IVN is joined by Nate Allen, founder and Executive Director of Utah Approves, to discuss Approval Voting and his perspective on changing the incentives of our elections.
Podcast: Seeking approval in Utah
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
US Capitol
US Capitol
Constitutional Barriers to Nationalizing Elections
Mar 21, 2026
In the run-up to the midterms, President Trump continues to call for nationalizing congressional elections. He has sought to initiate the process through executive orders, such as one proposing to set “a ballot receipt deadline of Election Day for all methods of voting.” The words and spirit of the United States Constitution—the bedrock textualism and originalism of conservative constitutional interpretation—say he can’t nationalize elections.
Unlike some consequential constitutional questions, it’s not a close call.
The Constitution’s framers and ratifiers weighed the idea and firmly rejected it. For example, Pennsylvania arch-nationalist Gouverneur Morris was appalled that his state did not impose minimum property-ownership qualifications for voting. As a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, he pressed for their imposition nationwide for congressional elections. Morris drew James Madison into his camp but failed to persuade many others, leaving a notable paper trail of his failure.
The Virginia Plan, which served as a starting point for the convention’s deliberations, did not include qualifications for suffrage. But, as the delegates worked through its various provisions, one of them suggested adding property-ownership requirements for members of Congress. Morris proposed instead imposing them on voters. “If qualifications are proper,” Madison reports Morris saying, “he would prefer them in the electors rather than the elected.” Although several delegates objected, Morris managed to have the issue of nationalizing congressional elections referred to a committee charged with drafting a constitution from the various resolutions passed by delegates for their final consideration.
Reflecting Morris’s concerns, the drafting committee’s records include debate over a proposal that the qualifications of voters would be the same nationally with regard to citizenship, manhood, sanity of mind, and possession of real property. At the time, ten of the thirteen states imposed property-ownership qualifications for voting in their legislatures. Most of these states imposed lower qualifications for elections to their assemblies or larger branches and higher qualifications for elections to their senates or upper chambers. No state allowed enslaved people to vote, and three southern states barred free Blacks from voting. Only New Jersey then allowed women to vote, but only single women could satisfy the state’s property-ownership requirement.
Rather than accept Morris’s proposal to impose uniform national qualifications for voting in congressional elections, the committee took the opposite approach. In all states, the first article of the committee’s draft states, the qualification of the electors for congressional elections “shall be the same … as those of the electors [for] the most numerous branch of their own legislatures.” In other words, in any state, those eligible to vote in elections for the state’s assembly could also vote in federal elections. This provision clearly and expressly left the matter to the states.
When this provision reached the full convention for consideration, Morris moved to strike it in favor of empowering Congress to set uniform national voting standards for federal elections. Madison and Delaware’s John Dickinson backed Morris’s motion, but a rising chorus of delegates from right, left, and center spoke against it.
Pennsylvania’s representative on the committee, the scholarly conservative James Wilson, reportedly declared, “This part of the Report was well considered by the Committee, and he did not think it could be changed for the better.” Virginia libertarian George Mason warned, “A power to alter the qualifications would be a dangerous power in the hands of [Congress].” Benjamin Franklin added that he did not think “the elected had any right in any case to narrow the privileges of the electors.”
Ultimately, only one state, Dickinson’s Delaware, supported Morris’s motion, and the final Constitution retained language virtually identical to the committee’s draft. Delegates then added a further clause to the Constitution expressly entrusting the time, place, and manner of holding congressional elections to the states, subject only to subsequent regulation by Congress. There is thus no express role for the president in congressional elections, let alone a grant of power for the president to act unilaterally.
The issue of national authority over congressional elections resurfaced during the ratification debates. Federalists assured supporters of states’ rights that the Constitution reserved such matters to the states. Even Madison followed the party line. In the Federalist Papers, he writes that nationalizing voting rights, “to have reduced the different qualifications in the different states to one uniform rule, would probably have been as dissatisfactory to some of the states, as it would have been difficult to the convention.” Responding to states-rights advocates at the Virginia Ratifying Conventions regarding the authority of Congress to regulate the time, place, and manner of voting, he added that such control “will very probably never be exercised.”
Following these clear constitutional strictures, subsequent nationalizing mandates on voting in federal elections have required either constitutional amendments or valid legislation. One bar states from restricting suffrage on account of race. Another does so on account of sex. A separate constitutional amendment prohibits states from imposing poll taxes in federal elections. Another provides that states may not bar persons age 18 or older from voting on the basis of age. Congress, meanwhile, has passed legislation governing the timing and manner of voting, such as setting a uniform date for congressional elections.
