Potential Voter Fraud: Ohio Judge Says Homeless Voters May List Park Benches as Addresses


UNBELIEVABLE! An Ohio judge has ruled that homeless people can use a park bench as their address in order to vote. Allowing people to vote is one thing and granted homeless people should be allowed to vote if that is their choice, however, that does not mean the homeless should be allowed a greater potential of voter fraud by not knowing who they really claim to be.

A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations that aren’t buildings as their addresses.

U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots can’t be invalidated because of poll worker errors.

Monday’s ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.

With all the issues of ACORN and voter fraud, how can anyone in good conscience allow a park bench to be used as a legal address in order for people to vote. This would mean that anyone could go to a swing state like OH, claim they are homeless, state that the park bench under the tree next to the duck pond is their home and be allowed to vote. If anyone does not think that voter fraud will ensue from that then you have just not been paying attention during this Presidential election.

If you liked this post, you may also like these:

  • Melowese Richardson, Poll Worker Who Admitted Voting for Obama 6 Times in 2012 Election Indicted and Faces Eight Counts of Voter Fraud
  • Democrats Embrace Voter Fraud
  • Daily Commentary – Wednesday, October 19, 2016 – So Donald Trump Believe The Presidential Race is Rigged
  • VOTER FRAUD: Ohio Poll Worker Melowese Richardson Who Proadly Boasted of Voting For Obama Twice In Ohio, May Have actually Voted Six Times
  • Daily Commentary – Wednesday, October 27th, 2010 – Voter Fraud in Boulder City?

  • Comments

    20 Responses to “Potential Voter Fraud: Ohio Judge Says Homeless Voters May List Park Benches as Addresses”

    1. Rusty Bridges on October 29th, 2008 5:40 am

      Unbelivable. Forget the rules, forget fairness, forget the constitution. This is an historic election indeed.

    2. nurturer on October 29th, 2008 5:49 am

      Another whack-job Liberal decision legislated from the bench.

    3. Waterboy on October 29th, 2008 6:34 am

      Do the homeless vote? I’d bet money they don’t, so if someone says they are homeless and they want to vote, it is most likely voter fraud. I’d bet on it.

      I’ve already voted, and feeling very good about it. I hope we don’t have to suffer through 4 years of tax and spend. We need CPAs in congress instead of John Edwards clones who make their money suing the Red Cross (to name one). Who are they going to sue in congress?—that’s right.


    4. nurturer on October 29th, 2008 6:42 am

      Actually, it makes perfect sense. Perfect sense, if you have a preferred candidate that you wish to see win. And no doubt, this judge is assuming that the homeless will opt for the candidate that promises the most free-bees. And I wonder who that might be.

    5. katablog.com on October 29th, 2008 7:19 am

      I also have no wish to suppress the votes of legitimate US citizens. I do have a problem with all the election fraud associated with ACORN in numerous states. It appears that this organization is only interested in getting out the vote for one candidate and have no compunction about that including illegal votes.

      With the numerous states showing voter registration fraud, it’s time to uphold the law and tighten the law up. Anyone who wishes a voter ID should be given one with the provisions that they prove they are a legal citizen. Then, all states should require an ID in order to vote. It’s pretty simple.

      Gosh, even Obama’s campaign is requiring ID to get into his big election night bash – so what, is he trying to disenfranchise the poor from his bash – or is he just being prudent?

    6. ANewGirl on October 29th, 2008 7:45 am

      I believe (once again) the phrase we are searching for is

      WTF ?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    7. scott on October 29th, 2008 8:46 am

      This election was “BOUGHT” a long long time ago.

      This has been in the works for 4 years. There is no way this man is ready for this job but all he is really a puppet of the Democratic party and the liberal socialists who run Congress and leftist Hollywood. The media has also been in on this. MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE! When he made that speech at the convention in 2004, they (Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd) knew they had the perfect puppet!

      It just goes to show that if you reneg on a promise to accept public financing, you can get illegal funds contributed to your campaign, and buy the White House!

    8. katablog.com on October 29th, 2008 8:57 am

      Bought to the tune of $605 million and still counting. And it’s not even like those were legal funds since Obama turned of his site’s AVS checking. They don’t want to know – they only want the money any way they can get it.

