Lack of immunity to the coronavirus does not qualify Texans to vote by mail, the state Supreme Court has ruled, while also declaring that voters should be given broad leeway to cite their excuse of choice when applying for an absentee ballot.
That decidedly split decision on Wednesday likely assures continued confusion and combat over voting rights this year in the second-most populous state — and one of the few where the state government is actively fighting calls to ease access to the polls because of the pandemic.
At first glance, the ruling seems to be a clear win for Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, who maintains being physically sick or disabled are the only available health excuses for voting from home — and a loss for Democrats and voting rights groups, who are hoping a big urban and suburban turnout this year will push the state into purple territory after a quarter-century as deeply red.
"We agree with the state that a voter's lack of immunity to Covid-19, without more, is not a 'disability' as defined by the Election Code," Chief Justice Nathan Hecht said in his majority opinion.
The court refused the state's request, however, to compel county election offices to reject mail ballot requests from voters who fear contracting the coronavirus — signaling the people must be trusted to assess their own health and that officials need to rely on an honor system when processing applications.
When checking the disability box on the form, voters are not required to provide any more explanation and county officials are not authorized to investigate further.
"We agree, of course, that a voter can take into consideration aspects of his health and his health history that are physical conditions in deciding whether, under the circumstances, to apply to vote by mail because of disability," the court ruled.
Seven justices signed the majority opinion, and the other two concurred. All of them are Republicans who won statewide elections, and three are on the ballot in November. One of them, Debra Lehrmann, announced last week she has tested positive for Covid-19.
"This 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is a recipe for disaster," election law expert Richard L. Hasen wrote on Slate, because the state is now open to argue that "anyone who advises someone else to claim disability to vote by mail is engaged in a criminal conspiracy to commit voter fraud. Some voters may get in trouble because they could be accused of voting by mail while understanding that it is illegal."
A parallel dispute over the state's absentee voting rules is being fought in federal court. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is reviewing a trial judge's ruling striking down the excuse requirement, saying it's unconstitutional to deny the right to vote to someone because they lack immunity to a disease.
The twin cases are playing out as Texans prepare for primary runoffs in seven weeks. The federal case could make it to the Supreme Court before November, when President Trump is a solid but not prohibitive favorite to secure the state's 38 electoral votes while the Democrats are in the hunt to pick up as many as five House seats.
Paxton nonetheless applauded the court's ruling and signaled he would keep an eye on any surge in requests to vote by mail, an option used by just 7 percent of voters statewide in 2018.
"Election officials have a duty to reject mail-in ballot applications from voters who are not entitled to vote by mail," he said. "In-person voting is the surest way to maintain the integrity of our elections, prevent voter fraud and guarantee that every voter is who they claim to be."
The state Democratic Party chairman, Gilberto Hinojosa, lambasted the court for providing "no guidance to voters about who can vote by mail during a pandemic." In a statement that listed the names of all the state's top jurists, he added: "Make no mistake, if the federal courts don't step in, here is the list of people making you stand in line during the middle of this pandemic."
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.