Ballots Without Barriers: Empowering Unhoused Voters during the 2025 Ontario Election

In a democracy, the right to vote is a cornerstone of civic participation—yet for unhoused individuals across Canada, this right remains largely theoretical. Despite legislative guarantees under the Canada Elections Act, practical barriers continue to disenfranchise one of the country’s most marginalized populations. This article explores the persistent challenges that individuals experiencing homelessness face in accessing the ballot, using the Waterloo Region in Southwestern Ontario during the 2025 Ontario General Election as a case study to better understand these barriers across Canada. Through an analysis of systemic, logistical, and social obstacles, including restrictive identification requirements, inconsistent policy implementation, transportation challenges, and social stigma, this study aims to identify evidence-based strategies for advocacy and outreach that increase voter participation among unhoused individuals. The study combines a thematic analysis of interviews with representatives of organizations in direct engagement with unhoused people, alongside a comprehensive literature review, and offers recommendations to bridge the gap between electoral rights and electoral access for unhoused individuals in the Waterloo Region and across Canada.

This study was conducted as a community partnership with Waterloo Region Community Legal Services (WRCLS) and completed as part of the Policy Research in Action course in the Master of Applied Politics program at Wilfrid Laurier University. 

Background

Historical Background and Contemporary Context

The right to vote is foundational to democracy, yet unhoused individuals face significant obstacles in exercising this right. Historically, Canada’s electoral system excluded marginalized groups, including women, Indigenous peoples, and those without property, until gradual legal reforms expanded suffrage. (Kanji et al., 2012) The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) enshrined voting as a universal human right in Canada, yet structural barriers—such as residency requirements, identification rules, and logistical challenges—continue to marginalize unhoused populations. (Elections Ontario, 2025) While Elections Ontario, for instance, permits voting without a fixed address, awareness and implementation gaps persist among both unhoused individuals and election officials, undermining political inclusion. (Elections Ontario, 2025) More is required for electoral commissions at all levels of governance across Canada to ensure that these gaps that exclude unhoused individuals are filled, and to ensure compliance with this Charter right.

Legislative Framework

The Canada Elections Act allows unhoused individuals to register using temporary addresses, such as shelters or service centers. However, provincial and municipal variations in election laws create inconsistencies in access. (Kopec, 2017b) Strict identification requirements remain a major hurdle, as many unhoused individuals lack government-issued identification or the means to obtain attestation letters. (Kopec, 2017b) Policy shifts, such as the federal government’s 2014 Fair Elections Act’s restrictive ID rules, and their partial reversal in 2018, further complicate access. (Kropp, 2022) These fluctuations reflect broader tensions between electoral integrity and accessibility, with some policymakers prioritizing security measures that inadvertently exclude marginalized voters. (Kropp, 2022)

Literature Review

Research demonstrates that unhoused individuals face systemic, logistical, and social barriers to voting, resulting in disproportionately low turnout. (Kennedy, 2016; Kopec, 2017b; National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2022) While Canada has expanded voting rights since the 19^th century to become enshrined as a universal right under the Charter, structural inequities persist, particularly for unhoused populations. (Prince, 2007) Other studies suggest that democratic legitimacy hinges on inclusivity, yet electoral policies often fail to accommodate those without stable housing. (Coram et al., 2019; Kennedy, 2016) In the U.S. it is estimated that only 10 percent of unhoused individuals vote, compared to much higher rates among housed citizens. (Kim, 2021; National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2022, 2024; Petering et al., 2021; Pattison-Gordon, 2024a) Canadian data, though limited, suggests similar trends. (Kopec, 2017b; Mundell, 2016) In Canada, systemic, logistical, and social barriers, as well as legal struggles continue to impede the full implementation of these rights.

