The redrawing of legislative district boundaries. A 1967 federal law requires House members be elected from single-member districts that (within each state) have nearly identical populations. House maps must be redrawn after reapportionment but before the first congressional election of each decade, based on population changes in each state revealed by the census.
Protesters rally for abortion rights outside of the Idaho Statehouse in downtown Boise, Idaho, on May 14, 2022.
Idaho voters will weigh in on their state’s abortion laws this November. The secretary of state’s office certified a ballot measure that could, if passed, overturn one of the strictest bans in the country, the campaign to restore abortion rights in Idaho confirmed on Monday.
The measure would enact a new law establishing a state right to “reproductive freedom,” which it defines as allowing residents to make their own decisions in areas including fertility treatment, contraception and abortion. But it would not amend the state’s constitution, meaning it could still be overturned by the state’s Republican legislature. Currently, Idaho bans abortion in nearly all circumstances, with a narrow exception if staying pregnant threatens someone’s life.
Abortion rights dominated the 2024 elections, but have since taken a political backseat to concerns over the economy. But polling shows voters — including conservatives — oppose near-total prohibitions like Idaho’s.
Supporters gathered more than 100,000 signatures from Idaho residents in support of adding the measure to the state’s November ballot — well above the state’s requirement, which is 70,725 signatories spread across at least half of Idaho’s legislative districts.
Medical professionals say that Idaho’s exception has been incredibly difficult to navigate. Doctors specializing in pregnancy-related health care have left the state in droves, citing the law’s harsh penalties and saying it made it impossible for them to provide proper medical care. Some residents have moved away after struggling to get medical care when experiencing pregnancy-related complications.
Idaho’s ban has already been subject to legal challenges. In 2023, seven plaintiffs — including four women who sought abortions in Idaho after experiencing pregnancy complications — sued the state, seeking to both broaden and clarify the medical exceptions in the law.
Last year, a state court ruled that doctors should interpret the law’s exceptions broadly, and that patients could receive abortions if they had health conditions or complications that meant staying pregnant could threaten their lives. But the court also said patients could not receive abortions if they discovered fatal fetal anomalies in their pregnancies or if they had a mental health condition that made pregnancy dangerous.
More than a dozen states have had abortion-related ballot measures since the 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. In most of those cases, abortion rights supporters have won, including in many states that lean conservative.
Idaho is not the only state where voters will get to address their state’s abortion law. In Virginia and Nevada — states where the procedure remains legal — residents will consider ballot measures that would amend their state constitutions to protect abortion rights.
And in Missouri, voters turned out two years ago to amend their constitution in favor of abortion rights. But this fall, they will be asked once more to weigh in, considering a measure that would amend the constitution once more to overturn those same protections.
Though Idaho has consistently supported Republicans — who largely oppose abortion — a January survey from Boise State University found that 60 percent of Idahoans supported the language in the abortion rights measure. Polling conducted by Idahoans United for Women and Families, the organization spearheading the ballot campaign, has similarly found majorities opposing the state’s abortion law.
Idaho Voters Will Weigh In on One of the Strictest Abortion Bans in the Country was originally published by the 19th and is republished with permission.
As a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the U.S. has signed the foundational agreement committing all participating states to open elections to external scrutiny and inviting fellow members to observe through the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). The 2024 ODIHR observation mission to the U.S. found the fundamentals reassuring—a well-run process, active engagement, free campaigning—but issued 31 recommendations to align U.S. elections with international standards and commitments. Four stand out: federal pre-clearance legislation against discriminatory election-law changes; reassessing the Electoral College; balanced representation in election administration; and guaranteed access for international and nonpartisan observers—notable, since 17 states still legally bar international observation, which is at odds with commitments made by all 57 OSCE states. Yet over a year later, follow-through is thin: no pre-clearance restoration, no Electoral College review, unchanged observer-access laws. Where movement exists—in disinformation tools, in financial disclosure—it remains piecemeal.
An uncomfortable convergence
As part of its methodology, ODIHR typically deploys a Needs Assessment Mission (NAM) months in advance, followed by a report and, depending on the findings, an observation mission. This was the sequence before 2024's vote, but as of this writing, ODIHR's public calendar lists the November 3, 2026, U.S. midterms as upcoming, with no needs assessment or any other recorded activity. The pre-election assessment should already have happened. This isn't proof Washington declined to invite ODIHR—but it breaks with recent cycles, arriving as the administration steps back from other multilateral engagement.
The OSCE's founding agreement is reciprocal: every state invites others to observe its elections. A cluster of authoritarian and backsliding states has quietly abandoned that accord. Russia blocked ODIHR from its 2021 State Duma elections and issued no invitation for the 2024 elections. Belarus hasn't invited ODIHR since 2020. Tajikistan's 2025 mission was canceled due to accreditation delays. Georgia invited ODIHR less than a month before its 2025 local elections—which ODIHR said was incompatible with credible observation. None formally renounced their commitments; they simply made the invitation late, conditional, or absent. The U.S. pattern for 2026 sits uncomfortably close to that category: no rejection on record, just an absence where an invitation should be. Perhaps the writing was on the wall all along, since in 2024 several state election officials refused to meet with ODIHR observers due to perceived concerns about foreign interference.
