Crazy Ass Bill wrote:A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT REVISING ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND TO FILE FOR CANDIDACY FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTED OFFICE; ALLOWING A QUALIFIED NONRESIDENT PROPERTY OWNER OR DESIGNEE OF AN ENTITY TO VOTE IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND TO FILE FOR CANDIDACY FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTED OFFICE; AND AMENDING SECTIONS 7-1-4121, 7-4-4104, 7-4-4301, AND 7-4-4401, MCA."
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
NEW SECTION. Section 1. Provision for vote by nonresident property owner. (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3), an individual who owns real property in a municipality holding an election on a referendum of the municipal governing body, a mill levy conducted pursuant to 15-10-425, or a bond issue conducted pursuant to Title 7, chapter 7, parts 41 through 44, or an election for municipal officers may vote in the election if the individual is registered to vote as required by law in any county of the state and files with the election administrator at least 40 days prior to the election:
(a) proof of registration; and
(b) proof of the property ownership based on the last completed assessment roll.
(2) An individual convicted of a felony does not have the right to vote while the individual is serving a sentence in a penal institution.
(3) An individual adjudicated to be of unsound mind does not have the right to vote unless the person has been restored to capacity as provided by law.
(4) If the election is not held using mail ballot procedures, an individual voting under the provisions of this section must be allowed to vote by absentee ballot.
(5) An individual who qualifies to vote under this section is not entitled to vote in school elections held under the provisions of Title 20 other than those elections for which the individual would be qualified to vote based on the individual's residency.
NEW SECTION. Section 2. Provision for vote by corporate property owner. (1) Subject to subsection (2), if a firm, partnership, company, or corporation owns real property within the municipality, the president, vice president, secretary, or other designee of the entity is eligible to vote in a municipal election as provided in [section 1].
(2) The individual who is designated to vote by the entity is subject to the provisions of [section 1] and shall also provide to the election administrator documentation of the entity's registration with the secretary of state under 35-1-217 and proof of the individual's designation to vote on behalf of the entity.
The rest of the bill's legalese is in the link
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this bill give non-residents + corporations the right to vote and run in local elections in Montana? Is Rep. Steve Lavin some sort of well-known prankster amongst their representatives and I just missed the joke? Because right now I'm more flabbergasted then laughing.
"If you're caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you're going to jail. Evidently, if you launder nearly $1 billion for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night." Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
The Noldor are the Wise, and the Golden, the Valiant, the Sword-elves, the Elves of the Earth, the Foes of Melkor, the Skilled of Hand, the Jewel-wrights, the Companions of Men, the Followers of Finwë.
Crazy Ass Bill wrote:A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT REVISING ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND TO FILE FOR CANDIDACY FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTED OFFICE; ALLOWING A QUALIFIED NONRESIDENT PROPERTY OWNER OR DESIGNEE OF AN ENTITY TO VOTE IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND TO FILE FOR CANDIDACY FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTED OFFICE; AND AMENDING SECTIONS 7-1-4121, 7-4-4104, 7-4-4301, AND 7-4-4401, MCA."
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
NEW SECTION. Section 1. Provision for vote by nonresident property owner. (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3), an individual who owns real property in a municipality holding an election on a referendum of the municipal governing body, a mill levy conducted pursuant to 15-10-425, or a bond issue conducted pursuant to Title 7, chapter 7, parts 41 through 44, or an election for municipal officers may vote in the election if the individual is registered to vote as required by law in any county of the state and files with the election administrator at least 40 days prior to the election:
(a) proof of registration; and
(b) proof of the property ownership based on the last completed assessment roll.
(2) An individual convicted of a felony does not have the right to vote while the individual is serving a sentence in a penal institution.
(3) An individual adjudicated to be of unsound mind does not have the right to vote unless the person has been restored to capacity as provided by law.
(4) If the election is not held using mail ballot procedures, an individual voting under the provisions of this section must be allowed to vote by absentee ballot.
(5) An individual who qualifies to vote under this section is not entitled to vote in school elections held under the provisions of Title 20 other than those elections for which the individual would be qualified to vote based on the individual's residency.
NEW SECTION. Section 2. Provision for vote by corporate property owner. (1) Subject to subsection (2), if a firm, partnership, company, or corporation owns real property within the municipality, the president, vice president, secretary, or other designee of the entity is eligible to vote in a municipal election as provided in [section 1].