All of this makes one thing abundantly clear: under any mode of constitutional interpretation, presidents may not unilaterally impose their will on congressional elections. Absent express constitutional amendments or legislation on specific issues, the states run the show. Should the states or courts allow President Trump to usurp this central pillar of American federalism, elections will become yet another example of how the Constitution isn’t working.
Edward J. Larson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning legal historian.
William Cooper is the author of How America Works … And Why It Doesn’t.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Smoke billows after overnight airstrikes on oil depots on March 8, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.
(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
Unpacking War Powers in the U.S.-Iran Conflict: Who Decides When America Goes to War?
Mar 21, 2026
What Is The War Powers Resolution of 1973?
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a law enacted by Congress that limits the U.S. president’s ability to wage or escalate military operations overseas. Passed on November 7, 1973 amid the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution reasserts Congress’ constitutional power “to declare war” and “to raise and support Armies.” A key provision of the War Powers Resolution requires the president to submit a report to Congress within 48 hours of military deployment in the absence of an official declaration of war by Congress detailing:
- The circumstances requiring U.S. forces;
- The constitutional or legislative justification for the president’s actions;
- The estimated duration of U.S. involvement in the hostilities.
If Congress does not formally declare war or enact special authorization for continuation of the U.S’ involvement in a conflict within 60 days of the report’s submission, the president must withdraw U.S. troops from the hostilities. If Congress does declare war, the president is instructed under the War Powers Resolution to report to Congress periodically on the status of the hostilities no less than once every 6 months.
Since becoming law in response to President Richard Nixon’s secret bombing campaign aimed at North Vietnamese supply routes in Cambodia, the War Powers Resolution has been applied several times with varying levels of compliance from sitting presidents. Following the Mayagüez Incident (1975), President Gerald Ford abided by the Resolution with his submitting a report to Congress, while President George H.W Bush launched Operation Desert Storm in 1991 only after Congress passed the Iraq Resolution. Both the Clinton administration and the Obama administration violated the Resolution, letting U.S involvement in The Kosovo Conflict (1999) and The Libya Intervention (2011) continue past 60 days without congressional approval. Most recently, members of Congress have sought to invoke the War Powers Resolution following President Donald J. Trump’s decision to approve U.S. air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities in June of last year and U.S. air strikes on Venezuela in early January that preceded the arrest of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife. Both measures to pass resolutions curtailing President Trump’s power failed to receive majority support in the House and the Senate.
What’s Happening in Iran?
On February 28th, the U.S. and Israel launched air attacks on Iran in what President Trump deemed as an effort to “defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime” in a Truth Social post. With the strikes killing Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran pledged a severe response, going on to fire drones and missiles at Gulf countries with American military bases like Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The ongoing conflict, which the White House now calls Operation Epic Fury, has seen the deaths of 7 American service members and more than 1,000 people in Iran and the cancellations of more than 20,000 flights that were supposed to fly to or from the Middle East.
Why Did Lawmakers Want to Force a Vote?
After the U.S.-Iran conflict began, members of Congress vowed to force a vote on war powers resolutions that would prevent President Trump from taking further action in Iran without congressional approval. And although members of Congress were briefed by top national security advisors three days after the initial attack, some lawmakers remained concerned about the lack of an exit strategy and pushed for a vote. In the Senate, the war powers measure failed in a 47-53 vote, and in the House, by a 212-219 vote.
Who Supported the Vote?
Prior to failing in both the House and the Senate, lawmakers from both political parties had spoken out in favor of passing a war powers resolution, with some lawmakers calling the U.S.-led attacks on Iran “illegal and unconstitutional.” Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) asserted that it was the president’s obligation under the Constitution to ask Congress for permission to use military force. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) affirmed that the Iran situation lacked the “exigent circumstances” that would have allowed the president to act without congressional approval. Across the aisle, House Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) tweeted that the U.S.-Iran War was not in-line with Trump’s “America First” agenda as he joined Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA) in forcing a vote in the House.
Who Opposed the Vote?
Prominent lawmakers like House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) opposed a vote on a war powers resolution, stating that President Trump was within his Article II, Section II constitutional powers as commander-in-chief to direct the military to carry out the attack. Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) also opposed the vote and argued that President Trump’s actions were meant to “settle the account with the Iranian regime.” In addition, Senator John Curtis (R-Utah) believed a war powers resolution would stop the president from being able to “cut off a threat before it becomes imminent.” One of the only Democratic voices to oppose the vote was Senator John Fetterman (D-PA), who supported the president’s actions as a matter of global security.
What Are the Future Implications?
With both the House and the Senate failing to pass a war powers resolution that would have reinstated Congress’s power to declare war, the U.S.-Iran War is expected to continue, with President Trump projecting that the conflict could last four-to-five weeks.
