The Architecture of Disenfranchisement: Institutional Barriers and the Political Exclusion of Unhoused Populations

Full report

On this page

Introduction to Structural Civic Exclusion

The socio-political disenfranchisement of unhoused individuals and those living in extreme poverty represents a profound and systemic failure of democratic inclusivity. In the United States, populations experiencing housing insecurity occupy a unique paradox: they are hyper-visible subjects of municipal regulation, spatial policing, and social welfare policy, yet they remain largely invisible within the civic and political apparatus that designs those very regulations. Current estimates suggest that only 10 percent of the unhoused population participates in typical federal elections, despite a significant majority maintaining the legal right to the franchise1. This severe depression in voter turnout and civic engagement is not the result of political apathy. Rather, it is the consequence of intersecting institutional barriers that effectively condition constitutional rights upon property ownership and residential stability. Historically, the concept of preserving the political community was founded upon the belief that only those persons who possessed sufficient interests in a district—typically defined by wealth, gender, or duration of residence—had a right to vote4. Nineteenth-century political theorists, including John Stuart Mill, openly argued that individuals receiving "parish relief" (welfare) should be denied suffrage, asserting that by becoming dependent on the community for subsistence, the destitute abdicated their claim to equal political rights4. While the United States Supreme Court has since struck down wealth and durational residency requirements as unconstitutional violations of equal protection, the administrative mechanics of the modern electoral and welfare systems continue to enforce a de facto property requirement for full civic participation4. The architecture of disenfranchisement operates through four primary, overlapping mechanisms. First, draconian residential and identification requirements disrupt ballot access for transient populations. Second, the rapid criminalization of homelessness through urban encampment ordinances subjects unhoused individuals to carceral cycles and the systemic destruction of vital records. Third, pervasive administrative burdens—commonly referred to as "sludge"—embedded within the social safety net consume the cognitive and temporal resources necessary for civic engagement. Finally, these factors culminate in a profound civic disconnect, wherein data-driven political campaigns and local urban planning processes systematically exclude the preferences of the poor. When deeply impoverished citizens are systematically locked out of the ballot box, their unique needs are excised from public policy. This lack of representation subsequently paves the way for increasingly punitive municipal codes and welfare structures that further marginalize them, both economically and legally. To dismantle these barriers, it is necessary to examine the specific legal, administrative, and spatial frameworks that transform poverty into political exclusion.

A Conceptual Model of Political Exclusion

The translation of extreme poverty and housing insecurity into political exclusion is not incidental; it is the direct outcome of a rigid institutional architecture designed around the assumption of a static, recognizable domicile. The conceptual model of political exclusion demonstrates that disenfranchisement is a cascading phenomenon. A failure in one node—such as navigating a welfare bureaucracy—can trigger instability that leads to the loss of shelter, which in turn leads to the loss of identification during a municipal police sweep, ultimately culminating in the denial of the ballot. This cyclical relationship can be categorized into distinct socio-economic conditions, their corresponding institutional mechanisms, and the resulting civic consequences.

As this model illustrates, the barriers are mutually reinforcing. To effectively engage in the democratic process, an individual must overcome an intersecting web of spatial policing, bureaucratic friction, and technological exclusion.

Residential and Identification Obstacles to the Ballot

The American electoral system is fundamentally tethered to geography, heavily penalizing those who live in transition. The logistical requirements of establishing a precinct and delivering electoral materials inherently assume that voters reside in permanent structures. While federal law and judicial precedent affirm that housing status cannot dictate voter eligibility, administrative execution at the state and local levels often creates an impassable labyrinth for unhoused citizens.

The Jurisprudence of the Domicile Requirement

No state explicitly requires a citizen to possess a traditional home to exercise the right to vote. The legal foundation for unhoused enfranchisement was solidified in the landmark 1984 decision in Pitts v. Black5. In Pitts, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York evaluated a challenge against the New York City Board of Elections, which had disenfranchised a homeless man for listing a park bench as his residence5. The Board argued that a park bench did not meet the statutory definition of a residence—defined as a fixed, permanent home to which a person intends to return—and raised concerns regarding voter fraud and administrative feasibility5. The court rejected the city's arguments, ruling that eligible voters residing in non-conventional accommodations cannot be refused voter registration5. The court established that a specific location, such as a park bench or a street corner, sufficiently demonstrates a "home base" linking the voter to a specific electoral district5. Subsequent rulings, such as Collier v. Menzel (1985) in California, echoed this sentiment, determining that denying voter applications because an applicant listed a city park violated the equal protection clause7. Despite this established jurisprudence, election administration remains hostile to non-traditional addresses. All 50 states require a physical address to assign a voter to the correct precinct and a mailing address to deliver election materials, identification cards, and polling location notices8. While advocates and nonpartisan organizations encourage unhoused voters to use the address of a local shelter, drop-in center, or advocacy organization, this introduces severe logistical frictions9. Mail is frequently lost or returned if an individual is forced to move between shelters or if the organization lacks a robust mail-holding policy9. Furthermore, many unhoused people avoid formal shelters entirely due to safety concerns, strict curfews, or religious requirements, making the acquisition of a stable mailing address impossible5.

