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

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

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

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

How the 'final four' states changed their election laws

election law changes
whyframestudio/Getty Images
By Ria Agarwal,
Ria Agarwal
See More Writings by author
Cassidy Wang,
Cassidy Wang
See More Writings by author
Faye Shen Li Thijssen
Faye Shen Li Thijssen
See More Writings by author
Jan 31, 2022

This is the final entry in a series of articles examining changes to voting laws in every state.

The ongoing election evolution in the United States, while in large part catalyzed by the Covid-19 pandemic, has been building momentum for years.

Many states were already undergoing major overhauls to their election systems leading up to the 2020 election, even before the pandemic gripped the nation. And in the aftermath of the presidential contest, states have doubled down on voting reforms.

To provide a comprehensive analysis of the voting law changes in every state and Washington, D.C., since 2019, The Fulcrum compiled data from the Voting Rights Lab, the National Conference for State Legislatures, the Brennan Center for Justice, and state statutes and constitutions. This 11th installment focuses on the four remaining states.

Kentucky became a model for bipartisan lawmaking when the Democratic governor and Republican General Assembly agreed to a sweeping overhaul of election laws. Maryland, which also has a divided government, enacted a number of significant changes as well. Maine, controlled by Democrats, and Ohio, under Republican rule, made fewer changes to their election systems.

The chart below provides an overview of how voting practices have changed or remained the same in these states over the past two years. A more detailed explanation of each state's changes follows.

Made with Flourish

More from Election Evolution:

How the 5 most populous states have overhauled their election systems
 How the 5 vote-by-mail states have overhauled their election systems
 How 5 swing states have overhauled their election systems
 How the 4 early primary states have overhauled their election systems
 How 5 Southern states have overhauled their election systems
How blue states have overhauled their election systems, Part I
How blue states have overhauled their election systems, Part II
 How red states have overhauled their election systems, Part I
 How red states have overhauled their election systems, Part II
 How the least populous states have overhauled their election systems

Kentucky

While Kentucky has only voted Democratic in three presidential elections since the 1970s, the state government is currently divided: Republicans control the General Assembly while Democrat Andy Beshear occupies the governor’s desk. That has led to both partisan disputes as well as compromise on election laws over the past three years.

In 2019, the General Assembly expanded voting options by specifying that voters who will be absent from their county of residence on Election Day – but are not permitted to vote by mail – can apply for in-person absentee early voting. (Otherwise, only people with certain excuses, such as age, disability or illness may vote by absentee ballot.)

And overriding Beshear’s veto, Kentucky enacted a new photo identification law in 2020. Going forward, all voters will be required to show a photo ID. Anyone who cannot provide such an ID may cast a provisional ballot but must later show identification for the ballot to be counted.

In 2021, Kentucky’s leaders agreed to a wide-ranging, bipartisan overhaul of election procedures. Among the changes made via that law:

  • Voters can take advantage of three days of early voting. (During the 2020 election, Kentucky allowed for three weeks of early voting to accommodate voters concerned about the Covid-19 pandemic.)
  • People may cast ballots at a county voter center, regardless of assigned precinct.
  • Voters can return ballots through a secure drop box. Each county is required to establish at least one drop box.
  • Voters will have an opportunity to “cure” a ballot if there is a question about signature matching.
  • The state will pilot a process for running risk-limiting audits, considered a statistically sound method for reviewing ballot counts.
  • The processing of absentee ballots is permitted to begin up to 14 days before Election Day. Under previous law, processing could not begin until 8 a.m. on Election Day.
  • Election officials are required to report “irregularities” in mail-in ballots to the county attorney or the Office of the Attorney General.
  • The state shall maintain an online portal for requesting absentee ballots. The portal must open 45 days before an election close two weeks out, with exceptions for uniformed and overseas citizens and those requesting emergency absentee ballots.
  • The deadline for challenges to mail-in ballots has been changed from before 8 a.m. on Election Day to before 8 a.m. on the day preceding an election.
  • Absentee ballots that have not been sent by the county clerk to a qualified voter but have been returned to the county board of elections or central counting board will be automatically rejected.
  • Only family members, housemates and caregivers may return a ballot on behalf of another voter, limiting the practice of “ballot harvesting.”
  • The state must use voting machines that create a paper trail.

Maine

Democrats control the state government in Maine, although Republicans have been competitive in recent federal elections. The state implemented several election reforms to expand accessibility to voter registration and ballot return options.

The Legislature implemented an online voter registration system that can accept applications from anyone applying for, updating or renewing a license or state ID. Maine also enabled easier voter registration by designating student IDs as valid forms of identification.

Maine also established a ballot notice and cure system. According to the law, a voter must be notified within one day of officials identifying a defective ballot. Voters may also confirm their identity over the phone for mismatched signatures. The deadline for ballot curing is 8 p.m. on Election Day.

Finally, the state enacted several changes to expand vote-by-mail options. Some polling places are now allowed to broaden the use of 24-hour drop boxes for absentee ballots and municipalities may also obtain drop boxes for absentee ballots to use outside of office buildings.

Other voting changes include:

  • A new law requires the establishment of an online ballot tracking portal.
  • The new deadline for online voter registration is midnight on the 21st day before Election Day. Previously, the deadline was the end of the business on the 21st day.
  • Absentee ballots may not be counted until after the polls have closed on Election Day.
  • Election officials may begin processing absentee ballots seven days before Election Day.
  • The secretary of state must draft instructions for requesting no-excuse absentee ballots.
  • Voters requesting absentee ballots must provide their name, date of birth and residential address.
  • Automatic voter registration systems will be expanded in 2022.

Maryland

While three of Maryland’s last four governors have been Republicans (including the incumbent, Larry Hogan), the state generally leans toward the Democratic Party. The House of Delegates is led by a strong Democratic majority while the Senate has been under Democratic control since 1900.

Over the past three years, the split government has made several changes to election laws, including a number of moves to make it easier for people to vote.

One of the more significant changes, enacted in 2020, required that absentee ballots include prepaid postage provided by the local board of elections (which would then be partially reimbursed by the State Board of Elections). And the following year, a law was passed establishing a permanent absentee voter list for which all voters are eligible.

Another law enacted in 2021 addressed voting rights for people released from correctional facilities, in pretrial detention or serving time for misdemeanors — all of whom may vote. It requires the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to provide voter registration information upon release from prison and as well educate qualified voters about their rights.

In 2021, a new misdemeanor offense was established, prohibiting anyone from canvassing, electioneering, or posting campaign material in a manner that obstructs access to a ballot drop box, or placing any campaign material or any other unauthorized material on a ballot drop box.

Maryland legislators also pushed through a handful of small changes that made the process easier for registering to vote or requesting an absentee ballot, particularly for military and disabled voters.

A 2019 law requires local boards of elections to prepare and release a report of the unofficial results of the absentee ballot count at the end of each day of absentee canvassing. That same year, the statute authorized counties to establish one early voting center in addition to the number of centers required. And a 2021 law requires early voting centers to be open 8 am to 8 pm on early voting days in elections other than a presidential general election.

Ohio

Ohio, a key battleground state controlled by Republicans, allowed temporary measures to ease voting in 2020 but enacted few changes in 2021.

The state now prohibits election officials from accepting money from any non-governmental or private entity. The only exceptions to this law include the donation of a building to serve as a polling place and the donation of food to officials on Election Day.

Ohio also requires the Board of Election to audit election results.

And officials may not change the time, place or manner of conducting an election except in emergency situations.


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