Tom Baio and his wife, residents of Morris County, New Jersey, forwarded their daughter’s mail ballot to her in New York City, where she works as a photographer. And she voted. Against him. Baio, a Republican, is a New Jersey township committeeman — or was. He lost by 3 votes.
Now he’s filed a lawsuit to have his daughter’s ballot and several others rejected for lack of residency (see story here). That’s not a slam-dunk, but before I get to the legal aspects of this tale, let’s briefly discuss Baio’s hypocrisy.
He told a local newspaper he and his wife forwarded their daughter’s ballot because they were driven by “a sense of duty.” Now he says, “Like many parents driven by a sense of duty, we were wrong to advance the VBM to my daughter.” (“VBM” stands for vote-by-mail, a voting method most Republicans adamantly oppose, even when they use it themselves.)
After learning she voted Democratic, the tune he’s singing now goes like this:
“We all need to correct this behavior. As parents, and as citizens of towns as great as Mendham, I call on all Mendham residents next year to heed this example. As shameful as it is, we need to correct this behavior. I know I will.”
I assume that means he won’t forward ballots from their home address to her anymore. I’m thinking he also might threaten to cut off her inheritance (“no damn Democrat is going to get my money, even if she’s my daughter!”), although the newspaper story doesn’t say that.
Now for the legal stuff. In addition to Ariana Baio, local Republicans complained about “a large and growing number of vote-by-mail ballots filed by Democrat voters who do not appear to meet the residency requirement for voting in Mendham Township.” (Note use of the adjective “Democrat” voters; are they okay with non-resident VBM ballots cast by Republicans?)
Generally, physical residency doesn’t determine voting eligibility, domicile does. “Domicile” is what you consider home, even if you’re somewhere else. This happens all the time. Military personnel serving overseas regard their hometown, not their duty station, as their domicile and they can legally vote there. So can people temporarily away from what they consider their home. This category includes many college students and people on temporary work assignments.
The individual, not the government, normally defines what their “home” is. There are exceptions, when government can intervene by denying resident college tuition, a resident driver’s license, local voting registration, etc., for someone they determine is domiciled elsewhere. This most commonly happens to people claiming domicile in another locale; you can have only one domicile at a time.
But a person’s claimed domicile also can be denied or rescinded if they’ve permanently moved away and broken their connections to a place. For example, if you change your driver’s license to another state to qualify for resident college tuition there, you may be considered no longer domiciled where you’re registered to vote. But contested domicile ordinarily has to be resolved by a court.
So just because Ariana Biao wasn’t living in New Jersey when she voted for her father’s opponent doesn’t necessarily invalidate her vote. That depends on whether her residency in New York City was temporary, or a permanent change, and whether she intended to return home at some point. Her intent has a lot to do with it, so it’s awfully hard for anyone else to say she’d lost her eligibility to vote in Morris County. The important point is that residence can be different from domicile, and residence doesn’t determine domicile.
That’s why a court has to determine this, considering such factors as when she left, how long she’s been gone, whether her job is temporary or permanent, and her future plans. Who she voted for isn’t a consideration. That’s strictly a family matter.
And the way I see it, if she’s old enough to vote, she’s old enough to vote against her dad — after all, she knows him better than almost anyone else.