Since last year's election, state legislatures have been advancing changes to voting and election rules along one of two divergent paths. Democrats are seeking expansions, like no-excuse absentee voting, while Republicans are pushing for increased security measures, like voter ID requirements.
In much of the country, one side can easily have its way without even attempting to reach across the aisle because one party controls both the legislature and the governorship. And in the 12 states with divided governments, too often there is contention rather than compromise.
Some purple states, like Kentucky and Vermont, have leaned into compromise and enacted bipartisan election reforms. But in other states, like Pennsylvania, partisan infighting is overriding any potential for collaboration.
Last week, Republican lawmakers in Pennsylvania passed a sweeping election overhaul through both legislative chambers. The measure includes provisions that have bipartisan support, such as expanded in-person early voting. But it would also mandate some form of voter ID and set tighter deadlines for absentee voting, which Democrats say would be burdensome for voters.
Democratic Gov. Tom Wolfe has promised to veto the bill, so Republicans are now pivoting to a new plan. They want to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, asking voters whether an ID should be required to cast a ballot.
A June poll conducted by Franklin and Marshall College found that nearly three-quarters of Pennsylvanians favored a photo ID requirement at the polls. Republicans were overwhelmingly in favor of this reform (95 percent). A majority of independents were also supportive (77 percent). But most Democrats don't want a photo ID requirement; only 47 percent of them were in favor. The survey of 444 registered Pennsylvania voters was conducted June 7-13. The margin of error was 6.4 percentage points.
Most states with voter ID laws have policies in place to ensure election integrity while still giving voters flexibility, Liz Avore, vice president of law and policy at the Voting Rights Lab, wrote in a recent post about a proposed national voter ID law.
If Congress were to draft such a measure, it should take two things into consideration, she said. First, voters should be allowed to prove their identity through a variety of documents, such as utility bills, bank statements or paychecks. And secondly, election officials need to be able to verify a person's identity in case they do not have the necessary documents with them when trying to vote. Verification can be done using information such as date of birth, mother's maiden name or the last four digits of their Social Security number.
While efforts to reform voting rules in many states and Congress have stalled due to partisan disagreements, there are some states where collaborative progress is being made.
In April, Kentucky made early in-person voting a permanent fixture in its elections, after temporarily allowing it in 2020. The measure passed with near unanimous bipartisan support in the GOP-majority General Assembly before being signed by Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear.
Earlier this month, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, signed into law a measure that mandates automatically sending every registered voter an absentee ballot for statewide general elections. The legislation garnered bipartisan approval in the General Assembly.
Also this month, Maine lawmakers advanced a bill that would allow voters not registered with a major party to cast a ballot in a primary election.
These advancements, in addition to being bipartisan, were also innovative in ways that were best for each state and its election system, said Audrey Kline, national policy director at the National Vote at Home Institute.
"There are definitely ways that we're seeing election policy headed in opposite directions, but there are definitely these other areas ... that really do have a lot of bipartisan agreement and that we can move forward on expanding access in those policy areas," Avore said.
Kline and Avore both identified some ways states can both bolster security without hindering voter access. For instance, states could:
- Implement electronic monitoring of drop boxes.
- Create signature verification systems for absentee ballots.
- Give election officials more time to process and count absentee ballots before Election Day.
- Establish a ballot tracking system.
- Ensure a paper trail for all ballots.
"We believe that all of these things tie together to create a real system that is safe, fair and accessible," Kline said. "But it does take commitment. You have to commit political capital, you have to commit actual capital. It does cost money if you want to do it really well."




















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.