Skip to content
Project 2025
Donate to support
diverse voices
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Cargo containers piled on each other.

The Facts on U.S.–Canada Tariffs Nearly One Year Into Trump’s Plan

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

An illustration of two hands controlling a small person attached to strings.

Parallels and Patterns: George Orwell’s 1984, Hitler’s Nazi, and Trump 2.0

Seven states, touching all parts of America, prep for Tuesday primaries

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, who spoke at the National Rifle Association annual convention May 27, faces a primary challenge Tuesday.

Brandon Bell/Getty Images
By Richard Perrins,
Richard Perrins
See More Writings by author
Reya Kumar
Reya Kumar
See More Writings by author
Jun 06, 2022

Primary voters in seven states — California, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota — will choose their nominees for different races on Tuesday.

With states altering election laws to either increase or limit access to voting in response to the Covid-19 pandemic and unproven allegations of election fraud, The Fulcrum has been analyzing the changes. Here’s a review of the changes to election laws in each state holding primaries Tuesday.

California

While Gov. Gavin Newsom will be on the ballot Tuesday again Tuesday after beating back a recall effort last year,, he’s not likely to lose his primary (or the general election in the fall). The most notable races include the mayor’s race in Los Angeles, the recall vote for San Francisco’s district attorney, and several congressional races that could swing the majority away from the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The state had issued a temporary vote-by-mail expansion for the 2020 election but in 2021 Newsom signed a bill making California the eighth state to permanently offer universal mail-in voting. (People may still vote in person if they choose.)

The previous year, Californians approved a ballot initiative to restore voting rights to people with felony convictions upon their release from prison.

In 2022, California has passed one election-related law, to improve voter access through same-day registration, according to the Voting Rights Lab.

Read more about changes in California.

Iowa

The most high-profile race in Iowa will be Sen. Chuck Grassley’s Republican primary, though he’s expected to safely win renomination. Kim Reynolds, the incumbent Republican governor, will also likely win her primary in a bid for reelection.

The state enacted a pair of laws in 2021 to change various aspects of mail voting, largely to limit voter flexibility and access. The first requires photo ID for early in-person voting and cuts the time voters have to apply for an absentee ballot from 110 days to 55 days. Election officials are now barred from pre-filling any fields on absentee ballot applications, as well as sending voters an application unless they request one. Ballot drop boxes are allowed, but not required, with only one drop box authorized per county.

The bill requires polling places to close at 8 p.m. for all elections and limits third-party ballot returns to immediate family members, household members and caretakers.

The second law further limited the third-party ballot return by no longer allowing caregivers to return absentee ballots, among other limitations.

In 2020, Reynolds signed an executive order restoring the voting rights of felons following the completion of their sentences, excluding those with convictions for homicides and sexual abuse crimes.

Iowa hasn’t passed any election-related bills in 2022, according to the Voting Rights Lab, though 26 such bills have failed.

Read more about changes in Iowa.

Mississippi

The state’s four members of the House of Representatives are facing primary challenges, but are all expected to receive their parties’ nominations.

Mississippi has not seen extensive permanent election changes in recent years. For the 2020 election, the state appropriated funds to voting precincts to hire more poll workers and provide “pandemic pay” to election officials. The state also made a temporary expansion to allow people in quarantine or caring for others in quarantine to vote in person before Election Day, and gave voters more time to return absentee ballots by mail.

This year, the state has passed two bills to restrict voting access, according to the Voting Rights Lab. One bill tightens the rules to make sure non-citizens cannot vote, enhances the cleaning of voter rolls and establishes audit procedures. The second bars private funding of election activities.

Read more about changes in Mississippi.

Montana

While Montana has previously been represented by just one member of the House — currently Matt Rosendale, a Republican who is likely to win reelection — the state gained a second district following the 2020 census. That district leans red, but will be hotly contested among multiple candidates in each party, including Republican Ryan Zinke, who served as secretary of the interior in the Trump administration.

In the past few years, Montana has introduced laws that both tighten and ease restrictions on voting.

