The 2026 election is official underway in North Carolina. Today’s policy update shares information that your nonprofit needs to know about early voting in the primary election. We also provide the latest on a court ruling that allows a pair of anti-DEI Executive Orders to remain in place and about a bill that the U.S. House of Representatives passed that could create challenges for nonpartisan voter registration work if it were to pass the U.S. Senate (which it won’t). |
|
|
Today Is Second Day of Early Voting Period |
In-person early voting for the March 3 primary election in North Carolina began yesterday. The early voting period continues through Saturday, February 28.
Now is a great time for nonprofits to encourage their staff, volunteers, and the people they serve to make a plan to vote early in the primary election. Early voting is a great option for many North Carolinians for several reasons: |
-
During early voting, you can register to vote if you are a new voter or update your voter registration if you have changed addresses within your county. You can’t register or update your registration on Election Day.
-
You have more options for dates and location (any early voting site in your county) to vote during early voting. On Election Day, you can only vote at your designated polling place. Even (and maybe especially) for voters who use early voting in most elections, it is important to check the hours and locations of early voting, since these have changed in many counties this year.
- If something comes up and you are unable to vote when you originally plan, there are always other times you can still cast your ballot (either on another day of early voting or on Election Day). If you get sick or a conflict arises on Election Day, you won’t have other opportunities to vote in the election.
|
For more on ways that nonprofits can engage in the 2026 election in nonpartisan ways, check out the recording of the Center’s webinar on (Almost) Everything Your Nonprofit Needs to Know about the 2026 Election from earlier this week. |
|
|
Federal Appeals Court Allows Anti-DEI Executive Orders to Remain in Place |
Last Friday, a federal appeals court in the District of Columbia issued a ruling allowing two January 2025 Executive Orders aimed at eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in federal agencies and federal grants and contracts to remain in place. One of the challenged Executive Orders (EO 14151) directs the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management to work with federal agencies to terminate DEI programs in federal agencies and federal grant programs (called the “termination provision” in the lawsuit). The other Executive Order (EO 14173) directs every federal grant or contract recipient to certify that it complies with federal anti-discrimination laws and that it does not operate programs promoting DEI that violate federal antidiscrimination laws (called the “certification provision” in the lawsuit).
In allowing the two anti-DEI Executive Orders to remain in place, the three-judge appellate panel unanimously rejected the contention that the Executive Orders were broadly unconstitutional “on their face”, rather than as applied to specific program terminations or grant certifications. However, the court left open the possibility that future litigation may find that the federal government’s application of the anti-DEI Executive Orders has led to unconstitutional terminations of federal grant programs and unconstitutional certification requirements for some federal grantees. As the chief judge wrote in a concurring opinion: “Defendants represented at oral argument that there is ‘absolutely’ DEI activity that falls comfortably within the confines of the law. I hope that’s true. But the evidence cited by plaintiffs, their amici, and the district court suggests a more sinister story: important programs terminated by keyword; valuable grants gutted in the dark; worthy efforts to uplift and empower denigrated in social media posts.”
|
|
|
U.S. House Passes Bill That Could Stop Nonprofit Voter Registration Work |
On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act or SAVE America Act (S.1383), which would amend federal election laws to require in-person, documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration for federal elections. Nonprofit VOTE and other advocates have expressed concerns that the SAVE America Act would effectively end nonpartisan, nonprofit voter registration drives. The House passed a similar bill in April 2025, but it did not have sufficient bipartisan support to get a vote in the Senate (where 60 votes are required for most bills to pass). It is unlikely that the Senate will take up the SAVE America Act this year.
|
|
| Federal Court Reopens Johnson Amendment Litigation |
Yesterday, a federal court in Texas officially reopened a lawsuit in which the Internal Revenue Service has requested a consent judgment that would allow two churches to make political endorsements to members of their congregations. Like other 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations, churches may not “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” Essentially, the IRS is interpreting the nonpartisanship requirement (sometimes known as the Johnson Amendment) as having a narrow exemption for communications from churches and other houses of worship to their congregations “through [their] customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services.”
The case had been on hold since December when the judge denied an advocacy group’s request to intervene in the litigation. The judge reopened the case after the advocacy group didn’t appeal his ruling for 60 days. The court could issue a ruling on the consent judgment in the coming days, weeks, or months. If the court issues the consent judgment, it would not be appealable and would limit the exception to the Johnson Amendment to the two churches that are parties to the case. |
|
|
|