Diverging tactics abroad
Disengaging from scrutiny at home doesn't predict behavior abroad, where Russia and the U.S. diverge sharply in method—even as the underlying instinct to influence outcomes rather than submit to independent assessment looks similar.
Russia has built a parallel institution. In April 2026, under the patronage of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Moscow hosted a conference that drew over 150 delegates from 60-plus countries, formally establishing the International Association for Political and Electoral Expertise (IAPEE), which is backed by Russia's Presidential Administration, the Foreign Ministry, and the Central Election Commission. Its governing board includes figures with documented histories in the occupied Ukrainian territory and Belarus's 2020 election. IAPEE mimics the form of observation—recruitment, deployment, published findings—while replacing oversight with reciprocal validation, in which governments endorse each other's elections. Lavrov cast it as an "immune response by the global majority" against Western "electoral neocolonialism". Russia has already invited IAPEE to observe its own September 2026 State Duma vote—a model built for export across the Global South.
The United States has hollowed out its own infrastructure, then filled the gap with partisan actors. Rather than building a rival institution, the Trump administration cut funding to organizations that long conducted standards-based assessments abroad—the National Democratic Institute and the Carter Center among them—as part of a broader dismantling of USAID's democracy programming.
That withdrawal hasn't meant disengagement—just a different kind of engagement, as diplomats, appointees, and members of Congress move into the space once occupied by professional missions. The House Intelligence Committee led a bipartisan election observation mission to Honduras in November 2025. Republican Senator Bernie Moreno observed Colombia's 2026 election while making his preferences for a winning side known, prompting claims of interference. The U.S. Embassy in Peru deployed its own observers nationwide during the tense 2026 runoff—prompting allegations of influence from left-wing outlets. A long-term Trump ally and political nominee led a U.S. “election observation” delegation and traveled to Romania in May 2025 to monitor the presidential rerun.
These deployments fall short of the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation, which requires comprehensive, long-term observation across the pre-election, election-day, and post-election periods, oriented toward the process rather than any particular result, and culminating in timely, accurate, impartial public findings. Members instead offered political commentary, praised favored administrations, or lent their presence as a marker of U.S. support—grey-zone validation rather than genuine observation.
Same effect, different design
Russia and the U.S. aren't running the same playbook. Moscow builds an alternative community—a charter, training pipeline, governing council—to escape post-2022 isolation while preserving the appearance of norm-following on its own terms. Washington constructs no new institutions; it quietly disengages from the ones that exist, while funding cuts create a vacuum that diplomats, appointees, and members of Congress fill ad hoc.
The functional result converges: standards-based scrutiny is displaced by actors serving a political-influence agenda—propping up favored governments or candidates within each country's sphere of interest, while the language of observation lends unearned legitimacy. In both, a government's posture toward oversight abroad mirrors its posture at home: diminished tolerance for scrutiny domestically and grey-zone validation internationally are two expressions of the same retreat from accountability.
What would change the trajectory?
Domestically, effective steps can be taken before the 2026 midterms: issue an ODIHR invitation without delay; repeal or preempt state laws that bar international and nonpartisan observers; and address the 2024 recommendations.
Internationally, the U.S. should restore the boundary between diplomacy, partisan endorsement, and impartial observation. First, the U.S. should rebuild support for missions meeting the Declaration of Principles criteria. Second, it should bar members of Congress, appointees, and embassy staff from self-designating as "election observers" unless they have a genuine, independent mission. Finally, it should use the U.S. platform inside the OSCE to defend the Copenhagen Document against Russia's sovereignty-first alternative—while closing the gap between what Washington asks of others and what it accepts for itself.
Ancuța (Anna) Hansen is the director of Perseveras Consulting.
As America marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, something unusual is happening beneath the noise of national politics. Organizations that have never coordinated with one another — bridge-builders and conservationists, faith communities and civic clubs, veterans' groups and student movements — are arriving independently at the same conclusion:
Independence was the first step. Interdependence is the next.
The founders declared independence so that a free people could govern themselves. The hard part was never disagreement; Americans have always disagreed. Our challenge is that we increasingly struggle to act as one people despite those disagreements. Because a nation can only become so divided before it faces a choice: continue fragmenting or begin reconnecting.
On July 22, the Leadership Circle will convene online to explore what interdependence actually means in practice, and what it would take to build more of it. Interdependence, in this context, could look like collaborative civic service projects that unite different political groups around a shared local goal, cross-organizational campaigns to support veterans and first responders, or joint town hall discussions led by students, faith leaders, and business communities working together to solve challenges from climate resilience to community safety. The gathering brings together three leaders whose organizations approach the same problem from different angles:
The Leadership Circle is a forum convened by Bill Shireman for philanthropists, corporate leaders, experts, activists, influencers, and strategists to learn together, build relationships, and collaborate around pragmatic solutions for a healthy environment and democracy. Meeting monthly over Zoom and annually at EarthX in Dallas, it exists on a simple premise: ten kinds of power at the same table can accomplish what none can alone. These are conversations, not webinars. Each participant is encouraged to bring insights from their own experiences and organizations to help shape actionable ideas and future partnerships.
