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

[INSIDE JW]

JUDICIAL WATCH URGES SUPREME COURT TO PROTECT PUBLIC ACCESS TO STATE
VOTER ROLLS

[[link removed]]

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_
[[link removed]]
(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_
[[link removed]]
(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 [[link removed]]).

In 2023, Public Interest Legal Foundation requested
[[link removed]]
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
[[link removed]]
Public Interest Legal Foundation to obtain voter-registration
information from individual county clerks.

In our _amicus_
[[link removed]] brief
[[link removed]],
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
[[link removed]] enforcing
constitutional redistricting standards and cleaning voter rolls
nationwide.

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

In July 2026, we announced
[[link removed]] that records
from the Virginia Department of Elections showed the commonwealth
cancelled 6,531
[[link removed]]
“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
[[link removed]]
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
[[link removed]]
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
[[link removed]] 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
[[link removed]].

> 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 gran
> [[link removed]
> [[link removed]]
> 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
> [[link removed]]
> 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,



[Contribute] [[link removed]]


[32x32x1] [[link removed]]

[32x32x2] [[link removed]]

[32x32x3] [[link removed]]

[32x32x3] [[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2026, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions [[link removed]] |
Unsubscribe [[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]