      That said, I have confidence in the American people and I think McCain |Palin will squeak it out. What troubles me is the anger, conspiracy theories and down right mob mentality that will result when the Obama people find out that even with all the fraud and money, they’ve lost. It’s going to be one angry America on 11/05/2008.

    9. SUPER DAVE on October 29th, 2008 9:02 am

      in Mississippi today there are thousands of deceased people registered by acorn to vote. more fraud by obama.
      also this state has no voter identification law so
      anybody can vote . dead people, dogs, cats, illegals. the list goes on.

    10. katablog.com on October 29th, 2008 9:26 am

      That’s okay, 6 counties in Alabama have more registered voters than they do citizens over the age of 18.

    11. MBS on October 29th, 2008 10:31 am

      You can read about the blatent voting fraud carried out by the Obama campaign during the primaries here:


      Anyone who thinks the general election will be any different is fooling themselves. I never thought I’d say this, but I actually feel sorry for Hilary after reading about what went on in the primaries.

    12. MBS on October 29th, 2008 10:45 am

      Another thing that bothers me is that about 1/2 of the $600 million Obama has raised in donations comes from donations under $200 from undisclosed donors. That’s about $300 million, or at least 1,500,000 separate donations of $200 or less (probably more, since many of the donations are smaller amounts, $25 or $50).

      The FEC does not require any disclosure regarding such donations, although the campaign is supposed to keep track and report any donations from any one person which in the aggregate exceed the $200 reporting threshold. Not counting any foreign donations that may be included in the $300 million of under $200 donations, the campaign has also reported receiving over $3,000,000 in donations from foreign countries (and that’s just just what they are reporting).

      Unlike other candidates, Obama does nothing to verify that these donors are American citizens living in foreign countries. McCain and Hillary both required donors from foreign countries to fax a passport or birth certificate to the campaign headquarters to verify citizenship.

      Does anyone really doubt that Obama is receiving millions of dollars from foreign contributors, including Arab nations?

      Oh, and McCain is voluntarily disclosing the identities of all donors to his campaign, including those donating less than $200. Obama refuses to do that.

    13. rightknight on October 29th, 2008 11:02 am

      Hollywood is a collection of professional liars, fakers, posers,
      impersonators, phonies, and the like who dress up and pretend
      that they are who and what they are not. They recite someone
      else’s scripts. The better the impostor, the more they get paid.
      Truth is not a factor in their life’s work.

      So much for actors and such. Now, let’s take a look at Barry’s

    14. SUPER DAVE on October 29th, 2008 1:59 pm

      all of us have seen the so called church people asking for donations for their church. don’t be fooled. this blood money goes straight to the barry campaign.

    15. Diane on October 29th, 2008 2:16 pm

      “U.S. veterans face a greater chance of becoming homeless than the general population, say experts. According to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (search), a study released in 1999 found that while veterans count for 9 percent of the entire population, they are nearly 23 percent of the homeless population and 33 percent of the adult male homeless population.”

      “In 2006, approximately 195, 827 veterans were homeless on any given night—an increase of 0.8 percent from 194,254 in 2005.”

      Should we deny a person who has fought for this country a right to vote because they do not have an address?

      Were my sources “conservative” enough for you?

    16. caesu on October 30th, 2008 12:02 am

      #15 Diane

      exactly right!

      Republicans are just trying to disenfranchise as much people as possible. that’s there only way of getting a close election – and then accuse Obama of stealing the election with zombies and Disney cartoon characters.

      they would go as far as to disenfranchise homeless veterans if they can.
      so much for ‘supporting the troops’.

    17. katablog.com on October 30th, 2008 6:43 pm

      caesu and diane: what did I miss? Can you point me to ONE link that shows Republican voter registration fraud? Because I can point you to hundreds of links of ACORN voter registration fraud in a dozen states.

      ANY type of voter fraud is simply wrong and should never be tolerated for any reason. The Democrats won’t allow a requirement of ID at polls saying it disenfranchises the poor. Why don’t they give the poor ID? Yes, to get into Obama’s election night extravaganza – guess what you have to have! ID!

    18. smrstrauss on October 31st, 2008 12:03 am

      Ohio is by no means the first to allow the homeless to vote, and it is not even the first to allow a park bench to be an address.

