Benson is Michigan's secretary of state and Underwood, a fellow Democrat, is a congresswoman from Illinois. Firestone and Palfrey are attorneys with the Voter Protection Corps.
After a series of deeply disrupted spring elections, it's clear that Covid-19 is the latest threat to voting rights in America. Many advocates and election officials, ourselves included, are working to expand vote-by-mail, which reduces risks of transmission of the coronavirus and can increase turnout. In recent primaries, mail-in voting rates have skyrocketed by 10 or even 20 times.
But protecting the November election requires an all-of-the-above approach that keeps polling places open. If we fail to act, we will disenfranchise the same Americans historically excluded from voting.
In the last presidential election, three-quarters of all Americans who cast a ballot — nearly 110 million people — did so in person at an early voting site or on Election Day. Members of historically marginalized groups voted in person at even higher rates. In a 2018 census report, Black Americans were the most likely racial group tracked to participate in in-person voting, at 88 percent, and the least likely to vote through the mail. Native Americans, younger voters with less stable mailing addresses, the homeless, voters with disabilities and those who need language assistance all use in-person voting more heavily.
Unfortunately, in primary after primary this spring, election officials have restricted or interfered with in-person voting, particularly in urban areas.
For Wisconsin's primary, Milwaukee slashed the number of polling locations open April 7 down to just five — down from 180. While turnout across the rest of the state dropped 4 percent from the 2016 presidential primary, turnout in the state's largest city dropped 37 percent.
Before Pennsylvania's primary June 2, Philadelphia eliminated 600 voting sites, citing poll worker shortages. A curfew that cut into voting hours was lifted only hours before polls opened. Turnout in the city dropped by 30 percent compared to 2016, six times the rate across the rest of the state.
During the April 9 primary in Georgia, thousands of voters in Atlanta were forced to wait in hours-long lines. Two weeks later in Kentucky, election officials opened just one in-person location in each county, causing concern about the potential for long lines impacting citizens voting in person especially in Louisville and Lexington, the state's most urban and diverse places.
Without preparation, we'll see the same dysfunction play out across the country 13 weeks from now. To ensure that voters are protected this fall, state and local officials must prepare now. Here are the most important four steps to take.
Keep neighborhood polling locations open. Closing polls creates longer lines, bigger crowds and higher risks. Officials should commit not to close polls and consolidate voting, which disproportionately impacts voters in urban areas. The vast majority of the country's Election Day voting places are multi-functional locations and the majority are controlled by local governments.
Election officials should begin planning now to reconfigure or relocate these locations and ensure all have access to cleaning supplies, hand sanitizer and protective materials. States and localities should also expand curbside voting, allowing voters in need to stay in their cars.
Recruit, train and protect new poll workers. This is a watershed moment to invite new generations to fill a critical civic role, including some of the millions of Americans who have joined peaceful protests. But we have to start asking now.
This spring, the coronavirus led to massive shortages of poll workers, and a 2017 report found that most jurisdictions already struggled to recruit the workers needed. In the last presidential election, more than half of the country's 918,000 poll workers were older than 60. Election officials need to create simple online sign-up portals for volunteers and expanded partnerships, like Adopt-a-Precinct, that allow businesses and nonprofits to recruit. Schools should allow high school and college students to take the day off to serve. Jurisdictions should relax or eliminate service requirements that bar otherwise qualified individuals. Poll workers need to be properly trained and provided with protective equipment.
Expand early voting. A straightforward way to protect in-person voting is to spread out the period of time when voters can cast their ballots. In 40 states, voters may already vote early, but the days and hours vary widely. Wherever possible, state and counties should expand early voting to include multiple weeks in October.
To accommodate working Americans, local jurisdictions should expand voting into evening hours and, to the greatest extent possible, allow early voting on both Saturday and Sunday in the final weekends before Election Day. In urban areas, communities should demand early voting sites in neighborhoods — not just central, downtown locations. Rural officials should also look closely at how best to ensure broad access.
Communicate clearly and repeatedly that voting is safe. Elected officials and voting rights groups must repeatedly assure the public that voting will be safe and secure. We've already seen Covid-19 weaponized as this year's voter suppression tactic of choice. Failure to clearly communicate will undermine public confidence and leave the door open to disinformation.
As America prepares for national elections in the middle of a pandemic, the strength of our democracy will be measured by how well we uphold the voting rights of the vulnerable. Do we allow the coronavirus to deepen existing disparities in voter turnout or do we plan and prepare to include everyone? To help ensure that all jurisdictions can afford to run a safe election, Congress should approve the $3.6 billion in aid that has already passed the House.
By acting now, in communities across the country, we can disrupt old patterns of disenfranchisement and make our elections more fair and free.



















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.