Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Nationwide push for voting restrictions barrels forward

Georgia voting rights advocates

Voting rights advocates rally against restrictive bills moving through the Georgia General Assembly.

Megan Varner/Getty Images

Georgia Republicans are barreling ahead with election bills that voting rights advocates say are transparently anti-democratic and racist.

And while Georgia may be ground zero for voter suppression tactics, it's not the only state where Republicans are attempting to limit access to the ballot box. In the wake of the 2020 election, the Brennan Center for Justice has seen more than seven times the number of restrictive bills be introduced in legislatures this year compared to last year.


The Georgia Senate passed legislation Monday to roll back no-excuse absentee voting, which has been in place since 2005 and saw heightened use during last year's pandemic-era election. The bill — passed with a one-vote majority along party lines — would mandate that only those who are 65 or older, have a physical disability or are out of town would be eligible.

Majority Leader Mike Dugan, the bill's lead sponsor, said 2.8 million of the state's 7.7 million voters would meet at least one of the requirements. Those voters would also need to provide identification when requesting an absentee ballot.

Georgia is currently one of 34 states that has permanent no-excuse absentee voting. In the 2020 election, all but five states allowed every voter to cast a ballot by mail, at least temporarily due to the Covid-19 pandemic. One-fifth of the 5 million votes cast in the Peach State were by mail.

The Senate action comes on the heels of the state House passing its own restrictive measure aimed at limiting Sunday voting, requiring an ID to vote by mail and eliminating drop boxes.

The House bill also takes aim at absentee voting, although it doesn't roll back eligibility. Under the measure, which was passed along party lines last week, Georgians would need to provide an ID to vote by mail. It would also move ballot drop boxes inside early voting sites.

Another provision would limit early voting. Currently, counties must offer early voting on the second Saturday before Election Day and are given the discretion to set any additional early voting hours. But this legislation would give counties just one Sunday as an optional early voting day.

Cutting back early voting on Sundays is a "transparent effort to reduce the voting opportunity that Black Georgians overwhelmingly use," said Jonathan Diaz, voting expert at the Campaign Legal Center.

Black voters accounted for 37 percent of the in-person ballots cast in Georgia on Sundays during the 2020 election, according to the Brennan Center, largely due to the "Souls to the Polls" voter drives organized by Black churches.

Nsé Ufot, CEO of the New Georgia Project, called these bills "a turducken of voter suppression" and clear retaliation from Republicans after Joe Biden won the state and both Senate seats flipped blue.

"They were shocked by the new Georgia and how it manifested itself and how they showed up in elections," she said. "And this is backlash. It's mean. It's petty. It's racist. It's anti-democratic."

With Republicans holding the majority in both halves of the General Assembly, each chamber is likely to pass the other's bill and send them to GOP Gov. Brian Kemp. The governor has yet to indicate whether he supports this legislation, but he has been accused of peddling voter suppression efforts in the past, including when he served as the state's top election official while running for governor.

Restricting ballot access, state by state

In Georgia and elsewhere across the country, these election reform efforts are steeped in partisanship. In nearly every state, Republicans are pushing restrictive measures while Democrats are advocating for expanded access to the ballot box.

This political tug-of-war is more acute in battleground states where the 2020 election was decided by slim margins.

For instance, in Arizona, Republican senators passed a bill Monday to require an affidavit or another form of ID to vote by mail. And the Senate is gearing up for another bill that would cut down on the time Arizonans have to vote by mail. Last month, however, lawmakers did narrowly block one bill that would have purged 200,000 voters from the permanent vote-by-mail list.

Also this week, Iowa, a state Trump won by 8 percentage points, became the first to enact tougher voting rules this year. On Monday GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law provisions to reduce the early voting period by nine days and prevent the state from proactively sending out vote-by-mail applications. The measure also requires absentee ballots to be received before polls close on Election Day.

Voting experts agree that vote-by-mail access should not be the partisan issue it's become following the 2020 election.

"All of the data and all of the research shows that it's used by both parties, and it's often actually used more by Republicans, who are the ones now sponsoring a lot of this legislation. I think it's just the result of this disinformation campaign around the security of absentee voting," said Liz Avore, vice president of law and policy at the Voting Rights Lab.

Restoring trust

It's not uncommon to see legislation amending voting procedures following an election, but what is unusual this year is the overwhelming volume of bills to restrict voting access, said the CLC's Diaz.

"And they're not coming after some major scandal that would justify tightening up these rules. There was no major fraud investigation," Diaz said. "But you have legislators saying we have to restore trust in elections, when the reason that people have lost trust and confidence in elections is because some of these state legislators have been telling people that the elections are riddled with fraud."

Republicans' main argument for rolling back absentee voting access is that it will boost election integrity, despite no evidence of widespread voting fraud in the 2020 election. But voting experts say there are more reasonable reforms lawmakers can consider that won't make it harder for people to vote.

The politicization of the voting process, in particular vote by mail, has caused a lot of Americans to lose trust in the election system. One way to build back that trust is for states to implement ballot tracking systems, said Hannah Fried of All Voting is Local.

"That is the kind of transparency that gives people confidence that their vote is going to be counted," she said.

Reaching out to voters to educate them on the election process and combat the spread of misinformation is also key to restoring trust. And modernizing systems with automatic voter registration would boost security, experts say.

On the federal level, experts point to legislation like HR 1 and the John Lewis Voting Advancement Act, which would implement national voting standards, while still allowing states and localities to adjust procedures based on what works best for them.

"Those are the kinds of things that would make our election system more accessible and more transparent and more secure," Diaz said. "And you don't have to reach for a manufactured voter fraud reason to make those changes."


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