A sweeping White House proposal from the Office of Management and Budget threatens federal grant money that helps elderly and disabled Americans register to vote, sparking fierce pushback from advocacy groups and legal experts who warn of nationwide disenfranchisement ahead of upcoming elections.
For organizations like Disability Rights Nebraska, federal funding has long served as a vital bridge to the ballot box. Amy Miller, a lawyer for the advocacy organization, travels across the state investigating facilities and assisting residents with voter registration. Last month, her outreach included helping a veteran with a traumatic brain injury fill out change-of-address paperwork so he could participate in the upcoming midterm elections. Congress funds these efforts to guarantee that individuals lacking internet access or reliable transportation can still exercise the opportunity to participate in elections.
That funding is now in the crosshairs. The Office of Management and Budget, headed by Russell Vought, has proposed changing spending rules to prohibit federal grant recipients from using funds for voter registration drives or what it vaguely calls “related activities.” Vought has a documented history of criticizing taxpayer-funded voter registration efforts, previously condemning administrative initiatives as a power grab designed to increase voter registration and turnout, especially among Democratic Party supporters.
The Direct Impact on Nonprofits and Vulnerable Voters
If finalized, the proposed OMB rule would create profound administrative chaos for organizations caught between contradictory federal requirements. Nonprofits that receive government funds to help people navigate Medicaid benefits, food stamps, and other programs under the National Voter Registration Act are legally mandated to provide registration forms and assistance. Under the new proposal, these same groups would face severe restrictions or prohibitions on carrying out those statutory duties.
While the draft rule published in May would not take effect until after the 2026 midterms, legal experts note it could profoundly disrupt preparations for the 2028 presidential cycle. Thousands of nonprofits receive federal dollars for various public services while conducting voter outreach through private donations. Confusion regarding compliance and the high burden of proving adherence to the ban could cause many organizations to curtail or entirely pause their voter outreach programs.
Stanford law professor Rabia Belt, an expert on disability and citizenship, emphasized the severe collateral damage of the policy. She noted that while the rule may not explicitly target disabled voters, it will inevitably produce that exact effect. Rutgers University survey data from the 2024 election underscores the persistent gap in access: 3.6% of registered voters with disabilities reported facing registration difficulties, compared to 1.4% of voters without disabilities—representing approximately 740,000 individuals.
A Legislative Clash Over the Power of the Purse
The impending rule change sits within a broader administrative strategy to curb federal voting access initiatives. Upon taking office for his second term on day one, President Trump undid an executive directive previously put in place by Joe Biden that instructed federal agencies to broaden voter registration avenues. Furthermore, the administration has given its support to the SAVE America Act, a measure that would mandate documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, potentially forcing everyone to submit such verification face-to-face and thereby effectively bringing voter registration drives to a halt.
Legal challenges are widely expected once the final rule is released. Scholars argue that the proposal directly contradicts the Help America Vote Act of 2002. Signed by Bush, that bipartisan legislation created dedicated grants to assist people with disabilities in registering, casting ballots, and accessing polling places. Congress currently budgets $10 million annually for these grants, distributing funds among 57 nonprofit organizations covering every state, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Native American communities, and U.S. territories.
Samuel Bagenstos, who served as general counsel of the OMB for part of Biden’s administration and now a law professor at the University of Michigan, criticized the measure as a broad executive overreach that ignores congressional authority over federal spending. He described the proposal as a massive, across-the-board power grab designed to consolidate control within the executive branch.
On the Ground in Rural Communities
For Disability Rights Nebraska, which was awarded $141,000 in voter accessibility funds this year, the stakes are deeply personal. The organization submitted a formal public comment opposing the rule, emphasizing that its voter drives operate under strict nonpartisan mandates. During a June visit to a rural assisted living facility, the group noted that newly registered voters split across political lines, with 30% identifying as Republican, 20% as Democrat, and 50% as nonpartisan or third-party affiliated.
Miller highlighted the isolation experienced by residents in remote areas, recalling an encounter with a young man living in a small community located thirty minutes from the nearest election commissioner’s office. Seeing an informational poster, he asked if he was eligible to register. With Miller’s guidance, he successfully completed the process for the first time in his years living at the facility.
Miller expressed deep frustration that policymakers shaping these regulations rarely witness the profound impact of their decisions on isolated citizens. She maintains that seeing firsthand how marginalized Americans react when realizing they can re-engage with the democratic process reveals the irreplaceable value of community-based voter outreach.
