Johnson and Vanderklipp are, respectively, the executive director and research fellow for the Election Reformers Network and the co-authors of “ Nonpartisanship Works: How Lessons from Canada Can Reestablish Trust in U.S. Election Administration.”
Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson has repeated the call for his state’s legislature to seize control of the Wisconsin Elections Commission. Although a takeover won’t happen with Democratic Gov. Tony Evers holding the veto pen, this proposal increases a dangerous trend of partisan legislative micromanagement of elections. This threat to fair elections needs to be spotlighted and nonpartisan alternatives pursued instead.
Fundamentally, state legislatures reflect the interests of the political party in the majority, so Johnson’s proposal is tantamount to control of elections by an organization fielding candidates, a blatant conflict of interest and a hugely unfair advantage for incumbents.
Many legislatures already exert far too much control over election administration and rule-making. In 2021, legislatures have passed election laws at an absurd level of controlling detail, limiting not only dropboxes and voting by mail, but also whether voters in line can receive a drink of water. Redistricting led by legislatures, rather than independent commissions, allows lawmakers to help themselves win re-election and help their party win a majority of seats without a majority of votes.
Yes, the Constitution gives legislatures (and Congress) the power to prescribe “the time, place and manner” of federal elections, but the Supreme Court has rightly ruled that setting the rules for elections, not running them, is a lawmaking function.
The Constitution also requires the federal government to guarantee a “republican form of government” in the states, and it is not an exaggeration to say a state with party-controlled elections has lost that status. A republic is defined by elections that reflect the will of the people, not the will of the people already in office.
The underlying dispute in Wisconsin arose when the Elections Commission issued voting rules to comply with Covid-related public health orders that conflicted with state law. Johnson and others argue any breach of the law must be punished. The real culprit, however, is tightly prescriptive lawmaking in a complex area of public administration. Police commissioners, housing authorities and school superintendents all need latitude to find the best means to achieve policy goals in an unpredictable world. The same is true of election administrators.
A study we released this week illustrates how this needed flexibility is working just across the border from Wisconsin, in Canada. There, top provincial and territorial election officials have wide discretion to amend election provisions to meet the exigencies of the situation. The election code of Yukon, for example, says “the chief electoral officer may extend the time for doing any act; increase the number of election officers or polling stations; or otherwise adapt any of the provisions of this Act to the extent the chief electoral officer considers necessary to ensure the execution of the intent of this Act."
Both liberal and conservative governments in Canada have supported provisions like this in the 13 provinces and territories, and at the federal level.
Where Canadian laws are less flexible is in requiring these officials to be nonpartisan. Chief electoral officers must not actively affiliate with or endorse a party or candidate, and in seven provinces they are not even allowed to vote. Our study finds that this nonpartisanship has created a kind of virtuous circle. Increasing recognition of the neutrality of these officials has led to increasing willingness of lawmakers to entrust them with greater authority.
In the United States, that circle is turning in the opposite, and more vicious, direction. No U.S. state has election leadership structured for nonpartisanship, and states like Texas, Georgia and Arizona are pulling back the limited decision-making allowed to secretaries of state and state election boards. The impact of this mistrust can be seen in the 500 lawsuits filed over election laws implemented for Covid; in Canada, there appear to have been only three.
Nonpartisan election administration came about in Canada not because everyone gets along — they don’t — but from an “enough is enough” reaction to a blatantly manipulated election in 1917. Canada’s parties disagree over election security and voter access, and the most recent conservative government enacted a national voter ID. But no one disputes the value of nonpartisans in charge, or proposes a political party takeover of elections.
“Enough is enough” probably sums up the thinking of many in Wisconsin as well. What’s needed there, and in all states, is election leadership constitutionally required to act in a nonpartisan manner and constitutionally protected from legislative overreach. That won't be easy to achieve, But the alternative, as proposed by Johnson, would wreck the republican form of government in the state. The only way left for Wisconsin out of its partisan death spiral is to recognize that nonpartisanship works in many other countries, and to put it in place here.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.