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 2,201 bills so far this session, with 580 bills that tighten voter access or election administration and 1,054 bills that expand the rules. The rest are neutral, mixed or unclear in their impact.
If it seems like Wisconsin courts are continuously pulled into lawsuits over election laws, it’s because they are. There’s yet another lawsuit in the Badger State, and this one seeks to prohibit voters from intentionally canceling their returned mail ballots before Election Day.
Elsewhere, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed several bills last week, including new laws that will require the placement of drop boxes on state university campuses, protect election workers, improve bilingual poll worker recruitment, and improve voter list maintenance. The Michigan Legislature passed a bill that would allow election officials to start processing mail ballots prior to Election Day. A federal court blocked enforcement of a new Arizona law, finding that it violates the National Voter Registration Act and is likely unconstitutionally vague. A Pennsylvania court ruled that counties may allow voters to correct errors on their mail ballot envelopes. And, finally, in Montana, a trial court declared new voting restrictions unconstitutional, permanently enjoining their enforcement.
Here are the details:
California enacts four laws to improve voter access. Newsom signed four bills into law last Monday. Collectively, they will improve bilingual poll worker recruitment, place ballot drop boxes on state university campuses if school is in session during the election, protect election workers by enabling them to keep their identities and addresses confidential, and ensure voters are notified before their registrations are canceled, while improving the cancellation and restoration process for mentally incapacitated voters.
Michigan Legislature passes an election reform package, including a bill to allow clerks to start processing ballots before Election Day. On Wednesday, both chambers of the Legislature passed a package of four election bills by nearly unanimous votes. H.B. 4491 will allow clerks in jurisdictions with at least 10,000 residents to begin processing and verifying absentee ballots two days before Election Day. The bill also ensures that people who have died are removed from the voter registration list and clarifies rules about drop boxes. H.B. 6071 ensures polling places are not located in buildings owned by candidates and allows clerks to use central polling places that consolidate up to six precincts when it is convenient for voters. S.B. 311 and S.B. 8 allow active duty servicemembers to return ballots electronically beginning in 2024. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is expected to sign the package in time for the mail voting and polling place provisions to take effect for November’s election.
Federal court blocks enforcement of Arizona voter registration cancellation provisions. Last week, a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction that blocks the enforcement of two provisions of S.B. 1260, which passed earlier this year. One blocked provision would have required election officials to cancel voter registration in a manner that the court found violates the National Voter Registration Act. The other would have created a new felony that plaintiffs contend is unconstitutionally vague. Attorney General Mark Brnovich has appealed the ruling on behalf of the state. This injunction comes on the heels of a stipulation signed last month, in which the Arizona secretary of state agreed not to enforce a different voter purge law being challenged, H.B. 2243, which would require election officials to cancel registrations of voters whom they “have reason to believe” are not citizens.
Pennsylvania court allows counties to give voters an opportunity to fix errors on their mail ballot envelopes. Early last month, several national and state Republican groups filed a petition in Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court (an intermediate appellate court) seeking to prevent county officials from notifying voters about minor errors on mail ballot return envelopes and giving them an opportunity to correct (or “cure”) the issue. The Pennsylvania Code neither explicitly authorizes or prohibits counties from providing these options. On Thursday, the court denied the petition, rejecting the petitioners’ argument that counties may not implement procedures unless they are explicitly authorized by the General Assembly.
Montana trial court declares new restrictions unconstitutional. A Montana trial court declared Friday that three laws passed in 2021 cannot be enforced because they violate provisions of the state’s Constitution. H.B. 176 would have eliminated Election Day registration. S.B. 169 would have limited the types of IDs voters could use for registration and identification at polling locations. The blocked portion of H.B. 530 would have prohibited individuals from helping voters return their mail ballots. The court issued this permanent injunction a little more than a week after the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the preliminary injunction in the case.
New Wisconsin lawsuits aim to prevent mail voters from spoiling their ballots and seek clarity on witness address requirements. Under current law, Wisconsin voters who return their absentee ballot, but then realize they made a mistake or changed their mind about how they wish to vote, may spoil their ballot before Election Day and return a new one. A new lawsuit seeks to end this practice, asserting that the Wisconsin Election Commission guidance describing it is illegal. The suit is brought by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, which has successfully sued to prohibit a number of voter access policies, including drop boxes and ballot return by family and friends.
Another lawsuit won by WILL prevents clerks from adding accurate witness address details to voters’ ballot certificates to enable the ballots to be counted. The same lawsuit also invalidated the definition of what constitutes a witness address. As a result, two new lawsuits seek clarity on what level of detail is required for a mail ballot to be counted. For example, whether a ballot should be counted or rejected if the municipality is included but the ZIP code is missing.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.