<Ul> <Li> Pitts v. Black (1984): This case heard by the US District Court of Southern New York case involved the New York Election Board and homeless individuals assisted by the Coalition for the Homeless, among others . The Election Board denied the individuals the right to vote because they resided on the street or in shelters . The Election Board contended that residency required some claim (such as rent) or ownership of the area that they resided on . Before the court decision was made, the Election Board relented slightly and allowed those living in shelters the right to vote . The District Court defined the meaning of "residence" as any fixed location which the individual intends to inhabit regularly . This ruling encompassed all homeless, including those residing on streets and in parks . </Li> </Ul> <Li> Pitts v. Black (1984): This case heard by the US District Court of Southern New York case involved the New York Election Board and homeless individuals assisted by the Coalition for the Homeless, among others . The Election Board denied the individuals the right to vote because they resided on the street or in shelters . The Election Board contended that residency required some claim (such as rent) or ownership of the area that they resided on . Before the court decision was made, the Election Board relented slightly and allowed those living in shelters the right to vote . The District Court defined the meaning of "residence" as any fixed location which the individual intends to inhabit regularly . This ruling encompassed all homeless, including those residing on streets and in parks . </Li> <P> Two California court rulings, Collier v. Menzel, and Walters v. Weed, also addressed the residency question of homeless voters: </P> <Ul> <Li> Collier v. Menzel (1985): The Santa Barbara District Court case established that a residence could be a certain location rather than a specific address . Howard Menzel, the county clerk, rejected three voter registration applications on the grounds that proper addresses were not provided . The applications simply stated a public park as the applicants' residence . The court overruled the clerk's decision and defined a residence as any fixed location where a person habitually sleeps and where living quarters are set up . In their final decisions, the court stated that denying a citizen the right to vote due to residence in a public park, is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause . </Li> <Li> Walters v. Weed (1988): In 1988, the California Supreme Court judged a case concerning voter precincts of those who are between residences . The court ruled that when a person leaves his former place of residence and has not yet settled in another permanent living place, then the individual may vote in the precinct of his former residence . </Li> </Ul>

Where are voting rights mentioned in the constitution