Sponsors (51)
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Prohibits states and localities from imposing any voting rule or procedure that denies or limits a U.S. citizen’s right to vote because they live in a “nontraditional abode” (including shelters, unsheltered locations, certain public places, and in some states prisons). It creates federal enforcement (Attorney General litigation) and a private right of action, amends voter registration laws to make it easier for unhoused people to register and list where they live, requires HUD surveys to track voting access for people experiencing homelessness, and creates an EAC grant program to fund outreach and mobile voting for unhoused individuals.
The bill meaningfully expands and enforces voting access for people without conventional addresses—especially unhoused Americans—while shifting implementation, administrative, and litigation costs to state and local governments (and ultimately taxpayers) and creating some operational complexity during rollout.
People experiencing homelessness and other address-challenged Americans gain substantially easier access to register and vote (shelter addresses designated as registration agencies; unsheltered locations, drawn maps/intersections, and durable materials accepted), reducing practical barriers to participation.
Unhoused and other marginalized voters get stronger enforcement and remedies (DOJ civil actions, private suits, and preservation of Voting Rights Act remedies; HAVA enforceability) to ensure jurisdictions comply with nondiscrimination and access rules.
States, localities, and community providers receive federal support to increase outreach and direct voting access for unhoused populations (funding for mobile voting centers, outreach, and the ability to contract with experienced private service providers), which can expand turnout and leverage existing service networks.
State and local governments (and therefore taxpayers) will likely face meaningful administrative and implementation costs to revise forms, update residency verification, train staff, and change procedures—made more acute by the six-month effective window.
Expanding enforcement pathways and broad definitions (e.g., of 'nontraditional abode') increases the risk of litigation and legal disputes, creating defense costs for jurisdictions and potential inconsistent court rulings that raise uncertainty for administrators and plaintiffs.
Federal spending to support outreach is open-ended ('such sums as may be necessary'), which could increase taxpayer liabilities without a specified appropriation cap.
Introduced August 5, 2025 by Nikema Williams · Last progress August 5, 2025