Systemic Barriers

Systemic barriers to electoral participation include strict ID and address requirements, which many unhoused individuals cannot meet due to lost documents or unstable living conditions. (Kennedy, 2016; Kopec, 2017b) Policy complexity and frequent legislative changes further confuse both voters and service providers. (Kopec, 2017a; CTV News, 2019) Historical marginalization also reinforces political exclusion, as societal stigma discourages civic engagement. (Kopec & Pue, 2023)

Logistical Barriers

Practical challenges, such as obtaining ID or travelling to polling stations, disproportionately affect unhoused individuals. (Ireland, 2019; Dobkin, 2024) Mail-in voting is often impractical without a reliable address, and daily survival needs frequently take precedence over political participation. (Kennedy, 2016; National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2022)

Social Barriers

Many unhoused individuals feel politically alienated, believing their vote will not matter or that they are ineligible to participate. (Grether, 2024; Kopec, 2017a) Social isolation and stigma further deter engagement; while concurrent mental health or substance use challenges create additional obstacles to participating fully in elections. (Kopec & Smith, 2024)

Litigation and Legal Challenges

Legal cases in Canada and the United States have discussed unhoused voting rights, though such litigation remains limited. In Henry v. Canada (Attorney General), plaintiffs argued that voter ID rules disenfranchised vulnerable populations, including unhoused individuals. Similarly, Council of Canadians v. Canada (Attorney General) highlighted the impact of restrictive voting laws on marginalized groups. In the U.S., cases like Pitts v. Black and Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted have challenged residency and ID requirements that disproportionately affect unhoused voters. These cases underscore the ongoing legal struggles to secure voting access for this marginalized population.

Methods

The methodological approach for this research involved semi-structured interviews with representatives from four organizations operating in the Waterloo Region working to address housing insecurity: YWCA Cambridge, United Way, Thresholds Homes and Support, and House of Friendship. Representatives from each organization were selected based on their direct engagement with unhoused populations, offering valuable insights into the lived realities, challenges, and systemic obstacles that affect electoral participation. These insights were gathered between March and April 2025, in the period following the most recent Ontario provincial election held in February 2025, as a reference point for electoral participation of unhoused individuals and their experiences voting in that election.

The interviews were guided by open-ended questions designed to elicit detailed reflections on barriers such as access to identification, stigma at polling stations, mental health challenges, and the impacts of intersecting identities. All interviews were transcribed and thematically analyzed for the identification of recurring patterns, subthemes, and nuanced insights that emerged across the data. The analytical framework included three main frameworks: logistical barriers, systemic barriers, and social barriers. This approach captured both common experiences and distinct perspectives for a grounded understanding of barriers to voting in elections.

An acknowledged limitation of this study is the absence of direct interviews with unhoused voters for first-hand accounts of their voting experiences. Findings from the interviewed intermediaries may not fully capture the full extent and complexity of the social, systemic, and logistical barriers surrounding voting for unhoused individuals. Moreover, this study does not include a response from Elections Ontario who were asked to participate, limiting analysis of official government policies, strategies, outreach, and advocacy initiatives for supporting unhoused voters.

Findings & Discussion

Insights from community organizations in the Waterloo Region offer valuable perspectives on these multifaceted challenges. These interviews reveal how practical, day-to-day obstacles, alongside deeply entrenched structural issues and societal biases, collectively push civic participation far down the list of priorities for those without stable housing, often excluding them from democratic processes despite legal guarantees of voting rights. (Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms, cited in Kropp, 2022; Kopec, 2017a, 2017b)

Logistical Barriers

Logistical barriers present practical, day-to-day challenges that severely limit the ability of unhoused individuals to engage in civic duties like voting and obtaining identification. Interviewees highlighted time constraints, transportation challenges, and limited technology and digital access as significant concerns. For many unhoused individuals, immediate survival needs such as food, shelter, and safety take precedence. (Kennedy, 2016; Kopec, 2017b, 2022; Dobkin, 2024) A senior YWCA leader explained in an interview: “Are you going to spend your day getting on the bus to go to the polls or are you going to spend your day sourcing food or somewhere to sleep?” Present literature corroborates this experience, noting that the daily demands of securing basic needs often leave little time or energy for political participation. (Kennedy, 2016; Kopec, 2017b, 2022; Dobkin, 2024)

Transportation limitations are a major hurdle, as unhoused individuals often lack access to public transit or the means to travel to voting locations. (National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2022; Dobkin, 2024; CTV News, 2019) The geographical distance of polling stations from unhoused individuals plays a critical role in accessibility, especially in rural areas.

