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 least populous states have overhauled their election systems

election law changes
whyframestudio/Getty Images
By Ria Agarwal,
Ria Agarwal
See More Writings by author
Faye Shen Li Thijssen,
Faye Shen Li Thijssen
See More Writings by author
Cassidy Wang
Cassidy Wang
See More Writings by author
Jan 27, 2022

This is the 10th 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 10th installment focuses on the five least populous states.

There is little uniformity in the way these states addressed elections over the past three years. In Alaska, the focus was on primaries and ballot structure, while North Dakota, South Dakota and Vermont made extensive changes to their elections laws. In Wyoming, the focus was on voter identification.

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

Alaska

While Alaska has regularly supported Republican candidates in presidential elections, the state government is divided, resulting in few changes to ballot access laws in recent years.

In response to Covid-19, the Legislature extended Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s 30-day coronavirus disaster declaration. This decision allowed the state to conduct the 2020 elections entirely by mail and implement emergency voting measures. However, these measures expired on Nov. 15, 2021.

Voters did approve a massive overhaul to the voting process in 2020, eliminating partisan primaries for state and congressional races and implementing ranked-choice voting for congressional races. The package also created new campaign finance disclosure rules for legislative and local races.

In late December 2021, Gov. Dunleavy announced his intention to pursue sweeping election and voting reform bills in the first 30 days of the upcoming legislative session.

North Dakota

As a rural midwestern state, North Dakota maintains a reputation as one of the most reliably conservative states in the country and the GOP currently controls the governor’s seat as well as the Legislative Assembly. It has the unique status of being the only state that does not require voters to register in order to cast a ballot.

Over the past three years, there have been several changes made in election legislation throughout the state. Although most changes have been relatively minor, two of the more significant laws, both passed in 2021, focused on election crimes.

The first amended a previous law to prohibit people from engaging in a number of election deceptions, including providing false returns or destroying election-related materials. It also provides punishments for those who destroy ballots, ballot boxes, election lists, or other election supplies except as provided by law, or negatively impact the confidentiality, integrity or availability of any system used for voting.

Another bill makes it a crime for state and local election officials to solicit or accept outside funding, such as grants or donations, for elections operations or administration.

The state made a number of changes related to absentee voting in 2021:

  • Election officials are prohibited from mailing absentee ballots to voters who have not requested them in jurisdictions that do not conduct elections primarily by mail.
  • Whereas election officials could previously mail absentee ballot applications to all registered voters, they may now only do so in areas that primarily vote by mail — and only to active voters and those eligible to vote for the first time.
  • Any voter using an absentee ballot may receive it by electronic delivery. Previously, that permission only applied to military and overseas civilian voters.
  • Visually impaired voters are allowed to request an absentee ballot they may mark and return electronically.
  • A new process was created for correcting mismatched signatures on absentee ballots. Election officials must first attempt to contact voters by phone and, if unable to speak with the voter, by mail. The voter will receive notice of the issue with instructions for how to cure the issue within six days after Election Day. The voter may cure the issue in writing or in person and will need to provide a copy of or present the ID used when applying for the ballot.
  • Each county is required to create an absentee ballot precinct to count all absentee ballots cast in the county. Previous law authorized, but did not require, the creation of absentee ballot precincts.

North Dakota also enacted a law that permits state-overseen schools of higher education to provide students with information regarding voter eligibility requirements. And, finally, changes were made to the process for updating the central voter file information.

South Dakota

Much like its neighbor to the north, South Dakota is generally dominated by conservative politics. Throughout the state, there are only five reliably Democratic counties, most of which have predominantly indigenous populations, a stark contrast to the state’s otherwise generally white population. The last seven gubernatorial elections have been won by Republican candidates while the Legislature has been under control of the Republican party for over thirty years.

Over the past three years, there have been several changes made to election laws.

In February 2021, a bill was enacted allowing victims of domestic violence to keep their voter registration information confidential for the sake of their safety. To qualify for the designation, a voter must have a verified active protection order or proof of residence in a domestic violence shelter. Once issued, the designation lasts for five years.

The previous year, the state made it easier for more people to register to vote by allowing the use of identification other than a driver’s license for that purpose of registering to vote. This is significant in a state where many Native Americans use tribal IDs as a primary form of identification.

Other changes to election law include:

  • Requiring vote centers and counties that use electronic pollbooks to have paper copies of registration lists.
  • Allowing future consideration for allowing people to change their voter registration information online.
  • Revisions to the requirements for maintenance of and public access to voter registration data.

A 2019 law, requiring people who circulate petitions for ballot initiatives to register with the state and provide certain personal information, was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge.

Vermont

While Vermont has reliably voted blue in presidential elections since 1992, it’s currently led by a Republican, Gov. Phil Scott, who has worked with the Democratic-led Legislature to implement an array of expansive voting rights laws in recent years.

In response to Covid-19, a law was passed allowing the secretary of state to order appropriate election procedures to protect the safety of voters and poll workers. Many of the short-term practices were included in a 2021 law that made permanent changes to Vermont elections.

That state wide-ranging bill included a number of provisions making it easier for people to vote.

  • Most notably, it established a vote-by-mail system in 2021 for all general elections. All registered voters will receive mail-in ballots, accompanied by return envelopes with prepaid postage, by Oct. 1.
  • The law also authorized the use of drop boxes, which must be available around the clock (with video surveillance) beginning 43 days before an election and through the day before Election Day.
  • Verification of absentee ballots must begin 30 days before Election Day.
  • A statewide notice and curing process was created for ballots with errors. Clerks must inform voters of a ballot defect and the right to correct the error the next business day. If a ballot is rejected within five days of Election Day, clerks are required to notify the voter as soon as possible. Voters may only correct a defective ballot twice in a single election.
  • Election officials are also permitted to set up outdoor and drive-through polling stations.
  • Officials must count the ballot that is received first if a voter returns both their originally mailed ballot and a replacement ballot.
  • Municipal legislative bodies and school boards using the Australian ballot system may mail ballots to all registered voters for their elections.
  • The secretary of state must consult with municipalities on improving voter access for non-English speakers and provide recommendations.

The same law prohibits candidates and paid campaign staff from delivering ballots on behalf of anyone outside their immediate families. And no person, other than a justice of the peace, may deliver more than 25 ballots. Previously, there was no cap on the number of ballots an individual could drop off.

In addition, the state enacted a law in 2019 authorizing the secretary of state to expand the list of agencies providing automatic voter registration services.

That law also permitted electronic delivery of absentee ballots to voters with disabilities or who are ill/injured and allowed clerks to accept emergency absentee ballots after the deadline.

Wyoming

Wyoming, under unified GOP control and a reliable supporter of Republican presidential candidates, focused on voter identification when revising its election procedures over the past three years.

In 2021, the Legislature implemented a voter identification law, requiring voters to present a valid form of ID prior to voting on Election Day. Under the previous law, the state only required voters to present an ID while registering to vote and not while casting a ballot. The new law also requires people without an ID to vote by provisional ballot, which officials can designate as grounds to challenge the vote.

In 2020, the state eased voting for Native Americans by allowing tribal identification cards to be used for voter registration.

Other voting changes include:

  • The state authorized the establishment of satellite absentee polling locations.
  • Votes must now be counted at a central location.
  • The creation of a permanent account to pay for election-related expenditures.

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