      There have been lots of similar cases. In a way you could say that Ohio was late to take up this issue. New York City has been allowing the homeless to vote in elections ever since a federal district court ruling in 1984. (Actually, I dimly remember an earlier case in New York in the 1950s, or perhaps even earlier, but I think that that applied to a state election alone, since it was in state court.)

      In the 1984 federal district court case, Judge Mary Lowe ordered the Board of Elections of the City of New York to begin registering all potential voters regardless of whether they have homes or not. It actually referred to a park bench in that case too.

      Here is a letter to the editor, which I found in the database of the New York Times, that confirms the 1984 case and explains a bit more about it.

      New York Times letter to the editor Dec. 4, 1990:

      “To the Editor:

      I would like to correct two minor errors in your Nov. 17 article about the constitutional rights of a formerly homeless Connecticut convict. You state that last year “a Federal judge in New York ruled that for the purposes of voter registration, a park bench was a home.”

      Judge Mary Lowe ordered the New York City Board of Elections to enroll homeless voters in October 1984. Homeless New Yorkers thus have been registering and voting, in increasing numbers, for six full election cycles. (A resident of the Fort Washington men’s shelter, Tyler Trice, even qualified as an independent candidate for State Assembly on the primary election ballot this fall.)

      Further, rather than calling a park bench a home, Judge Lowe ruled that a home, as traditionally conceived, could not be made a prerequisite of the right to vote, which she called a “fundamental right, which is preservative of all other rights in a democracy.” To paraphrase, she said, “You don’t need a home to vote,” which became our motto. WILL DANIEL Director, Homeless Voter ’90 New York, Nov. 17, 1990.”

      I like that part about the right to vote being a fundamental right, which is preservative of all other rights in a democracy.

      And there have been many other cases. I clipped this from another site:

      This one: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/10/29/23272/260


      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).

      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).

      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).

      Bd. of Election Comm’rs v. Chicago/Gray Area Union of the Homeless, Circ. Ct. of Cook County, Illinois, County Dept., County Div., Miscl. No. 86-24 (1986). Addressing a challenge to Chicago’s residency requirements for voter registration, the Circuit Court of Cook County held that a person lacking a permanent abode may register by stating under oath that she lacks a permanent abode and by presenting two pieces of identification. The person who is experiencing homelessness must also provide a description of the location where he or she resides that is specific enough that election officials can assign him or her to a voter precinct. Prior to an election, mail will be sent to the mailing address listed on the registration card and will include a postage prepaid return postcard which must be mailed back to the Board of Elections.

      Coalition for the Homeless v. Jensen, 187 A.D.2d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). Several homeless plaintiffs challenged New York election officials’ application of a provision of the New York Election Law. The provision at issue allows election officials to subject “groups likely to include transients” (such as students or people living at a “welfare institution”) to a more searching inquiry than usual order to determine whether they are eligible to register to vote. Based on the provision, the election officials rejected the applications of 240 Camp La Guardia residents and required that they give testimony in court to prove their residence. One hundred and seven of the applicants appeared in court and were accepted as voters, but the trial court rejected the applications of those who did not appear in court.

      The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, overturning the trial court’s decision, held that due to time constraints placed on people who were experiencing homelessness, election officials violated the individuals’ constitutional right to vote by failing to take reasonable, good-faith steps to determine the true residency of the individuals who were homeless. All 240 votes were subsequently counted.

      Collier v. Menzel, 221 CalRptr. 110 (Ct. App. 1985). Three plaintiffs experiencing homelessness challenged the Santa Barbara county clerk’s rejection of their registration applications, in which they had listed a public park as their residence. The court found that the residence was sufficient for registration purposes because the applicants had a fixed habitation in the park and intended to remain there. The court held that denying voter registration because applicants listed a city park as their residence violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The opinion further stated that people who were experiencing homelessness should be encouraged to register and vote in order to provide them with some greatly needed political influence and electoral power. Election officials must now use the specific spot within the park where the persons regularly sleep in order to determine their election district.

      Committee for Dignity and Fairness for the Homeless v. Tartaglione, No. 84-3447 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 14, 1984). Ruling on a challenge to Philadelphia’s residency requirements, the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that a homeless voter may satisfy the residency requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Election Code by “declaring on the Voter Registration Application the address of a shelter with which the applicant has an established relationship, and which will accept first-class non-forwardable mail for the applicant.” The person must then vote in the district where the shelter is located, even if the person resides in a different precinct. This ruling provided the basis for Philadelphia’s current policy regarding registration and voting by homeless peoples.

