Republicans in Illinois are accusing the state's Democratic governor of seeking to promote election fraud in November.
The allegation is the centerpiece of a lawsuit the Cook County GOP filed in federal court Monday against Gov. J.B. Pritzker. The Chicago Republicans contend the governor, by promoting the use of mail-in voting, is attempting to put as many ballots into play as possible in order to sway the election.
The litigation is a reversal of the normal narrative about courthouse battles over voting this year: Democrats suing GOP state governments for not doing enough to make voting easier during the coronavirus pandemic. It also amplifies President Trump's unfounded allegation that mail voting guarantees widespread election theft.
The suit alleges Pritzker "snuck through" several election easements that invite widespread voter fraud, mainly by allowing ballot applications to be automatically sent to all active voters.
GOP political rights are violated by "a partisan voting scheme that is designed to harvest Democratic ballots, dilute Republican ballots, and, if the election still doesn't turn out the way he wants it, to generate enough Democratic ballots after election day to sway the result," the lawsuit says of the governor.
The nation's fifth most populous state is the most reliably blue piece of the Midwest's electoral map. Its 20 electoral votes are a near lock for Joe Biden, who stands to extend the Democrats' presidential winning streak in the state to eight. So the lawsuit's success would mainly improve GOP prospects in down-ballot contests, including a House race in suburban Chicago, where Republican Rep. Rodney Davis is being vigorously challenged.
Passed in May by the solidly Democratic General Assembly and signed in June, the laws will:
- Deliver vote-by-mail applications to approximately 5 million voters across the state who have cast ballots in recent elections
- Expand voting hours
- Allow for curbside voting
- Designate Election Day a state holiday
Illinois already has one of the most liberal vote-by-mail laws in the country, with no excuse needed to apply for an absentee ballot — which Republicans argue makes the new measures unnecessary.
The suit also takes issue with the deadline for mailed ballots, claiming it contributes to the potential for fraud. Ballots submitted or postmarked by midnight on Election Day will still be counted even if they arrive at election offices two weeks later.
Republicans assert that Illinois is woefully unprepared to expand its vote-by-mail system so drastically, citing the state's 2017 experience establishing automatic voter registration that was fraught with problems. The program mistakenly registered over 500 people who were not U.S. citizens as well as 4,700 ineligible 16-year-olds.
The suit says the new laws do not comport with mail ballot recommendations set by the Postal Service. It recommends voters mail their ballots at least one week before the due date; however, in Illinois eligible voters can still request a ballot until Oct. 29, only three business days before Election Day.
Republicans even go as far as referencing Illinois' joblessness woes, by pointing to the 120,000 cases of unemployment fraud experienced during the coronavirus pandemic as evidence the state is "one of the most inept in the Union and the public has no reason to expect a vote-by-mail system to work any more smoothly than a variety of projects Illinois has stumbled through in recent years."
The lawsuit asks the court to stop the laws from taking effect. It was filed against Pritzker, the State Board of Elections, Cook County Clerk Karen Yarbrough and the Chicago Board of Election commissioners on behalf of the Cook County GOP by the Liberty Justice Center, a conservative legal enterprise.
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.