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 blue states have overhauled their election systems, Part I

election law changes
whyframestudio/Getty Images
By Cassidy Wang,
Cassidy Wang
See More Writings by author
Faye Shen Li Thijssen,
Faye Shen Li Thijssen
See More Writings by author
Ria Agarwal
Ria Agarwal
See More Writings by author
Dec 21, 2021

This is the sixth 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 sixth installment focuses on the four reliably Democratic states and the District of Columbia. The next part will round out the blue state report.

Democrats control the governor’s seat and both chambers of the legislature in Connecticut, Delaware and Illinois, all of which took significant steps to expand ballot access over the past few years. Massachusetts, which regularly supports Democrats at the federal level, has a Republican governor and has been slow to make permanent the emergency changes implemented during the pandemic. And in Washington, D.C., the city council is still working through a number of proposed changes.

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


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

Connecticut

Connecticut, a Democratic trifecta (control of the governor’s mansion and both chambers of the legislature), has some of the most restrictive voting laws in the country. But recent activity by the General Assembly has pushed in the opposite direction, towards more expansive voting rights through a wide-ranging bill enacted in 2021

Most notably, Connecticut will automatically restore voting eligibility to everyone convicted of a felony offense, following their release from incarceration, starting Jan. 1, 2022. Under previous law, voting rights were not restored until the individual had paid all fines and completed parole. The new law restores voting eligibility to people confined to community residences following a felony conviction and eliminates the prohibition on “mentally incompetent” people registering to vote.

That bill also included several provisions related to voting by mail. “No excuse” absentee voting is effectively permitted, at least temporarily, by allowing concerns about Covid-19 to be a qualifying excuse. Under existing law, the list only included those with a permanent physical disability. Connecticut also expanded absentee voting by permitting people who suffer from a long-term illness to be included in the permanent absentee list. Further loosening of vote-by-mail rules would require an amendment to the state Constitution.

The state did make the use of drop boxes for mail voting a permanent feature of elections.

For those who vote in person, Connecticut now requires employers to provide two hours of unpaid time off on election day as long as the employees request the time off at least two working days prior to the election.

Connecticut also adopted automatic voter registration. The state will register to vote, through an electronic system, at designated voter registration agencies such as the Department of Motor Vehicles. Voter registration information will also be distributed at each high school in the state each fall.

Other recent voting changes include:

  • The secretary of state must provide electronic absentee ballots to voters who cannot access the polling place due to visual impairment.
  • A voter who wants to withdraw their returned absentee ballot and vote in person on Election Day must request their ballot by 5 p.m. on the fourth day before Election Day. Existing law allows voters to withdraw their absentee ballots until 10 a.m. on Election Day.
  • A clerk must send absentee ballots to voters within 48 hours of receiving the application rather than 24 hours.
  • Clerks can begin sorting absentee ballots 14 days before Election Day as opposed to seven days.
  • The notice period for declaring a central counting location is decreased from 20 days to 10 days before the election.
  • Officials can begin reviewing absentee ballots at 5 p.m. on the fourth day before Election Day and begin counting on Election Day. Existing law allows the registrar of voters to set a time.
  • The secretary of state is required to create a system that allows individuals to submit an electronic signature for voting-related forms and applications.
  • The secretary of state must also implement a pilot program for manual or electronic signature verification of absentee ballots for the 2022 election.

Delaware

As such a small state, the political nature of Delaware’s elections is often relatively simple compared to many of its neighbors. In recent decades, it has strongly supported Democratic leaders throughout both state and federal elections and the party currently holds the leadership trifecta.

In the past three years, the legislature has passed several bills to revise voting procedures, including two major changes in 2021.

First, the state expanded its automatic voter registration system. Under the previous rules, a person doing business with the Department of Motor Vehicles was asked whether they wanted to register to vote. But the new law requires that the DMV automatically register applicants who provide documentation of U.S. citizenship, as well as report any name or address changes. The State Elections Commission is also now authorized to grant AVR responsibilities to select other agencies. These systems are to be launched at all DMVs and the other designated agencies by June 2024 at the latest.

A major resolution was also passed earlier this year that sets clear rules about redistricting in an effort to reduce gerrymandering. The resolution requires the General Assembly to draw legislative districts so that they must be, to the extent possible: contiguous, nearly equal in population, bounded by major roads, streams or other natural territories, and created in a manner that does not unduly favor any person or political party. Legislative redistricting information must also be available to the public, public input on redistricting must be solicited, and public hearings on any proposed plans must be provided.

