This weekly update summarzing 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 2,430 bills so far this session, with 565 bills that tighten the rules governing voter access or election administration and 1,086 bills that expand the rules.
Leading the news was Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey’s signing into law that legislation requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration. Elsewhere, the New Hampshire Senate passed legislation that would make its voter ID law much stricter but a North Carolina judicial panel ruled that citizens must be allowed to vote upon release from prison. And a federal judge in Florida ruled against some voting restrictions in S.B. 90, citing sections as “unconstitutional and racially motivated.”
Looking ahead: All eyes are on Georgia this week to see if S.B. 89 – the new vehicle for provisions impacting election administration – passes out of the legislature.
Here are the details:
Georgia elections bills see last-minute scramble in final days of legislative session. After the Senate Ethics Committee voted unanimously last week to reduce the House version of the elections omnibus, the House is now attempting to revive a number of the stricken provisions on the final day of legislative session by attaching them to S.B. 89. The House proposal would give the Georgia Bureau of Investigation authority to initiate elections investigations, allow for public inspection of ballots following certification, and impose new chain of custody requirements on county election officials. The bill was amended and referred out of the House Special Committee on Election Integrity on Monday morning, and must be passed by both chambers before the end of the day to be sent to Gov. Brian Kemp.
The Arizona governor signed a documental proof of citizenship requirement into law, and two lawsuits swiftly followed. Two lawsuits were filed within 24 hours of the enactment of legislation requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voting registration. The new law would not allow people to vote in presidential elections, or in any elections by mail, unless election officials confirmed the person’s citizenship through documentation provided by the voter or an existing database. Similar requirements have been found unconstitutional in Kansas, Georgia and Alabama. Amid growing concerns (paywall) about how H.B. 2492 will impact voters already registered, Ducey used his signing statement to reject a more extreme interpretation of the bill that would require voters who registered prior to 2004 to provide proof of citizenship or risk being kicked off the voter rolls.
New Hampshire advances strict voter ID legislation. Legislation passed the New Hampshire Senate last week that would make the state voter ID law more restrictive. Current New Hampshire law allows voters without ID to cast a regular ballot if they complete an affidavit affirming their identity, under penalty of perjury. The bill would eliminate that alternative, and instead rescind their vote from the count if they are unable to show an ID within 10 days of the election. Most states with voter ID laws offer an alternative to ensure the identity of voters without ID can be verified through other means. This new bill would put New Hampshire in the minority.
Federal judge rules that parts of Florida’s new election law are unconstitutional. A federal judge in Florida ruled that sections of the state’s sweeping voting legislation passed last year are unconstitutional and racially motivated. The ruling blocked the implementation of some of the bill’s restrictions on drop boxes, voter registration and line warming. The ruling also requires that the state obtain federal court approval for the next 10 years before making any new changes to these policies. This ruling will almost certainly be appealed to the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
North Carolina Superior Court panel rules that citizens must be allowed to vote upon release from prison. A Superior Court panel ruled that North Carolina’s law prohibiting voting by people with past felony convictions violates the state Constitution. This ruling reverses a state law that prohibits voting by citizens with past felony convictions while they are on probation, parole or post-release supervision. While Republican lawmakers intend to appeal the ruling, this decision could expand access to more than 56,000 voters in the state.
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.