Advanced polling options are often limited in location and duration, rarely aligning with the needs of vulnerable populations. Furthermore, specific voting location restrictions, such as polling stations located in schools, can create barriers for unhoused voters. One interviewee pointed out that some individuals are not permitted to enter schools due to past legal issues. This added complexity, requiring additional calls and alternative arrangements for someone without reliable phone or digital access, presents a nearly insurmountable challenge. Weather conditions during voting periods can also exacerbate these barriers, making participation practically unfeasible for those with mobility limitations. This limitation became apparent during the 2025 Ontario election that saw a major snowstorm in Waterloo Region limit mobility for all voters, with particularly challenging effects on many individuals needing walkers or wheelchairs who ultimately could not vote. This barrier was also highlighted by a House of Friendship representative, who described the challenges caused by the snowstorm on election day: “We have so many guys that need a walker or a wheelchair, and this happened during a snowstorm […] we couldn’t even really encourage them to go and vote.”

Short voting periods and “snap elections,” further strain election logistics by limiting time for unhoused individuals to get information or make necessary preparations and for organizations supporting unhoused individuals to mobilize. This highlights a broader mobility issue where simply getting to a government office or polling station remains a challenge due to the lack of safe, affordable, or accessible transportation. The systematic delays in obtaining required identification proofs, which can take weeks, intensify these time-related barriers and reduce willingness to apply for ID. Jilian, an interviewee from the United Way who works with unhoused voters noted: “[…] it’s also pretty tricky when there’s a snap election to get people the information that they need in enough time […] even doing postal voting, it was a really tight window for anyone to actually be able to do that.”

Digital access remains an equally significant barrier, as tasks like registering to vote, applying for mail-in ballots, or accessing elections information are increasingly digitized. (Ireland, 2019; Dobkin, 2024) Many unhoused people lack reliable access to phones, computers, printers, and the internet. Even with physical access, digital literacy and technological failures can further complicate participation, as online forms and multi-step processes can be inaccessible to those with limited digital skills. Digital outreach efforts by organizations are also limited, as many unhoused individuals are not online or connected to social media. (CTV News, 2019; Kennedy, 2016; Kim, 2021; Pattison-Gordon, 2024b) Ultimately, everyday barriers such as time limits, access to transportation, severe weather, and digital access make it extremely difficult for unhoused individuals to engage in civic duties.

Systemic Barriers

Systemic barriers stem from structural failures embedded in policies, legal frameworks, electoral systems, and social institutions, often based on assumptions that voters have a permanent address, acceptable identification, and the means to prioritize voting. (Kennedy, 2016; Kopec, 2017a; Ireland, 2019; Kelly, 2023; Centre for Excellence in Communications & Elections Canada, 2008; Pizarro, 2025) Interviews with Waterloo region organizations highlight systemic barriers ranging from a lack of voting awareness and the prioritization of survival needs to funding limitations for supporting organizations and issues within the electoral structure.

A significant systemic barrier uniformly reported by all organizations surveyed is the lack of awareness concerning elections. A senior leader for the YWCA noted: “If you’re living unhoused and every day, you’re trying to feed yourself and find somewhere warm, voting in elections […] is probably not a high priority.” Current literature similarly notes that the daily struggle to meet basic survival needs often takes precedence over political engagement, further reducing electoral involvement. (Kennedy, 2016; Kopec, 2017b) When focused on survival, individuals may be unaware of election dates, voting procedures, or alternative identification options. (Devlin, 2009; Kennedy, 2016; Kopec, 2017b; Ireland, 2019; Kelly, 2023; Centre for Excellence in Communications & Elections Canada, 2008; Pizarro, 2025) This structural failure in addressing the needs of unhoused individuals allows them to fall into systemic gaps that are difficult to fill, but organizations engaging with unhoused individuals have attempted to mitigate this failure. Organizations like the House of Friendship attempted to bridge this gap during the 2025 Ontario election through proactive outreach, advertising voting options, and spreading awareness about alternative identification methods like vouching. Another organization, Thresholds Homes and Supports, also offered a voucher from their warming centre, allowing clients who visited for three consecutive days to establish a fixed address for voting purposes.

Another critical systemic barrier identified by Waterloo region organizations is the lack of funding for non-profit organizations that are at the forefront of advocacy and voter education efforts for the unhoused population. Representatives from the United Way and the YWCA highlighted the need for “less controlled funding” without rigid parameters, as current funding models often do not support advocacy or government relations work. This limits the capacity of organizations to effectively engage in voter education, underscoring a systemic barrier that hinders support for disenfranchised populations.

