Pete Davis joins The Great Battlefield podcast to talk about his career and founding the Democracy Policy Network, where they're building an interstate policy network to deepen democracy in statehouses.
Podcast: Deepening democracy in the states


Pete Davis joins The Great Battlefield podcast to talk about his career and founding the Democracy Policy Network, where they're building an interstate policy network to deepen democracy in statehouses.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.
President Donald Trump’s recent address repeating his claim that he won the 2020 election was widely portrayed as a dramatic escalation of his attacks on our election system. It wasn’t.
It is nothing new!
Rather, it is only one element of a broader coordinated multiyear strategy that has combined litigation, executive action, personnel decisions, and state-level legislation to make voting harder and increase the likelihood that valid ballots will be challenged after they are cast.
Supporters argue these efforts are intended to prevent fraud and restore confidence in elections, and proposals such as voter ID requirements and prohibitions of noncitizen voting have appeal beyond Trump’s base. But critics contend that these policies target relatively minor problems while making voting more difficult, inviting more challenges to valid ballots, and further weakening confidence in the electoral system. When paired with repeated claims that elections are “rigged,” these proposals deepen public distrust in election administration and heighten the fear that Trump will contest the midterm results if they do not go his way.
1. Appointed persons to key positions who will not acknowledge that Biden won the 2020 election, including Pam Bondi as Attorney General, Todd Blanche as her successor, Kash Patel as head of the FBI, and Markwayne Mullin, who has frequently called for a federal investigation into the 2020 election, as Secretary of Homeland Security. Bill Pulte, who Trump proclaimed would use the Office of National Intelligence to investigate “rigged elections” from 2020, now serves as the office’s Acting Director.
2. Undermined agencies responsible for election integrity and protection against foreign interference. He gutted the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and referred its former director, Christopher Krebs, who had earlier declared the 2020 election to be secure, to the Justice Department for investigation. Last month, Trump fired two members of the U.S Election Assistance Commission, leaving the body created by Congress in 2002 with no members.
3. Held up an important bipartisan housing bill to force the Senate to adopt the SAVE America Act, perhaps the most dramatic effort to undermine the ability of states to operate elections in history. So far, the U.S. Senate has called his bluff; the housing bill became law without Trump’s signature and SAVE seems to be going nowhere.
4. Attempted to acquire unredacted voting lists from each state in the nation. This is perhaps Trump’s most audacious power grab to date. If he can gain control of state voter lists, traditionally the province of state governments, he can use data to question whether votes were proper and throw election results into chaos.
While 23 mostly-Republican led states provided the data, 30 and the District of Columbia have not. Fortunately, Trump is losing legal challenges to this strategy. On March 31, Trump issued an executive order seeking to create a national voter list, which was promptly blocked by a federal judge. Trump sued states that refused to turn over their voter files. But private attorneys and state attorneys general fought back, and to date, Trump is 0 for 17 in these cases, losing every one that has come before a judge.
Federal control of voter lists is perhaps the greatest danger for the midterms and beyond. Centralized access to state voter files could allow the federal government to challenge voter eligibility on an unprecedented scale, potentially delaying certification of close contests and inviting extensive post-election litigation. The seizure of the Fulton County, Georgia files gives concern that this was a dry run for other confiscations this fall. Federal seizure of ballots or machines could delay final results and there are even scenarios where these delays could be used by the present republican-controlled House to deny seats to Democrats who win this November by small margins in hopes of preventing a Democratic takeover of the body.
5. Attacked mail-in voting. Trump has continually assailed mail-in voting, which is used by 30 percent of all voters and almost exclusively in several states. But when Trump tried to enlist the U.S. Postal Service in his scheme to make it more difficult, issuing an executive order requiring the agency to deliver a voter’s mail ballot only if their name is on a federally created list of enrolled voters, he was slapped down by federal Judge, whose 37-page ruling concluded that the president did not have the constitutional authority to regulate state elections. And the U.S. Supreme Court recent holding that federal law does not preempt states from setting their own deadlines for counting mail ballots only hurts Trump’s efforts.
These court rulings have not stopped the President; he appealed the postal service ruling and on July 17, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stayed the lower court’s injunction, allowing USPS to move forward in implementing President Trump’s order in the states that have provided the files.