The purpose of this particular gathering is modest and ambitious at once: to meet one another, learn from one another, recognize one another, and begin planning together. Our intended outcomes include forging new partnerships between organizations, forming working groups on issues requiring collective action, and initiating cross-sector projects that can be launched or advanced through our collaboration. Success will look like concrete action steps, the development of joint initiatives, and a network of civic leaders working together after the event. The generation of 1776 declared independence. The generation of 2026 has a chance to begin something equally consequential, creating a stronger and more connected America.
Participation is open to anyone interested in that work.
Register: https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/oq3j0mFYSlyLXu_pi1mvyg
Learn more: www.solutioncitizen.org/leadership-circle | Hello@SolutionCitizen.org
U.S. Vice President JD Vance speaks at the 128th Air Refueling Wing Hangar on July 08, 2026, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Vance traveled to Milwaukee to deliver remarks on the Trump administration's anti-fraud initiatives.
MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin– Vice President J.D. Vance visited Milwaukee on July 8 to promote the Trump administration’s crackdown on fraud at the state and federal levels in programs like Medicare and SNAP.
Speaking inside an aircraft hangar at the Wisconsin Air National Guard’s 128th Air Refueling Wing, in front of a banner reading “Protect Taxpayer Dollars,” Vance cast the anti‑fraud efforts to protect both taxpayers and the programs themselves.
“We’re here to talk about fraud, we’re here to talk about protecting your taxpayer money, and most importantly, we’re here to talk about protecting the programs that exist that are funded by the generosity of the people in this room and that ought to go to the people they’re meant for, and not to make fraudsters rich,” Vance said.
During his speech, the vice president pointed to Milwaukee as an example, highlighting the case of Markita Barnes, a Milwaukee woman convicted of stealing more than $2.3 million through Medicaid fraud tied to prenatal care and sentenced earlier this year. Barnes was first indicted in 2023, during the Biden administration.
Vance also highlighted the administration’s efforts to crack down on suspicious medical equipment billing and skin‑graft reimbursements and announced new investigations into alleged fraud in the H‑1B visa program, arguing that “American jobs ought to go to American workers and not foreign fraudsters.”
Vance was joined by Dr. Mehmet Oz, who heads the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, along with several Republican candidates for office, including U.S. Reps. Bryan Steil and Derrick Van Orden, as well as Tom Tiffany, the GOP nominee for governor.
In his speech, Tiffany said he would “root out fraud” and promised to audit the entire government if elected governor. He called on Tony Evers to release SNAP benefits enrollment lists, a cry he has repeated since last year.
“We need the other side to stop turning a blind eye to this fraud that’s going on in Wisconsin,” Tiffany said
When asked by a local reporter what would happen if Evers did not turn over the SNAP rolls, Vance said it showed where Evers’ allegiance lay.
“He cares more about protecting illegal aliens than he does the good citizens of Wisconsin. It’s a scam, and it has to stop,” Vance said.
Evers spokesperson Britt Cudaback did not address the vice president’s remarks but attacked presumptive GOP gubernatorial nominee Tom Tiffany for saying that there would be “zero fraud” under his administration.
“Newsflash: ‘all of state government’ is already ‘audited’ by the Legislative Audit Bureau as overseen by the Republican-controlled Legislature, which you would think someone who wants to run state government should already know,” Cudaback wrote on X.
While Republicans focus on tightening eligibility for public benefits, the numbers behind FoodShare show how many Wisconsinites rely on the program.
SNAP, or FoodShare in Wisconsin, provides benefits to US citizens and qualified immigrants with incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. In March 2026, 653,721 Wisconsinites received FoodShare benefits, or about 11% of the population. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, more than 60% of SNAP participants are families with children. Although it is a federally funded program, there is no legal requirement for state governments to share the information of SNAP enrollees.
In 2025, under Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” the federal government created new restrictions on SNAP benefits for refugees, asylees and other legally present immigrants. The restrictions took effect in Wisconsin on July 1. Under the new rules, only refugees and asylees who have obtained green cards remain eligible for benefits.
According to reporting by Wisconsin Watch, these changes are putting pressure on Wisconsin refugee support organizations and food banks, which worry affected families won’t be able to make up the gap between lost benefits and the help they can provide.
In his speech, Vance cast the Trump administration’s approach as a necessary tool to ensure those most in need receive benefits, warning that “when… money that ought by rights go to feed poor children, but instead goes to fraudsters, we destroy the social fabric of the United States of America.” But in Wisconsin, eligibility for programs like SNAP is shrinking, leaving many families in need without access.
Abbey Osborn is a journalist based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
