Supreme Court Urged to Protect Access to Voter Rolls

Judicial Watch Urges Supreme Court to Protect Public Access to State Voter Rolls
Obama’s ‘Diaper Disparity’ Program Gets $29 Million

Judicial Watch Urges Supreme Court to Protect Public Access to State Voter Rolls

We continue to insist that dirty voter rolls can mean dirty elections. We are again taking up the fight for clean elections by asking the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to make it clear that the public has a right to see states’ voter registration lists.

We filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief to the Supreme Court supporting the Public Interest Legal Foundation’s (PILF) petition for review of a Ninth Circuit decision that allows Hawaii to shield its statewide voter registration list from public disclosure.

We are urging the Supreme Court to take up a challenge to the Ninth Circuit ruling and overturn the decision, citing federal law designed to foster transparency that allows the use of voting rolls to uncover fraud and errors. (Public Interest Legal Foundation petitioned the Supreme Court for review in July 2026.)

This brief comes in the case Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Scott T. Nago, in his official capacity as Hawaii’s Chief State Election Officer (No. 26-98). We urge the court to grant Public Interest Legal Foundation’s petition to have its case heard and resolve a conflict among the federal appeals courts over whether statewide voter registration lists must be made available under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

In 2023, Public Interest Legal Foundation requested Hawaii’s statewide voter registration list under the NVRA’s public disclosure provision. Hawaii refused. A federal district court dismissed the case, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Ninth Circuit held that Hawaii’s statewide voter registration list is not a “record concerning the implementation” of programs and activities designed to ensure accurate and current voter lists under Section 8(i) of the NVRA. The court instead directed Public Interest Legal Foundation to obtain voter-registration information from individual county clerks.

In our amicus brief, we point out that federal law requires states to protect the integrity of the electoral process by ensuring that accurate voter registration rolls are maintained. The NVRA specifically provides the public access to records concerning state voter-list maintenance activities.

We point out that its public records requests are critical in evaluating NVRA compliance:

As a result of its use of the state’s voter registration list and other election-related information and records published by the Election Assistance Commission, Judicial Watch’s efforts have led to the identification and removal of over six million outdated and ineligible names from voter rolls across nearly a dozen states.

We argue that Congress deliberately used broad language in requiring disclosure:

[The NVRA] requires states to “maintain” and “make available” to the public “all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters.”

Our brief emphasizes that the plain language of Section 8(i) encompasses the official statewide voter registration list:

The plain meaning and ordinary terms of Section 8(i) clearly encompass the official list of eligible voters. It is the primary and ultimate end product that concerns the implementation of all state programs and activities to ensure an accurate voter registration list….

The Ninth Circuit [held] that the voter registration list is not a record that concerns the implementations of programs and activities to ensure an accurate voter list. This ruling is not only wrong, but it also threatens electoral transparency nationwide and undermines the purposes for which Congress passed the NVRA.

It also limits the ability of organizations such as Judicial Watch to enforce the list maintenance provisions of the NVRA. Judicial Watch often uses the statewide voter registration list to determine if jurisdictions are complying with the list maintenance requirements of the NVRA. The voter registration list is key to determining whether jurisdictions are properly inactivating and then cancelling registrants who have changed address. The voter registration list will show a voter’s status and whether a voter has been changed from active to inactive after receipt of a forwardable address confirmation notice. It can also find violations whenever a jurisdiction fails to cancel a registrant as required by the NVRA after notice and the passage of two general federal elections. The Ninth Circuit’s decision would allow states to withhold such critical records and to hide a failure to implement programs and activities necessary to ensure an accurate list.

We argue that the Ninth Circuit’s decision conflicts with the First Circuit’s ruling that Maine’s statewide voter registration list is subject to disclosure under the NVRA:

[A] unanimous panel of the First Circuit had no problem finding that Maine’s statewide voter registration list was a record mandated to be disclosed by the NVRA. The Maine voter registration list “plainly relates to” the implementation of programs and activities for an accurate list since it “reflects the additions and changes made by Maine election officials … as part of Maine’s voter list registration and maintenance activities.”

Our brief points out that our NVRA enforcement efforts focus predominantly on the change-of-address procedure under Section 8(d):

Oftentimes, jurisdictions will fail to timely mark a registrant inactive who received a confirmation notice, or will fail to remove the inactive registrant after the second general federal election of inactivity, leaving registrants who have long moved out of state on their rolls for years or sometimes decades. State voter registration lists then become filled with ineligible registrants and people registered in multiple states. As a result, “24 million voter registrations in the United States—about one in eight— are either invalid or significantly inaccurate.”

We are a national leader in election integrity and voting rights litigation, with a record of successful lawsuits enforcing constitutional redistricting standards and cleaning voter rolls nationwide.

