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

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

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

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

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

Lawsuits, easements and diagnoses: updates from the nexus of elections and coronavirus

Florida primary voter

Florida primary voters went to the polls on March 17. Two volunteers working in Hollywood that day have since tested positive for the coronavirus.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images
The Fulcrum
By The FulcrumMar 27, 2020
The Fulcrum
The Fulcrum staff.
See More Writings by author

Advocates for making the coronavirus pandemic the time for changing American voting habits are taking heart there won't be any polling places for three of the next four Democratic presidential contests.

Voting in Alaska and Hawaii will now join Wyoming's caucuses in being conducted entirely remotely, among the latest wave of changes in the world of elections during a historic public health emergency.

While several states moved to make voting easier, Wisconsin pressed ahead with plans for a traditional primary April 7 and has now been confronted by four federal lawsuits hoping to force changes. And Florida reported the first known cases of poll workers subsequently testing positive for coronavirus.

Here are the latest developments:

Wisconsin

The state's requirement that an adult witness must sign all mail-in ballots violates the constitutional rights and health of as many as 250,000 older voters who are avoiding others because of their high risk of Covid-19 infection, the League of Women Voters argued Thursday in a lawsuit.

In a separate claim later in the day, groups representing black and Hispanic voters and union members sued to delay the primary until Democratic Gov. Tony Evers lifts his emergency order closing most businesses and schools and requiring most people to stay at home. They argued it is "functionally impossible" for election officials to both comply with those orders and follow the rules for running an election.

They are the third and fourth cases brought against Wisconsin election officials in the past week.

The signature suit, filed on behalf of four elderly women who live alone, asks a judge to suspend the rule for absentee ballots in the primary. It is going ahead on schedule in part because, in addition to the presidential contest, the ballot also includes races for a state Supreme Court seat and some other state and local posts that will otherwise become vacant next month.

As of Friday, six days from the deadline, nearly 800,000 absentee ballot requests had been received — meaning the share of remote votes is on course to set a record in the state.

U.S. District Judge William Griesbach says he will rule Monday on an effort by Green Bay to get the primary postponed until June 2. The city sued Tuesday, claiming that the health of poll workers, city employees and voters would be put at risk unless the election is delayed for eight weeks.

In response to a lawsuit filed by the state and national Democratic Party, a federal judge recently ruled Wisconsin must extend online registration by a dozen days, until Monday.

Florida

Two people who worked different primary polling stations in the beachfront city of Hollywood on March 17 have tested positive for coronavirus, Broward County elections officials announced Thursday.

The officials said they did not know when the volunteer election helpers got sick but that they had only limited contact with voters. One was a greeter at a precinct where 205 people cast ballots. The other checked people in at a place where just 61 votes were cast after working behind the scenes at an early voting station the previous week.

To date, Hollywood has had more confirmed coronavirus cases than any other city in Florida outside Miami. The Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections said it was unaware of any other poll workers testing positive in the state.

Ohio

Republican Gov. Mike DeWine planned to sign a measure Friday extending voting by mail in the primary until April 27 and essentially quashing the governor's push for a day for balloting in person on June 2.

The GOP-majority Legislature cleared the measure this week in response to the governor calling off the March 17 voting just hours before polls opened.

The law orders the state to send postcards to all Ohioans about the changed timetable and voting method, but does not provide for sending out absentee ballot request forms automatically. It says only the disabled and homeless may vote in person on April 28.

Several civil rights groups complained the new system and tight timetable would disenfranchise thousands. Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican, said he disapproved of the plan because it would "significantly reduce the time provided for Ohio to bring this primary to a close" but would work to carry it out.

Indiana

The bipartisan Election Commission decided Wednesday to suspend the excuse requirement on applications to vote absentee in the primary — one of several changes to accommodate GOP Gov. Eric Holcomb's earlier decision to delay the voting from May 5 to June 2.

Hoosiers must usually stipulate they have one of 11 acceptable excuses for being unable to get to their polling place on Election Day, one of the more restrictive vote-by-mail laws in the country.

The panel also extended the absentee application deadline to May 21 and the registration deadline to May 5, and relaxed rules about staffing levels at voting sites. It said it would reconvene in four weeks to decide if the pandemic required altogether abandoning in-person primary voting.

The next contests by mail

Hawaii Democrats had planned for most of their primary to be by mail, but this week they scrapped plans for 21 polling sites across the archipelago. They also mailed out ballots to all registered voters for a third time and delayed the deadline to register to vote until primary day, April 4.

Alaska Democrats have called off in-person voting on April 4 and extended the postmark deadline on mailed-in ballots until April 10. They had already mailed those forms to every member of the party and this week made a version available for download from the party website.

Wyoming Democrats had dropped the caucus-in-person option a few weeks ago. This week they reopened, until Wednesday, the period for requesting a ballot in the mail — and postponed the deadline for getting them back to April 17.

Pennsylvania

The state will become the sixth to move its presidential voting to June 2 once Democratic Gov. Tom Wolfe signs the necessary legislation, probably later Friday. It was cleared by the Republican-majority Legislature Wednesday — not in Harrisburg but by conducting business remotely for the first time in its history.

With 186 Democratic delegates up for grabs, it is the second biggest state (after New York) that hasn't had a primary yet.

Georgia

A collection of third-party candidates asked a federal judge Thursday to reduce the number of signatures required to win a spot on the November ballot, arguing the absence of people in public places makes it "virtually impossible" to circulate petitions.

In a lawsuit, they asked the court to keep the deadlines the same but trim the signature thresholds to a number prorated to the date this spring or summer when the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention rescinds the guidance recommending social distancing.

West Virginia

Every registered voter will receive an application in early April for voting absentee in the May 12 primary. GOP Secretary of State Mac Warner announced Thursday the state would cover the counties' mailing costs but that forwarding a mail-in ballot automatically would go against state law.

This "encourages voters to participate in the election in the safest manner possible without having to leave their house," he said. "Your ballot box is as close as your mailbox."


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