This weekly update summarizing legislative activity affecting voting and elections is powered by the Voting Rights Lab. Sign up for VRL’s weekly newsletter here.
The Voting Rights Lab is tracking 2,440 bills so far this session, with 570 bills that tighten the rules governing voter access or election administration and 1,087 bills that expand the rules.
As has often been the case in recent months, some of the biggest news came out of George, where legislators passed a bill giving the state Bureau of Investigations jurisdiction over election crimes. However the legislation has far fewer voting restrictions than S.B. 89, the bill that was being fast-tracked earlier this month but failed to pass on the last day of session.
Elsewhere, Missouri began consideration of a bill that would allow the secretary of state to audit the list of registered voters. And Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers vetoed bills that could make it harder to vote while Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont signed a bill expanding access to absentee ballots.
Looking ahead: A New Hampshire bill that would create a stricter voter ID law will be taken up by the House Election Law Committee on Wednesday.
Here are the details:
Georgia passes elections legislation in the final minutes of the session. Close to midnight on the last day of the session, legislators passed an elections bill granting the Georgia Bureau of Investigation authority to independently investigate election crimes and issue relevant subpoenas. S.B. 441 is less restrictive than H.B. 1464, the bill that had been moving through the Senate earlier this month, which included onerous chain of custody requirements for ballots and even un-voted security paper; public inspection of ballots prior to certification date by the general public; stricter rules on private funding of elections; and cuts to the minimum number of voting machines offered on Election Day.
Wisconsin governor vetoes package of election bills, including several restrictions on mail voting. The Republican-controlled Assembly sent nine elections bills to Evers, who vetoed each one. These bills would have required voters to provide a copy of photo ID every time they requested an absentee ballot, prohibited citizens from returning absentee ballots on behalf of their friends and neighbors, restricted who can identify as indefinitely confined (a status that allows for absentee ballots to be automatically provided for those who can’t get to the polls due to age, illness or disability) and banned the use of private money to fund election administration. Republicans may try to circumvent the governor’s veto on the private money prohibition through a ballot initiative to amend the state Constitution next year.
Connecticut expands access to absentee ballots. Lamont signed legislation permanently expanding the reasons a voter can get an absentee ballot. The new law will allow commuters who work away from their polling place for much of Election Day, as well as caregivers or people worried about illness, to access an absentee ballot.
Missouri legislature considers a bill allowing an audit of registered voters. Missouri’s House Elections and Elected Officials Committee heard a bill that would allow the secretary of state to audit any local voter registration list to verify that the voters are alive, residing in the election authority’s jurisdiction, and entitled to vote, as well as any other criteria the secretary deems appropriate. The secretary of state could instruct the local election authority to remove voters, and failure to comply with the secretary of state’s decision could lead to a funding loss. The proposed language contains no safeguards limiting the secretary’s discretion to order local election officials to cancel registrations nor any requirement that the review be conducted identically across all jurisdictions.
New Hampshire’s strict voter ID bill will be heard in committee on Wednesday. The House Election Law Committee will hear S.B. 418 on Wednesday. The bill, which already passed the Senate, would make the state voter ID law more restrictive. Current New Hampshire law allows voters without ID to cast a regular ballot if they complete an affidavit affirming their identity, under penalty of perjury. This bill would eliminate that alternative, and instead rescind their vote from the count if they are unable to show an ID within 10 days of the election. Most states with voter ID laws offer an alternative to ensure the identity of voters without ID can be verified through other means. This new bill would put New Hampshire in the minority.
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.