List Maintenance, Voter Purges, and the NVRA

The lack of a stable mailing address leaves unhoused and highly mobile voters exceptionally vulnerable to list maintenance procedures, commonly known as voter purges. Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 requires states to maintain accurate voter rolls and permits the removal of individuals who have died or moved outside the jurisdiction12. To conduct this maintenance, election administrators frequently utilize the National Change of Address (NCOA) registry or send non-forwardable address confirmation notices to registered voters12. Because unhoused individuals lack fixed mailing addresses, they routinely fail to receive or return these notices. In many states, prolonged inactivity combined with a returned confirmation notice triggers a "use it or lose it" mechanism, resulting in the cancellation of the voter's registration13. Consequently, eligible unhoused citizens are disproportionately and erroneously swept from the voter rolls14. The NVRA was designed to expand access by mandating registration opportunities at public assistance agencies, yet many states neglect to integrate voter registration into Medicaid or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) portals, placing the burden back on low-income individuals15.

Strict Voter Identification and the Erasure of Vital Records

The proliferation of strict voter identification laws has compounded the disenfranchisement of deeply impoverished individuals. In states mandating photo identification for ballot access, the unhoused face a nearly insurmountable barrier. Empirical research utilizing cost-benefit models of voting demonstrates that reducing both the number of trips and the number of tasks required to vote is the most critical factor in driving turnout; conversely, high-friction requirements aggressively depress participation16. Studies indicate that strict photo identification laws differentially depress turnout among Hispanic, Black, and mixed-race Americans—demographics that are heavily overrepresented in the unhoused population due to structural racism and economic inequality1. Acquiring a state-issued identification card is an administratively heavy process that requires secondary documentation, such as a birth certificate, a Social Security card, and proof of residency (e.g., utility bills or a formal lease)2. Unhoused individuals rarely possess these documents in readily accessible formats. For those living unsheltered, retaining vital records is remarkably difficult due to exposure to the elements, theft, and confiscation by law enforcement during municipal encampment sweeps18. The routine destruction of personal property directly disrupts civic participation, seamlessly linking the criminalization of poverty with the suppression of the vote.

Residential Mobility as a Depressant on Turnout

Beyond the chronically unsheltered, severe housing instability and forced residential mobility profoundly depress electoral participation. Empirical studies analyzing the intersection of housing and voting reveal that evictions, foreclosures, and forced relocations systematically decrease voter turnout20. The administrative cost of having to re-register to vote after every move is a primary driver of this decline21. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of electoral participation offer stark evidence of this phenomenon. An analysis of the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) housing experiment demonstrated that receiving a housing voucher and moving to a low-poverty neighborhood decreased voting among heads of households by up to 8 percentage points in subsequent federal elections21. This negative impact equals or outpaces the positive gains generated by the most effective, well-funded get-out-the-vote (GOTV) campaigns21. When individuals are continually uprooted, social ties are severed, community familiarity diminishes, and the friction of navigating new polling locations and registration deadlines overwhelms the civic impulse.

The Criminalization of Homelessness and Legal Disenfranchisement

The most direct and coercive mechanism of exclusion is the rapid expansion of municipal ordinances that criminalize the behaviors associated with extreme poverty. Laws banning public camping, sitting, lying down, or panhandling do not resolve the structural causes of housing crises. Instead, they displace unhoused populations, initiate devastating fine-and-fee cycles, and effectively detach these individuals from formal society.

From Martin to Grants Pass: The Erosion of Eighth Amendment Protections

For several years, the judicial framework governing the criminalization of homelessness was anchored by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' 2018 decision in Martin v. Boise22. In Martin, the court ruled that the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause prohibited cities from enforcing public camping bans against unhoused individuals when the number of homeless individuals outnumbered the available shelter beds in that jurisdiction11. The logic was rooted in the Supreme Court's 1962 decision in Robinson v. California, which struck down a law criminalizing the "status" of narcotic addiction, determining that punishing a person for a condition beyond their control constituted cruel and unusual punishment22. The Ninth Circuit determined that when unhoused people have no alternative, sleeping outside is involuntary and inseparable from the status of homelessness22. However, this legal landscape shifted dramatically in June 2024 with the Supreme Court's decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson22. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court overturned Martin, concluding that the Eighth Amendment does not bar local governments from enacting or enforcing criminal penalties for public camping or sleeping, regardless of whether alternative shelter space is available22. The majority reasoned that the Eighth Amendment regulates only the method or kind of punishment imposed (e.g., preventing torture or terror), not whether a municipality can criminalize specific acts22. By strictly separating the "conduct" of sleeping with a blanket from the "status" of being unhoused, the Court allowed municipalities to punish acts of basic survival11. The Court also expressed skepticism regarding the judicial administration of homelessness policy, questioning how federal judges could accurately assess whether a shelter bed was truly "available" if it carried religious or sobriety requirements11. The implications of Grants Pass are profound and immediate. Cities are now legally emboldened to escalate punitive measures against the unhoused, including issuing citations, levying steep fines, and authorizing arrests for existing in public spaces25.