6. Warned states that officials could face criminal liability if they count ballots cast by noncitizens. The Justice Department recently sent letters to all 50 states and the District of Columbia threatening criminal prosecution if election officials counted any ballots cast by noncitizens in upcoming elections. Utah’s Republican lieutenant governor, called the tactic “bizarre,” and described the communication as “another love letter … from the DOJ … with threats of criminal prosecution…. for… resisting DOJ’s demands for private voter data that have thus far been ruled illegal by at least a dozen courts.” Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin then threatened to strip states of federal election-related aid, and to seek criminal penalties against election officials if they don’t comply with Trump’s demands.
6. Promised to send midterm election monitors to states, including Virginia, Arizona, Michigan, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Hampshire. Federal and state laws largely bar the deployment of federal law enforcement agents to polling places, but neither Trump nor Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche have ruled out the use of ICE for this purpose.
These initiatives, standing alone, do not guaranty that the 2026 elections will be disrupted. But taken together, they represent an unprecedented effort to expand federal influence over election administration—an area long managed primarily by the states. Whether these efforts ultimately succeed or fail, they have already intensified public distrust in the nation’s electoral process.
This story is far from over. Courts have repeatedly rebuffed the President. After Trump issued an executive order requiring proof of citizenship, for example, a federal judge blocked the effort, saying that only states and Congress had that authority.
And state leaders continue to push back. While the Trump administration has received voter files from 23 mostly-Republican led states, many states resist. In addition, they are enacting measures to prevent federal intervention in elections. California, for example, made it a felony to seize ballots from county election officials, a law Governor Newsom signed on May 27 after the Riverside County sheriff seized more than 600,000 cast ballots.
Thirty-five states have criminalized intimidation and/or interference with election workers. States like Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia now allow election workers to keep their personal information confidential to avoid harassment. Connecticut passed a measure to bar law enforcement from being within 250 feet of a polling location, ballot Dropbox or vote-counting site without the permission of election officials. Washington state made it a felony to disclose personal information contained in the voter registration file to people other than state and local election officials without the permission of the secretary of state.
Eleven states—including New York, New Jersey, Virginia, and Minnesota—have enacted their own state-level Voting Rights Acts to establish state-level protections against voter suppression and ensuring independent state courts can protect ballot access regardless of federal action.
State attorneys general, local election officials, and private attorneys have become the front line of election defense, developing contingency plans if the federal government attempts to confiscate ballots or voting machines, disrupts the delivery of mail ballots, or sends troops or immigration agents to polling places. Hopefully, the concern is misplaced, and these defenses will not be needed.
The strength of American elections has never rested solely on laws or courts. It relies on citizens who participate, election officials who administer the process fairly, and institutions willing to enforce constitutional limits. Whatever one’s political views, confidence in elections ultimately depends on broad participation, respect for lawful outcomes, and vigilance against efforts that undermine public trust. Cast your vote as early as you can and encourage your friends and neighbors to do the same.
Trump’s Elections Speech Was Not the Opening Shot; It was the Latest Salvo was originally published by Fights of Our Lives on Substack and is republished with permission.

Can secure mobile voting expand election access? Explore how smartphone voting could increase turnout, improve accessibility, and modernize U.S. elections.
Late last year, I became CEO of The Mobile Voting Project. Previously, I served as Chief of Staff to two United States senators, Chief of Staff at the US Department of Education, and Chief of Staff for Vice President Kamala Harris's presidential campaign. At every step in my public service career, I have always had one clear goal: making government work better for everyday people.
I believe that we cannot make government work better if we do not start at the very foundation of our government itself: democracy and voting. In my current role with The Mobile Voting Project, we are focused on making voting more seamless, secure, and accessible. We believe that putting democracy — literally — into the palms of every American’s hand is how we can boost turnout, reduce extremism, and strengthen our democracy.
Our efforts are even more critical as the main option for accessible voting right now — mail-in ballots — is under attack. President Trump has issued multiple executive orders aiming to restrict vote-by-mail. One of these orders seeks to turn the US Postal Service into a political arm that can decide who can and cannot use a mail-in ballot. It would require the USPS to create a federal list of approved voters and only permit states to send ballots to these voters. Considering this is such a radical overhaul to how we vote, it is no surprise that a federal judge recently blocked the order from taking effect. Yet Trump has appealed, demonstrating how dead set he is on making it harder to vote by mail.
