Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Elections study finds digital tools gained popularity in 2020

Online voting
Feodora Chiosea/Getty Images

Digital voter registration and online balloting rose in popularity during the 2020 election, a recent government report found.

On Monday, the Election Assistance Commission released its findings from last year's pandemic-era election in a comprehensive 252-page report. The federal agency has conducted extensive biennial surveys of how Americans voted and states conducted their federal elections since 2004.

The 2020 report provides a detailed look into how voting and election administration were impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. The Fulcrum broke the findings down in two parts. The first installment provided a general election overview and details on state policy changes. This article focuses on voter registration and military and overseas voters.


EAC Chairman Donald Palmer said the data collected in this report not only provides key insights into the 2020 election, but will also inform election policies and best practices moving forward.

Voter registration

Perhaps a prelude to the record-high turnout in the presidential election, 2020 also saw a spike in voter registrations. Nearly 104 million voter registration applications were submitted following the 2018 midterm and prior to the 2020 general election — a 34 percent increase compared to the period leading up to the 2016 election. Thirty-two percent of those applications were new valid registrations and another 49 percent were updates to a voter's name, address or party affiliation.

Motor vehicle departments continued to be the most common way Americans registered to vote, making up 39 percent of the 2020 applications. But online registration saw the largest growth in usage over the past couple years, with 28 percent of applicants submitting electronically.

The EAC noted this increased use of online registration portals was helped by three states adopting such a policy since 2018: Minnesota, New Jersey and Oklahoma. In total, 42 states and D.C. allow citizens to register online. While Mississippi and Texas allow voters to update their registration information online, new voters cannot submit applications electronically.

The use of same-day voter registration, either on Election Day, during the early voting period or both, in 29 states also accounted for more than 1.6 million new registrations in 2020. Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada and American Samoa were the most recent places to adopt this policy ahead of last year's election.

Automatic voter registrations systems used in 23 states also likely boosted new voter sign-ups, but the exact number is hard to quantify since most AVR systems are set up through motor vehicle departments. However, when comparing the change in voter registrations at the DMV between 2016 and 2020, the EAC found that states with AVR reported an 80 percent increase in registrations, whereas states without AVR reported just a 10 percent bump.

In addition to processing new registrations, states and territories are also charged with maintaining voter rolls to ensure they are accurate and current. While federal law provides minimal guidelines for how voter rolls should be updated, states are given considerable freedom to adopt their own policies.

Sometimes this results in what voting rights advocates call "voter purges," or mass removals of eligible voters. But generally states' periodic maintenance efforts remove deceased voters or people who have moved to another jurisdiction.

States usually send confirmation notices to voters who may have moved. If the notice is not returned, states may change the voter's status to inactive (and the voter would have to confirm registration before casting a ballot again). If an inactive voter does not participate in the following two federal elections, federal law instructs states to remove them from the rolls.

Between the 2018 and 2020 elections, states reported removing more than 18.7 million voters from the rolls. One-third of these removals were due to a lack of response, 29 percent were because the voter moved to another jurisdiction and a fifth were deceased voters.

Military and civilian overseas voters

For the 2020 election, more than 1.2 million ballots were sent to overseas voters including uniform service members, military spouses and dependents over the age of 18. These individuals reside outside of the country but hold legal residence in the United States. A large portion of these voters (40 percent) are concentrated in three states: California, Florida and Washington.

Since 2014, a majority of the ballots sent outside the U.S. were to non-military voters. In 2020 that trend continued with 60 percent of these ballots going to overseas civilian voters and 39 percent to members of the military.

Given the lengthy mailing process and high mobility rates of this voting population, a federal law was enacted in 2009 that gave military and other overseas voters the ability to vote electronically. Since then, receiving and returning ballots online has become increasingly popular.

For last year's election, military voters were almost evenly split on their preference of receiving a ballot in their mailbox or their inbox, whereas a vast majority of overseas citizens (71 percent) opted for email.

However, fewer overseas voters chose to return their completed ballots electronically (38 percent overall). Military voters showed a strong preference for returning ballots by mail, while overseas citizens were more divided.

More than 8,100 ballots returned by military and civilian overseas voters were received by election officials too late and not counted in the 2020 election. Overall, 2 percent of the votes cast by this population were rejected — less than half the rejection rate in 2018. Tardiness was the most common reason for ballot rejection last year.


Read More

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
The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin
us a flag on pole
Photo by Saad Alfozan on Unsplash

The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin

Where is our nation headed — and why does it feel as if the country is spinning out of control under leaders who cannot, or will not, steady it?

Americans are watching a government that seems to have lost its balance. Decisions shift by the hour, explanations contradict one another, and the nation is left reacting to confusion rather than being guided by clarity. Leadership requires focus, discipline, and the courage to make deliberate, informed decisions — even when they are not politically convenient. Yet what we are witnessing instead is haphazard decision‑making, secrecy, and instability.

Keep ReadingShow less