Many years ago, I purchased a new home when my wife and I started a life together. A new neighborhood so new that it confused our GPS since it did not yet exist. Based on the address, I triangulated its location and found it. We made an offer on that house, and after a few weeks, it was ours. That day when we got the keys was exhilarating, and we celebrated in the kitchen of our new home.
However, I already owned a condo. We were lucky enough to have the means to purchase our new home without needing to sell my existing home. These circumstances, while lucky in most respects, had their own disadvantages. We were focused on establishing our new home, but I still had a home filled with my existing belongings, many of which remained at that condo.
However, I operated this way for years. Other tasks took higher priority than extricating my belongings from that condo. I had paid off the condo, so the only cost was the modest monthly homeowners association fee. It became a running joke; I continued to own two homes out of sheer laziness.
The cost of having two homes
Even if you own your homes outright, there are still ongoing costs. There’s the aforementioned homeowners’ association fee, but that’s just the start. Let’s also consider the cost of utilities, like electricity. Naturally, we also need to account for property taxes, which will continue to add up. Having lived it myself, I am painfully aware of the ongoing costs of owning two homes.
Years ago, I learned about the unfortunate consequences of establishing a late fee for school pickup. Schools assumed that the fine would minimize the frequency and severity of parents picking up their kids late. This policy backfired with some parents. They performed the calculus in their head. A parent faces the decision of missing an important meeting or picking up a child late from school. If they choose to attend the meeting, then they’re overcome with guilt over the late pickup. However, if the school fines the parent for arriving late, the parent may choose to pay the $20 late fee without batting an eye. To them, the fine was well worth it. To me, the ongoing costs of maintaining two homes outweigh the cost of vacating my old condo and shutting everything down.
That said, there are other reasons to own two homes. The most common is that your second property is your vacation home. That second home may be a cabin in the woods or a condo in a warm climate, like my home state of Florida.
You don’t necessarily own that second residence
Naturally, you don’t need to own that second residence. You could rent it. It has been many years since I rented an apartment, but it’s a viable option, especially for those who are just getting established. For the low price of the first month’s rent, last month’s rent, and a cleaning fee, you could have your own residence.
Whether you own your home or rent a home, you need to fill out an application. If you’re a United States citizen, that rental or mortgage application requires your Social Security number. If you’re a US citizen, the government knows how many properties you own and rent.
In my case, my two homes sat a mere two miles apart; they happened to belong to the same voting district. What if the two homes reside in two different voting districts? If one person may legitimately claim two residences, which district do they vote in?
How do we identify the district in which you vote?
That’s simple. We mitigate that through voter registration; each voter registers their intent to vote for a particular district. For most people, over 50% of the US population, they have precisely one home. The address at which they’d register to vote is unambiguous. For fewer people, ones with multiple homes, their voting district may be ambiguous. We disambiguate which district we choose to represent with our voter registration.
You may not vote in more than one district where you have a residence. This is considered voter fraud. However, it is exceedingly difficult to detect voter registration across multiple states. Suppose that you have a home in both California and Virginia; in addition, suppose that you had a strong conviction about the ballot initiatives around mid-decade redistricting. You would like to cast a vote in each state on its respective ballot initiatives, but you can’t unless you’re registered in each state, which would be voter fraud.
What keeps US citizens from committing voter fraud in this way? You’ll love this answer: Honesty. Honesty is what keeps us from committing fraud in this way.
Affecting elections
Now imagine that you want to influence a few ballot initiatives, like the ones on mid-decade redistricting, in several key states. Let’s also suppose that you had a lot of money and didn’t mind spending it this way to influence elections. Let’s fabricate a name out of thin air, like Elon Musk. You go out of your way to establish a residence in all fifty states. Even if rent was $2k, a full year’s rent is $24k (if you don’t break your lease). This price across all fifty states is only $1.2 million.
In the California and Virginia cases, you passionately cast your vote either for or against allowing redistricting in both states. You did this intentionally, knowing that we disallow registering in multiple states. You have committed a felony; you may serve time in prison.
What, other than honesty, prevents you from doing precisely this? We already know that this is exceedingly difficult to detect. The likelihood of getting caught and prosecuted for committing fraud in this way is extremely unlikely. Now, suppose that we want to deter this particular type of election fraud. Let’s ponder what such policies will look like.
Establishing new voter integrity laws
To establish a new residence, you’ll need to provide your Social Security number. In theory, the United States government is aware of every residence you have established. The solution is simple; every citizen who has more than one residence is disallowed from voting. If we know that you have multiple districts for which you may register to vote, then we can’t definitively know which one you will choose. We just won’t count your vote.
However, we can’t do that; every 18-year-old US citizen has the Constitutional right to vote. However, we need to find a viable way to definitively demonstrate that you’re not registered to vote in multiple states. Here’s the proposal: we’ll use the California and Virginia example. You intend to register to vote as a California resident. In Virginia, you’ll now need to declare (much like registering to vote) that you explicitly abstain from voting in that state. Only upon showing that declaration for Virginia, may you register to vote in California. And you need to do this in every state in which you have a mailing address where you do not intend to vote.
Furthermore, to make sure that everything is on the up and up, you’ll need to do this within a month when you intend to cast a vote in each state. So that we know that you didn’t switch your registration between ballot measures, primaries and elections.
In this way, your ability to vote in elections is preserved; you just need a little more documentation to establish that there isn’t any funny business. It seems like a very small price to pay to preserve voter integrity. It’s a win/win proposition.
Isn’t this additional documentation prohibitive?
Don’t you value voter integrity? What do you have to hide? Clauses of the SAVE Act require the registrant’s birth certificate to match their identification, which disproportionately impacts married women and transgender people. They need to meticulously document each name change. Otherwise, how would we really know who they are?
I have meticulously outlined how multiple residences may be abused to conduct voter fraud; don’t we want to protect against such instances? Did I neglect to mention that US citizens with multiple residences are more likely to be wealthier? And they, in turn, are more likely to vote conservative? You could say that this new voter integrity law disproportionately impacts those who would vote Republican. However, that’s just happenstance.
Much like the elements of the SAVE Act that disproportionately impact those who would vote Democratic… That’s just happenstance.
You may argue that we’re adding considerable prohibitive rules to a problem we don’t need to solve. We do not have any evidence that suggests citizens with multiple residences have conducted widespread voter fraud. However, we could similarly say that about voter fraud in general. Since we started tracking voter fraud in 1982, we have averaged fewer than one instance of voter fraud per state per year.
If this new provision seems needless and obstructive, so are all provisions of the SAVE Act.