Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Fahey Q&A with Carlene Bechen, who's organizing Wisconsinites to fight for fair voting maps

Carlene Bechen and Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition.

Carlene Bechen speaks at a November 2019 press conference in announcing the Fair Maps for Wisconsin Summit and Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition.

Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition

Since organizing the Voters Not Politicians 2018 ballot initiative that put citizens in charge of drawing Michigan's legislative maps, Fahey has been the founding executive director of The People, which is forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. She regularly interviews colleagues in the world of democracy reform for The Fulcrum.

Carlen Bechen is the organizing director of the Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition, which advocates for an independent, nonpartisan redistricting method in Wisconsin. The group also engages the public in the process of adopting and implementing nonpartisan maps.

Our recent conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Fahey: Tell us about your background and what brought you to lead this effort.

Bechen: I'm a retired public educator of nearly 30 years. Ten years ago, after the current maps were drawn, I experienced personally the decline of our public education system in Wisconsin from one of the top-rated in the nation to 24th. And despite testifying with hundreds of others before the Wisconsin State Legislature's Joint Finance Committee in numerous budget cycles, I watched support for public education wane. It was then that I realized that legislators didn't need to be responsive or accountable to us — the gerrymandered maps that were drawn after the 2010 census guaranteed them victory.



After the 2018 election, when Democrats won all the statewide elections and Republicans continued to maintain a dominant advantage in the Legislature, it became clear that the voting maps were the problem. So my activist colleagues in the Oregon Area Progressives decided to convene a statewide summit for others who wanted to get involved and take meaningful action. We'd been told too many times to call our legislators to no avail. That's where I met you, Katie.

Fahey: What are the main issues the Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition is confronting and the reforms you're promoting?

Bechen: Right now, we're dealing with the most pressing issue, the proposed GOP maps for the next decade. We expect the Legislature to pass these rigged maps along party lines. Then they'll go to the governor, who's said he will veto any maps based on the old maps, which these are.

Our long-term goal is a permanent fix to this issue: the establishment through legislation of a nonpartisan process for creating new voting congressional and state legislative district maps.

Fahey: How can people support your work?

Bechen: There are so many ways to get involved — from talking with people in their networks to joining a local grassroots fair maps team. We provide a list of events and a petition asking the Legislature to pass nonpartisan redistricting legislation. They can also sign up to receive our newsletter and for guidance on writing their legislators and letters to the editor. And they can follow us on Facebook and share our content.

Fahey: What's been happening in the Legislature regarding the redistricting process?

Bechen: Since June, two nonpartisan redistricting bills — one in the Senate and one in the Assembly — have languished in committee. Concerned Wisconsinites have called their legislators and written letters to the editor since the bills were introduced. Back in September, we coordinated a virtual Legislative Lobby Day, all online. Two hundred twenty-one people from around the state participated. They held 115 meetings with 64 legislators. It was a big deal! Our two asks: pass nonpartisan redistricting legislation and take up the maps drawn by the People's Maps Commission.

Fahey: Tell us about the People's Maps Commission.

Bechen: After being elected in 2018, Gov. Tony Evers included money in his first budget to create a nonpartisan commission for redistricting, which, not surprisingly, was stripped out by a GOP-led committee. So he created the People's Maps Commission by executive order. The commissioners are ordinary Wisconsin residents who applied to do this volunteer work. They couldn't be politicians or lobbyists or hold office with any political party. The PMC has worked since the fall of 2020 to produce voting district maps through a transparent process with public input.

Virtual hearings were held from October 2020 through March 2021 in each of Wisconsin's eight congressional districts. They heard from experts and regular Wisconsinites alike on everything from legal considerations to what a "community of interest" map looks like. They opened a portal for regular folks to submit maps using map-drawing software, gathering over 1,800 maps and written comments from the public. Then they created draft maps open to public comment. The commissioners just delivered their final maps to the governor earlier this month.

While the Legislature's maps are extremely unbalanced in terms of representation, county splits, compactness and contiguity, the PMC's maps are much better on all those criteria. It's not just me saying that. Both sets of maps were graded by the Princeton Gerrymandering Project taking into account numerous criteria. The legislators' maps all received overall F grades, while the PMC's set of maps earned overall grades of two A's and a B.

[Note: Since this conversation the Wisconsin Legislature gave final approval to the GOP's maps along party lines. Evers has promised to veto the maps, an act that will send the matter to the courts.]

Fahey: Fill us in on recent developments and the impact the citizens of Wisconsin have had on the process.

Bechen: The Assembly and Senate just held their first and only joint hearing in late October on the legislative and congressional maps they released only a week prior. It was awe-inspiring to see over 200 concerned citizens come to the state Capitol to register their opposition to the maps being proposed by the GOP leadership! More than 50 people testified in the nine-hour hearing. Of those, only the Republican Assembly speaker and Senate majority leader spoke in favor of their new maps.

People felt very empowered by that showing. Folks who previously weren't even really aware of what redistricting was are now full-on activists fighting for fair maps. We are in many ways happy warriors. This is not easy work — it can be very frustrating and a lot of times it's hard to keep going. But we lift one another up, and the more that we do that, the larger our movement becomes. People know this is the right thing, and the more we can promote what's right and fair, the more people are drawn to our movement.

I firmly believe we will prevail. I would not be doing this if I didn't believe we would ultimately succeed.

Fahey: If you were speaking with a high school student or a new immigrant to this country, how would you describe what being an American means to you?

Bechen: As a former social studies teacher, this is something I've thought about a lot. Being an American is an awesome privilege and it carries with it a lot of responsibility, because the United States, for better or worse, impacts events globally in a way no other nation does. So for me, being an American means being aware. It means taking that responsibility seriously, and doing my best to make my little piece of the world a better place for everyone.


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