Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Reforming one law could prevent another election insurrection, experts say

Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi

On Jan. 6, then-Vice President Mike Pence and Speaker Nancy Pelosi officiated the counting of electoral college votes — a process experts say needs urgent reform.

J. Scott Applewhite/Getty Images

To avoid a repeat of the Jan. 6 election insurrection, Congress needs to update a little-known law passed 134 years ago, experts say.

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 governs the casting and counting of electoral votes every four years, but the law's language is arcane and often confusing, which leaves room for misuse, according to the National Task Force on Election Crises. The cross-partisan group of more than 50 experts in election law, national security and voting rights released a reportTuesday renewing calls for swift congressional action to safeguard against potential future crises.


"Modernizing the ECA may well be the single most important thing that Congress can do to prevent a full-blown crisis in the next disputed presidential election," said Adav Noti, senior director for trial litigation and chief of staff at the Campaign Legal Center.

There are several deficiencies in the Electoral Count Act that experts say need to be rectified.

The timing for states to choose their electors, including the arcane rules for emergency, post-Election Day selection, should be clarified. "The current statute alludes vaguely to the possibility that a state's presidential election could result in 'failure,' but provides no definition or constraints, thus creating the potential for misunderstanding and even abuse," the report says.

The law should be reformed to better protect each state's ability to adjudicate its own post-election disputes and limit opportunities for second-guessing by partisan actors in Congress, the task force recommends.

The Electoral Count Act leaves too much room for uncertainty regarding the vice president's responsibilities, which are limited and ministerial, the report says. Before and on Jan. 6, there was speculation that the vice president had authority beyond opening envelopes and counting electoral votes. Therefore, the law should be updated to make clear the vice president "does not have the power to decide controversies that might arise over counting electoral votes or to otherwise decide the outcome of the election."

The threshold for raising objections to counting electoral votes should be raised well above the current requirement of only one member from each chamber, the report says. Also, the grounds upon which members of Congress may base objections should be narrowly defined so that lawmakers "may not simply substitute their own political preferences for the voters' judgment expressed at the ballot box and carried out by the Electoral College."

Finally, the law should be updated to establish procedures for resolving election disputes in Congress. The current mechanism is "convoluted and insufficient," the report says, because it details extensive procedures for Congress to follow but fails to provide a clear path to final resolution in many circumstances.

While these proposed reforms to the Electoral Count Act may sound small and technical, they could significantly bolster American democracy by ensuring a peaceful transition of power.

"Democracies today don't die through coups or wars," said Rachel Kleinfeld, a senior fellow in the Democracy, Conflict and Governance Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "The way that most democracies right now are failing is [...] by elected leaders with undemocratic tendencies altering the rules of the game."

For the last 15 years, there has been a steady decline in democracies globally — and the U.S. is no exception, said Kleinfeld, who is also a member of the task force. So it's not a question of if these problems will happen, but when, she added.

Jan. 6 is the latest and worst example to date of an attack on American democracy, but there have been regular abuses of the Electoral Count Act for the last two decades, Noti said. And they've been getting progressively worse.

"This is not the area to wait for something to break and fix it after," said Noti, who like Kleinfeld is a member of the task force. "If this breaks and we go down the nightmare road of a truly unresolved presidential election — imagine dueling inaugurations on Inauguration Day. Imagine the chaos and violence that could ensue. That's too late at that point."

Experts say now is the best time to reform the Electoral Count Act since the 2024 election is still years away and neither party can predictably benefit from modernizing the law.

Former Rep. Zach Wamp of Tennessee, a Republican who co-chairs Issue One's Reformers Caucus, said he has had conversations with current members of Congress about updating the Electoral Count Act and he believes both parties can come together on this issue.

"We are all Americans first. Our parties come way down the list. Too many people have made party politics their religion, and that is now interfering in civil government and the continuity of this democratic republic," Wamp said. "[Reforming the law] has nothing to do with a partisan advantage or disadvantage."

At the end of January, the task force released its initial post-election report detailing the lessons learned from the 2020 contest and recommendations for how to improve future elections. Then in July, the task force issued an update outlining "concerning trends" that had developed over the last six months, including legislation that limits voter access and threats of violence against election 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