Baumel is a policy analyst with The New Center.
America is in the midst of a war over voting with no end in sight. But the fight is about a lot more than former President Donald Trump's false charges about the 2020 election.
With COVID-19 came extraordinary changes to how we registered, how we voted, how the votes were counted, and which officials held the power to set election procedures and litigate election disputes. Should these measures be considered the new normal moving forward? Should we revert back to the pre-pandemic status quo? Or should we opt for something in between?
These are the questions that really need to be answered to finally bring peace to our voting war.
It won't be easy because voters are inhabiting two separate realities when it comes to their views on voting. A recent Quinnipiac poll asked voters to identify their biggest concerns about voting and found 82 percent of Republicans most concerned about voter fraud and 84 percent of Democrats most concerned about voter suppression.
Right now, everyone thinks the worst of partisans on the other side, which means facts or the particulars of voting reform proposals don't matter. What matters most is the widespread belief on each side that the other side has ulterior motives for what they are doing.
Can you blame people for feeling this way?
Right now, Republican-led state legislatures across America are pushing voting and election reform measures with zero support from Democrats. Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress have been pushing their own voting reforms — like the federal For the People Act — without any Republican support.
Anyone interested in ending these hyperpartisan voting wars — whether at the state level or in Washington—should start by looking to the following five solutions.
1. Keep it simple.
According to MIT's Survey of Performance of American Elections, a voter will trust the system if it's easy to find the polling place, the line is short, the equipment works, and the ballot instructions are clear — even if the voter's preferred candidate doesn't win. Adding polling places in densely populated areas, keeping equipment updated, avoiding complicated voting procedures, and erring on the side of overcommunication with voters prior to an election are all easy ways to enhance trust.
States should also put in deadlines — at least three to six months out from an election — for when election procedures can be changed to prevent confusion among voters about the implications of late-breaking voting rules.
2. Results by midnight on election night whenever possible.
Delays in reporting election results create a vacuum that gets filled by conspiracy theories. That's why legislatures and voting officials should do everything they can to declare winners on election night — and by the morning after the election at the latest. Of course, this might not be possible in particularly close races, but there are plenty of common-sense measures, such as absentee ballot pre-canvassing, that can make the count quicker.
3. Don't make early voting too early.
Early voting is an important way to promote voter access and convenience. But while a presidential campaign is a marathon, the last few weeks leading up to Election Day are a sprint, packed with ads, debates and campaign stops as each candidate makes their final push to persuade and turn out voters.
However, in some states, people are voting before the campaign sprint even starts, with early voting periods beginning up to 46 days before Election Day. States should aim to strike a balance by allowing for an early voting period that begins no more than two weeks prior to the election.
4. Make it easier to vote in person.
Absentee and mail ballots have historically been safe and secure ways for people to vote, and there's nothing wrong with states making this option easily accessible, provided they have the proper safeguards to verify identity and prevent abuses like ballot harvesting. But Americans also tend to trust in-person voting more, and that's an important fact in this new age of mistrust. That's why Congress should make Election Day a national holiday to make it easier to get to the polls.
5. Mandate voter ID ... and make it easier to get one.
A June 2021 poll from Monmouth University found that 80 percent of Americans support photo ID requirements and only 18 percent oppose them.
But here's the problem: Some states only accept government-issued photo IDs and some voters — the elderly, low-income people, people of color, or those living in rural areas — might face extra difficulty when it comes to traveling or paying the fees necessary to get such an ID.
States can promote access and integrity by making voter ID laws universal, but also making it much easier for people to meet ID requirements. This can involve accepting a wider range of photo IDs or simplifying the process of obtaining a government-issued photo ID.
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.