(2) The individual who is designated to vote by the entity is subject to the provisions of [section 1] and shall also provide to the election administrator documentation of the entity's registration with the secretary of state under 35-1-217 and proof of the individual's designation to vote on behalf of the entity.
No. All it does is allows someone who is already legally able to vote somewhere in the state, to vote in any municipal elections within the state if he/she owns property in those municipalities. Since corporations aren't eligible to vote in the state, they aren't covered by this bill and won't be able to vote in municipal matters regardless if they own property there or not.
Terralthra wrote:That's section 1, Magis. Section 2 is the one permitting a designated individual to vote on behalf of a corporate property owner.
Section 2 looks to be just expanding slightly on Section 1 - say if you've incorporated your business, and the property that would entitle you to vote is owned under the corporation, then you could still vote as if you owned the property directly. The wording seems a tad awkward but I doesn't seem to be any different from Section 1.
"If the flight succeeds, you swipe an absurd amount of prestige for a single mission. Heroes of the Zenobian Onion will literally rain upon you." - PeZook
"If the capsule explodes, heroes of the Zenobian Onion will still rain upon us. Literally!" - Shroom
Cosmonaut Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov (deceased, rain), Cosmonaut Petr Petrovich Petrov, Unnamed MASA Engineer, and Unnamed Zenobian Engineerski in Let's play: BARIS
Captain, MFS Robber Baron, PRFYNAFBTFC - "Absolute Corruption Powers Absolutely"
Terralthra wrote:That's section 1, Magis. Section 2 is the one permitting a designated individual to vote on behalf of a corporate property owner.
Section 2 looks to be just expanding slightly on Section 1 - say if you've incorporated your business, and the property that would entitle you to vote is owned under the corporation, then you could still vote as if you owned the property directly. The wording seems a tad awkward but I doesn't seem to be any different from Section 1.
Reread it. The designee must be eligible to vote, yes. However the designee is not voting on behalf of him or herself. They are being designated as a proxy for the corporation in question.
This person would effectively get two votes. One for themselves, and the other as a stand in for the corporate entity.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
If I were to take my guesses, I'd say this is related to the Supreme Court striking down Montana's campaign finance laws in the last few years - the Montana state supreme court actually ruled contrary to Citizens United in a case brought under the Citizens United precedent challenging the state election laws, which were the way they were due to the state's history. A copper magnate named William Clark bought himself a U.S. Senate seat by unabashedly paying off the Montana state legislature at the turn of the 20th century (before the direct election of Senators) and Montana developed some of the toughest anti-corruption laws in the country as a response. After Citizens United, a case was brought in the Montana courts challenging these laws, and the Montana supreme court knowingly contravened SCOTUS precedent and ruled in favor of the state. SCOTUS promptly reversed the decision, and I'd guess this is a reaction to that.
Yes, I think the objective is that by giving the corporation all of the rights of a person, including the right to vote, they can then also be subject to the same campaign finance restrictions as people, which have been upheld as constitutional despite being much more restrictive than even the old ones for corporations. So, while you give the corporation one single vote... You also reduce its financial clout from millions per candidate to a couple thousand dollars.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Yes, I think the objective is that by giving the corporation all of the rights of a person, including the right to vote, they can then also be subject to the same campaign finance restrictions as people, which have been upheld as constitutional despite being much more restrictive than even the old ones for corporations. So, while you give the corporation one single vote... You also reduce its financial clout from millions per candidate to a couple thousand dollars.
If that's the goal, it would certainly make some sense, but... Can't people then spend these millions they can't give to candidates creating tens of thousands of 'empty' corporations to create surefire votes instead?
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
The real property aspect as well as the municipal focus are twigging something in the back of my mind, but I haven't had the time to look up the various statutes in Montana.
Could this have to do with locally imposed property taxes and corporate taxes?
Knife wrote:That would be voter fraud, not free speech.
What would be? Voting by legally registered legal "persons"?
General Zod wrote:It also potentially costs a lot of money to register a company. It could wind up costing more than they get out of it very easily.
It also seems like the provision of real property would exclude shell companies.
