Some of the most important expansions of ballot access in 2020 are very likely to be in Pennsylvania, one of the biggest of the tossup states where the presidency could get decided next year.
Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf and the Republicans in charge of the General Assembly reached a deal this week on a legislative package that would smooth access to the polls in four ways starting with the primaries in April, which may provide a turning point in the Democratic presidential contest.
An even bigger impact could come in the fall, when Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes will be central to the strategies of both nominees and turnout will be all-important. After backing the Democrat in six straight elections, the state went to President Trump in 2016 by less than a percentage point — a gap of 44,000 votes out of more than 6 million cast.
But the bill, which is on course for approval in Harrisburg in coming days, would provide no democracy reform panacea in the nation's fifth most populous state. Instead, it is being described by its proponents as propelling Pennsylvania from the back of the pack into the top half of the states when it comes to ease of voting.
"These are really good reforms, and they will bring us more in line with 20th century voting. Not even the 21st century. It's a step in the right direction," said Democratic state Sen. Lisa Boscola, a prime negotiator of the legislation. "We haven't had any changes to our voting laws, our election laws, in decades."
"It's clear improvement on the whole to the process, sort of maybe revolutionary only by Pennsylvania standards," David Thornburgh, who runs a "good government" group in the state called the Committee of Seventy, told the Philadelphia Inquirer. "On the Richter scale of change, it's not a nine."
In addition to making it easier for Pennsylvania to vote, the package would provide $90 million for purchasing new paper-based voting machines to replace the electronic equipment now in use across the state. Still, it would take a generous portion of the federal election security grant pool now being considered in Congress, and for that money to be appropriated relatively quickly, for the state to have what it needs (about $150 million) to deliver to all 67 counties the hacking-resistant, auditable machines that security experts say should be the standard.
The big win in the bargain for Republicans legislators was their top wish for bettering democracy: removing Pennsylvania from the dwindling list of states (just eight now) that will permit straight-ticket voting next year.
Republicans say allowing voters to make a single selection endorsing all of one political party's candidates on the ballot is a deterrent to having the electorate become educated on all their choices, a punishment for lesser-known candidates and an improper reward for party bosses.
Democrats and most good-government groups disagree and point to research showing straight-party voting boosts turnout, especially in urban areas and other places where too few voting machines mean long and discouraging wait times.
The biggest changes to voting that would be created if the bill becomes law:
- Allowing any voter to request an absentee ballot and use it to vote by mail without providing a reason. The state is currently among 19 that require voters to justify why they cannot go to the polls on Election Day.
- Extending the deadline for returning an absentee ballot to when the polls close on Election Day, four days later than now. Critics say the current Friday-before-Election-Day cutoff is one reason why Pennsylvania has one of the highest rates of absentee ballot rejections in the country.
- Permitting voters to be placed on a list for receiving an absentee ballot indefinitely, so they may always vote early and by mail. Six states and the District of Columbia allow this for all voters; 11 others allow it for the elderly or disabled.
- Setting a voter registration deadline of 15 days before an election, instead of 30 days. The state and five others now have registration deadlines a month before the polls close. The change would put Pennsylvania among six states that allow voters to register within two and a half weeks of Election Day, but negotiators decided against proposals to add the state to the roster of 19 with same-day registration.
Also abandoned in the talks were proposals for adding Pennsylvania to the roster of 16 states that automatically register eligible voters when they interact with state agencies such as the motor vehicle bureau; turning the drawing of political boundaries over to an independent panel; and opening primaries to independent and third-party voters.
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.