At the moment, it seems as if the only guardrail protecting accessible voting is the judicial branch. But it remains fragile. In late June, the Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-4 decision, upheld state laws that allow for mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted after. While this is good news, if just one justice had ruled the other way, millions of mail-in ballots could have been invalidated and millions of Americans disenfranchised in upcoming elections.
Imagine you are serving in the military, defending our democracy abroad, a rural voter living far from an in-person poll site, or a home-bound voter with limited mobility. You have applied for a mail-in ballot. You fill it out before Election Day and find the time to physically send it back to your local Board of Elections. But through no fault of your own, delivery is delayed, and your ballot arrives late. The Supreme Court could have invalidated your ballot and disenfranchised you.
But what if there was a way for Americans to vote from wherever they are, no matter their circumstances, without relying on the postal service? The solution is secure smartphone voting.
Mobile voting isn't a radical idea from the future. Millions of Americans already conduct highly sensitive transactions, from banking to healthcare, on their phones every day. Mobile voting is an option in Canadian local elections and has been piloted for limited groups of voters in dozens of states in the US, like for voters in the military from West Virginia or Utah. In April 2026, some cities in Alaska used a version of mobile voting in their local elections too. And the results have been promising. Turnout skyrocketed in a water district election in Seattle. 100% of voters preferred mobile voting over other methods in Denver.
With recent advancements in technology, we are now at a point where we can safely expand mobile voting to many more voters and cities. The technology that exists is end-to-end verifiable and end-to-end encrypted. It verifies voter identity in the same ways it’s done at poll sites, whether through a signature match or ID verification. Every ballot cast on a smartphone would only be tabulated once taken offline at the Board of Elections, and a paper copy is printed out and mixed among traditional mail-in ballots.
While mobile voting is an important additional option and never a replacement for all the other ways we vote now, it can uniquely meet the realities and challenges of modern life in ways that other methods cannot. It's for the nurse who works a double shift on Election Day. Families displaced by wildfires or hurricanes who cannot access their mail or poll site. The person recovering from surgery who is in an extended hospital stay. Blind voters who cannot fill out a mail-in ballot but have accessibility tools built into their smartphones.
Right now, our organization is working in cities and states to provide mobile voting as a secure additional option in municipal elections. We believe that starting small, and in elections that have long suffered from much lower turnout than presidential contests, is where we can have the greatest impact and build public trust as we grow.
Mobile voting is an overdue evolution of how we vote and ensure access. If we want our government to work better and a democracy that is fully representative, we need to build voting systems that meet people where they are. Mobile voting is how we do that, and especially in light of the attacks on voting, we are working to make it a reality.
Sheila Nix is the CEO of The Mobile Voting Project, a nonpartisan nonprofit working to make secure mobile voting an option for all Americans. With nearly three decades of leadership in political, domestic policy, and innovative nonprofit operations, Sheila previously served as Chief of Staff to Vice President Kamala Harris, Chief of Staff at the U.S. Department of Education, and U.S. Executive Director of Bono’s ONE campaign.

The House Subcommittee on Commodity Markets, Digital Assets and Rural Development met to hear from sports prediction market experts about U.S. regulations and protections on Tuesday, July 21, 2026.
WASHINGTON – Lawmakers considered whether the federal government needs to increase its regulation of sports prediction markets last Tuesday, just days after the end of the World Cup, the largest event ever for companies like Kalshi and Polymarket.
Traditional sports betting has grown exponentially in recent years, even though 11 states still ban it. But people in all 50 states can use prediction markets to win money on the outcome of certain events. The federal government regulates such trades, many of which surround sporting events.
Most members of the subcommittee raised concerns that existing regulations fail to protect users from exploitation and risks associated with prediction markets, such as gambling addiction. Members explored whether and how markets should implement privacy protections, require age verification and ensure the integrity of the games. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which governs these markets, has faced legal challenges over whether states can regulate or ban prediction markets or if federal regulations preempt the states.
So far, in states like Alabama, where sports betting is illegal, residents can still wager money on Kalshi and Polymarket because the companies argue that the commission’s federal jurisdiction supersedes state gambling laws. Rep. Shomari Figures, D-Ala., who sits on the subcommittee, highlighted the distinctions between prediction markets and sports gambling.
GRAPHIC:
While similar, sports gamblers make bets at fixed odds against a bookmaker, and states have authority to regulate them. In prediction markets, participants use apps and websites to compete against one another by predicting outcomes, and the federal government regulates this type of trading.
