Benson is Michigan's secretary of state and Underwood, a fellow Democrat, is a congresswoman from Illinois. Firestone and Palfrey are attorneys with the Voter Protection Corps.
After a series of deeply disrupted spring elections, it's clear that Covid-19 is the latest threat to voting rights in America. Many advocates and election officials, ourselves included, are working to expand vote-by-mail, which reduces risks of transmission of the coronavirus and can increase turnout. In recent primaries, mail-in voting rates have skyrocketed by 10 or even 20 times.
But protecting the November election requires an all-of-the-above approach that keeps polling places open. If we fail to act, we will disenfranchise the same Americans historically excluded from voting.
In the last presidential election, three-quarters of all Americans who cast a ballot — nearly 110 million people — did so in person at an early voting site or on Election Day. Members of historically marginalized groups voted in person at even higher rates. In a 2018 census report, Black Americans were the most likely racial group tracked to participate in in-person voting, at 88 percent, and the least likely to vote through the mail. Native Americans, younger voters with less stable mailing addresses, the homeless, voters with disabilities and those who need language assistance all use in-person voting more heavily.
Unfortunately, in primary after primary this spring, election officials have restricted or interfered with in-person voting, particularly in urban areas.
For Wisconsin's primary, Milwaukee slashed the number of polling locations open April 7 down to just five — down from 180. While turnout across the rest of the state dropped 4 percent from the 2016 presidential primary, turnout in the state's largest city dropped 37 percent.
Before Pennsylvania's primary June 2, Philadelphia eliminated 600 voting sites, citing poll worker shortages. A curfew that cut into voting hours was lifted only hours before polls opened. Turnout in the city dropped by 30 percent compared to 2016, six times the rate across the rest of the state.
During the April 9 primary in Georgia, thousands of voters in Atlanta were forced to wait in hours-long lines. Two weeks later in Kentucky, election officials opened just one in-person location in each county, causing concern about the potential for long lines impacting citizens voting in person especially in Louisville and Lexington, the state's most urban and diverse places.
Without preparation, we'll see the same dysfunction play out across the country 13 weeks from now. To ensure that voters are protected this fall, state and local officials must prepare now. Here are the most important four steps to take.
Keep neighborhood polling locations open. Closing polls creates longer lines, bigger crowds and higher risks. Officials should commit not to close polls and consolidate voting, which disproportionately impacts voters in urban areas. The vast majority of the country's Election Day voting places are multi-functional locations and the majority are controlled by local governments.
Election officials should begin planning now to reconfigure or relocate these locations and ensure all have access to cleaning supplies, hand sanitizer and protective materials. States and localities should also expand curbside voting, allowing voters in need to stay in their cars.
Recruit, train and protect new poll workers. This is a watershed moment to invite new generations to fill a critical civic role, including some of the millions of Americans who have joined peaceful protests. But we have to start asking now.
This spring, the coronavirus led to massive shortages of poll workers, and a 2017 report found that most jurisdictions already struggled to recruit the workers needed. In the last presidential election, more than half of the country's 918,000 poll workers were older than 60. Election officials need to create simple online sign-up portals for volunteers and expanded partnerships, like Adopt-a-Precinct, that allow businesses and nonprofits to recruit. Schools should allow high school and college students to take the day off to serve. Jurisdictions should relax or eliminate service requirements that bar otherwise qualified individuals. Poll workers need to be properly trained and provided with protective equipment.
Expand early voting. A straightforward way to protect in-person voting is to spread out the period of time when voters can cast their ballots. In 40 states, voters may already vote early, but the days and hours vary widely. Wherever possible, state and counties should expand early voting to include multiple weeks in October.
To accommodate working Americans, local jurisdictions should expand voting into evening hours and, to the greatest extent possible, allow early voting on both Saturday and Sunday in the final weekends before Election Day. In urban areas, communities should demand early voting sites in neighborhoods — not just central, downtown locations. Rural officials should also look closely at how best to ensure broad access.
Communicate clearly and repeatedly that voting is safe. Elected officials and voting rights groups must repeatedly assure the public that voting will be safe and secure. We've already seen Covid-19 weaponized as this year's voter suppression tactic of choice. Failure to clearly communicate will undermine public confidence and leave the door open to disinformation.
As America prepares for national elections in the middle of a pandemic, the strength of our democracy will be measured by how well we uphold the voting rights of the vulnerable. Do we allow the coronavirus to deepen existing disparities in voter turnout or do we plan and prepare to include everyone? To help ensure that all jurisdictions can afford to run a safe election, Congress should approve the $3.6 billion in aid that has already passed the House.
By acting now, in communities across the country, we can disrupt old patterns of disenfranchisement and make our elections more fair and free.



















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.