Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Fair maps advocates sound the alarm over gerrymandering in three states

Anti-gerrymandering sign

Fair maps advocates are raising concerns over several states lacking transparency in the redistricting process.

Bill Clark/Getty Images

With the 2021 redistricting cycle in full swing, one-third of the country has already solidified some of its new state and federal districts for the next decade.

Sixteen states have completed at least one redistricting plan so far, with 11 of them finalizing maps for both Congress and the state legislature (setting aside states with one congressional district). But the mapmaking process is far from over due to several legal challenges already filed against states for potential voting rights violations.

Fair maps advocates are raising the alarm over a lack of transparency and particularly egregious redistricting plans in North Carolina, Ohio and Texas — three states with a history of partisan gerrymandering.


Advocates say that these such instances of partisan gerrymandering could be thwarted if Congress were to pass the Freedom to Vote Act, a broad electoral reform bill. But Republicans have used filibusters to block the legislation from moving forward.

"This redistricting cycle is not yet over. There is still time to salvage the next decade of elections for millions of Americans. The Freedom to Vote Act provides the tools voters need right now to secure national redistricting reform that puts power back in the hands of the people, where it belongs," said Kathay Feng, national redistricting director at Common Cause.

North Carolina

The North Carolina Legislature has finalized its maps for the state House, the state Senate and Congress. All three plans have received failing grades from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project for significantly advantaging Republicans.

Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause North Carolina, said during a press call that his organization is concerned these maps will harm minority voters and make it harder for Black lawmakers to be re-elected.

"We have 36 African American lawmakers in the General Assembly and by the way these maps have been drawn, 25 percent of these folks may not come back," Phillips said. "We care about the process, not the outcome, but I'm just stating, factually, what the outcome is."

Additionally, there was a lack of transparency throughout the redistricting process, Phillips noted. None of the public meetings were livestreamed by the government so Common Cause North Carolina recorded them instead. It was also difficult to discern which lawmakers were involved in the drawing of maps and whether racial or partisan data was being considered in the process, he added.

Ohio

For the first time, Ohio is using a hybrid commission system to draw its maps. For congressional maps, the Legislature must attempt to pass plans with bipartisan approval. If that fails, the mapmaking authority goes to a seven-member commission, and if that commission also fails to approve maps, it goes back to the Legislature and maps will only be in effect for four years.

However, Ohio's bipartisan redistricting commission only held one meeting, in which members heard testimony but did not vote on any proposed maps of their own. Because the commission failed to produce and approve redistricting plans, the mapmaking authority has now been punted back to the Republican-controlled Legislature.

"For months, Ohioans have pleaded with state leaders for a fair, transparent and participatory redistricting process. Yet even after voters overwhelmingly approved redistricting reform in 2018, those in power are showing that they will continue to shut out the voters to manipulate the process and district lines to their political advantage," said Catherine Turcer, executive director of Common Cause Ohio.

While the congressional maps are not yet finalized, drafts proposed by lawmakers so far have received failing grades from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project due to significant Republican gerrymanders.

The maps for the state House and state Senate were finalized in early October. The state House map received an F because it gives Republicans a significant advantage. The state Senate map was more fairly drawn, with only a slight Republican advantage, more compact districts and fewer county splits, so the Princeton Gerrymandering Project graded it a B.

Texas

In Texas, the lawmaker-drawn maps for Congress and the Legislature did not receive glowing report cards from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project. The congressional maps were graded an F for giving significant advantage to Republicans and including non-compact districts and more county splits than usual.

The state Senate maps also got a failing grade for advantaging Republicans and being very uncompetitive and non-compact. The state House maps were graded a C for only slightly favoring the GOP, but giving considerable advantage to incumbents.

As state lawmakers drafted and approved these maps, there was very little transparency and few opportunities for meaningful public input, said Anthony Gutierrez, executive director of Common Cause Texas. Map proposals were published only a few days before public hearings, so advocates and citizens did not have an adequate amount of time to review them, he said.

Although Texas' election maps have been finalized, several lawsuits have been filed challenging them for potentially violating the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting power of Black, Latino, Asian American and Pacific Islander and other minority voters.

"Texas is just the latest state to suffer through an unfair redistricting process and gerrymandered maps. Without action from Congress this year, we won't be the last," Gutierrez said.

Other states have also earned poor marks, but were not cited by Common Cause. For example, mapmakers in Illinois earned an F for both the congressional and state Senate maps, which heavily favor Democrats.


Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less