Interviewees also suggested that Canada’s First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system which selects representatives based on a mere plurality of votes in federal and provincial elections, also contributes to voter apathy and disengagement among unhoused voters. A senior leader at the YWCA expressed disillusionment: “what’s the point?” if one’s vote for a less popular party is unlikely to influence election outcomes in an FPTP system. This sentiment aligns with broader findings that unhoused individuals often feel politically disengaged, believing their vote will not impact policies affecting their lives. (Grether, 2024; Kennedy, 2016; Kim, 2021; Kopec, 2017a; Dobkin, 2024) Despite organizations working to raise awareness about how voting and electoral outcomes influence policies directly affecting unhoused individuals in Ontario, such as the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and Ontario Works (OW), a gap persists in connecting voting to tangible impact for their clients. The inefficacy of voting under the FPTP further discourages electoral participation among unhoused voters.

Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees voting rights to all citizens, including those without permanent addresses. (Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms, cited in Kropp, 2022; Kopec, 2017b) The Canada Elections Act (2000) permits unhoused individuals to register using temporary addresses like shelters, and service provider attestation letters are accepted as proof of residence. (Kennedy, 2016; Kopec, 2017b; Kropp, 2022; Prince, 2007; Woolley, 2015) However, the interviews conducted with these organizations reveal that despite legal accommodations, implementation gaps and low awareness persist as significant challenges to voting for unhoused individuals. (Kopec, 2017a; Centre for Excellence in Communications & Elections Canada, 2008) For many unhoused individuals who lack basic identification, complex regulations and limited awareness further hinder democratic participation. (Kennedy, 2016; Kopec, 2017a, 2017b; Kim, 2021; Centre for Excellence in Communications & Elections Canada, 2008; Ireland, 2019; Kelly, 2023) This was echoed by a respondent working with the House of Friendship noting, “it can take up to six weeks for you just to get your birth certificate,” illustrating the challenging nature of meeting ID requirements in time for a snap election. Moreover, provincial and municipal election laws often vary from federal rules, such as the requirement of a fixed address, causing confusion for individuals trying to participate in voting between the various jurisdictions. (Kopec, 2017b; Pizarro, 2025; Simpson, 2025)

Social Barriers

Social barriers significantly shape the political disenfranchisement of individuals experiencing homelessness, compounding the challenges faced in democratic participation. These barriers, ranging from discrimination to inadequate access to information and civic education, further undermine the political agency of unhoused populations. Stigmatization and discrimination are critical challenges to overcome in voter participation for unhoused individuals. The fear of judgment and social exclusion based on appearance creates an unwelcoming and even hostile environment, even at polling stations. A representative from House of Friendship emphasized, “there’s also a lot of stigmas that come with being homeless, and if you have an appearance that might give that away, they feel like they’re being judged the whole time while waiting to vote, which is unfortunate.” Stigmatization emerged consistently across all interviews, highlighting a broader societal failure to ensure dignified access to political participation. Stigma and negative stereotypes about homelessness contribute to feelings of alienation from civic life and discourage civic participation. (Kopec & Smith, 2024; Kopec & Pue, 2023)

This social stigma is intensified when it intersects with the logistical and systemic barriers related to obtaining identification. Interview respondents noted that many individuals without ID presuppose that the process of acquiring one will be difficult or inaccessible due to past experiences of marginalization and exclusion. This apprehension is illustrated by a YWCA respondent, highlighting the emotional toll of validating identity in systems that may view them with suspicion: “I’d imagine it’s a bit scary to go and feel you have to prove and say who you are.” Thus, the perceived and real difficulties associated with obtaining identification serve as both practical and psychological barriers, reinforcing cycles of exclusion. Many unhoused individuals also face lost or stolen documents, and the difficulty of replacing them without financial resources or stable support. (Ireland, 2019; Kelly, 2023; Dobkin, 2024)

Furthermore, the social barriers raised due to mental health challenges significantly impact the ability of unhoused individuals to participate in elections. (Kopec, 2017b) The mental and emotional strain caused by certain voting environments can be overwhelming and distressing. As highlighted throughout all interviews, standard voting procedures such as long wait times in highly congested or crowded area can be emotionally destabilizing for unhoused individuals with past trauma and/or mental health conditions. This combination of overstimulating environments, long waits, and unfamiliar processes can lead to heightened stress, making it difficult or impossible for some to cast their vote. Addressing logistical and systemic barriers alone are insufficient; efforts to increase voter engagement must also confront the social and structural biases that discourage participation. Social isolation further exacerbates the issue, as unhoused individuals often lack the peer networks that encourage electoral participation. (Coram et al., 2019, 2022; Kennedy, 2016)

