This story was originally published by Ms.
Reilly is the outreach and communications coordinator for RepresentWomen, a nonpartisan organization advocating for policies that would result in more women holding office.
"Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor; not the learned, more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons [and daughters] of obscurity and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States."
— Federalist No. 57
Despite the rhetorically progressive foundations of the United States, more than 200 years later the U.S. struggles to uphold this quote from James Madison and Alexander Hamilton and many more of the ideals laid down by the founding fathers.
Throughout 2020 and into 2021 — whether it was the continued police brutality against Black men and women, the post hoc attempt to question and disenfranchise votes cast in diverse districts, or the inequitable distribution of the Covid-19 vaccine across the country — a larger and larger swath of the public is beginning to understand what activists have been sounding the alarm about for decades: U.S. democratic institutions are far from fair. And while the U.S. touts being a representative democracy, many individuals and communities remain underrepresented and face increasing obstacles to exercise their right to vote.
With 2020 being largely defined by the crises which continue to wrack American democracy, democratic reformers hope 2021 will be defined by the actions we take to address and correct the pitfalls of our electoral system and the continued disenfranchisement of huge portions of the American population.
And there is no shortage of work to do, since voting rights are still under attack, especially at the state level. Although the 2020 presidential and congressional elections saw some of the largest voter turnout in U.S. history, a February report from the Brennan Center shows 33 states have introduced 165 bills suppressing and restricting the right to vote — up from 35 such bills across 13 states in February of 2020.
As the 117th Congress begins to consider legislation, the voting rights and electoral reform communities have coalesced around bills with growing support both inside Congress and across the country — reforms which "respond directly to Americans' desire for real solutions that ensure that each of us can have a voice in the decisions that govern our lives." Reforms aimed to create a more accessible democracy, which reflects the true diversity of our country.
Voting Rights Reforms to Keep an Eye Out for
These bills have been endorsed by voting rights advocates including the NAACP, the Brennan Center, and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
HR 1: For the People Act
The For the People Act was the very first piece of legislation proposed by the Democratic Party in both chambers — in the House, HR 1, introduced by Rep. John Sarbanes of Maryland, and in the Senate, S 1, introduced by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of Ne York, Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.
Considered"the most important legislation considered by Congress in decades," the has been endorsed by every House Democrat and will go to the floor of the House for a vote in early March. The act includes many reforms to ensure every American can exercise their right to vote and ensure elections are conducted safely and fairly. The act would:
- Expand vote-by-mail and lay out universal standards, including eliminating the need for a notary, witness or ID to vote-by-mail; eliminating the need to submit a reason for a vote-by-mail ballot; and making it easier to obtain and cast mail-in ballots.
- Increase opportunities for voter registration by allowing for online voting registration, automatic voter registration; same-day voter registration; pre-registration for 16 and 17 year olds.
- Put in protections to prevent the purging of voter rolls.
- Restore voting rights to those with past criminal convictions.
- Implement protections against discrimination and partisan gerrymandering.
- Increase election security and authorize election administration funding.
HR 4: John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act
The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act builds upon and expands the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965. The act implements a new preclearance formula, which was stripped from the VRA in the 2015 Shelby v. Holder Supreme Court decision. The act would:
- Expand the time period in which election observers can be sent by the Department of Justice.
- Increase transparency provisions, requiring jurisdictions to provide notice of voting changes within 180 days of federal election and give notice of changes in polling places within 30 days of federal elections.
- Allow for private right to action, expanding what the VRA emphasizes, which was right of action from attorneys general and other election officials.
HR 51: DC Admission Act
The DC Admission Act, introduced by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, currently has 210 co-sponsors in the House, 46 supporters in the Senate and is considered a top priority by both Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Schumer. If passed, the act would enfranchise 712,000 Americans currently living without a vote in Congress.
Electoral Reforms To Keep an Eye Out For
While the above voting reform bills set out to ensure all individuals can exercise their right to vote, the right to vote alone will not cure the systemic underrepresentation many communities continue to face. Electoral reforms including changes to voting systems, district design and the size of the U.S. House would improve the elected representation of women and communities of color.
These reform bills have been endorsed by several electoral reform groups and advocates including RepresentWomen and FairVote.
The Fair Representation Act
The Fair Representation Act sponsored by Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia implements fair representation voting to replace our current winner-take-all system, which favors incumbents, hindering diversity and often leading to a divisive, two-party system. The act would:
- Implement ranked-choice voting for congressional elections, lowering the cost of running for office; incentivizing positive and issue-focused campaigns; allowing for healthy competition by decreasing the incumbency advantage; and improving the diversity of our elected officials.
- Replace the single-member districts currently used for congressional elections with multimember districts. Multimember districts with ranked-choice voting creates a proportional representation system associated with higher diversity of elected officials.
- Expand the size of the House of Representatives. The size of the House was frozen in 1929 at 435 despite the House growing in conjunction with the country every decade since 1787. Increasing the number of open-seats will lead to new voices in government, voices more likely to be younger, more female, and more demographically representative of the United States, according to a study by the Fordham University School of Law.
The Ranked Choice Voting Act
The Ranked Choice Voting Act sponsored by Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democat, requires all House and Senate elections to be conducted with ranked-choice voting, eliminating the need for congressional runoff elections.
The Congress Commission Act
The Congress Commission Act sponsored by Rep. Alcee Hastings, a Florida, Democrat, includes provisions to create a bipartisan commission to analyze the current size of the House, study alternative voting methods to elect the House, and study the impact of gerrymandering.
In support of the bill, RepresentWomen's executive director Cynthia Richie Terrell has said, "Processes like this are increasing the number of women elected to office in the 70 or so countries that rank above the United States in women's representation."
Despite centuries of rhetoric saying otherwise, the U.S. government and electoral systems do not work equally for everyone. Our representative democracy is failing in one critical way, it fails to represent everyone; over-representing cis, white men at the cost of everyone else.
To ensure "the electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States," activists must continue to fight for systemic reforms and structural change and legislators must pass bold legislation designed to protect all American's right to vote and ensure fair and equitable representation for all communities.



















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.