“I think predictive markets—they are unique. There are certainly some similarities to traditional sports betting, but there are certainly some differences,” Figures said to Medill News Service after the hearing. ”I think part of today's hearing is giving us the opportunity to explore some more of those differences so that we can craft some legislation and promote a regulatory framework that recognizes those realities.”
Experts described a turf war underway between states and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission over who has the right to regulate prediction markets.
“Are (prediction markets) merely sports gambling by another name, or are they really future markets, just like oil, just like wheat, just like gold, silver?” said Bob Jarvis, a professor of law at Nova Southeastern University who has been focused on gambling law for the past decade. “So far, the CFTC has said the prediction markets come under our jurisdiction, and because we are a federal agency enforcing a federal law under the U.S. Constitution' s supremacy clause, states have to give way because whenever there is a federal agency and a federal statute, state laws are preempted to the extent that the federal law ousts state law.”
In 2018, the Supreme Court overruled a federal ban on sports betting, arguing that it violated states’ rights. The Supreme Court’s ruling allowed states to self-regulate sports betting. But the case also allowed that Congress could bring a new gambling ban in the future. Jarvis said he expected the Supreme Court to take up the issue of state or federal regulation of prediction markets.
“You can legislate and regulate sports betting, but the argument is that this is not sports betting. This is different, and this gets federally regulated,” said Melinda Roth, a professor in sports law at Washington and Lee University. “And that is being litigated in so many different states that are in different federal circuit courts.”
Meanwhile, Alabama has taken center stage in the fight to legalize traditional sports betting. The Sports Betting Alliance is a national organization that advocates for legalizing gambling so that it can be regulated. Some of their goals are to implement privacy protections, require age verification and ensure the integrity of the games.
“Remember — legalized betting would not invent gambling in Alabama, it would just bring it out of the illegal market,” the Sports Betting Alliance said in a statement to Medill News Service. The Sports Betting Alliance has pumped over $2.4 million into Alabama congressional political action committees, which do not disclose which candidates they support, according to data from Transparency USA.
“You’re looking for new markets, and Alabama is one of those places that doesn’t really have gambling, so people putting money into congressional races, gubernatorial races, other races in Alabama, they want to have a lottery,” Jarvis said. “They want to have sports gambling. They want to have all the other types of gambling that other states have.”
The Department of Government Efficiency cut over 20% of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s staff last year. Figures raised concerns that if Congress seeks to expand the regulatory powers of the commission, it must be equipped with the proper resources and personnel.
“As these markets continue to evolve, Congress has a possibility to ensure that CFTC has the resources, staffing and authorities necessary to protect consumers while also preserving the integrity of markets,” Figures said.
At the hearing, members of Congress argued for bipartisan efforts to bring regulatory frameworks and protections for users on prediction markets.
Republican chairman of the subcommittee Dusty Johnson, R-S.D, said he welcomes bipartisan efforts to better regulate prediction markets and sports betting across the country. He said he expects more hearings on prediction markets in the near future.
“Today's discussion will help us better understand (prediction markets) – wherein the law is working, where it may be falling short and whether Congress has more work to do,” Johnson said. “We have a terrific panel of witnesses today, and I'm certain to have no shortage of optimal discussion and likely debate; in fact, I'm kind of looking forward to that part.”
Jacques Abou-Rizk and Olivia Ardito are graduate student journalists at Northwestern Medill.

How class, identity, and political recognition shaped the Democratic Party's relationship with rural white working-class voters over two decades.
In the fall of 2003, Howard Dean said he wanted to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in the back windows of their pickup trucks. It was clumsy but not dishonest. He meant that his party had written off a whole category of American voter and wanted to change that. He was attacked at once, mostly by his own side, and walked it back within forty-eight hours. The lesson his party drew was not that the outreach had been badly phrased; It was that the outreach itself was impermissible, that to pursue the rural white working class voter was to be complicit with everything he was presumed to represent. Dean was the last major Democrat to try, and the consequences have accumulated in the shape of the electoral map.
Edgar Allan Poe understood something the party still does not. "The Cask of Amontillado" opens with a line that ought to hang in every campaign office: the thousand injuries of Fortunato the narrator had borne as best he could, but when Fortunato ventured upon insult, he vowed revenge. Injuries can be borne as long as the injured man believes his tormentors still regard his suffering as real. The insult is different. It reframes the injuries as deserved, telling the sufferer he is the kind of person who deserves to suffer. Poe's narrator does not recalculate his interests; he takes his revenge at great cost to himself. That is not irrational but human, and it is the most precise framework we have for what has happened to rural white working-class voters over the last twenty years.