Already, the impacts of the war have been felt worldwide, as QatarEnergy has halted production of liquefied natural gas (LNG) after being targeted by Iranian missiles which has caused European natural gas prices to surge by 40%. In the United States, gas prices jumped by 11 cents overnight, the largest one-day increase since 2022.
If Congress decides to revisit the War Powers Resolution amid the U.S.-Iran War and rein in President Trump’s military power, it is likely that President Trump would veto a bipartisan resolution, thus forcing Congress to accrue the two-thirds votes in the House and the Senate necessary to override it. The War Powers Resolution could also be challenged in court. While the Supreme Court has historically declined to rule on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, its enforceability remains on uncertain legal ground.
Unpacking War Powers in the U.S.-Iran Conflict: Who Decides When America Goes to War? was first published on The Alliance for Citizen Engagement and was republished with permission.
Stephanie Peterson is a senior at Purdue University Northwest.
Keep ReadingShow less
Attendees hold signs advocating for voting rights and against the SAVE America Act at a rally to outside the U.S. Capitol on March 18, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Heather Diehl
SAVE America Act Debate Begins; Mullin for DHS Hearing
Mar 20, 2026
Both chambers of Congress are in session this week and next. The House will probably function about like it has been - lots of votes (often by voice) on uncontroversial bills; many fewer votes on Republican priority bills. Lots of hearings this week and a few legislator updates.
Committee Meetings
Both chambers have a busy week with 64 total committee meetings scheduled.
Mullin Hearing
One of those hearings is of particular interest because it'll be the committee hearing for current Sen. Mullin (R-OK) who has been nominated to be the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. We will be watching that Wednesday morning hearing as we put together a separate post on the nomination process for this nominee. For expectations management purposes: Mullin will almost certainly be confirmed. No Republican has voiced concerns about him and Sen. Fetterman (D-PA) has already said he'll vote for Mullin.
Scheduled House Votes
There were supposed to be a bunch of votes today on uncontroversial bills today, but weather has once again intervened. Presumably these votes will be moved to tomorrow, but it's not clear right now.
Of these bills, two will, should they pass the House without amendment, become law:
- S. 3971: Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act. This bill would extend existing small business programs.
- S. 1884: Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025. This bill would limit defenses against returning art that are based on passage of time and other non-merits arguments.
Legislator Updates
- Rep. Kiley (R*-CA3) becomes an "independent" *We will update our database when it's official. But we've put independent in quotes because he'll still caucus with Republicans and he says himself that this is unlikely to change any votes he might cast. He says in the same interview that this change is basically to improve his election prospects now that his district has been redrawn to include more Democratic voters.
- Rep. Ogles (R-TN-5), along with a number of other Republican members of Congress, have been posting crudely Islamophobic content over the last week. Republican House Leadership is fine with this and has in no way rebuked these members.
SAVE America Act Process
We almost called this section "The @#$@#$ Filibuster" for reasons that will become clear below. We have mentioned many times that Senate procedure is usually either complex and intentionally slow or very simple and fast.
Unopposed unanimous consent is the classic simple and fast example.
The moderately slow/complex example is cloture, aka the vote to end debate or the filibuster. Why moderately slow/complex? Why is this called the filibuster?
- The cloture vote requires basically a two day waiting period between the filing of the cloture vote and the vote itself, so that's the slow part.
- It only ends debate; technically it doesn't pass or fail the bill the itself. But given the 53 Republicans/47 Democrats in the Senate, a failed cloture vote does effectively cause the bill to fail because the chamber can't get enough members to agree to end debate. That's the complex part.
- The requirement of a 3/5ths majority (60 votes if all Senate seats are filled) means that the minority party in the Senate holds considerable power to prevent legislation from getting out of the Senate. That's the filibuster part.
Cloture votes have become very common. Most of the time when someone talks about "the filibuster", this is what they have in mind.
But this week the Senate is going to do a different and more complicated and even slower version of a filibuster. The end isn't likely to change - the SAVE America Act does not have the 60 votes needed for cloture right now - but the path to get there is going to be unusual.
Recap of main elements of current SAVE America text:
- Requires proof of citizenship to register to vote
- Requires states to submit voter lists to the feds for citizenship reviews
- People voting by mail must include a copy of their photo ID
- Requires photo ID at the polls
So what will the Senate do?
- Vote on the Motion to Proceed - this can also be subject to a 3/5ths majority, but not in this case.
- Most Senate Republicans support the bill so this vote will likely pass with a simple majority.
- Then, debate begins. Amendments may be offered. They will likely include provisions on unrelated issues like transgender athletes because President Trump has now demanded that as well.
