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

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

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

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

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

Georgia primary went well, but jury is still out on election law's impact

Georgia primary voters

Atlanta voters cast their ballots in Georgia's 2022 primary election on May 24.

Megan Varner/Getty Images
The Fulcrum
By The FulcrumMay 31, 2022
The Fulcrum
The Fulcrum staff.
See More Writings by author

Last year, Georgia enacted a controversial elections law that critics said would make it significantly harder for people to vote. And while that may still be true, last week’s primary went smoothly with record turnout among both Republicans and Democrats.

Even though the 2021 law created new requirements for voters casting ballots by mail and limited the availability of drop boxes, among other restrictions, no voting jurisdictions reported major problems or exceptionally long lines.

The Fulcrum asked elections integrity analyst David Levine of the Alliance for Security Democracy for his take on Georgia’s new voting rules, last week’s primary and what others can learn from the Peach State.

The Fulcrum: Last year, Georgia passed a sweeping election reform law that drew outrage from the left. Major companies criticized the law and Major League Baseball even moved the All-Star Game out of the state. What was so controversial?

Levine: Georgia ran a remarkable 2020 presidential election, but you wouldn’t know it from many of the provisions that were adopted in last year’s law, many of which seemed to be a problem in search of a solution, and others that seemingly threatened the integrity of vote counting. For example, after standing up to former President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, the Georgia law removed the secretary of state from decision-making power on the state election board. That’s not fixing a problem – it’s exacting retribution.

The new law also gives those in charge of the Georgia legislature the power to choose an election official who could vote on the state election board for a temporary takeover of up to four local election boards during the height of an election (i.e., during the voting period or vote counting). Improving the performance of underperforming local election offices is a laudable goal, but this provision provides few, if any, safeguards to ensure that it can’t be exploited for partisan ends.

Additionally, there are a raft of provisions in Georgia’s sweeping new law that unnecessarily restrict access to the ballot, particularly when one considers Georgia’s success administering the 2020 presidential election. For example, more than 1.3 million voters successfully voted by mail during the 2020 election, an election in which the presidential race was decided by 11,779 votes. In response to this success, Georgia took a number of evidence-free actions, including banning the sending of unsolicited mail ballot applications, limiting the time to request a mail ballot, and restricting the number and placement of mail ballot drop boxes. The new legislation also forces voters to reapply more often to vote by mail, which could add processing time and costs, and make it harder for election officials to plan with regards to absentee voting. In short, these provisions appear to have been justified largely in terms of improving “voter confidence,” rather than improving convenience and security. Election reforms are better when they’re responsive to the latter, not just the former.

A year later, with the primaries in the rearview mirror, do those criticisms hold up?

The jury is still out. I think SB 202 may well have created more problems than it solves, but whether those problems are subsequently exploited remains to be seen. I think it will probably take going through a number of elections to get a better sense of that.

There's been a lot of coverage of early voting in Georgia during the primary. How much of an impact did that have on how things went Tuesday?

I think it’s hard to overstate the impact of Georgia’s record-breaking early voting turnout. In sports, the best players and coaches often “take what the defense gives them.” The same can be said for voters in elections. While a number of provisions in SB 202 made voting by mail more cumbersome for the primary, early in-person voting remained just as easy, if not easier, in most of Georgia, and voters took advantage of that during the primary.

In the midst of ongoing efforts to baselessly question the legitimacy of the state’s electoral system, Georgia’s high early voting turnout was a strong indicator of voters’ confidence in the security and integrity of their state’s elections. Additionally, the high early-voting turnout stretched out the opportunity for Georgia election officials and their partners to identify and address any voting-related issues, so that they were less likely to pile up on Election Day. Taken together, these developments increased the likelihood for a smooth election day and a successfully administered election.

Was the primary conducted in a fair, safe and secure manner?

Yes. Thus far, no evidence has been brought forward to suggest otherwise.

What can other states learn from Georgia?

  1. Robust in-person early voting can make elections a whole lot easier. Not only does an in-person early voting regime like the one Georgia offers go a long way towards ensuring that voters can access the ballot, it also can make it easier to both administer and secure the elections. In the 2014 Presidential Commission on Election Administration report, election officials from both parties testified to the importance of early voting in alleviating the congestion and other potential problems of a single election day. And during the 2020 presidential election, former Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Chris Krebs said that high turnout during early voting gave election officials more opportunities ahead of Election Day to identify and resolve any security-related issues that might arise. Finally, high early-voting turnout can be a signal to others that confidence in the integrity of the election is high, which can potentially help encourage additional turnout as well as counter efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the election.
    1. Embracing election denialism isn’t necessary for ascending to higher office. Georgia’s primary was a benchmark for the state of U.S. politics in 2022. Would voters choose candidates who upheld the integrity of elections or selected candidates who pushed the Big Lie? Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger won their Republican primaries despite rejecting Trump’s entreaties to reverse his 2020 election loss. Hopefully, their victories can help throw a wrench into the ongoing efforts to overturn the will of voters.

    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