Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Chipping away at election integrity: Virginia joins red state exodus from ERIC

Chipping away at election integrity: 
Virginia joins red state exodus from ERIC
Getty Images

David J. Toscano is an attorney and a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates. He is the author of Fighting Political Gridlock: How States Shape Our Nation and Our Lives, University of Virginia Press, 2021, and Bellwether: Virginia’s Political Transformation, 2006-2020, Hamilton Books, 2022.

The surest way to undermine democracy is to destroy the legitimacy of the electoral process. When citizens question how leaders are chosen and decisions are made, they become cynical, less inclined to participate, and may come to believe that democracy itself is a sham. Under such circumstances, the peaceful transfer of power may even be at risk. Whether they understand it or not, MAGA Republicans and their enablers are undermining our electoral process, engaging in a methodical process that is sowing dissent about the integrity of our elections and legitimacy of our leaders. Virginia’s recent decision to join 7 other states in withdrawing from the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) simply feeds the narrative that our election process is broken. While these withdrawals appear small by comparison to the January 6, 2021 assault on our nation’s Capital, they are nonetheless significant, as they widen existing fractures in the bedrock of electoral legitimacy. And just as the Commonwealth was key to the organization’s formation, its withdrawal could prove critical to its demise.


ERIC AND ITS VIRGINIA ORIGINS

ERIC was created in 2012 to help states guard against voter fraud and modernize their election databases. The consensus of experts at the time, based on substantial empirical research, indicated that voter fraud was not only extremely rare, but the limited instances where it occurred were not sufficient to change the outcome of elections. Nonetheless, many elections officials had become increasingly concerned that voter rolls included the names of people who should not be there. A 2012 Pew Center study, for example, concluded that about one of every eight voter registrations in the United States were no longer valid or significantly inaccurate. Millions of deceased individuals remained on voting rolls and almost 2.75 million people retained registrations in more than one state. Clearly change was necessary to modernize our system.

The most prominent interstate collaboration addressing these problems at the time, the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck (IVRC) program, was viewed with suspicion as a vehicle for voter purges. Created in 2005 by “voter fraud” crusader Kris Kobach and housed in his state of Kansas, IVRC was riddled with errors, with the result that states like Virginia removed voters from the rolls that should have been retained. A new approach was needed that was nonpartisan and protected the privacy of the databases ( IVRC ultimately collapsed following disclosures that the private information of numerous voters had been seriously compromised).

Led by then-Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell and his Democratic and Republican colleagues in the diverse states of Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, Utah, and Washington, ERIC emerged in 2012 from a broad consensus that election administration needed modernization, and that interstate cooperation was essential to the effort. By early 2023, 32 states plus Washington, D.C. had joined the group, with a nearly even split of red and blue states.

ERIC SUCCESSES

ERIC became the way for states to share and compare election data and information from state motor vehicle agencies and other departments. State and local election officials then used the information to correct outdated addresses, remove dead registrants, and inform eligible people who were not registered to vote. Data proves the organization’s success. ERIC is credited with identifying 66,000 potentially deceased voters in Maryland and 778,000 people who may have moved out of that state since 2013. Georgia officials removed 100,000 ineligible voters based on data provided by ERIC. Virginia elections data reported that 37,803 voters had subsequently registered in another state in the years after they had cast a vote in Virginia. These numbers were not surprising; voters move to other states and register there. They die. The data allowed states to update their voting lists, making fraud less likely and easier to detect.

Many Republican leaders initially backed the program. With considerable fanfare about ERICs ability to identify problems with voter rolls, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis brought the Sunshine State into the program in 2020. Ohio Republican Sec. of State Frank DeRose hailed ERIC’s voter match abilities in identifying fraud, and in March, 2023, stated that the group was “ one of the best fraud-fighting tools that we have,…and we're going to continue to use it.” Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate not only called the organization a “godsend,” but, as recently as February, 2023, touted it as an “effective tool for ensuring the integrity of Iowa’s voter rolls.” By mid-March 2023, all three states had left the compact, joining Alabama, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Missouri. Virginia is the most recent defection, and observers expect Texas and other states to follow. What happened?

RIGHT WING ECHO CHAMBER STRIKES

ERIC is very good at spotting dual registrations across state lines. But its mission also includes providing information to individuals who may be eligible to vote. Whether this is a complete explanation for the right-wing drumbeat begun against the group in 2022, it seems to be no accident that all of the defectors come from states with Republican governors. The rightwing website called Gateway Pundit began target ing the organization last year with a series of articles claiming ERIC was “essentially a left wing voter registration drive” funded by George Soros and designed to steal elections from Republicans. In truth, the organization’s funding comes from state membership fees, but that has not prevented ERIC’s detractors from repeating the lie. More recently, Judicial Watch, a conservative nonprofit, embraced the cause, alleging that ERIC was “a syndicate founded by leftists.” Even Donald Trump has weighed in, erroneously claiming that ERIC “pumps the rolls” for Democrats.

Republican leaders seeking higher office began to view withdrawal from ERIC as a litmus test by which they could demonstrate their conservative bona fides, despite criticism that “they were for it before they were against it.” Republican Secretaries of State in two states that just withdrew from ERIC– Jay Ashcroft of Missouri and Mac Warner of West Virginia–announced bids for governor last month. LaRose is considering a bid for the U.S. Senate. DeSantis just launched his campaign for the GOP presidential nomination. And Youngkin has curried favor with the conservative base since he became Virginia’s governor in 2021.

WHY VIRGINIA?

Of all the decisions involving withdrawal from ERIC, Virginia is the most puzzling. As an original founding member, it has a decade of experience with the group during both Democratic and Republican administrations. The group’s purposes have not changed in that decade, and it has shown a record of success. Perhaps Youngkin is simply looking for any opportunity to match DeSantis’s actions to appeal to the conservative base that has not warmed to the Florida governor but has qualms about a Trump redux. It is certainly not due to cost; the Commonwealth’s member dues are $54,000 per year.

Despite his best efforts, evidenced by executive actions to undermine diversity and deny the full complexity of our history, Youngkin has failed to pass a conservative agenda that has been promoted in red states across the nation. This is largely due to a slim Democratic majority in the Virginia State Senate that has scuttled countless attempts to make the state look more like North Carolina–or even Mississippi. Efforts by Virginia Republicans to unwind major voting rights initiatives, climate change actions, or gun safety measures passed during Democratic control several years ago have failed, and the GOP legislative leaders strategically decided that legislation to restrict abortion should await the results of this fall’s elections, when Youngkin will bring his massive war chest to bear to give the GOP a red trifecta.

In the same week as he announced withdrawal, Youngkin released a “ campaign-style video appearing to cast him as the successor to President Ronald Reagan.” The ERIC action is nothing but a sop Trump and other conspiratorial election deniers, as Virginia now joins the parade of those who continue to sow anxiety about our elections and undermine the legitimacy of the system itself.

WHAT’S NEXT?

Perhaps the red states care more about election integrity as a slogan than they do about its implementation. “States claim they want to combat illegal voting & clean voter rolls — but then leave the best & only group capable of detecting double voting across state lines” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, tweeted earlier this month.

Nonetheless, observers do not think the defections are over, and question whether ERIC will survive. It may limp along as a coalition of northern and western states but will not be as effective as it could or needs to be had it retained its national scope. More importantly, these actions further exacerbate the division between states in how they combat fraud. And they further undermine the foundation of election integrity that serves as the basis of democratic legitimacy in the nation.


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