Fine-and-Fee Cycles and Felony Disenfranchisement

The enforcement of anti-camping and anti-loitering ordinances generates a devastating carceral loop. Unhoused individuals cited for public sleeping or sitting are issued financial penalties they cannot possibly pay28. Failure to pay these citations leads to additional fees, the issuance of bench warrants, and eventual arrest and incarceration28. This cycle intersects directly with political disenfranchisement. Incarceration immediately strips individuals of their ability to vote. Furthermore, in states with strict felony disenfranchisement laws, individuals whose encounters with the criminal legal system escalate to felony convictions—a reality exacerbated by the desperation of untreated behavioral health crises and extreme poverty—permanently or temporarily lose their voting rights1. Even in jurisdictions where rights are theoretically restored post-release, the bureaucratic hurdles required to re-register, combined with the loss of a mailing address and identification, serve as a permanent barrier to the ballot30.

Legislative Agendas: Municipal Sweeps and Defunding "Housing First"

The Supreme Court's jurisprudence operates in tandem with aggressive legislative advocacy aimed at increasing the policing of the poor. Organizations such as the Cicero Institute have drafted and disseminated model legislation—titled the "Reducing Street Homelessness Act"—which seeks to mandate the enforcement of street camping bans and fundamentally alter housing policy31. This model legislation proposes severe shifts in municipal codes and state funding structures. It seeks to penalize municipalities that refuse to enforce laws prohibiting unauthorized camping by withholding state grant funding31. Furthermore, it advocates redirecting state funds away from traditional "Housing First" initiatives—which prioritize placing individuals into permanent supportive housing without preconditions like sobriety—and toward the construction of short-term, state-sanctioned parking areas, congregate structured camps, and pay-for-performance shelter contracts31. The legislation makes unauthorized street camping a misdemeanor punishable by fines up to $5,000 and jail time, while also expanding the mechanisms for involuntary civil commitment (Assisted Outpatient Treatment) for those with behavioral health issues31. Proponents of this approach argue that strict enforcement, combined with performance-based funding, is necessary to dismantle dangerous unsanctioned encampments, reduce crime, and compel individuals into necessary psychiatric or substance abuse treatment34. Conversely, housing and civil rights advocates argue that criminalizing homelessness is not only unconstitutional in spirit, but fiscally irresponsible. They assert that criminalization exacerbates the crisis by imposing punitive time limits and work requirements that are impossible to meet for those in crisis, thereby diverting critical investments away from permanent supportive housing and pushing the unhoused further into the margins of the criminal justice system37.

The Fourth Amendment Intersect: Property Seizure and the Erasure of Identity

When municipalities conduct sweeps of homeless encampments—often under the guise of the policies described above—the immediate consequence is the seizure and destruction of personal property. The Ninth Circuit case Lavan v. City of Los Angeles highlights the constitutional dimensions of this practice18. In Lavan, unhoused residents in the Skid Row district sued the city after sanitation workers seized and immediately destroyed their unattended, but unabandoned, personal property, which they had left momentarily to shower or eat18. The Ninth Circuit affirmed an injunction preventing the city from seizing and summarily destroying this property, ruling that the practice violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process18. The court rejected the city's argument that violating a municipal ordinance by leaving property on a sidewalk voided a person's possessory interest, noting that "the government may not take property like a thief in the night; rather it must announce its intentions and give the property owner a chance to argue against the taking"18. Despite the Lavan precedent, property sweeps remain a standard urban management tool, often utilizing loopholes like "bulky item" ordinances to justify the immediate destruction of unhoused individuals' belongings39. When unhoused individuals lose their identification documents, birth certificates, medications, and survival gear in the back of a municipal garbage truck, their civic existence is effectively erased18. Replacing a destroyed state ID requires time, money, transportation, and a mailing address—resources completely depleted by the sweep itself. Without identification, voter registration is impossible, completing the cycle of legal and political exclusion.

First Amendment Challenges: The Criminalization of Solicitation

The policing of poverty extends beyond physical occupation of space to encompass speech and survival strategies. Municipalities frequently enact panhandling or solicitation ordinances to restrict the visibility of the poor. However, courts have consistently recognized that requesting money is a form of constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment42. In a challenge against a panhandling ordinance in Cicero, Illinois, civil rights advocates noted that laws prohibiting individuals from standing on a roadway to request contributions, while allowing other speakers to do so, are unconstitutionally overbroad and content-based42. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, laws that specifically target panhandling must survive strict scrutiny, a threshold they rarely meet42. Nevertheless, the persistent introduction and enforcement of these ordinances reflect a municipal intent to utilize the criminal code to silence and displace marginalized populations, further alienating them from civic life.