      Fischer v. Stout, 741 P.2d 217 (Alaska 1987). A candidate who lost an election appealed for a recount, alleging that election officials had illegally rejected ballots of voters who claimed to reside at a military base. The Supreme Court of Alaska held that persons could list a military base generally as their residence, stating that a residence is a fixed place of habitation to which the individual intends to return, and it need not be a house or an apartment, or have mail service. It need only be a specific locale within the district. The court acknowledged that a homeless shelter or even a park bench would be sufficient.

      Hartman v. Kenyon, 277 Cal.Rptr. 765 (Ct. App. 6 Dist. 1991). Based on the Walters v. Weed court decision (see below), a citizen contended that individuals who had moved from a precinct could legally vote at their former precinct. The California Supreme Court distinguished Walters, holding that a voter is only entitled to vote at the precinct of his or her former residence if he or she has not moved to a new residence with intent to stay. In other words, if a voter has moved but has not acquired a new place of residence, he or she is considered to be residing at his former residence until acquiring a new place of residence. Otherwise, he or she must vote in the precinct of his or her new domicile.

      In re-Application for Voter Registration of Willie R. Jenkins, D.C. Bd. of Elections and Ethics (June 7, 1984). In an administrative hearing, the D.C. Board of Elections ruled that an intent to reside in a place can constitute a place of residence for voting purposes. This ruling established the homeless voting policy for Washington, D.C., which allows a voter to name the location where he/she sleeps as a residence even if the place is a nontraditional home. The voter must also provide a mailing address of a place to which the person has sufficient ties. The person will vote in the district of his/her place of residence.

      Pitts v. Black, 608 F.Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). Plaintiffs challenged a New York State Election Law provision forbidding people living on the streets from registering to vote. The District Court held that the New York City Board of Election’s application of the residency requirement disenfranchised an entire group of people, which is forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause. The court found that a person’s “residence” is the place at the center of the individual’s life and the place where he/she presently intends to remain. The court reasoned that people need only have a specific location that they consider their “home base” — the place where one returns regularly, manifests an intent to remain, and can receive messages and be contacted.

      Walters v. Weed, 752 P.2d 443 (Cal. 1988). Individuals whose votes were uncounted in a city council election challenged the rejection of their ballots. These individuals had abandoned their domiciles within the precinct and were thus not considered residents of the precinct, rendering their votes invalid. However, many of the plaintiffs had not yet met the requirements to establish new domiciles, as they did not live at new locations where they intended to stay. The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of those voters who had not yet established new domiciles, holding that when a person leaves his or her domicile with no intention of returning to live there, and when that person currently resides in a place in which he or she does not intend to remain, that person may vote in the precinct of his or her former domicile until a new domicile has been acquired.

      End quote:

    19. caesu on October 31st, 2008 12:05 am

      #18 katablog.com

      Republicans are more busy with vote suppression.

      and voter registration fraud and voter fraud are two completely different things.

      organistations like ACORN for example are obliged by law to hand in ALL registration, including the fraudulent ones, or the ones with typos.

      this does NOT, or very rarely lead to voter fraud.
      ACORN actually marks the registrations they deem to be fraudulent.

      Republicans are creating all this fuss about registration fraud to be able to suppress voting.

      selective suppressing of voting leads to LARGE amount of people not being able to vote, especially minorities.

      you won’t hear this on right-wing media.
      but i believe FOX has covered this, but they like to focus more on voter registration fraud than on voter suppression.

      while voter suppression influences the election outcome in a BIG way and voter registration fraud doesn’t at all (or very very rarely).

      you might want to read this:

      just to get the other side of the story you else wouldn’t get at your usual news sources.

      it also ties the Republican surpression of voters to the firing of former New Mexico Attorney David Iglesias.

      (as a result Attorney General Gonzales had to resign)

    20. Engineering the New Electorate on March 26th, 2010 6:41 am

      [...] they couldn’t care less about the integrity of our elections. In Ohio, a judge has ruled that a park bench can be used to fulfill the residency requirement for voter registration. The Left’s latest assault [...]

    Leave a Reply

    Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

    • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
    • Red (comments)
    • Dugga (technical issues)
    • Dana (radio show comments)
    • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
    E-mail It