In my book "Homo Redneckus: On Being Not Qwhite in America," I argued that the redneck and the white trash figure occupy a position our politics almost never acknowledges. They are white by blood and invisible by class, neither inside the privileges whiteness is supposed to guarantee nor excluded from it the way racial minorities are. I called the position Not Qwhite, spelled that way to mark it as more than a simple negation of whiteness. The system recognizes the figure only when it wants a scapegoat or a soldier. He is the butt of the joke, the embarrassing cousin at the reunion, almost never a subject whose dignity is a legitimate object of concern. What happens when he works out that one of the two parties has decided, however politely, that he is not welcome at the front door?
A few days after the 2016 election, Toni Morrison published "Making America White Again" in The New Yorker, reading the Trump voter through Faulkner's Sutpen family in "Absalom, Absalom!" choosing murder over the acknowledgment of Black blood in the line. It is powerful, but it reads that voter as the Southern aristocrat for whom racial hierarchy is a first-order investment, not the poor white in eastern Kentucky who has never collected the dividends of white privilege and who looked at the Democratic coalition and saw himself, once again, sent around to the back. The parallel Morrison does not quite reach is not the family protecting its bloodline. It is Thomas Sutpen himself, the poor white boy from the Virginia mountains sent as a child to the back door of a Tidewater plantation house, who spent his life building a design that would carry him to the front. Sutpen is Not Qwhite. His wound is not racial in the ordinary sense, but the wound of nonrecognition, the discovery that whiteness alone is not enough, that the order has a front door and a back door, and that where a man is sent turns on more than his skin. He does not challenge the system that humiliated him; he adopts its logic, reproducing the order that shamed him because it is the only one with a place for him. The design destroys him, but the back door was never an alternative, only a continuation of the injury, and when injury is compounded by insult the answer is not the calculation of material interest. It is something older and more combustible.
The Democratic Party has not, in any deliberate sense, built a plantation. But it has built a coalition whose visible logic tells the Not Qwhite voter something that functions like being sent to the back door. It is organized around identity categories: racial minorities, women, LGBTQ Americans, undocumented immigrants, and its project of extending them recognition and rights is largely just. But the rural white working class man does not see himself in it. The signifiers he carries—the truck, the gun, the Christian faith, the flag, the manual labor—are treated by the coalition's visible face not as a legitimate identity but as the problem itself, and the deplorables comment did not create that reading. It crystallized it. It named the injury as deserved, which is what an insult does. His response is less irrational than liberal analysis assumes. The Democratic coalition is built around categories I do not belong to and cannot join; the Republican coalition is built around categories I already belong to, Christianity and masculinity and a whiteness understood not as supremacy but as an identity that does not have to apologize for itself. I may never be rich, but I will never be Black or undocumented or trans, and so I throw in with the coalition that has a place for me, even if the men running it use me in ways that do not serve my interests, because at least they use me through the front door. That is not false consciousness. It is Sutpen's logic, reproduced in the voting booth.
I am not writing a policy prescription, and I do not think the party should adopt the flag or abandon the constituencies it has spent decades building. My argument is that treating the Not Qwhite voter as either a moral problem to be corrected or a demographic to be written off is not only electorally costly but analytically wrong. It misreads the motive, reading the vote as racial resentment when it is, at least as much, the need for recognition that every human being carries and that the political system ignores at its peril.
In 1954, William Faulkner wrote that "you don't love because: you love despite; not for the virtues, but despite the faults." It is the ambivalence behind Quentin Compson's desperate "I don't hate it, I don't hate it" at the end of "Absalom, Absalom!" To love despite rather than because is not nostalgia. It is the recognition that people formed by a place are not reducible to the worst reading of them, that the flag and the faith and the labor and the poverty mark a life and a dignity that has waited a long time to be taken seriously. The thousand injuries were borne as well as they could be. The insult could not be absorbed. And until someone goes back to the front door and knocks, and means it, the design will keep being reproduced, it will keep destroying the people who build it, and the autopsies will keep recommending that someone show up and listen without asking why nobody ever has.
Matt McCarter is a professor of literature and composition, the author of Homo Redneckus: On Being Not Qwhite in America, and an associate editor of Iron Horse Literary Review.