Administrative Burden and the Suppression of Essential Services

Beyond the ballot box and the criminal justice system, the disenfranchisement of deeply impoverished individuals is sustained by systemic barriers within the social safety net. Public policy scholars Pamela Herd and Donald Moynihan characterize these barriers as "administrative burden"—a concept defining how complex administrative processes serve as policymaking by other means43. Administrative burden restricts access to vital public services by imposing three distinct types of costs on citizens:

1. Learning Costs: The time and effort required to discover that a program exists, understand its eligibility rules, and determine how to apply46.

2. Compliance Costs: The onerous processes of gathering documentation, completing forms, attending interviews, and maintaining communication with bureaucratic agencies46.

3. Psychological Costs: The stigma, frustration, loss of autonomy, and emotional distress associated with navigating a system that often treats applicants with suspicion46.

For populations experiencing extreme poverty, these frictions can substantially limit access to services they desperately need and are legally entitled to receive47.

The Phenomenon of SNAP Churn and Recertification Sludge

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides a stark empirical illustration of how administrative sludge punishes poverty. Every year, hundreds of thousands of eligible participants are involuntarily disenrolled from SNAP, only to successfully re-enter the program a few months later—a phenomenon known as "churn"49. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that 17 to 28 percent of SNAP households experience churn annually51. This procedural inefficiency imposes severe financial strains on both the individual and the state. The administrative cost to state agencies of processing a churned case ranges from $80 to $130 per incident, squandering millions in taxpayer dollars51. For the individual, a churn event results in an average loss of $400 in prorated benefits in the year following the recertification failure50. Crucially, churn is rarely caused by a change in financial eligibility. The vast majority of individuals who churn remain below the income thresholds50. Instead, churn is overwhelmingly triggered by the administrative friction of the recertification process50. To maintain benefits, SNAP recipients must periodically prove their ongoing eligibility—usually every 6 to 12 months—which involves submitting verification documents and completing a mandatory caseworker interview50. Empirical research by Homonoff and Somerville analyzing SNAP cases in San Francisco revealed that a staggering 52 percent of active cases fail at the recertification deadline54. The study isolated the sheer impact of bureaucratic friction by demonstrating that the timing of the required interview is highly determinative of success. Cases randomly assigned an interview date at the end of the month were 20 percent less likely to successfully recertify compared to those assigned an interview early in the month50. This indicates that a lack of temporal runway to resolve documentation errors or reschedule missed calls directly causes benefit termination.

The Disproportionate Impact on Vulnerable Populations

Administrative burden does not impact all demographics equally; it disproportionately affects those with the fewest resources to overcome bureaucratic hurdles. For older adults, the consequences of SNAP churn are particularly severe. In 2024, nearly 9.9 percent of households with an adult aged 65 or older experienced food insecurity, rising to 11.3 percent for older adults living alone51. Because older adults typically have stable, fixed incomes, their eligibility rarely changes; thus, their disenrollment is almost entirely driven by the compliance costs of recertification51. Similarly, households with young children face high risks of administrative churning. A cross-sectional study of Massachusetts SNAP participants found that 40.9 percent of families with children younger than six experienced benefit interruptions due to missed deadlines, incomplete interviews, or verification failures55. Furthermore, research indicates that churn risk is higher among non-white participants, members of larger households, and those experiencing housing instability52.

The Civic Consequences of Administrative Attrition

The procedural inefficiencies that drive welfare churn have devastating downstream effects on civic participation. For households living on the margins, a temporary lapse in nutritional assistance forces the reallocation of severely limited financial resources to food acquisition. This frequently results in missed rent payments, eviction, and a descent into homelessness. Furthermore, administrative burden suffocates civic engagement. When daily existence demands the exhaustive navigation of punitive bureaucracies, an individual's cognitive and temporal bandwidth is entirely consumed by survival. The psychological toll of navigating complex recertification requirements, enduring welfare office wait times, and combating bureaucratic errors leaves no residual capacity for political participation. By making the safety net arduous to access, the state implicitly signals to impoverished individuals that their time is invaluable and that they are unworthy of support. This breeds a profound cynicism and distrust in government institutions, deeply depressing voter turnout and reinforcing the belief that the political system is unresponsive to their needs2.

Civic Disconnect: Exclusion from Urban Planning and Public Budgeting

The culmination of residential instability, criminalization, and administrative burden is a complete civic disconnect. The preferences, needs, and voices of the unhoused are systematically excised from the local arenas where public budgeting, zoning, and housing policy are determined.

