Good ruling or bad ruling ?

Well, its kind of good. Its honest about where they live. I don’t see how anyone could take advantage of that really. As long as people are honest, I don’t see a problem with it.

I think that shows their true honesty also and, I don’t see any problem why that ruling would be bad. If the homeless say that park benches are where they live, that’s honesty to the people who ask them where they live.

Good ruling. Should people who are homeless lose the right to vote?

Of course it is good. Are you suggesting that it is ok to disenfranchise people because they are homeless?

This is not new at all. The residency requirement is there to enable a voting district to be established. The person still has to prove who he is with forms of identification. The homeless have long been able to use non-traditional places as their designated residence. “A requirement that people live in a traditional dwelling in order to vote placed an unconstitutional constraint on the voting rights of homeless persons. Coalition for the Homeless v. Jensen, 187 A.D.2d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992).” and “When registering to vote, homeless people may designate a shelter, park, or street corner as their residence. Fischer v. Stout, 741 P.2d 217 (Alaska 1987).” and “States should use a broad interpretation of the term “residence” to include any place, including a non-traditional dwelling, that an individual inhabits with the intent to remain for an indefinite period. Pitts v. Black, 608 F.Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1984); In re-Application for Voter Registration of Willie R. Jenkins, D.C. Bd. of Elections and Ethics (June 7, 1984).”