Mail and early voting practices were expanded and widely used during the 2020 election, to mitigate exposure to Covid-19, and since then they've been a main focus of states' election overhauls. A recent report provides a comprehensive look at the ways these voting methods have changed.
On Wednesday, the Campaign Legal Center released a 40-page report analyzing the modifications to vote-by-mail and early voting practices states have made so far this year. The report focuses on the 39 states that had completed their legislative sessions by the end of June.
The nonpartisan nonprofit graded each state based on its existing voting laws and the changes it made this year, if any, and then grouped states into three categories: least restrictive, restrictive and most restrictive. The scorecard is meant to show what provisions states may have that promote voting access, but it is not intended to be reflective of states' election systems overall.
The Campaign Legal Center graded states based on whether they offered 10 voting practices:
- No-excuse absentee voting.
- A permanent mail voting list.
- Permission for election officials to send voters unsolicited mail ballot applications.
- A uniform mail ballot notice and cure process.
- No requirement for a state-issued driver license or ID to vote by mail.
- Acceptance of mail ballots postmarked on or before Election Day and received up to 10 days after Election Day.
- At least two weeks of early in-person voting.
- Online mail ballot tracking.
- Ballot drop boxes.
- Allowance for voters to cast ballots by mail without notary or enhanced witness requirements.
Just two states — Illinois and Washington — checked all 10 boxes. Washington already employed all 10 practices, whereas Illinois adopted several of them this year. Conversely, Alabama received the worst grade out of the 39 states, notching just two checkmarks.
Most states (15) fell into the middle, "restrictive" category, meaning they checked six or seven boxes. Thirteen states offered eight or more of these voting practices and were deemed "least restrictive," while 11 states had five or less and were labeled "most restrictive."
This legislative session, nine states made changes to their voting rules in ways that met CLC's expectations, which earned them a higher score in the report: Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia and Utah. However, seven states made changes downgrading their scores: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa and Louisiana.
The Campaign Legal Center notes that it judged states by the existence of certain vote-by-mail and early voting policies, but not by the efficacy of those policies. Even if the policy looks good on paper, it could still result in substantial burdens on certain groups voters.
"Voters of color across the country fall victim to laws of general applicability that do not address the unique burdens they face, such as limited mailing access and distant — or nonexistent — early voting locations in their communities," the report says. "Many of these states still have much work to do to promote the freedom to vote for all voters despite their relatively high grades."
For instance, many of the states that received high grades for their expansive vote-by-mail policies have large Native American populations who lack adequate access to mailboxes, post offices, mailing addresses and transportation.
And in the places where mail voting rules were tightened, Black voters were disproportionately impacted. Three states with some of the largest Black populations in the country rolled back their vote-by-mail policies: Alabama (28 percent Black), Georgia (33 percent Black) and Louisiana (33 percent Black).
Lack of voter education about recent voting changes is also a significant problem, said Aklima Khondoker, chief legal officer at the New Georgia Project, which partnered with the Campaign Legal Center on this report.
"On a very real level in the state of Georgia we have widespread voter confusion, not only to our voters but our boards of elections and the way that they conduct their elections," Khondoker said. "We have our underserved and underseen communities — our youth voters, our disabled voters — who now have additional worry when it comes to casting their ballots because there is no comprehensive voter education available to them."
Many of these issues, the report notes, would be ameliorated by federal legislation, namely the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
Nearly every state included in the report would have laws preempted by the sweeping election reform provisions included in the For the People Act. And 11 states would likely be subject to preclearance — meaning their election laws would need advance approval from the Justice Department — if the VRAA was enacted.
While House Democrats passed the For the People Act in March, its progress has stalled in the Senate. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said late Tuesday that a revised version of the legislation would be voted on in mid-September, when the Senate returns from recess. However, it's likely to still face opposition from the GOP, which can block the bill through a filibuster. And the VRAA has yet to be introduced in this Congress, although Democrats have signaled it is a priority.
"Federal intervention would have succeeded in preventing dozens of states from passing laws this year that severely curtail millions of Americans' freedom to vote. Voting rights legislation must be passed urgently by Congress when they return from recess before more damage is done," said Caleb Jackson, legal counsel for voting rights at the Campaign Legal Center and a co-author of the report. "Our democracy works best when all voters are able to exercise the freedom to vote in safe and accessible elections."
Beyond congressional action, there are still ways the federal government can promote voting access. In March, President Biden issued an executive order asking agencies to evaluate how they can, within their purview of the law, encourage voter registration and participation. As the deadline for agencies to submit their plans approaches, the CLC has provided guidance on best practices for promoting voter access.




















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.