Data-Driven Campaigning and the Rich-Poor Contact Gap

In modern American elections, political campaigns rely heavily on data-driven targeting strategies to maximize their return on investment. The foundation of this strategy is the "voter history file"—administrative records maintained by the state detailing whether an individual has cast a ballot in prior elections57. Campaigns utilize these files to identify high-propensity voters, concentrating their outreach, canvassing, and messaging resources on those statistically likely to turn out57. Because unhoused and low-income individuals face immense structural barriers to voting, they are significantly less likely to have a robust voting history. Consequently, predictive modeling algorithms classify them as low-yield targets, prompting campaigns to purposefully bypass them during mobilization efforts57. This strategic choice exacerbates participatory inequality, driving a stark "rich-poor turnout gap." In the 2020 presidential election, 83 percent of U.S. citizens with a family income above $100,000 reported voting, compared to only 53 percent of citizens with an income below $30,00057. This creates a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle. The poor do not vote because of institutional barriers, so politicians do not court their vote or hear their grievances. Because their grievances are ignored, policies are enacted that further their disenfranchisement, ensuring they continue not to vote56. This political marginalization means the unique interests of the poor are entirely unrepresented in the political process57. In the context of housing, this results in municipal governments prioritizing the preferences of affluent, property-owning constituencies. These constituencies frequently advocate for restrictive zoning laws, the defunding of low-income housing developments, and the aggressive implementation of encampment sweeps. The refrain "Nothing about us without us," commonly voiced by homeless advocacy groups, underscores the reality that housing policy is perpetually crafted without the input of those who suffer its failures most acutely2.

Participatory Budgeting and the Challenge of Inclusion

One mechanism intended to rectify this democratic deficit is participatory budgeting (PB)—a process in which community members directly decide how to spend a portion of a public budget. When intentionally designed, PB can invert traditional budgetary priorities, allocating resources to communities deprived of infrastructure and social services58. However, traditional PB exercises often fall prey to the same participatory inequalities as formal elections. Unless specific institutional design features are implemented, PB defaults to amplifying the voices of the already enfranchised middle and upper classes58. Research indicates that for PB to effectively engage low-income groups, non-citizens, and the unhoused, municipalities must deploy "social justice rules." These include targeted outreach to shelters, collaboration with trusted civil society organizations, and initiatives aimed at building budget literacy among marginalized community leaders58. When these features are absent, alternative democratic processes merely replicate the exclusion found at the ballot box.

Evaluating Innovative Municipal Interventions

Despite the overwhelming systemic barriers, several municipalities, non-profit organizations, and legislative coalitions have piloted innovative programs designed to lower the friction of civic participation for unhoused populations.

Low-Barrier Municipal Identifications: The Chicago CityKey

To combat the disenfranchisement caused by strict state ID laws and the routine destruction of vital records, some cities have introduced low-barrier municipal identification programs. The Chicago CityKey stands as a premier example of a government-issued ID designed specifically to accommodate undocumented residents, returning citizens, and those experiencing homelessness59. Authorized by the Chicago City Council in 2017 (ordinance O2017-1950), the CityKey bypasses the rigid documentation requirements of standard state IDs61. To prove residency and identity, applicants can utilize a much broader spectrum of non-traditional documents. Crucially, the program accepts a "Caretaker Attestation Form" or a formal letter from a social service agency, faith-based organization, or homeless shelter confirming that the individual resides there or utilizes their services62. This flexibility removes the barrier for unhoused youth and adults who cannot produce utility bills or leases64. Furthermore, the CityKey operates as a functional civic tool rather than just a static piece of plastic. It is a "four-in-one" card serving as a valid government ID, a Chicago Public Library card, a Ventra public transit card, and a Chicago Rx prescription drug discount card (offering up to 80% savings on medications)60. By embedding transit access and library privileges directly into the identification, the program weaves the unhoused back into the urban fabric. It allows individuals to access food pantries, apply for jobs, and interact with city services without the paralyzing stigma of lacking identification61.

Legislative Solutions: The Unhoused VOTE Act

At the federal level, legislative proposals aim to override the patchwork of restrictive state laws. The "Unhoused Voter Opportunity through Elections Act" (Unhoused VOTE Act, H.R. 5294/S. 2971), introduced in 2023, represents a comprehensive approach to enfranchisement66. The bill contains provisions designed to eliminate the logistical frictions of voting without a permanent address. It would mandate that emergency shelters distribute voter registration forms and assist with applications66. To combat strict ID laws, the bill would allow unhoused voters to attest to their residence in writing, under penalty of perjury, and mandate that election officials treat any documents issued by the criminal-legal system as acceptable forms of voter ID66. Furthermore, it directs election officials to consult with homeless service providers when determining the location of ballot drop-boxes, thereby minimizing transportation costs66. Similar state-level initiatives, such as the 2013 Illinois Bill of Rights for the Homeless Act, have successfully codified protections allowing homeless residents to vote and register using a shelter or drop-in center letter as proof of residence17.