In addition, Gov. John Carney signed a bill in 2019, that establishes an in-person early voting period. Beginning in 2022, registered voters will be permitted to cast ballots at least 10 day prior to election date. The bill also requires each county to have at least one polling place.

In 2019, the legislature passed a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would relax the rules for absentee voting. But state law requires such proposals to be approved in two consecutive sessions before becoming constitutional amendments, and this one was defeated in 2020.

District of Columbia

Washington has voted overwhelmingly blue in every presidential election, often with over 80 percent of votes going towards the Democratic candidate, since gaining the right to cast presidential ballots in 1961. In recent years, D.C. voting rights advocates have pushed for statehood to give residents voting and representation rights on par with other Americans, but that effort has not led to any results.

The D.C. Council, which governs the city, did not make permanent many of the emergency changes passed in 2020 to conduct the election during the pandemic. The most significant recent change is 2020’s passage of the Restore the Vote Amendment, which allows residents in jail or prison for a felony conviction to vote.

A separate 2020 bill also amended the election code to provide employees with a certain number of hours of paid leave in order to vote in person in any election.

The city council has held hearings on legislation to make permanent some of the emergency changes (no-excuse absentee voting, vote centers and expanded ballot boxes, for example), but no vote has been held.

Illinois

Since 2019, the General Assembly has passed multiple bills to change how elections are run, including one to increase the availability of absentee ballots and another to grant voting rights to incarcerated individuals.

The absentee voting changes, all enacted in 2021, include:

  • Allowing drop boxes to be used through the close of polls on Election Day.
  • The creation of a permanent absentee voting list, which enrolled voters will remain on until they change their registration.
  • Requiring the Board of Elections to draft proposed legislation for a procedure to electronically transmit ballots to voters with disabilities, allowing them to use assistive technology to vote absentee.

In 2019, the General Assembly passed a bill that expanded voting access for eligible voters confined in jails and required election authorities to collaborate with county jails to facilitate voting by mail. It includes a requirement that the county election authority establish a temporary branch polling place in the jail in any county with a population of at least 3 million. Additionally, a county jail is required to provide a voter registration application to any person in custody who requests one and is eligible to vote. Refusal by an eligible voter to participate in voting must be documented by the voter or witnessed by a poll watcher.

In 2021, the General Assembly passed a number of additional laws affecting voting rights for eligible jailed voters:

  • The Department of Corrections is permitted to become a voter registration agency.
  • The department is required to provide individuals in its custody with information about voter registration 45 days before their scheduled release.
  • Adding onto the previous law, a sheriff in a county with a population of fewer than 3 million people can establish a temporary polling place in the county jail. Only incarcerated individuals who are residents of the county and have not been convicted can use the polling place.
  • The Department of Juvenile Justice must expand its civics education programs for incarcerated individuals who are scheduled for discharge within 12 months. The program must provide access to voter registration and voting processes for incarcerated people who are eligible to vote.

A number of other expansive changes were passed in 2021. The General Assembly established Election Day 2022 as a state holiday, with mandated closure of schools and all government offices not related to election administration. Every high school is also mandated to provide students with a voter registration explainer and high schools are required to allow nonpartisan voter registration activities.

Election authorities are now required to operate vote centers — where any qualified voter may vote, regardless of their assigned precinct — during polling place hours on Election Day. Finally, the General Assembly also enacted a rule that permits election authorities to establish curbside voting.

Massachusetts

A traditionally blue state, Massachusetts has been led in recent years by a Republican governor and Democratic legislature. During the pandemic, lawmakers implemented several temporary measures to expand voting rights and they are currently pushing to make those measures permanent.

In response to Covid-19, Massachusetts allowed municipalities to hold elections by mail and delay or postpone elections. Local election officials are also required to send mail-in ballots to voters as soon as possible.

The state also temporarily approved accommodations for disabilities. A voter may request to access a ballot electronically if their vision or mobility prevents them from accessing a traditional ballot. Clerks are required to make a reasonable effort to accommodate such voters.

The Legislature permanently altered early voting laws, specifying that the voting period for in-person early voting will run from the 11th day before the general election until the end of the second day before the election. It also passed new legislation to provide prepaid postage for mail ballots.

The Massachusetts Senate publicly supported the permanent adoption of the Covid-19 voting rights expansions on Oct. 6. The bill will be heading to the state House.


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