Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Women of color lead the fight for voting rights 101 years after suffrage

Rep. Terri Sewell

Rep. Terri Sewell pays her respects to the late Rep. John Lewis at the conclusion of a memorial service in July 2020.

J. Scott Applewhite/Getty Images

Originally published by The 19th

Standing next to the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Tuesday, Rep. Terri Sewell of Alabama introduced House Resolution 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, for the fourth time.

As the country marks 101 years since the ratification of the 19th Amendment on Wednesday, the franchise remains fragile. Women of color like Sewell are on the front lines of fighting the 21st century voter suppression efforts sweeping state legislatures — and of helping to lead the push for federal voting rights legislation that is likely to stall anew in a deeply divided Congress.

In the modern-day battle for suffrage, many women and marginalized people are fighting on two fronts: They're attempting to defend hard-fought gains even as they scramble to expand the electorate. Some see the progress of the past imperiled as their successes are met with conservative backlash.


The suffrage anniversary raises questions of who is American, who gets to have a say and who gets to participate in our democracy, said Notre Dame University political scientist Christina Wolbrecht.

“This is a broad fight about who deserves to have power in this country," said Wolbrecht, author of the book “A Century of Votes for Women." “People do not like to lose status."

Last year's suffrage centennial was a stark reminder of the people who were excluded from that victory in 1920: the Black women who stood shoulder to shoulder with White suffragists, only to be sacrificed as the latter group prioritized their race over gender; Latinas and Asian women who were blocked from the ballot with discriminatory language restrictions; Native Americans who were not yet even recognized as American citizens. Suffrage remains a work in progress for so many, including transgender Americans who face barriers at the polls.

Today, women are the majority of the U.S. electorate, and Black women are the most loyal and consistent voters in the Democratic Party. A record number of women and LGBTQ+ people serve in Congress and the current administration, including several who hold pioneering leadership positions.

Vice President Kamala Harris has used her bully pulpit as the second-most powerful person in the country to push for increased voter participation and to call for the passage of federal voting rights legislation to counter state suppression efforts. And she has met with civil rights leaders, including women like Black Voters Matter co-founder LaTosha Brown, Janet Murguia of UNIDOS and NAACP Legal Defense Fund President Sherrilyn Ifill, who are urging federal action on the issue as their focus shifts from campaigning to holding elected officials accountable.

In the Justice Department, two women of color are tasked with enforcing voting rights. Vanita Gupta is the agency's third-highest-ranking official, and Kristen Clarke oversees the department's federal civil rights division.

In the first seven months of the administration, the DOJ has announced plans to expand civil rights enforcement, sued Georgia over its elections bill and launched an investigation into allegations of discriminatory policing practices in Phoenix.

The suffrage centennial in 2020 also coincided with a push to suppress voters in the midst of a pandemic. As lots of voters turned to absentee voting as a COVID-friendly way to cast a ballot, Republican lawmakers in many states sought to limit the number of drop boxes available in communities and to shorten the window for early voting — tactics that made voting more challenging.

Still, Black women in particular helped to organize and turn out record numbers of voters in November, many of whom stood in long lines at risk to their public health to participate in the 2020 election. They turned out again to deliver the Senate to Democrats in January special elections. Latinas were also part of a winning coalition for Democrats, with organizing efforts that led to critical victories in states like Nevada and Arizona last fall.

For Black women, as with the original suffragists, their efforts were tied to support and advocacy for their communities on issues including health care, education, the economy and inequality.

Melanie Campbell, head of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, was among several Black women arrested last month on Capitol Hill at a protest pushing for the passage of Senate Bill 1, the For the People Act, before the legislation died earlier this summer.

The bill, which would've limited the influence of money in politics and protected access to the polls, failed to gain Republican support. Democrats were unwilling to jettison the filibuster to unilaterally pass the bill into law. Campbell and other civil rights leaders have met with the administration and attempted to appeal to Democratic holdout Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

Much of the work Campbell does echoes that of Black women suffragists dating back to her Delta Sigma Theta sorority sisters who marched for voting rights more than a century ago. That she follows their example has been both discouraging and inspiring.

“The fight for inclusion never ends," Campbell said. “It can be burdensome, but we have to keep doing it. If we lose this battle, we lose our fight to build power and for self-determination."

The House is expected to vote on H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, when Congress resumes on August 23, but the legislation continues to face long odds in the Senate.

Ifill said the country is at a critical juncture when it comes to voting rights.

“Failure is not an option because the stakes are so high," Ifill said in a conversation for The 19th Represents, a virtual summit taking place this week. The full conversation airs on Friday.

“The voter suppression that we have seen over the last few months is in direct response to the extraordinary mobilization of voters that happened last year and the turnout," she added. “Litigation will not do it alone. Organizing can't do it alone. We need this legislation."


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