Mobile Registration, Relational Organizing, and Shelter Outreach

Traditional voter registration methods—such as DMV automatic registration or door-to-door canvassing—fail to capture populations isolated by poverty and the criminal justice system. Empirical studies demonstrate that targeted, mobile outreach can bridge this gap. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in North Carolina tested the efficacy of sending mailers with eligibility information and registration forms to justice-involved individuals (a population with significant overlap with homelessness). The intervention successfully increased voter registration by 0.8 percentage points (a 12% relative increase) and turnout by 0.5 percentage points30. The study concluded that simply demystifying the process and providing basic eligibility information significantly lowered the learning costs associated with voter registration30. Technological interventions have also shown promise. Studies analyzing the OUTVOTE application—a tool for relational organizing where users text their personal contacts to urge them to vote—demonstrated a statistically significant 8.3 percentage point increase in voter turnout68. Relational organizing bypasses the need for face-to-face canvassing, offering a scalable method to reach highly mobile or unhoused individuals who maintain mobile phone access but lack a physical door for a canvasser to knock on68. However, physical interventions require careful execution. A study evaluating the deployment of a mobile voting unit to underserved and rural areas in Ada County, Idaho, during early voting periods found no statistically significant effect on increasing low-income voter turnout69. This suggests that simply lowering the transportation cost of voting is insufficient if the foundational barriers—lack of identification, administrative confusion, and psychological alienation—are not simultaneously addressed69.

Actionable Recommendations for Administrators and Advocates

To dismantle the architecture of disenfranchisement, reforms must span election administration, legal advocacy, and welfare policy. The following strategic actions are derived from empirical evidence and prevailing legal frameworks.

Recommendations for Election Administrators and Policymakers

Recommendations for Legal Advocates and Service Providers

Conclusion

The political exclusion of unhoused and deeply impoverished populations is not an accident of the electoral system; it is a meticulously constructed outcome of compounding institutional barriers. The mandate of fixed physical addresses and strict voter identification laws assumes a level of residential stability that millions of Americans do not possess. Simultaneously, the administrative sludge defining the social safety net demands extraordinary compliance from those with the fewest resources, generating a churn that destabilizes lives and suffocates civic capacity. This exclusion is violently reinforced by the spatial policing of poverty. In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson, municipalities possess expansive authority to criminalize public existence, initiating carceral cycles and conducting encampment sweeps that result in the routine destruction of vital identification documents. When the poorest citizens are subsequently excised from the voter rolls, they are erased from the political calculus of campaign strategists and policymakers alike. The resulting vacuum allows affluent constituencies to dominate the discourse, perpetuating housing policies and punitive measures that deepen the crisis. Reversing this disenfranchisement requires acknowledging that housing instability, bureaucratic friction, and electoral access are inextricably linked. The right to vote must be decoupled from the possession of property. Only through aggressive constitutional litigation protecting the property of the unhoused, the deliberate reduction of welfare administrative burdens, and the implementation of low-barrier civic infrastructure—such as municipal IDs and robust agency-based registration—can municipalities begin to restore the democratic agency of their most vulnerable residents. This is for informational purposes only. For medical advice or diagnosis, consult a professional.

Works cited

1. 15-2 Voting while Experiencing Homelessness: Making Unhoused Voices Heard in Our Democracy, https://nlihc.org/resource/15-2-voting-while-experiencing-homelessness-making-unhoused-voices-heard-our-democracy

2. 1 in 10 Unhoused People Vote — That's a Problem, https://nhchc.org/1-in-10-unhoused-people-vote-thats-a-problem/

3. 13-2 Housing Is Built With Ballots: Voting as a Person Experiencing Homelessness, https://nlihc.org/resource/13-2-housing-built-ballots-voting-person-experiencing-homelessness

4. Disenfranchisement of Homeless Persons \- Washington University in St. Louis Scholarly Repository, https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1353\&context=law\_urbanlaw

5. Pitts v. Black \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitts\_v.\_Black

6. Pitts v. Black \- Practical Law, [https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ic6f451f2557711d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?listSource=RelatedInfo\&navigationPath=RelatedInfo%2Fv4%2Fkeycite%2Fnav%2F%3Fguid%3DIc6f451f2557711d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4%26ss%3D1984141349%26ds%3D1985114177%26origDocGuid%3DI9a6bf6e0945811d9a707f4371c9c34f0\&list=NegativeCitingReferences\&rank=0\&originationContext=docHeader\&contextData=(sc.PracticalLaw)\&transitionType=Document\&needToInjectTerms=False\&docSource=48c16eb02bee4bc289a143f2f5e5022a\&ppcid=d29740c32d1249ec9b814a1e776b4649](https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ic6f451f2557711d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?listSource=RelatedInfo&navigationPath=RelatedInfo/v4/keycite/nav/?guid%3DIc6f451f2557711d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4%26ss%3D1984141349%26ds%3D1985114177%26origDocGuid%3DI9a6bf6e0945811d9a707f4371c9c34f0&list=NegativeCitingReferences&rank=0&originationContext=docHeader&contextData=\(sc.PracticalLaw\)&transitionType=Document&needToInjectTerms=False&docSource=48c16eb02bee4bc289a143f2f5e5022a&ppcid=d29740c32d1249ec9b814a1e776b4649)

7. RoLAND W. BURRIS \- Illinois Attorney General, https://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/dA/f97880d8d9/1992%2092-014%20ELECTIONS%20Registration%20of%20Homeless%20People.pdf

