Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Democracy is on the ballot in nine states this fall

Arizona ballot measures

Voters in Arizona will decide multiple ballot measures that directly impact how democracy and voting work in their state.

Courtney Pedroza/Getty Images

There’s more at stake on Election Day than federal, state and local races. Voters in 37 states will decide the fate of 132 ballot initiatives, including a handful that could change how the democratic process works in nearly a dozen states.

Ballotpedia, the nonprofit organization that bills itself as the “digital encyclopedia of American politics,” has identified ballot measures affecting election administration in seven states as well as proposals in three states to change the ballot measure process itself.


A ballot measure, or ballot initiative, is a policy proposal to be decided by the voters of a state rather than by the legislature. About half the states have a process through which citizens can create initiatives and get them on the ballot. In others, such proposals are driven by the government.

Efforts to change the ballot initiative process are not new. In fact, RepresentUs recently released a study tracking five years’ worth of attempts to alter the rules.

“When our government isn’t responsive to the people, ballot initiatives are one of the tools that can rein in the power of self-interested politicians and give it back to the voters – where it belongs,” said RepresentUs CEO Joshua Graham Lynn. “Instead of spending their time strangling the voice of the people, elected officials need to uphold it. What are they so afraid of?”

Following is a breakdown of the proposals on the ballot this fall.

Initiatives impacting initiatives

On Nov. 8, voters in three states will determine whether to change the process.

In Arizona, the ballot questions are actually three proposed amendments to the state Constitution. The first would permit state lawmakers to change or defund ballot-approved laws if either the Arizona Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court rules them unconstitutional. Opponents of the measure say it would give legislators too much power to override the will of the voters while supporters say it is necessary for fixing laws.

A second proposed amendment would require future ballot initiatives to address a single issue (and also require a clear description in the measure’s title).

The third measure would raise the threshold for approving ballot measures creating taxes to 60 percent of voters, more inline with the two-thirds requirement in the Legislature for creating taxes.

In Arkansas, a proposed constitutional amendment would change the requirement for approving future ballot initiatives from a simple majority to a three-fifths supermajority (in this case 60 percent of ballots cast). That requirement would apply to both citizen-driven and legislatively proposed initiatives. According to Ballotpedia, just 11 states currently require something more than a majority for constitutional amendments and no states require a supermajority for citizen-led state statutes (with a few specific exceptions in Florida, Utah and Washington).

Voters in South Dakota rejected a measure similar to the Arkansas proposal in June.

Finally, in Colorado, a ballot initiative would require future measures related to taxes to include details on the impact of such proposals.

Voting impacting voting

The seven voting-related measures cover voter identification, noncitizen voting, ranked-choice voting and more.

Arizona, the only state on both lists, has a ballot initiative that would require additional information from people who want to vote by mail. Currently, voters must sign early ballot envelopes, but the proposed measure would also require them to include their birth date and government ID number. It would also require all in-person voters to show photo identification. Current law allows voters to prevent two items, such as utility bills, that prove name and address in lieu of a photo ID.

A proposal on the ballot in Connecticut would allow no-excuse early voting. Connecticut is among five states that have restricted early voting.

Michigan voters, who already demonstrated the power of ballot measures by removing politics from the redistricting process a few years ago, will now decide whether to make changes to the voting process. A proposed constitutional amendment would ensure military overseas ballots postmarked by Election Day are counted, allow for an affidavit in place of a photo ID for voting purposes, allow the use of drop boxes and require a nine-day early-voting period. It would also create voter protections against harassment.

In Louisiana, voters will decide whether to amend their Constitution to ensure local governments do not allow noncitizens to vote. No city in the state is among the handful across the country that allows such a practice. The Louisiana vote will take place on Dec. 10, because the state uses Nov. 8 as a primary election.

Like Arizonans, the people of Nebraska will decide whether to change the voter ID requirements. The state does not currently require a person to present photo identification in order to vote, but a proposed constitutional amendment would change that.

Nevada may take the next step toward becoming the third state (after Maine and Alaska) to use ranked-choice voting for congressional and state elections. The proposal, which must be approved by voters in both 2022 and 2024, would create an open primary with the five candidates who receive the most votes regardless of party advance to an RCV general election. Alaska recently debuted its “top four” system.

Ohio, like Louisiana, is considering a constitutional amendment banning noncitizens from voting. In 2019, the people of Yellow Springs passed a measure allowing noncitizens to vote.


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