Even though Democrats’ two signature election reform bills have once again been defeated in the Senate, advocates for change are vowing to press ahead on multiple fronts.
Republicans, as expected, blocked passage of the combined Freedom to Vote Act and John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act on Wednesday night. And Democrats’ effort to change the filibuster went down immediately after, as moderates Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema sided with Republicans in blocking the rules change.
Now some advocates are focusing on a limited set of federal voting reforms while others are taking aim at state and local changes. And a bipartisan group of senators has been discussing a handful of ideas that might be achievable in the 50-50 Senate.
Regardless of the path forward, many advocates seem to agree with RepresentUs CEO Johsua Graham Lynn, who on Wednesday said: “While the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act is the best way to protect America’s democracy in this precarious moment, it’s not the only way.”
A collection of five organizations that represent the left, right and cross-partisan communities released what is perhaps the most concrete proposal for moving forward on Thursday.
The Bipartisan Policy Center, Issue One, Unite America, the R Street and the American Enterprise Institute issued a report, “ Prioritizing Achievable Federal Election Reform,” which proposes policies across four areas: voter registration, casting ballots, vote-counting, and cyber- and physical security.
“The proposals outlined in this report are rooted in a deep history of broad support across the political spectrum, but we will only cross the finish line if Republicans and Democrats are able to set aside partisan differences and do what’s right for our country,” said Issue One CEO Nick Penniman. “We cannot allow inaction to continue. Passing key bipartisan election reforms is absolutely crucial.”
But rather than mandating specific policies, like the Freedom to Vote Act would have done, the report suggests providing grants to states that engage in certain practices, such as:
- Regular maintenance of voter rolls.
- Automatic voter registration.
- Requiring a minimum standard for voter identification.
- Seven-day early voting period.
- Absentee voting options for all voters, with proper security measures.
- Requiring mailed ballots to be received by the time polls close on Election Day.
- Training and security for election workers.
“Elections must be trustworthy, and voting must be convenient,” said Matt Germer, R Street’s resident elections fellow. “This new legislative framework shows how long-standing Republican, Democratic and bipartisan priorities can work in harmony to improve our elections without overbearing federal mandates.”
While other groups also talk about continuing to work for federal reforms, much of their attention will be focused on state and local government in the days ahead.
“Though a path forward on the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act is unclear, we must continue the fight to protect voting rights city by city, state by state, and in the halls of Congress,” Jen Johnson, movement director for RepresentUs, wrote to supporters when inviting them to a strategy session next week.
That strategy includes stepping up what has been a successful series of state and local campaigns to pass anti-corruption and structural reforms, continuing to advocate for federal reforms, and launching a new effort to protect election administration.
“We'll create a countervailing force to the authoritarians/conspiracists in swing states who are trying to take over and ultimately subvert election administration,” said Ross Sherman, a spokesman for RepresentUs. “We are building the kind of deep relational organizing network that has proven to be a winning strategy, paired with recruitment and deployment of military veterans (Count Every Hero), the business community and faith leaders. We are coordinating closely with partners on this work.”
Similarly, the Campaign Legal Center will continue its work, one case at a time.
“Through litigation and work in the states, groups like Campaign Legal Center and our allies have already been scoring wins on multiple fronts in fights against gerrymandering and numerous barriers to voting,” said CLC President Trevor Potter. “Although these wins are mostly incremental, local wins and state work are critical as we push forward.“
Meanwhile, a handful of Republican and Democratic senators have been in talks about a few legislative ideas that could garner bipartisan support. Chief among them would be changes to the Electoral Count Act, which governs the role Congress and the vice president have in the certification of electoral votes.
Some supporters of Donald Trump wanted to take advantage of the bill’s vague language to undermine the process and keep him in office following the 2020 election. It should be nothing more than a ceremonial process, according to David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research.
“It’s most akin to the Oscars,” he explained. “They don't vote on Best Picture at the Oscars. They just open the envelope and annonce who won.”
Becker also backed another issue under discussion in the Senate. “I think we do need to see some protection for election workers,” he said, adding that there should be criminal penalties for offenders.
Meanwhile, for some, the battle for the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is not over.
“Today’s shameful outcome revealed who stands for, and who against democracy,” Derrick Johnson, president and CEO of the NAACP, said Wednesday. “The Voting Rights Act of 1965 took three attempts to pass into law, so we will continue to fight. Anything short of protecting the right to vote is a death sentence for democracy. The fight is far from over.”
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.