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

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

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

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

Will more states follow Arizona’s lead on voter registration laws?

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey

Gage Skidmore/Flickr
David Meyers
By David MeyersMar 31, 2022
David Meyers

David Meyers is the Executive Editor of The Fulcrum. Before launching The Fulcrum, David spent more than two decades at CQ Roll Call, a leading publisher of political news and information. During his time there, David served as managing editor of Roll Call (“the newspaper of Capitol Hill”) and as managing editor of member information and research, which included co-editing the definitive biographical directory of Congress, “Politics in America.” David went on to lead all of CQ Roll Call’s congressional research teams as vice president of research and content development before shifting to a revenue and strategy role as vice president of business operations for Roll Call, working with the advertising and editorial teams to develop new revenue models and expand the company’s events business. David lives in Fairfax, Va., with his wife, two daughters and rottweiler. A graduate of Tufts University, David is a past president of the Tufts University Alumni Association. He is also a past president of the Washington Press Club Foundation, which works to celebrate and advance the role of women and minorities in the media. David currently serves on the board of directors for Temple B’nai Shalom in Fairfax Station.

See More Writings by author

Editor's note: This story was updated with information about a lawsuit filed Thursday in Arizona.

When Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law proof-of-citizenship voting requirements, he set the stage for another federal court battle on the issue. Legislators in other states have considered similar legislation but so far none have advanced as far as Arizona’s changes.

The new law retroactively requires all voters to provide proof of citizenship, even those who are already registered to cast ballots in the state, updating a 2004 provision that only put that burden on new voters.

Opponents of the new law say as many as 190,000 people may be removed from the voter rolls because no such requirement existed when they registered. They would need to re-register, but might not be aware of the change in their status.

Lawmakers in a handful of other states also have been pushing voter registration changes tied to citizenship this year.

This isn’t a new fight

Under federal law, people registering to vote must attest that they are citizens, but they are not required to provide any proof of their status. States may impose their own citizenship requirements for state and local elections, and a few have done so but only Arizona has put it into practice.

Since 2004, Arizona has required people registered to vote to include proof of citizenship, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the state cannot require such documentation from people who use the federal voter registration form. Therefore, Arizonans who use the federal form may not vote in state and local elections.

An attorney for the state House told lawmakers the new requirements violate federal law, and a lawsuit was filed Thursday morning in U.S. District Court.

"This is an obvious attempt by Arizona Republicans to limit access to voting, but we’ll fight to ensure that no voter is wrongly disenfranchised," said Marc Elias, a Democratic lawyer who filed the case on behalf of the civic engagmeent group Mi Familia Vota.

In 2016, Alabama, Georgia and Kansas asked the Election Assistance Commission to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form. The case went to federal court, which put a stop to the request.

Proponents of requiring documentary proof of citizenship say such laws are critical to fending off voter fraud, even though instances of illegal voting are rare and do not impact election outcomes.

Opponents say these laws can actually prevent some eligible citizens from voting because they may not possess the required documentation.

“Those most likely to be affected by these laws are students, the elderly, the disabled, low-income individuals, the homeless, and naturalized citizens,” Stuart Naifeh, a former senior counsel at the liberal think tank Demos, wrote in 2014. Aside from these narrow populations, across the board, Native Americans, African Americans and members of other historically disadvantaged and disenfranchised groups are also less likely to have, or have ready access to, documents that will satisfy documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements.”

Other bills being considered

In Mississippi, Republican lawmakers had been on the verge of advancing legislation that would have put into place aggressive measures to purge voter rolls of noncitizens. But just prior to a vote in the state House, Republicans amended the bill to soften the language and make it harder to cancel a voter’s registration.

When GOP lawmakers determined the bill would be bad for democracy, they agreed to the change, according to the Clarion Ledger.

That bill has been passed by both chambers and awaits the governor’s signature.

In Idaho, the House has passed a bill that would require people registering to vote on Election Day to provide proof of citizenship. Voter registration in Idaho requires a driver’s license or Social Security number, but a license can be obtained by non-citizens. The state enacted a law in March that adds a “citizenship” notation to driver’s licenses.

In 2020, more than 87,000 people registered to vote on Election Day in Idaho, accounting for approximately 10 percent of the ballots cast.

The bill was passed by the House on March 14 and has been referred to a Senate committee for consideration.

Legislators in at least two other states have attempted to impose new citizenship requirements, but their proposals did not advance.

In Oklahoma, language was removed from a bill that would have required all registered voters to re-register and provide proof of U.S. citizenship. Anyone who did not do so would only be permitted to vote in federal elections Election Secretary Paul Ziriax convinced lawmakers that such a requirement would be expensive, possibly unconstitutional and a heavy burden on voters, according to Oklahoma Watch.

And in Washington, a bill to require all registered voters to provide proof of citizenship failed to advance out of a House committee.

Other bills have been introduced in Louisiana, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania and South Carolina, according to the Voting Rights Lab's legislation tracker.


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