Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Meet the Faces of Democracy: Carly Koppes (R-CO)

Michael Beckel, Mia Minkin, and Ariana Rojas are part of the research department at Issue One, the leading crosspartisan political reform group in Washington, D.C., uniting Republicans, Democrats, and independents in the movement to fix our broken political system and build an inclusive democracy that works for everyone.

Editor’s note: Roughly 10,000 officials across the country run U.S. elections. This interview is part of a series published each month that highlights the election heroes and heroines who are the faces of democracy.


Republican Carly Koppes is the clerk and recorder in Weld County, Colorado, a sprawling, 4,000 square mile, largely agricultural county in the northeastern part of the state.

A former rodeo queen with a second degree black belt in American Kenpo karate, Koppes has been working in the clerk and recorder’s office for roughly 19 years — since June 2004. She started in the office ahead of the 2004 election as a temporary worker, as a favor to her grandmother, a Democrat who once worked on John F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign and volunteered as an election judge well into her 70s.

When Koppes was elected as clerk and recorder in 2014, she earned the distinction of being the youngest person ever elected as Weld County’s clerk and recorder. Koppes has worked more than 30 elections.

Born and raised in Greeley, Colorado, Koppes currently owns five horses, and enjoys fishing, gardening, and crafts. She is a past president of the Colorado County Clerks Association, and she currently serves on the Local Leadership Council of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Since 2022, she has been part of Issue One’s Faces of Democracy project advocating for protections for election workers and for regular, predictable, and sufficient federal funding of elections.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Issue One: How did you end up in this profession?

Carly Koppes: Completely by accident is how I ended up in this profession! I was graduating high school in May of 2004, and the clerk and recorder prior to me had asked my grandmother if any of her grandkids needed a job, because he was needing temporary help for the presidential election in 2004. My grandmother called me up. I came in and interviewed, and I became a temporary employee for the presidential election. And 19 years later, here I am.

Issue One: How many voters are on the rolls in your jurisdiction, and what are the main challenges of a jurisdiction of that size?

Carly Koppes: We are a little over 220,000 registered voters here in Weld County. Not only is it a challenge with that many, but I am also a little over 4,000 square miles.

One of the biggest challenges is communication. The ability to communicate to one section of Weld County can be easy because it is urban. But trying to have that same communication to a rural area is super challenging.

Issue One: If you could speak to one common misconception about election administration, what would you want to clear up?

Carly Koppes: There isn’t any type of Wizard of Oz-ery going on. I understand the gravity and responsibility of running elections. I understand that the ballot is everybody’s greatest equalizer, not only in my county and state, but the nation. The ballot doesn’t know if you’ve got two cents in the bank or two million dollars in the bank. Both of those ballots are exactly equal in the eyes of what we do.

The people like myself in election offices, we understand the responsibility that it is on our shoulders. We have a living, breathing government in the United States, which is fantastic. We are the gatekeepers to that living and breathing government. It would be really nice for people to remember that I’m human just like they are human. I’m a real person too.

Issue One: What is the price tag of running an election in Weld County?

Carly Koppes: It depends on the election. For this upcoming, coordinated November election, we are probably looking at between $500,000 and $700,000 for everything that we need to do. That’s including election judges [as poll workers in Colorado are known], printing costs, equipment maintenance, and all that kind of stuff.

Next year, we have three elections we need to run here in Colorado. We’ve got the presidential primary, then the June primary, and then the November general election. We’re probably going to be looking at about $1.5 million to $1.7 million solely for the general election. And the two others combined will probably be around $1 million.

Issue One: A lot of people are surprised to learn that the federal government doesn’t routinely fund election administration. Why do you think the federal government should regularly fund elections?

Carly Koppes: They should pay some of the burdens of this because we are running their elections for them. We are running the U.S. House of Representative elections. We are running the U.S. Senate elections. We are running the presidential elections.

Issue One: If your jurisdiction had extra funding, how would you spend it?

Carly Koppes: Advancing audits of results and transparency, and being able to adequately pay these amazing poll workers that we call election judges, and being able to adequately support and pay my year-round election team.

Issue One: A lot of jurisdictions have limited funding for elections. What tips or tricks of the trade have you utilized to get the most bang for the buck in your area?

Carly Koppes: Budget, budget, budget. And pilot anything and everything you possibly can. That has been the best way for us to make advancements and really try and utilize each dollar to the best of our buck.

Issue One: What practices have you employed to help you run elections efficiently?

Carly Koppes: We are always just looking for ways that we can be efficient but still keep our security and transparency up. We have implemented different technologies to try and assist with that. For instance, Weld County invested in automatic signature verification technology to help us with the signature verification part of our process. And one of the other biggest things that helps us be efficient is when we have our volunteers return election after election after election, because they are just continuing to build on their knowledge.

Issue One: What kinds of gaps or challenges exist in places that might be struggling to be more efficient?

Carly Koppes: When we see a county struggle, it’s because they don’t have the funding, and they also just don’t have the volunteers. They don’t have the amount of election judges that they need to be as quick with what they are needing to do in the timeframe that they have. It really does come down to that.

Issue One: Is there anything else you’d like to say about why it’s important for elections to receive more regular and consistent federal funding?

Carly Koppes: The last thing that we want is for us to become vulnerable at any point in time, especially since elections have been designated critical infrastructure at the federal level. We have seen what the mis-, dis-, and mal-information campaigns have done to our credibility. More funding right now would be so important because we need to focus on getting the correct information out there and battle these people who have larger microphones than I do. Unfortunately, nobody really knows who Carly Koppes is, but everyone knows who [My Pillow CEO and election denier] Mike Lindell is.

Issue One: What is your favorite book or movie about politics?

Carly Koppes: I really wish there was actually a book written about my grandmother. She was one of the only female people who was on John F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign. She ran his campaign on the Western Slope in Colorado.

Issue One: Outside of being passionate about running safe and secure elections, what are your hobbies, or what’s a fun fact that most people might not know about you?

Carly Koppes: I’ve been on the back of a horse since the time I could sit up. I have done all sorts of dialects — English riding, Western riding, rodeoing. That’s one thing that I absolutely love. I still have five horses, and I’ve got two under two. That’s been super fun. They crack me up every single day.

And then another random thing that people don’t usually know about me is that I actually am a second degree black belt in American Kenpo karate. I’ve been studying karate since I was three years old.

Issue One: I hope you’ve never had to use karate on the job.

Carly Koppes: I have not had to use karate on the job, thank goodness. Even when I had people pounding on the door, I didn’t have to, so we’re good.

Read More

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
The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin
us a flag on pole
Photo by Saad Alfozan on Unsplash

The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin

Where is our nation headed — and why does it feel as if the country is spinning out of control under leaders who cannot, or will not, steady it?

Americans are watching a government that seems to have lost its balance. Decisions shift by the hour, explanations contradict one another, and the nation is left reacting to confusion rather than being guided by clarity. Leadership requires focus, discipline, and the courage to make deliberate, informed decisions — even when they are not politically convenient. Yet what we are witnessing instead is haphazard decision‑making, secrecy, and instability.

Keep ReadingShow less