Eh, every time I read about property in the USA someone points out states are quite big and you can have land in the middle of nowhere for literally peanuts. Plus, how big such real property needs to be? Can it be, say, 10 square meters? If so, square kilometer can fit property of 100.000 companies. I really don't know US law, which is why I'm asking, but it sounds like door wide open to serious abuse.
Given the sums thrown around in US elections (was it 5 bln $ spent in total in last Presidential one?) I'd imagine legal way of pumping votes would attract even more money, especially seeing the money isn't lost like in buying TV ads, but you still hold the land you can sell later...
Joint ownership of real property is also possible; there's no legal reason I can think of that there couldn't be thousands of corporate co owners of a single piece of real property.
Irbis wrote:
Eh, every time I read about property in the USA someone points out states are quite big and you can have land in the middle of nowhere for literally peanuts. Plus, how big such real property needs to be? Can it be, say, 10 square meters? If so, square kilometer can fit property of 100.000 companies. I really don't know US law, which is why I'm asking, but it sounds like door wide open to serious abuse.
Given the sums thrown around in US elections (was it 5 bln $ spent in total in last Presidential one?) I'd imagine legal way of pumping votes would attract even more money, especially seeing the money isn't lost like in buying TV ads, but you still hold the land you can sell later...
Given the sheer amount of work you'd have to do I can't help but imagine old fashioned ballot stuffing would be a preferred solution.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
General Zod wrote:Given the sheer amount of work you'd have to do I can't help but imagine old fashioned ballot stuffing would be a preferred solution.
One can land you in jail. The other is perfectly legal and the legwork can be done by people hired on minimum wage trained to fill one form using most useless, cheapest land in state bought for cents. Or even on free work, just look how many volunteers McCain and Romney had. It's like moving registered voters from state to state to change outcome of election except you "create" new voters for less than it would cost to move people and you don't suck votes from the old state in turn.
Unless I miss something, which I'd like to hear, what and why it won't work.
I'm just saying that if you really want to rig the vote there are easier ways to do it, like paying off someone in a diebold plant to change the programming on voting machines.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
General Zod wrote:Given the sheer amount of work you'd have to do I can't help but imagine old fashioned ballot stuffing would be a preferred solution.
One can land you in jail. The other is perfectly legal and the legwork can be done by people hired on minimum wage trained to fill one form using most useless, cheapest land in state bought for cents. Or even on free work, just look how many volunteers McCain and Romney had. It's like moving registered voters from state to state to change outcome of election except you "create" new voters for less than it would cost to move people and you don't suck votes from the old state in turn.
Unless I miss something, which I'd like to hear, what and why it won't work.
Well for one thing, this only matters in municipalities, which unless it's different in Montana means an incorporated city or town.
There's only going to be so much property within the city/town lines that can be bought, and I'm sure it'll tend to be more expensive relatively than property in unincorporated places. They're not getting a vote by buying up some 1x1 plot of land in the middle of nowhere.
EDIT: Plus, it's only applicable to the municipal elections, not statewide or even countywide. So is it really going to be worth the effort to try and buy up property in some city or town in order to sway those elections? At best they'll get some sweet deals on local property taxes, but I'm not sure what other benefit they'd receive. And fuck, big corporations can get plenty of incentives from local mayors and councils anyway just on a promise to "move in" or "create jobs" without having to fuck around with the elections.
"How can I wait unknowing?
This is the price of war,
We rise with noble intentions,
And we risk all that is pure..." - Angela & Jeff van Dyck, Forever (Rome: Total War)
"On and on, through the years,
The war continues on..." - Angela & Jeff van Dyck, We Are All One (Medieval 2: Total War)
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear." - Ambrose Redmoon
"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." - Harvey Dent, The Dark Knight
In the US we have this thing called "zoning laws" which prevent you from subdividing below a certain level. In semi-rural areas that can be as high as 10 acres and in major farming areas it may be a quarter-section. On the other hand a quarter-section in Montana in the right place is pathetically cheap.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.
oooohhh - is that why you have new suburbs being built with one house to a huge plot of land?
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
madd0ct0r wrote:oooohhh - is that why you have new suburbs being built with one house to a huge plot of land?
Not always, sometimes people just prefer a big amount of land to a big house and no land. Lots of people like a yard. I know I do!
There's also new suburbs and subdivisions built all the time that are big stupid McMansions with nothing but the minimum of green space between properties.
