A federal judge in Florida granted an injunction on Tuesday to stop enforcement of the state's "no match, no vote" voter registration law. The law requires the name of a registrant be matched with a Social Security number or driver's license number.

The suit was filed by the Florida branch of the NAACP, the Haitian-American Grassroots Coalition, and the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project.

The plaintiffs asserted that more than 14,000 Floridians have been kept off the roles since the law took effect on January 1, 2006. The same matching requirement — which is extremely prone to error — was also stopped in Washington State by a federal judge in 2006.

U.S. District Judge Stephan Mickle ruled that the law "stands in direct conflict with accomplishing the full purposes and objectives of HAVA." HAVA — the Help America Vote Act — was passed by the U.S. Congress in 2002 in the wake of the 2000 election debacle.

To learn more check out…

• Judge's order
• Article by the Brennan Center for Justice "Federal Judge Blocks Florida Registration Law"
• News story in the Miami Herald

Nonprofit groups created to educate the public and lobby on issues have started inserting themselves into the presidential primaries, adding an unexpected wild card to wide-open elections in both parties. The groups provide a new avenue for routing millions of dollars into an election cycle already awash with spending by traditional political organizations.

This Washington Post article continues by condemning 501(c)(4) organizations that are prevalent in primary campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire, warning that such activity could increase in the future and that the groups should, "proceed with caution." However, the public is not likely to understand that, with "nonprofit" in the headline, they are talking about 501(c)(4) organizations. Most will infer that nonprofits are becoming too involved in the campaigns and there is something wrong with this. The ramifications of the Washington Post article are uncertain, but confusion can lead to overreaction by regulators and cause use the public to question the work of legitimate nonprofits during an election.

The Post article states; "The nonprofits are competing with the campaigns for voter attention, especially in early-voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, and their advertising, phone calls and mailings could help diffuse the candidates' own messages." What about the many nonprofits that are competing for the candidates' attention? One example in the article illustrates why issue groups use campaigns to get attention for an issue. Friends of the Earth Action criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton's inaction on global warming issues. Their ads asked the public to call Clinton and "tell her we've had enough of corporate polluters and billion-dollar giveaways." Now Clinton has proposed two amendments to a bill to address their concerns.

With the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) "on the lookout," 501(c)(4)s will have to be able to show their primary purpose is not to influence the outcome of elections. But there is plenty of constructive work to be done. Countless nonprofit advocacy groups continue to make a beneficial contribution to the election process, such as by helping to conduct voter registration drives and sponsoring candidate debates and forums.

The work of advocacy organizations during an election strengthens a very necessary, diverse dialogue on important issues. An example mentioned here before, is the Primary Project. This blog post from the Alliance for Justice gets it; "It is my strong belief that we as a society benefit from the discourse of a variety of voices in an election year—to which I say to my nonprofit friends, let me hear you now." And this San Francisco Chronicle editorial highlights another great example, the Heartland Presidential Forum organized by the Center for Community Change, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, and hundreds of grassroots groups around the country. "The organizations hosting the forum understand this - they are community groups whose bread and butter is the patient one-on-one relationship-building that builds movements, and they see elections as but a moment in a long process of social change. But moments count.