Our lawsuits and legal actions have caused the removal of six million ineligible names from voter lists nationwide, including from Oregon, Colorado, Kentucky and New York City. Judicial Watch legal pressure also resulted in voter roll clean-ups in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Ohio.

In July 2026, we announced that records from the Virginia Department of Elections showed the commonwealth cancelled 6,531 “declared noncitizen” voter registrations between June 2024 and June 2026.

Also in July 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice announced its intention to file a motion to intervene in Judicial Watch’s federal lawsuit filed on behalf of a California political candidate and a state political party against the State of California due to its failure to maintain accurate voter rolls as required by the NVRA.

A federal court in Illinois ruled that our lawsuit to force the cleaning of voter rolls may proceed in that state.

In January 2026, in a historic case filed by Judicial Watch, the Supreme Court decided 7-2 in favor of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors who were before the court to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day.

Obama’s ‘Diaper Disparity’ Program Gets $29 Million

Apparently, America has a great diaper divide that can be eradicated with millions of your tax dollars thrown at “diaper disparity.” Our Corruption Chronicles blog has the details.

A controversial initiative launched by former President Barack Obama—and handsomely funded under Biden—to end a fabricated pandemic of “diaper disparity” by providing needy families with government-subsidized diapers is quietly being kept alive by the Trump administration. It is known as Diaper Distribution Demonstration and Research Pilot (DDDRP) and it is funded by a Health and Human Services (HHS) division known as Administration for Children and Families (ACF) Office of Community Services (OCS). Under both Obama and Biden, the questionable program received a steady stream of taxpayer dollars, and the money continues flowing under Trump albeit with less fanfare and press releases in an apparent effort to avoid scrutiny.

Congress has repeatedly denied laws to give needy families government-subsidized diapers—in addition to free medical care and food—yet Obama launched the diaper giveaway back in 2016 with a $10 million infusion. Congress had twice rejected legislation to give needy families free diapers and the White House at the time promoted the initiative as essential to eradicate a national “diaper divide” that would abolish “diaper disparity” by expanding access for America’s poorest families. Obama’s White House Domestic Policy Director, Cecilia Muñoz, spearheaded the initiative, asserting diapers are imperative to babies’ health and “no family should have to choose between keeping their babies healthy and keeping the lights or heat on.” Months earlier Congress resoundingly rejected the second measure (Hygiene Assistance for Families of Infants and Toddlers Act) in four years to grant poor families government-subsidized diapers. Years earlier similar legislation (Diaper Investment and Aid to Promote Economic Recovery Act) also got slammed in Congress.

Biden kept the program going with an $8 million grant in 2022 to provide diapers and diapering supplies through government distribution programs for families with low incomes. “One in three families in the U.S. with diaper-age children report having unmet diaper needs,” according to that grant document, issued by HHS. “Diaper need is largely defined as the lack of a sufficient supply of diapers to keep an infant/toddler clean, dry, and healthy,” the grant announcement further read, adding that “Infrequent diaper changes can lead to diaper rashes and urinary tract infections, compromising the health and well-being of infants and toddlers.” The lengthy document cited random studies on the impacts of diaper need, which of course, “disproportionately impacts families with low incomes and can have long-term, multigenerational effects,” according to the government. Besides the detrimental health effects on the infant, the studies referenced by HHS found associations between diaper need and parental stress, which can have negative, compounding effects on the health and well-being of both caregivers and children.

As an example, the agency claimed childcare providers require an adequate supply of diapers, yet many low-income families cannot afford a consistent supply. “Therefore, diaper need can prevent infants and toddlers from being in early care settings and further exacerbate the impact of poverty by impeding caregivers’ ability to attend school, training programs, and/or work consistently,” according to the health agency. Another study used by HHS to make its case found that more than half of parents who rely on childcare have missed work because of an inadequate supply of diapers, which means “access to diapers represents both a public health concern for the well-being of children and a source of economic stress for parents and caretakers.” The great American diaper giveaway promised to lower anxiety and depression among parents, decrease rates of missed days for children in childcare, reduce family health issues by improving the health of caretakers and children, increase workforce participation and reduce economic stress by cutting unemployment.

The new grant does not go into such detail but nevertheless commits $29 million to keep DDDRP going by “expanding ongoing diaper distribution programs” to meet the goal of delivering a regular, sufficient supply to caregivers and children with low incomes. “The American Public Health Association reports that one in three families in the United States with diaper-age children report having an unmet diaper need,” according to the government’s recently published grant announcement. “By providing families with a reliable supply of diapers and diapering essentials, the program supports the health, well-being, and healthy development of infants and toddlers.”

Until next week,

The post Supreme Court Urged to Protect Access to Voter Rolls appeared first on Judicial Watch.