Despite more Americans than ever opting to vote by mail in the 2020 election, a comprehensive government report found no significant increase in ballot rejections — refuting former President Donald Trump's claim that mail voting was more susceptible to fraud.
Since 2004, the Election Assistance Commission has conducted extensive biennial surveys of how Americans voted and states conducted their federal elections. The surveys also collect information about election laws, policies and practices in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the five U.S. territories.
The 252-page report on last year's election, released Monday, provides a detailed look into how voting and election administration were impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. The Fulcrum will break down the findings in two parts. This first installment focuses on a general election overview, as well as how state policies changed during the pandemic. And a forthcoming article will examine on voter registration and military and overseas voters.
The EAC survey confirmed last year's record-high voter turnout of 67.7 percent of citizens who are of voting age — an increase of nearly 7 percentage points from 2016. Every state and territory reported an increase in voter participation, except Puerto Rico, which saw turnout drop by 9 points. Utah saw the most improvement from 2016, jumping up 15 points to 72 percent turnout in 2020.
And along with this surge in participation, Americans also shifted the way they cast their ballots. Due to safety concerns caused by the coronavirus pandemic, voting by mail overtook in-person voting on Election Day as the most common voting method in 2020. Jurisdictions that eased their policies on mail voting, namely adopting no-excuse absentee voting and conducting all-mail elections, saw more voters use that method.
Trump and his supporters claimed this increase in mail voting would lead to more instances of voter malfeasance. However, the EAC report found that less than 1 percent of mail ballots were rejected, which is on par with the 2016 rejection rate.
The most common reason mail ballots were rejected, the report found, was the voter's signature did not match (33 percent) the signature on file. Other reasons included the voter was not eligible in that jurisdiction, the ballot was missing an affidavit, or another important document or the ballot was otherwise insufficient or compromised.
The pandemic also created a demand for poll workers who were younger and less at risk of illness than the typical elections volunteers, who tend to be 65 or older. The EAC found that, across the country, young people stepped up to meet this need.
While nearly half the poll workers last year were still over the age of 60, states did see significant increases in people under 40 volunteering to work at voting stations. States also reported that recruiting poll workers was less difficult than it was in 2016.
Covid-19 also prompted substantial changes in state voting laws and election procedures last year — some temporary and others leading to permanent adjustments. The EAC asked states to identify the 2020 policies governing voter registration, voter eligibility, modes of voting, and election audits.
Read more: How the 5 most populous states have overhauled their election systems
In addition to election policy changes, states also adapted the machinery used for voting. Checking in voters with electronic poll books has become increasingly popular, but the old-school paper system is still employed in nearly every part of the country. And last year, only 32 jurisdictions (in Indiana, Tennessee and Texas) relied solely on voting machines with no paper backup. Having a paper record of the votes cast bolsters security and makes post-election audits easier to conduct.
EAC Chairman Donald Palmer said the data collected from this report provides important insight on last year's unprecedented, pandemic-era election.
"As election officials, academics and the Congress continue to study and learn from the 2020 elections, the EAVS data will serve as a foundation for analyzing best practices and informing the future of election administration," Palmer said.
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.