While much of the country's election reform legislation has been rife with partisanship, Vermont is bucking that trend.
Republican Gov. Phil Scott signed into law on Monday a measure that will automatically send Vermont's 495,000 registered voters a mail-in ballot ahead of statewide general elections. The General Assembly approved the legislation on a bipartisan basis last month.
Vermont's collaborative effort to expand voting access stands in stark relief from other states in which Democrats and Republicans are pushing opposing agendas. Following the 2020 election, Democrats have largely advocated for voting easements, whereas Republicans have backed restrictive measures.
Last year, Vermont was one of a handful of states that decided to mail every voter a ballot to make participating in the election easier and safer amid the Covid-19 pandemic. As a result, nearly three-quarters of all registered voters in the state cast a ballot in the 2020 election, and most of them did so early or by mail.
Because the temporary expansion was so popular, state lawmakers decided to make it permanent. The newly enacted law will also give voters the opportunity to "cure," or fix, any mistakes with their ballot, such as a missing signature.
During last year's pandemic-era election, California, Nevada, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., also decided to mail every voter a ballot for that election. Additionally, Montana gave discretion to its 56 counties, most of which decided to proactively mail voters a ballot. Five more states already conducted their elections primarily by mail before the pandemic: Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington.
Like Vermont, Nevada also recently decided to make its temporary vote-by-mail expansion permanent. Last week, Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak signed into law a measure that requires voters to opt out of, rather than opt in to, receiving a mail ballot.
National Conference of State Legislatures
In a statement Monday, Scott said he signed the bill because "I believe making sure voting is easy and accessible, and increasing voter participation, is important."
But the governor added that this vote-by-mail expansion should not be limited to just general elections, which already have the highest voter turnout. Scott asked the General Assembly, when it reconvenes in January, to extend the bill's scope to include primary and local elections, as well as school budget votes.
Scott's support for expanding vote by mail access is significant considering several Republican-led states are seeing the exact opposite. In Florida, Georgia and Texas, GOP lawmakers and governors are working to roll back mail voting and impose new, stricter rules. Thus far, Kentucky is the only state with a Republican-controlled legislature that has approved voting expansions.
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.