Intersectional Analysis

Electoral barriers faced by unhoused individuals are further compounded when intersecting with factors such as race, gender, disability, and mental health. Interview respondents highlighted that racialized individuals experiencing homelessness are more likely to encounter systemic racism within institutions responsible for providing identification or facilitating voting. A senior leader with YWCA further emphasized, “there’s an expectation of it being difficult if you are a person who has a historically marginalized identity. I’d imagine it’s a bit scary to go and feel you have to prove and say who you are.” Gender-diverse individuals often face heightened scrutiny, misgendering, or safety concerns in public voting spaces. Additionally, individuals with physical disabilities may find polling stations physically inaccessible, as demonstrated by the challenge of navigating snowstorms with wheelchairs or walkers. Those with mental health conditions may experience heightened anxiety, confusion, or distress when navigating complex voting procedures, such as long lines in crowded environments. These intersecting difficulties reinforce exclusion from the electoral process, making it critical for democratic systems to adopt an intersectional and equity-based approach towards universal political participation.

Discussion

The disenfranchisement of unhoused individuals in the Waterloo Region stems from a complex interplay of policy gaps, inconsistent implementation, and systemic inequities. While the Canada Elections Act formally guarantees voting rights to all citizens, regardless of housing status, structural and logistical obstacles marginalize this population. Unhoused voters face further exclusion because of inconsistent election rules, inadequate outreach, and a lack of accommodations tailored to their circumstances.

One of the most significant barriers is the restrictive identification requirements imposed by current voting regulations. Although the Canada Elections Act permits alternative verification methods, such as shelter attestation letters or vouching by another voter, many unhoused individuals lack necessary documentation or encounter poll workers unfamiliar with these accommodations. Furthermore, the short writ period between when elections are announced and election day compounds the problem as required documents cannot be obtained quickly enough. Interviews revealed that unhoused voters often assume ineligibility due to past experiences of being turned away. This highlights a critical policy gap: federal law provides flexibility in an attempt to accommodate unhoused voters, but the lack of standardized, widely communicated alternatives creates confusion and inconsistency, further complicated by inconsistent provincial and municipal voter rules. Without harmonized policies and comprehensive training for election officials, even well-intentioned legal provisions fail to translate into meaningful access.

Beyond policy shortcomings, logistical barriers present equally formidable challenges. Transportation limitations, time constraints, and the physical inaccessibility of polling stations disproportionately affect unhoused individuals. Comparative case studies offer valuable insights: Kansas, Missouri, has shelters collaborating with electoral offices to streamline ID and registration; (Mansaray, 2024) the United Kingdom uses a “declaration of local connection” system allowing registration with a frequently visited location; (Coventry City Council, 2025) and cities like Melbourne and Toronto have demonstrated the effectiveness of mobile voting units and shelter-based polling stations. (Australian Electoral Commission, 2023; Kelly, 2023) These examples underscore the importance of adaptable, locally tailored solutions that prioritize convenience and dignity for unhoused voters. Proactive outreach initiatives, such as the U.S.-based “You Don’t Need a Home to Vote” campaign, which leverages trusted community organizations for voter education, are also critical. (National Coalition for the Homeless, cited in Prince, 2007)

Recommendations & Conclusion

To improve electoral participation among unhoused individuals, evidence-based strategies must address systemic, logistical, and informational barriers. Proactive outreach and education campaigns, delivered through shelters and social service agencies, can raise awareness about voting rights and procedures while ensuring materials use plain language and accessible formats. (Aleman, 2017; Kim, 2021; Kopec, 2017a; National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2022, 2024) Partnerships with homelessness service providers are essential, as integrating voter registration and education into their programs can improve access, provided staff receive training on voting regulations and documentation assistance. (Aleman, 2017; Kennedy, 2016; Kopec, 2017a, 2023) Mobile and on-site voting options, such as polling stations at shelters or extended advance voting periods, reduce transportation barriers. (CBC News, 2019; CTV News, 2019; Kopec, 2017a, 2023) Expanding accepted forms of voter identification, such as permitting shelter attestation letters as standalone proof of residency, would reduce bureaucratic barriers.