In 2021, Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte signed a bill that set the deadline for voter registration as noon on the day before an election. He signed another that year that created a photo ID requirement to vote. Another law, designated to go into effect in July 2021 but delayed by lawsuits, prohibits political parties from participating in election-related activities on college campuses.

Some bills were passed to make it easier to vote, including laws that set requirements for accessible voting technology at every polling place during elections to facilitate the process for voters with disabilities. Another bill expanded ID options for registering and voting to include military IDs, tribal IDs and others.

Montana has not considered any bills related to elections in 2022, according to the Voting Rights Lab.

Read more about changes in Montana.

New Jersey

Because New Jersey holds its state elections in odd years, voters will be focused on congressional and local elections Tuesday. While most of the House races have incumbents who are expected to come out on top, one race to watch would be the 7th district ’s Republican primary. Tom Kean, son of former Gov. Tom Kean, could oust incumbent Democrat Tom Malinowski in November if he wins the primary tomorrow.

In recent years, New Jersey has passed several bills that increase voting access. In 2020, the state enacted a “ballot curing” law, requiring voters to be informed if their ballots were rejected, giving them 48 hours to rectify the errors.

A 2019 law removed a prohibition on voting for those on parole or probation after being convicted of a crime, while a 2021 bill worked to end prison gerrymandering. Additionally, New Jersey has more broadly expanded mail-in and early in-person voting.

According to the Voting Rights Lab, New Jersey has passed two election-related laws this year. One focuses on compensation for election workers, while the other concerns law enforcement at polling places and electioneering.

Read more about changes in New Jersey

New Mexico

One of New Mexico’s highest profile primaries is the Republican nominating contest for governor. Five candidates are vying for the opportunity to challenge the Democratic incumbent, Michelle Lujan Grisham, who is seeking re-election in November. Mark Ronchetti, who ran unsuccessfully for an open Senate seat in 2022, leads the GOP pack, followed by state Sen. Rebecca Dow.

Another vital race is the Democratic primary for attorney general, in a state where border security and urban crime have been top of mind. Bernalillo County District Attorney Raúl Torrez faces state Auditor Brian Colón. The November race is almost certain to go to the winner of this primary, as a Republican has won the position just three times in New Mexico’s history.

Many election changes made in 2020 in response to the Covid-19 pandemic were temporary, although he state did permanently enact same-day voter registration in 2019.

Additionally, in 2021, New Mexico created new rules for polling places on Native land. This included ensuring that such voting locations cannot be closed or eliminated without the consent of Native governments.

According to the Voting Rights Lab, New Mexico has not passed any additional election-related laws in 2022.

Read more about changes in New Mexico

South Dakota

The Republicans holding each of the top three statewide seats up for election in deep red South Dakota will face primary challenges from candidates further right on the political spectrum, though the incumbents are expected to win out.

Gov. Kristi Noem’s challenger, attorney and former state House Speaker Steve Haugaard, has painted Noem and her policies as more moderate than truly conservative.

Meanwhile, Sen. John Thune is facing a primary challenge for the first time as an elected official. Running against him are former ally Bruce Whalen and educator Mark Mowry, who has made election denialism central to his campaign.

Finally, Rep. Dusty Johnson is facing state lawmaker, Taffy Howard who has attacked his tendency to work across the aisle

Recent changes to election law in South Dakota include measures that both restrict and increase access to voting.

On the more restrictive side, according to the Voting Rights Lab, South Dakota has passed one voting-related law this year, banning the use of private donations to fund elections. Additionally, recent laws require paper copies of registration lists in counties or vote centers with electronic records.

Other laws increase access to voting. A 2020 bill allows use of identification other than a driver’s license for voter registration, easing the process of voting for many Native Americans who use tribal ID cards. Additionally, a law from 2021 allows voter registration records of domestic violence victims to be made confidential, allowing these victims to vote safely — though they must have an active protective order or proof of residence in a domestic violence shelter to qualify.

Read more about changes in South Dakota.


Latest news

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem
Environment

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”
Ethics & Leadership

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift
Elections

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift

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
© Copyright 2026