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 2,166 bills so far this session, with 577 bills that tighten the rules governing voter access or election administration and 1,028 bills that expand the rules.
In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act, landmark legislation designed to prevent race- and language-based discriminatory election laws and procedures. But in nearby New Hampshire, Gov. Chris Sununu signed a bill that creates a stricter voter ID law and establishes a new system of provisional ballots.
Meanwhile, a New Mexico county narrowly avoided an election crisis after a county commission initially refused to certify 2022 primary results, citing distrust of voting machines. And an Arizona court upheld the applicability of the latest version of the Election Procedures manual to give clarity to voters and election officials for the state's upcoming elections.
Here are the details:
New York enacts its John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act. On Monday June 20, Governor Hochul signed the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York into law. It creates legal protections to prevent race- and language-based discriminatory election laws, rules and practices. In certain instances, it will require that changes to election rules be pre-approved – or precleared – before going into effect, to ensure they will not have a discriminatory impact. The bill also creates private rights of action to facilitate injunctive relief when a law is discriminatory, as well as require all key voting materials to be provided in various languages.
Sununu signs New Hampshire’s strict voter ID bill. Previously, New Hampshire law allowed voters without physical ID to cast a regular ballot if they completed an affidavit affirming their identity, under penalty of perjury. S.B. 418, which was signed into law last week, eliminates that alternative, and instead rescinds 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 puts New Hampshire in the minority.
Arizona judge affirms that the 2019 Election Procedures Manual will apply in 2022. On Friday, a trial court judge ruled against a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Mark Brnovich attempting to either rewrite the 2019 version of the EPM, which governs many aspects of Arizona elections including drop box security and signature verification, or to have it ruled inapplicable to elections in 2022. Brnovich brought the suit against Secretary of State Katie Hobbs several months after the two were unable to agree on the 2021 version of the EPM Hobbs proposed in the fall of last year. The court cited Brnovich’s delay in filing the suit and the approaching primary elections (Arizona’s state primary is on Aug. 2) among the considerations in ruling against the attorney general.
New Mexico narrowly avoids an election crisis. Otero County chose to certify its election results on the state deadline after initially refusing to do so out of distrust for the Dominion voting equipment used to tabulate the ballots. After the New Mexico Supreme Court ordered the county to certify and Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver asked the attorney general to launch a criminal investigation into the commission, the commission voted 2-1 to certify. County Commissioner Couy Griffin, who is also awaiting sentencing for his Jan. 6, 2021, trespassing conviction, voted against certification. Although all 33 counties voted to certify their results, activists berated officials in some counties, seeking to block certification.
Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.