Simplifying identification requirements by expanding acceptable forms of ID—such as shelter attestation letters—can mitigate documentation challenges. (Centre for Excellence in Communications & Elections Canada, 2008; Kennedy, 2016). Enhanced equity and inclusion training for poll workers would ensure consistent and respectful treatment of unhoused voters. Additionally, logistical support, including group transportation and mail-in ballot assistance, can further facilitate participation. (CBC News, 2019; National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2022)

Long-term solutions require policy advocacy and legislative reforms, such as standardizing voter ID rules across provinces and ensuring consistent accommodations for unhoused voters through negotiated rulemaking involving stakeholders. (Devlin, 2009; Kennedy, 2016; Kropp, 2022) Engaging individuals with lived experience in outreach efforts can also build trust and encourage participation (CTV News, 2019; Kopec & Smith, 2024). However, a significant limitation of this research is the lack of institutional response from Elections Ontario and Canada, which hinders insight into existing policies and initiatives for unhoused voters. This absence reflects broader issues of transparency, accountability, and political disengagement. Without clarity and coordination between the electoral commissions of Canada’s various jurisdictions, confusion persists among service providers and unhoused voters, reinforcing systemic exclusion. The inaccessibility of these institutions, as demonstrated by their non-responsiveness, exacerbates frustration and perpetuates the belief that the electoral system is not designed to include unhoused populations.

Ultimately, the disenfranchisement of unhoused voters is not merely a technical or administrative issue, but a reflection of broader societal inequities. Full participation in democracy demands a systemic commitment to removing barriers and fostering political inclusion for all people, regardless of housing status. Implementing these recommendations can foster a more just and representative electoral system that recognizes the fundamental right of every citizen to have their voice heard, regardless of housing status. The success of these efforts hinges on sustained collaboration between policymakers, election administrators, and community advocates.

References

Click to expand for a full list of references.

Aleman, A. (2017, April 7). What are the barriers to voting that the homeless population face? Homeless Hub. https://homelesshub.ca/blog/2017/what-are-barriers-voting-homeless-population-face/.

Australian Electoral Commission. (2023, May 11). Mobile polling increase for residential health care communities. https://www.aec.gov.au/media/2023/05-11.htm?utm.  

Canada Elections Act, SC 2000, c 9. https://canlii.ca/t/562tc. 

Centre for Excellence in Communications & Elections Canada. (2008). Elections Canada Stakeholder Engagement on New Voter Identification Requirements: Final Project Report. https://www.elections.ca/res/rec/fra/id/SENVIR_e.pdf. 

Council of Canadians v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 ONSC 4601.

Coram, V., Louth, J., & Hill, L. (2022). Does my vote matter? The electoral behaviour and attitudes of people experiencing homelessness. European Journal of Homelessness, 16(2), 47-71. https://www.feantsaresearch.org/public/user/Observatory/2022/EJH_16-2/EJH_16-2_A2.pdf. 

Coram, V., Louth, J., Hill, L., Tually, S., & Goodwin-Smith, I. (2019). An exploration of homelessness and electoral participation. University of South Australia. https://aec.gov.au/About_AEC/research/files/an-exploration-of-homelessness-and-electoral-participation.pdf. 

Coventry City Council. (2025). Registering to vote. https://www.coventry.gov.uk/elections-voting/registering-vote/9. 

Devlin, S. (2009). I lost my home, don’t take my voice: Ensuring the voting rights of the homeless through negotiated rulemaking. Journal of Dispute Resolution. 2009(1/7). https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2009/iss1/7. 

Dobkin, R. (2024, May 13). The potential voters everyone forgets. Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/homelessness-voter-turnout-underrepresented-election-1899475

Elections Canada making sure homeless know how they can vote. (2019, October 6). CTV News. https://guelph.ctvnews.ca/lifestyle/article/elections-canada-making-sure-homeless-know-how-they-can-vote/.

Elections Ontario. (2025). Administrative Resources for Electors Without a Permanent Address. https://www.elections.on.ca/en/resource-centre/outreach/administrative-resources-for-electors-without-a-permanent-address.html. 

Georgia State Conference of the NAACP et al. v. Raffensperger et al., 1:21-cv-01259-JPB (N.D. Ga. 2023).

