On Thursday we published a countervailing view: "More ballot initiatives won't make Americans feel better about politics."
Fields Figueredo is executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which analyzes and supports ballot measures.
Direct democracy finds its roots in ancient Greece, where at the inception, male citizens were able to participate in decision making. The word "democracy," or demos kratis, translates to "power of the people" in Greek.
Flash forward to the United States, where our representative democracy introduced the ballot initiative process to fight corporate excess during the progressive movement of the early 20th century. Since then, ballot measures became a key part of the democratic tradition in more than two dozen states as a check to endure the power of the people.
Over the years, however, big business has found ways to use the ballot initiative process to its advantage. In the 1990s and early 2000s, the ballot measure process was largely a tool of conservatives. The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center was founded during this period to fight conservative inroads at the ballot box. While in its early years, we were largely on the defensive, increasingly we are helping our partners used the ballot box to advance progressive change through ballot initiatives.
Direct democracy is healthy for America, and people should be encouraged to continue to practice it. While measures people support may not always win, direct democracy does not conflict with the government process and, in many ways, it is another form of checks and balances on lawmakers who don't have the people's interests as a priority.
Direct democracy gives a seat at the table to many communities who have been left out of the process. It gives them the opportunity to get their voices heard and enact change. Look at Amendment 4 in Florida, which has given the formerly incarcerated the right to vote. The measure not only had widespread support across party lines, but the people behind the effort were the very individuals impacted by the failure of elected officials to bring justice to people who had served their time.
People are demanding a different future, one that is equitable and just. You see it every day as people march in the streets and demand action on the enormous issues facing our communities. We share this call to action. We believe ballot measures can be a tool for progressive change.
We are proud of how we supported the remarkable ballot initiative wins in 2018. Voters stepped up and rebuked laws steeped in centuries of structural racism and white supremacy. In Louisiana voters stood up to a Jim Crow-era law that did not require unanimous jury verdicts for felony convictions. Voters also stood up for their neighbors, rejecting hate and bigotry at the ballot box in Oregon and Massachusetts.
BISC provided assistance to many of these initiatives including strategy, media training, research and experiments, fundraising, and long-term planning with an eye beyond the campaigns themselves. Our work didn't end after the votes were counted. This work laid the foundation to advance progressive policies for the future.
As we are building for the future, we must be one step ahead of our opposition. We must fight the legal and legislative challenges to our victories. As we continue to succeed we must expect more attacks on the ballot measure process itself. This year, we have seen an unprecedented amount of attacks on that process, with more than 120 pieces of legislation introduced to undermine the will of the people — more than the last two years combined.
We are also seeing a number of attacks on people's rights in 2019 and 2020 with proposed measures and several already on ballots. There are several measures that are anti-immigrant, put severe limits on reproductive rights and fail to address the gun violence epidemic. We are working hand-in-hand with partners to defeat these measures.
Just a few days ago, children not old enough to vote walked out of classrooms across the country to participate in the Climate Justice march, demonstrating that they will be champions for our environment throughout their lives. As a mother, I am convinced our children learn at an early age to question lawmakers, look for ways to make their communities better and speak out when they sense injustice. And while many cannot yet vote, it is our duty to listen and use every form of democracy to build a future where they thrive.
Ballot measures are not a replacement for representative government. We want a government that speaks for the people. But if they fail to listen, we will hold them accountable and ballot measures are one of many tools to do this. When ballot measures and government work together, we build people power and an equitable and just world.




















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.