- Because debate is unlimited until the Senate manually votes to end it, SAVE America supporters are betting that opponents will get tired and want to move on so the goal is go on as long as possible.
Is this a "talking filibuster"? Not really. A talking filibuster is a tactic to prevent passage of a bill that is likely to pass as soon as the minority gives up control of the floor.
But it also sort of is, in that the majority is banking on minority party senators wanting to work on their own priorities and so as long as they don't move to cloture, minority party member priorities are held up too.
So, the theory must be that enough Democrats will agree to vote yes on cloture if their own priorities are held up long enough by the process for the SAVE America Act. This tactic doesn't seem likely to succeed, but who knows.
Nonetheless, as of Monday morning March 16, this is what the Senate majority has planned for the week with respect to the SAVE America Act. We'll see by the end of the week where things stand both the majority's and minority's appetite for staying on this bill.
SAVE America Act Debate Begins; Mullin for DHS Hearing was originally published by GovTrack and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.
(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
Who Decides Whether America Goes to War?
Mar 18, 2026
Because taking our country into war has the potential, if not the likelihood, even in modernwarfare, of costing the bodies and lives of American soldiers as well as disrupting the economy, this is an important question.
The Constitution is the guide to answering this question. The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power.
The War Power Resolution of 1973, passed by Congress, recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only order military into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.
The drafters of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution thus made a distinction between making a reasoned decision to go to war and having to react quickly when attacked.
The Executive Branch, however, has consistently held that this limitation on the President's power applies only to "full-scale" war.
So the question is, when is a war a war in the constitutional sense? Since this is a definitional issue, I would say that hostilities are a war in the constitutional sense when they are in the legal dictionary sense. If it looks like a war, if it sounds like a war, if it moves like a war, it is a war.
According to Black's Law Dictionary, war is "armed conflict by forces of sovereign powers." War does not exist merely by one nation attacking another, but when the other nation responds, whether by a declaration or otherwise, indicating it feels it is at war. War is a conflict.
Under that definition, we are definitely at war with Iran. Note that the legal definition of war has nothing to do with the size of the conflict or its duration. It also does not depend on the formal declaration of war.
So in the past, when the President has ordered U.S. forces to attack a country, and that country has not responded in kind, those instances have not been "war"—there has been no "conflict"—and so the President was within his powers in conducting the hostilities. Trump's actions against Venezuela would fall into this category. But when the attacked country has responded in kind, as is the case with Iran, then a state of war exists, regardless of the double talk engaged in by the Office of Legislative Council.
NOTE: The 1973 War Powers Resolution would restrict the President from initiating hostilities, even in a "non-war" situation in Venezuela. He could only engage in hostilities without authorization if the U.S. was attacked.
Conservative "originalist" legal scholars look to what the words in the Constitution meant at the time it was drafted. In the 17th and 18th centuries, war between European countries was not uncommon. They involved military conflict between 2 or more countries, usually to gain territory, and, in the early 18th century, over religion.
In those times, all countries were ruled by monarchs, and when countries went to war, it was specifically for the glory and financial benefit of the monarch. These wars caused much misery for the general population and were much on the minds of the Founders when the Constitution was drafted.
It was because of their knowledge of the religious wars that the Founders were adamant that there be a separation of church and state, that there be no established religion. And it was because of their knowledge of the arrogance of monarchs in going to war to obtain glory or riches at the cost of the lives and well-being of their people that the Founders wrote into the Constitution that only Congress had the authority to declare war; no longer would a single individual be able to wreak such havoc on the people. And indeed, initially, that is how the Constitution was interpreted.
The New York Times reported that Republicans in Congress have been tripping over themselves, determined not to call the conflict with Iran a war. Yet from what I've presented, it very clearly is war in the meaning of the Constitution, whether looked at from an originalist point of view or a contemporary one.
Clearly, here is yet another example of Trump violating the terms of the Constitution. And he clearly doesn't care. Not only that, but he also has not shown the deference to the American people that past Presidents have shown by speaking directly to the people and explaining why he was taking this serious step.
Once again, Trump's arrogance proves how prescient the Founders were in crafting the Constitution with a balance of power to prevent abuses by any branch of government. And that system has worked ... until now. It is only because the Republicans in Congress and many Trump-appointed members of the judiciary have violated their oath of office that the system is not working now and Trump's abuses of power go unchecked.
The American people, not just Democrats, must arise and voice their disapproval, both on the streets and at the ballot box.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
Editor's Note: This piece was originally published under the title of "Is the U.S. at 'War' with Iran?" The first few paragraphs were also updated on 3/19 due to timeliness.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
Trump’s ‘Just for Fun’ War Talk Shows a Dangerous Trivialization