Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The state of voting: Oct. 3, 2022

voting legislation updates

This weekly update summarizing legislative activity affecting voting and elections is powered by the Voting Rights Lab. Sign up for VRL’s weekly newsletter here.

The Voting Rights Lab is tracking 2,201 bills so far this session, with 580 bills that tighten voter access or election administration and 1,054 bills that expand the rules. The rest are neutral, mixed or unclear in their impact.

If it seems like Wisconsin courts are continuously pulled into lawsuits over election laws, it’s because they are. There’s yet another lawsuit in the Badger State, and this one seeks to prohibit voters from intentionally canceling their returned mail ballots before Election Day.

Elsewhere, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed several bills last week, including new laws that will require the placement of drop boxes on state university campuses, protect election workers, improve bilingual poll worker recruitment, and improve voter list maintenance. The Michigan Legislature passed a bill that would allow election officials to start processing mail ballots prior to Election Day. A federal court blocked enforcement of a new Arizona law, finding that it violates the National Voter Registration Act and is likely unconstitutionally vague. A Pennsylvania court ruled that counties may allow voters to correct errors on their mail ballot envelopes. And, finally, in Montana, a trial court declared new voting restrictions unconstitutional, permanently enjoining their enforcement.

Here are the details:


California enacts four laws to improve voter access. Newsom signed four bills into law last Monday. Collectively, they will improve bilingual poll worker recruitment, place ballot drop boxes on state university campuses if school is in session during the election, protect election workers by enabling them to keep their identities and addresses confidential, and ensure voters are notified before their registrations are canceled, while improving the cancellation and restoration process for mentally incapacitated voters.

Michigan Legislature passes an election reform package, including a bill to allow clerks to start processing ballots before Election Day. On Wednesday, both chambers of the Legislature passed a package of four election bills by nearly unanimous votes. H.B. 4491 will allow clerks in jurisdictions with at least 10,000 residents to begin processing and verifying absentee ballots two days before Election Day. The bill also ensures that people who have died are removed from the voter registration list and clarifies rules about drop boxes. H.B. 6071 ensures polling places are not located in buildings owned by candidates and allows clerks to use central polling places that consolidate up to six precincts when it is convenient for voters. S.B. 311 and S.B. 8 allow active duty servicemembers to return ballots electronically beginning in 2024. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is expected to sign the package in time for the mail voting and polling place provisions to take effect for November’s election.

Federal court blocks enforcement of Arizona voter registration cancellation provisions. Last week, a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction that blocks the enforcement of two provisions of S.B. 1260, which passed earlier this year. One blocked provision would have required election officials to cancel voter registration in a manner that the court found violates the National Voter Registration Act. The other would have created a new felony that plaintiffs contend is unconstitutionally vague. Attorney General Mark Brnovich has appealed the ruling on behalf of the state. This injunction comes on the heels of a stipulation signed last month, in which the Arizona secretary of state agreed not to enforce a different voter purge law being challenged, H.B. 2243, which would require election officials to cancel registrations of voters whom they “have reason to believe” are not citizens.

Pennsylvania court allows counties to give voters an opportunity to fix errors on their mail ballot envelopes. Early last month, several national and state Republican groups filed a petition in Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court (an intermediate appellate court) seeking to prevent county officials from notifying voters about minor errors on mail ballot return envelopes and giving them an opportunity to correct (or “cure”) the issue. The Pennsylvania Code neither explicitly authorizes or prohibits counties from providing these options. On Thursday, the court denied the petition, rejecting the petitioners’ argument that counties may not implement procedures unless they are explicitly authorized by the General Assembly.

Montana trial court declares new restrictions unconstitutional. A Montana trial court declared Friday that three laws passed in 2021 cannot be enforced because they violate provisions of the state’s Constitution. H.B. 176 would have eliminated Election Day registration. S.B. 169 would have limited the types of IDs voters could use for registration and identification at polling locations. The blocked portion of H.B. 530 would have prohibited individuals from helping voters return their mail ballots. The court issued this permanent injunction a little more than a week after the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the preliminary injunction in the case.

New Wisconsin lawsuits aim to prevent mail voters from spoiling their ballots and seek clarity on witness address requirements. Under current law, Wisconsin voters who return their absentee ballot, but then realize they made a mistake or changed their mind about how they wish to vote, may spoil their ballot before Election Day and return a new one. A new lawsuit seeks to end this practice, asserting that the Wisconsin Election Commission guidance describing it is illegal. The suit is brought by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, which has successfully sued to prohibit a number of voter access policies, including drop boxes and ballot return by family and friends.

Another lawsuit won by WILL prevents clerks from adding accurate witness address details to voters’ ballot certificates to enable the ballots to be counted. The same lawsuit also invalidated the definition of what constitutes a witness address. As a result, two new lawsuits seek clarity on what level of detail is required for a mail ballot to be counted. For example, whether a ballot should be counted or rejected if the municipality is included but the ZIP code is missing.


Read More

​President Donald Trump and other officials in the Oval office.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, in Washington, before signing a spending bill that will end a partial shutdown of the federal government.

Alex Brandon, Associated Press

Trump Signs Substantial Foreign Aid Bill. Why? Maybe Kindness Was a Factor

Sometimes, friendship and kindness accomplish much more than threats and insults.

Even in today’s Washington.

Keep ReadingShow less
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