Amy Miller is the lead attorney for Disability Rights Nebraska a nonprofit that roams the state’s nursing homes and assisted-living facilities to check on care quality and to hand out voter registration forms. Last month she assisted a veteran with a traumatic brain injury to complete a change-of-address form so he could cast a ballot in the upcoming midterm elections, even though he could not write with a pen. Such hands-on work ensures that seniors and people with disabilities—who often lack internet access or reliable transportation—still have a voice at the polls.
Federal funding that keeps disabled voters in the ballot box
Congress has allocated roughly $10 million a year to a network of 57 nonprofit groups under the Help America Vote Act of 2002. Those grants support everything from accessible ballot-marking devices to on-site registration assistance. In Nebraska, Disability Rights Nebraska received $141,000 this year specifically for voter-access projects. The funding stream has narrowed the gap between disabled and non-disabled voters: an April 2024 Rutgers University report found that only 3.6 % of registered voters with disabilities reported registration problems, versus 1.4 % of the general electorate—a statistically significant difference that still represents about 740,000 people.
OMB’s proposed ban on grant-funded voter outreach
The White House Office of Management and Budget led by Russell Vought has drafted a rule that would prohibit the use of any federal grant money for voter registration drives or loosely defined “related activities.” The change is part of a broader Trump-administration strategy that includes the SAVE America Act—a bill demanding citizenship documentation in person for registration—and a ban on NGOs conducting registration at naturalization ceremonies. Vought, who has a history of redirecting or freezing federal funds in defiance of congressional direction, described the Biden-era executive order expanding registration opportunities as a “power grab.” The OMB proposal would not take effect until after the 2026 midterms, but its long-term impact could shape the 2028 presidential race.
Potential fallout for disabled Nebraskans and other nonprofits
If enacted, the rule would place organizations like Disability Rights Nebraska in a legal catch-22. They receive federal dollars for services such as Medicaid enrollment and food-stamp assistance, which the National Voter Registration Act already obliges them to pair with voter-registration help. The new ban would force them to choose between complying with one federal directive or the other, risking a loss of funds for both service areas. Experts warn that the ambiguity surrounding which groups are covered could prompt dozens of nonprofits to halt outreach ahead of the 2028 election.
Legal scholars anticipate swift challenges. Former OMB general counsel Samuel Bagenstos argues the rule disregards Congress’s constitutional “power of the purse,” asserting that agencies cannot rewrite spending statutes that Congress has already approved. He describes the effort as “a massive across-the-board power grab.” Rabia Belt, a Stanford law professor specializing in disability and citizenship, echoed the concern, noting, “I don’t think this rule was designed to disenfranchise disabled voters, but that’s exactly what it will do.”
On the ground, Miller’s team follows strict nonpartisan protocols: volunteers work in paired teams, each representing a different political party, to satisfy legal requirements. In a recent visit to a tiny assisted-living facility—without a library, gas station, or even a nearby election-commission office—Miller registered a resident who had never before been offered that help. “If I could bring a politician into that hall and show them how someone discovers they can vote again, maybe the rules would change,” she said.
While the OMB proposal remains a draft, Disability Rights Nebraska has already submitted a public comment condemning the ban, emphasizing that their work “is an invaluable service to Nebraskans with disabilities who are otherwise locked out of the voting experience.” The organization’s stance underscores a broader tension: federal efforts to expand democratic participation are colliding with a new administration’s move to limit the very mechanisms that make that participation possible.