8. Can You Vote Without a Permanent Address? Your Rights and How To Register \- FindLaw, https://www.findlaw.com/voting/my-voting-guide/the-homeless-vote-can-you-legally-cast-a-ballot.html

9. RIGHT TO VOTE \- National Alliance to End Homelessness, https://endhomelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/NAEH\_EveryOneVotes\_2024.pdf

10. Voting and Homelessness \- Nonprofit VOTE, https://www.nonprofitvote.org/voting-and-homelessness/

11. City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson: The Intersection of Health, Homelessness, and Eighth Amendment Protections Against Cruel, https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004\&context=jhclp\_online\_issue

12. NVRA List Maintenance Guidance \- Department of Justice, https://www.justice.gov/crt/nvra-list-maintenance-guidance

13. VOTER PURGE LEGISLATIVE RESOURCE GUIDE \- Campaign Legal Center, https://campaignlegal.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/2025\_VPT\_Legislative\_Resource\_Guide.pdf

14. The NVRA Was Not Created to Purge Eligible Voters | Demos, https://www.demos.org/blog/nvra-was-not-created-purge-eligible-voters

15. Nearly Three Million Voter Registration Applications Mailed to Low Income Voters | ACLU, https://www.aclu.org/news/voting-rights/nearly-three-million-voter-registration-applications-mailed-to-low-income-voters

16. "Election Laws and Voter Turnout in the United States" by Sofia Papoutsis, https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/respublica/vol27/iss1/7/

17. What to do if you are homeless and want to VOTE on Election Day, https://chicagohomeless.org/youre-homeless-want-vote-today/

18. City Prohibited From Seizing And Destroying Homeless Persons' Personal Property Left Unattended On Sidewalk \- Kronick, https://kmtg.com/news/legal-alerts/city-prohibited-from-seizing-and-destroying-homeless-persons-personal-property-left-unattended-on-sidewalk/

19. LAVAN v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES (2012) \- FindLaw Caselaw, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/1611251.html

20. Housing Instability Is a Critical Barrier to Voting Access, https://archive-housingmatters.urban.org/articles/housing-instability-critical-barrier-voting-access

21. Residential mobility and persistently depressed voting among disadvantaged adults in a large housing experiment \- PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11098094/

22. Developments in Constitutional Law: City of Grants Pass v. Johnson \- Wisconsin Legislative Documents, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lc/issue\_briefs/2024/housing/ib\_grants\_pass\_ag\_2024\_10\_02

23. City of Grants Pass v. Johnson \- Fines and Fees Justice Center, https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/research-tools/city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson/

24. Grant's Pass v. Johnson: Supreme Court Decision Illustrates the Difficulties in Solving Homelessness \- New York State Bar Association, https://nysba.org/grants-pass-v-johnson-supreme-court-decision-illustrates-the-difficulties-in-solving-homelessness/

25. A Setback for Homeless Rights in the United States \- Verfassungsblog, https://verfassungsblog.de/grants-pass/

26. Camping Revisited: U.S. Supreme Court Changes the Landscape of Penalizing Public Sleeping \- MRSC, https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/july-2024/grants-pass-v-johnson

27. Keynote: Going Forward After Grants Pass \- W\&M Law School Scholarship Repository, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol67/iss4/2/

28. Criminalization of Homelessness and Poverty Post-Grants Pass Is Still Unlawful and Ineffective at Reducing Homelessness \- American Bar Association, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-rights/2025-march/post-grants-pass-unlawful-ineffective-reducing-homelessness/

29. Homeless disenfranchisement in the United States: State election barriers, analysis, and best practices \- Street Sense Media, https://streetsensemedia.org/article/homeless-vote-rights-study-united-states/

30. Registering Returning Citizens to Vote \- IZA@LISER Network, https://docs.iza.org/dp15121.pdf

31. Reducing Street Homelessness Act Model Bill | Cicero Institute, https://ciceroinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Reducing-Street-Homelessness-Act-Model-Bill.090821.pdf

32. Reducing Street Homelessness \- Cicero Institute, https://ciceroinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Homelessness-Policy-One-Pager-.pdf

33. Housing First is a Failure \- Cicero Institute, https://ciceroinstitute.org/research/housing-first-is-a-failure/

34. Public Camping Ban | Cicero Institute, https://ciceroinstitute.org/research/issue-brief-public-camping-ban/

35. Homelessness | Cicero Institute, https://ciceroinstitute.org/issues/homelessness/

36. Reducing Homelessness by Confronting Mental Illness and Substance Abuse, https://ciceroinstitute.org/research/reducing-homelessness-by-confronting-mental-illness-and-substance-abuse/

37. Fact Checking the Cicero Institute Claims About Homelessness & Housing In America \- MICAH, https://micah-org.squarespace.com/s/NCHFact-Checking-CiceroSummary.pdf

38. The Wrong Approach to Homelessness \- National Low Income Housing Coalition, https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Housing-First\_Cicero.pdf

