Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The state of voting: Oct. 17, 2022

voting legislation updates

This weekly update summarizing legislative activity affecting voting and elections is powered by the Voting Rights Lab. Sign up for VRL’s weekly newsletter here.

The Voting Rights Lab is tracking 2,201 bills so far this session, with 580 bills that tighten voter access or election administration and 1,054 bills that expand the rules. The rest are neutral, mixed or unclear in their impact.

It was a busy week for those tracking the state’s election laws, with courts, executive officials and and others across the country weighing in.

A new lawsuit seeks to force Pennsylvania counties to reject mail ballots if they are undated or misdated. An Arkansas law that prohibits polling place translators from assisting more than six voters each will go into effect this election, despite the fact that a lower court found that it violates the federal Voting Rights Act. And Wyoming’s new interim secretary of state sent a nonbinding letter asking that counties cease providing mail ballot drop boxes this election.

Following the 2021 enactment of legislation enabling limitless challenges to voter registrations, Georgia counties have been faced with tens of thousands of frivolous challenges. But counties seem to be rejecting them.

And a federal judge ordered the Alabama secretary of state to turn over records related to voter purges. A new Michigan law prohibits polling places from being placed on property owned by a candidate.

Here are the details:


Republican Party sues to invalidate Pennsylvania mail ballots with undated or misdated signatures. Pennsylvania law requires voters to “date and sign” their ballot certificate. However, counties disagree about whether to count ballots when the voter leaves the date line blank. After multiple lawsuits, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that timely ballots from eligible voters with missing signature dates must be counted because the date is not “material,” and the federal Voting Rights Act prohibits rejecting ballots for immaterial reasons. On Oct. 11, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated that decision without reversing it, preventing it from being binding on future cases. On Sunday, the Republican National Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, and Republican Party of Pennsylvania petitioned the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to rule that timely mail ballots from eligible voters must be rejected if their signature isn’t dated or is misdated (for example, if the voter inadvertently put their date of birth, instead of the date they signed the certificate).

Michigan enacts new siting rules for polling places. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed H.B. 6071, which allows a legislative body to consolidate up to six precincts in a single polling place when “convenient for voters.” Such consolidation, however, cannot happen for the election this November because another rule prevents changing polling places within 60 days of an election. The new law also ensures polling places cannot be placed on property owned by a candidate.

Alabama forced to produce records on voter purges. U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ordered Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill to turn over records relating to voter purges to a plaintiff nonprofit organization, the Greater Birmingham Ministries.

Federal appeals court allows Arkansas restrictions on polling place translators to go into effect. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a ruling by a district court judge who found that Arkansas’ law prohibiting translators from assisting more than six voters each on Election Day violated the federal Voting Rights Act. The stay means the restrictive law can go into effect while the state’s appeal is pending.

Wyoming interim secretary of state requests that counties cease using ballot drop boxes, questioning legality. Secretary of State Karl Allred, who assumed the office on an interim basis after his predecessor was appointed to a judgeship, sent an introductory letter to the state’s 23 county clerks in which he expressed disagreement with his predecessor’s determination that drop boxes were permissible under the state code. In the letter, Allred asked that counties stop making them available to voters. This letter is not binding and does not block clerks from offering drop boxes for the November election if they wish to do so.

Georgia counties continue to reject thousands of challenges to voter registrations. S.B. 202, enacted in 2021, clarified that challenges to voter registrations can be limitless. Counties are now facing – and rejecting – tens of thousands of frivolous challenges. According to the League of Women Voters, out of over 25,000 challenges to voter registrations made by the group VoterGA, only 1,800 registrations have been canceled. On Oct. 4, Gwinnett County in suburban Atlanta rejected all of the pending challenges.

Columbus City Council passes ordinance to protect poll workers. The Columbus, Ohio, city council enacted an ordinance establishing a mandatory sentence of three days in jail for those convicted of harassment of election workers, members of their household or their immediate family. Secretary of State Frank LaRose criticized the ordinance as unnecessary, claiming that existing state law provides adequate protections for poll workers.


Read More

​President Donald Trump and other officials in the Oval office.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, in Washington, before signing a spending bill that will end a partial shutdown of the federal government.

Alex Brandon, Associated Press

Trump Signs Substantial Foreign Aid Bill. Why? Maybe Kindness Was a Factor

Sometimes, friendship and kindness accomplish much more than threats and insults.

Even in today’s Washington.

Keep ReadingShow less
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