Grether, M. (2024, October 23). The hidden barriers to voting while unhoused. The Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/voting-barriers-suppression-unhoused-homelessness/. 

Henry v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 BCSC 610.

Homeless people can now vote in federal election, Elections Canada confirms. (2019, September 19). CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/homeless-voting-elections-canada-1.5325900. 

Ireland, N. (2019, October 12). As election campaigns hustle to get out the vote, homeless voters are often forgotten. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/canada-votes-homeless-voters-often-forgotten-in-elections-1.5314700. 

Kanji, M., Bilodeau, A., & Scotto, T. J. (2012). The Canadian election studies: assessing four decades of influence. In The Canadian Election Studies (1st ed., pp. xii–xii). UBC Press.

Kelly, G. (2023, June 5). Canada is in a housing crisis. So why is it so hard for homeless people to vote? Broadview. https://broadview.org/can-homeless-people-vote/. 

Kennedy, G. (2016). Accessing Democracy: Barriers to Voting for People Experiencing Homelessness [Undergraduate Thesis]. McMaster University. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28460.26242. 

Kim, J. (2021). Homeless and hopeless: America’s silenced voting problem. Brown Political Review. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/homeless-hopeless-america-s-silenced-voting/docview/3094456662/se-2. 

Kopec, A. K. (2017a, May 24). Greater electoral access for the homeless. Policy Options. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2017/greater-electoral-access-homeless/.

Kopec, A.K. (2017b). The Forgotten in Democracy: Homelessness and Voting in Toronto [Master’s Thesis]. University of Guelph. https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/c0bc8f88-326e-4f41-9636-67472f01d873/content. 

Kopec, A. K. (2022). The Politics of Homelessness: Poverty, Policy, and Political Participation [Doctoral Thesis]. University of Toronto. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/125271.  

Kopec, A. K., & Smith, A. (2024). Lived expertise in homelessness policy and governance.

Social Sciences, 13(271), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13050271. 

Kopec, A., & Pue, K. (2023). Do service-providing nonprofits contribute to democratic inclusion? Analyzing democracy promotion by Canadian homeless shelters. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.29173/cjnser615.

Kropp, K. (2022). No house, no vote: Elite voting laws and houseless peoples’ franchise in Canada. Political Science Undergraduate Review, 7(2), 4–8. https://doi.org/10.29173/psur269. 

Mansaray, M. (2024, September 4). What you need to know to vote as a homeless person in Kansas City. The Beacon. http://search.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/wichita-beacon-kansas-city-what-you-need-know/docview/3100506153/se-2. 

Mundell, M. (2016). Giving voice to the voiceless: Improving access to the vote for people experiencing homelessness. Alternative Law Journal, 28(6), 269-272. https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X0302800602. 

National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2022, August 17). 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. 

National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2024, September 5). 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. 

Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted, 2:06-cv-00896, (S.D. Ohio 2024).

Pattison-Gordon, J. (2024a, October 3). Homeless people have the right to vote — but often lack the ability. Governing. https://www.governing.com/urban/homeless-people-have-the-right-to-vote-but-often-lack-the-ability. 

Pattison-Gordon, J. (2024b, October 30). Homeless people have the right to vote, but face huge barriers. Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity. https://spotlightonpoverty.org/spotlight-exclusives/homeless-people-have-the-right-to-vote-but-face-huge-barriers/. 

Petering, R., Onasch-Vera, L., Hsu, H. T., Alessandra, J., Chinen, N., & Medhekar, S. (2021). Voter registration and voting attitudes of unhoused young adults in Los Angeles. Children and Youth Services Review, 121(105907). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105907. 

Pizarro, D. (2025, February 25). It can be hard to vote when homeless, but these advocates aim to help people cast a ballot. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/unhoused-voting-homeless-ontario-election-1.7467102. 

Prince, M. J. (2007). The electoral participation of persons with special needs. Elections Canada. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2008/elections/SE3-70-2007E.pdf. 

Simpson, K. (2025, February 5). How the homeless community can vote in the upcoming provincial election. CTV News. https://www.ctvnews.ca/kitchener/article/how-the-homeless-community-can-vote-in-the-upcoming-provincial-election/. 

Woolley, E. (2015, September 25). How can people experiencing homelessness vote in the federal election? Homeless Hub. https://homelesshub.ca/blog/2015/how-can-people-experiencing-homelessness-vote-federal-election/.