-hunt on WGAN this morning.
Both hosts let him have it, and argue Charlie into a corner, but Charlie refuses to let anyone sway him from the confusion reigning in his mind.
If anyone here still has AMG access, you would be my hero if you put this audio in a new thread.
Chris Coose did. Here: http://www.asmainegoes.com/content/underestimating-charlie-webster-and-charlie-summers
The law in Maine may require people who establish residency to register motor vehicles _driven_in_Maine_ to a Maine registration, but I don’t believe Maine can reach across state lines and require them to register all of their motor vehicles in Maine just because they establish Maine residency.
Example: I live in California, and have two vehicles here. I decide I will drive one of them to Maine and register to vote in Maine, while keeping the other housed in California where I will drive from time to time when I visit and do business, etc. Is the Charlie Webster argument that I must re-register BOTH vehicles in Maine, even if I never plan to bring the second one to Maine?
Example two, a college student moves to Maine and establishes residency there while attending college, but leaves his car back in Tuscaloosa because it can’t handle the harsh Maine winters. Charlie is arguing that he would have to re-register the out of state car to make it a Maine vehicle, even though it will never be used in Maine.
To my mind, the fact that someone keeps a vehicle registered in some other state is most unlikely to be a violation of Maine’s motor vehicle law, and if it is, I think the law may be unconstitutional (though that is my speculation — I’d of course have to research it). The comment thread at AMG strongly suggests to me that all of those commenting in support of Webster believe that is the state of the law.
Can anyone cite the Maine registration law to me? My Lexis account doesn’t cover Maine yet and I don’t feel like going on the Google expedition for it just now…
The law doesn’t require people to register vehicles to establish residency.
It does require people who establish residency to register vehicles within a certain period of time, but I have never heard or read of this being enforced against anyone.
Residency can be for a short period of time. While college students are the most commonly considered kind of person who could conceivably legally and honestly declare residency in multiple places (as long as they only do so in one place as a time) this is not only restricted to them. Snowbirds and people who own multiple properties in different states are essentially allowed to choose where they are residents because they easily could meet the requirements of multiple states.
For instance, Mitt Romney declared himself a resident of Massachusetts by using the address of a family member’s house, saying he was living in the basement, which allowed him to vote in Mass, despite spending most of his time at his several other houses out of state. In my view I don’t care as long as you only vote once.
Yeah, I am not questioning your logic, and I am not asking what does the _voting_ law require — clearly one can only vote in one place in a particular election.
What I am questioning is the (non)citation of the non-election law that justifies the investigation according to the accuser (in this case it is the vehicle code) because, even if logically the argument were correct, the vehicle code does not support what has been argued. The result is the same, but if they can’t even cite the vehicle code properly (as evidenced on the radio show excerpt with Webster) then the entire argument really falls flat, and you have the secretary of state now looking into these allegations on the basis that someone claims there is evidence of a violation, when in fact there is no such evidence.
Of course, I’m not at all surprised that there is no such evidence supporting the illegal voting allegation, but is this really how the secretary wants to use his resources, to investigate what is not a facial violation even if you believe the extremely thin rationale calling for an investigation?
It’d be like calling the police to report a murder, and then when they ask for details saying, well, I don’t know it’s a pretty tough neighborhood, there must have been a murder committed someplace recently, you really should look into it…
Charlie didn’t go to college, and I don’t think he has ever lived outside the State of Maine. I don’t think he understands that there is a difference between residency for voting and residency for taxes or car registration.
You vote where you reside on election day.
You register your car where you keep it for 30 days or more (unless it is registered in someone else’s name).
You are a resident taxpayer where you reside for six moths and one day AND earn taxable income.
Each definition is distinct. If you have lived your whole life in one state or one county or one town it is sometimes hard to see those distinctions.
Isn’t that a terrific argument to not try to pontificate on that which one knows little or nothing about? I believe that was precisely Ken and Mike’s advice and Charlie should take it.
On other hand, blather like that should ensure the overthrow of the new voting registration requirements, which I am 99% sure we’ll be voting on in a couple of months.
Very well put Mr. Lindell.