When the Roll Call story headlined "Daschle Hit on Tax Break; Wife Claims 'Homestead' exemption" was reported in the Capitol Hill publication Roll Call last year, letters to the editor started appearing in South Dakota newspapers questioning Daschle's South Dakota residency. (Of course, no South Dakota newspaper actually reported the story.) Nevertheless, Steve Hildebrand, Senator Daschle's campaign manager, felt it was necessary to respond to these letters himself. One such letter to the editor written by Steve Hildebrand appeared in the September 1, 2003 edition of the Argus Leader:
"Doug Clark is absolutely wrong about his attack on Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D. Tom and Linda Daschle own a home in Aberdeen. They pay property taxes on that home each year. Daschle has a South Dakota driver's license and is registered to vote here. No credible person has ever questioned his South Dakota residency and his qualifications to run for the U.S. Senate.Clark is quoting from a right-wing attack story that was filled with false information. The homestead deduction is available to any homeowner in Washington, D.C., who qualifies, and because Linda Daschle pays Washington, D.C. income taxes, she qualifies on behalf of the Daschles. This does not disqualify Daschle in any way.
Clark was doing nothing more than making a partisan political attack against Daschle. Otherwise, he would have told readers that Republican senators like Kay Bailey Hutchinson, a millionaire senator from Texas, has also taken the homestead deduction. Why doesn't he criticize her, too?"
First, things like voter registration and driver's licenses are not evidence of residency, they're what's at issue. There are two simple standards for residency: 1) physical presence and 2) intent to return when absent. Daschle's intent is what's at issue here.
Of course, we now know that Hildebrand was lying when he said it was Linda Daschle who qualified for the homestead deduction. Last week, it was discovered that the application for the homestead deduction was signed by Tom Daschle, not Linda Daschle. Moreover, Hildebrand simply ignores the fact that the only way a homeowner in Washington, DC can qualify for the homestead deduction is if that person's "principal place of residence" is Washington, DC. According to the DC Office of Tax and Revenue's website, there are three criteria for qualifying for the homestead deduction:
1. An application must be on file with the Office of Tax and Revenue;
2. The property must be occupied by the owner/applicant and contain no more than 5 dwelling units (including the unit occupied by the owner);
3. The property must be the principal residence (domicile) of the owner/applicant.
(Emphasis original.) These requirements are dictated by the DC Code, Sections 47-849 and 47-850. Section 47-849 of the DC code reads:
For purposes of §§ 47-850 through 47-850.04, the term:(1) "Residence" means the principal place of residence within the District of an individual, shareholder, or member, who is domiciled in the District.
(2) "Homestead" means:
(A) In the case of real property improved by a house or a condominium, an individual's residence that:
(i) Comprises a dwelling unit;
(ii) Is Class 1 Property, as defined in § 47-813, that contains not more than 5 dwelling units therein; and
(iii) Is owned in whole or in part by the individual.
(Emphasis added.) It would seem that by signing an application declaring that Washington, DC is his "principal place of residence," Daschle has made a voluntary action to abandon his domicile and establish residency in the District of Columbia. The Congressional Research Service has written a report on the issue of "Inhabitancy in the State from Which Elected" noting the case of John Bailey in the 18th Congress which shares some remarkable similarities to Senator Daschle's situation:
In the case of John Bailey in the 18th Congress, for example, the House of Representatives found a Member-elect from Massachusetts not to be an “inhabitant” of that State, when he had left the State to work for the Federal Government and reside in the District of Columbia for a number of years. Even in this seemingly strict interpretation, however, the Committee and the House noted that it was a voluntary action on the part of Bailey to “abandon” his domicile and establish residency in the District of Columbia, that he had lived “exclusively” in the District for a period ofover 6 years, that he had in the District “married a wife and established a family of his own, thereby leaving his natural or original domicile in his father’s house,” and that, significantly, “Mr. Bailey had no domestic establishment or estate in Massachusetts.” Noting that one “may acquire inhabitancy in the District of Columbia in the same way as in any of the States,” the House and Committee on Elections, as reported in Hinds’ Precedents, specifically concluded:
If the residence of Mr. Bailey here [the District of Columbia] had been transient and not uniform; had he left a dwelling house in Massachusetts in which his family resided a part of the year; had he left there any of the insignia of a household establishment; there would be indication that his domicile in Massachusetts had not been abandoned. It had been urged that the expressed intention to return to Massachusetts should govern. But the law ascertained intention in such a case by deducing from facts. ... The committee did not contend that a Member must be actually residing in a State at the time of his election.
One can discern Daschle's intention to make DC his principal place of residency by deducing it from the fact that he has declared DC to be his "principal place of residence" in his application for the DC "homestead deduction."
The next question that arises is whether Senator Daschle can legally vote in South Dakota if his principal place of residence is in DC. More on that later.
Recent Comments