39. Constitutional Limits to Abating Homeless Encampments, and Best Practices for a Cooperative Approach \- Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, https://www.smwlaw.com/2023/02/21/constitutional-limits-to-abating-homeless-encampments-and-best-practices-for-a-cooperative-approach/

40. Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, No. 11-56253 \- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/09/05/11-56253.pdf

41. Vol. 27 No. 17 \- Personal Properly Left On A Sidewalk Unattended \- Is It Abandoned?, https://jones-mayer.com/vol-27-no-17-personal-properly-left-on-a-sidewalk-unattended-is-it-abandoned/

42. August 28, 2018 VIA EMAIL Michael Del Galdo 4949 W Cermak Rd Cicero IL 60804 mdelgaldo@thetownofcicero.com Dear Mr. Del Galdo \- ACLU of Illinois, https://www.aclu-il.org/app/uploads/drupal/sites/default/files/2018-08-28\_letter\_to\_cicero\_re\_panhandling\_ordinance\_-\_copy.pdf

43. Reducing Administrative Burden in Public Services \- The Decision Lab, https://thedecisionlab.com/big-problems/reducing-administrative-burden-in-public-services

44. Administrative Burden | Russell Sage Foundation, https://www.russellsage.org/publications/book/administrative-burden

45. Administrative Burden: Policymaking By Other Means \- Digital Government Hub, https://digitalgovernmenthub.org/library/administrative-burden-policymaking-by-other-means/

46. Administrative Burden, https://journal-bpa.org/index.php/jbpa/symposia\_ab

47. Administrative Burdens in the Social Safety Net \- American Economic Association, https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.20231394

48. Local Control, Discretion, and Administrative Burden: SNAP Interview Waivers and Caseloads During the COVID-19 Pandemic \- PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10352665/

49. Understanding the Rates, Causes, and Costs of Churning in the SNAP, https://www.fna.usda.gov/research/snap/understanding-rates-causes-and-costs-churning-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap

50. Stopping the churn \- American Economic Association, https://www.aeaweb.org/research/program-recertification-costs-snap

51. RESEARCH BRIEF, https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/SNAP-Churn-Harms-Older-Adults-Strains-States.pdf

52. Churn in the older adult SNAP population \- PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10181803/

53. Paperwork Burdens Cost One in Eight Working-Age SNAP Recipients Their Benefits in 2024 \- Urban Institute, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2025-09/SNAP-Experiences-Summary.pdf

54. Program Recertification Costs: Evidence from SNAP \- NYU Wagner, https://wagner.nyu.edu/files/faculty/publications/Homonoff%20%26%20Somerville%20-%20April%202019\_0.pdf

55. Simplification of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Recertification Processes and Association With Uninterrupted Access to Benefits Among Participants With Young Children \- PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9449793/

56. An Exploration of Homelessness and Electoral Participation, https://www.aec.gov.au/About\_AEC/research/files/an-exploration-of-homelessness-and-electoral-participation.pdf

57. Voter Data, Democratic Inequality, and the Risk of Political Violence, https://knightcolumbia.org/content/voter-data-democratic-inequality-and-the-risk-of-political-violence

58. Participatory budgeting and local development: Impacts, challenges, and prospects, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26883597.2024.2391664

59. Chicago CityKey ID card | Illinois Legal Aid Online, https://www.illinoislegalaid.org/legal-information/chicago-citykey-id-card

60. Chicago CityKey | Office of the City Clerk, https://www.chicityclerk.com/about-chicago-citykey

61. About the CityKey | Office of the City Clerk, https://www.chicityclerk.com/about-citykey

62. CityKey FAQ | Office of the City Clerk, https://www.chicityclerk.com/about-citykey/citykey-faq

63. Documents and ID \- City of Chicago, https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/sites/office-of-immigrant-migrant-and-refugee-rights/home/city-services/documents-and-id-card.html

64. New Chicago City ID Program Gets Input from The Night Ministry and Its Clients, https://thenightministry.org/new-chicago-city-id-program-gets-input-from-the-night-ministry-and-its-clients/

65. Applying for your CityKey | Office of the City Clerk, https://www.chicityclerk.com/about-citykey/how-apply

66. 15-2 Strengthening Voting Rights through the “Unhoused VOTE Act”, https://nlihc.org/resource/15-2-strengthening-voting-rights-through-unhoused-vote-act

67. How Chicago Organizers Helped Unhoused Neighbors Vote \- City Bureau, https://www.citybureau.org/newswire/2025/3/11/chicago/homelessness/voting

68. A Digital Field Experiment Reveals Large Effects of Friend-to-Friend Texting on Voter Turnout, https://politics.media.mit.edu/papers/Green\_Texting.pdf

69. The Effect of Mobile Voting Units on Voter Turnout: An Ada County, Idaho Case Study \- BYU ScholarsArchive, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1239\&context=studentpub\_uht

70. ERS's Updated SNAP Policy Database Facilitates Research on Program Participation and Outcomes, https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2024/october/ers-s-updated-snap-policy-database-facilitates-research-on-program-participation-and-outcomes