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

Where control of state legislatures is up for grabs: Part 3

Republicans favored in divided Michigan and Minnesota, but face challenges

Where control of state legislatures is up for grabs: Part 3

Image of people voting at voting booths.


PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff / Getty Images
Reya Kumar
By Reya KumarJul 27, 2022
Reya Kumar
See More Writings by author

This is the third in a four-part series examining possible outcomes of state legislative elections in 2022 and their potential impact on policy-making.

As Congress has become mired in gridlock, passing few meaningful bills each year, state governments have become home to most consequential legislative activity. That makes the 2022 midterm elections critical for anyone concerned about a myriad of issues, including reproductive rights and elections.

This installment examines likely outcomes in Michigan and Minnesota and what they mean for constituents and the country as a whole. In both chambers in Michigan, as well as the Minnesota Senate, Republicans currently have control and will likely maintain it, though Democrats still have a chance to flip. In the Minnesota House of Representatives, Democrats currently hold a majority that they will have to fight for, as Republicans are also favored to win this legislative body.

For this series, the Fulcrum utilized ratings from Cnalysis and Sabato’s Crystal Ball to identify the most competitive legislative bodies. Ballotpedia data on election trends addresses the historic tendency for the president’s party to lose state legislative seats in the midterms, while Campaign Legal Center redistricting data explores possible advantages one party may have over the other.


Michigan

State Senate Week 3

State Senate Week 3

public.flourish.studio

 A Flourish data visualisation by Reya Kumar

State House Week 3

State House Week 3

public.flourish.studio

 A Flourish data visualisation by Reya Kumar

The Michigan Legislature is composed of the 38-member Michigan Senate and the 110-member Michigan House of Representatives. Michigan is one of the top battleground states. Currently, Republicans hold the majority of seats in both chambers. However, this control is complicated by the fact that Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, elected in 2018, is a Democrat.

Senate

Sabato’s Crystal Ball considers the Michigan Senate one of the few tossup chambers where it could be anyone’s game this November. They highlight new maps drawn by an independent redistricting commission as a reason why Democrats can expect to gain seats, if not win the legislature.

Cnalysis rates the Senate as Tilt R. Few seats are very competitive, with 44 percent of the seats safely Republican and 42 percent most likely going to Democrats. In order to flip this chamber, Democrats would have to win one district that leans towards them, the two districts rated tossup, and one of the two districts that lean towards Republicans.

The Michigan Senate has remained solidly in Republican hands for the past 40 years and has largely followed national midterm trends in recent elections. In both 2010 and 2014, Barack Obama’s Democratic party lost seats. In 2018, a Republican party headed by Donald Trump lost out. This means that Democrats may be fighting a red wave as constituents react to President Joe Biden’s leadership.

Where control of state legislatures is up for grabs



House of Representatives

Sabato’s Crystal Ball and Cnalysis both rate the Michigan House of Representatives Lean R. Sabato’s points out that while the GOP does have an edge in the House, they lost a traditionally Republican-leaning seat to a Democrat in a recent special election, which may bode well for Democrats this November.

However, Cnalysis data reveals that Democrats face an uphill battle in this chamber. Fifty-five percent of the House districts are solidly in the Republican camp, while 39 percent will almost certainly go to Democrats. To flip the House, Democrats would have to win not only the five districts that lean their way and the 6 tossup districts, but also five of the seven districts that lean Republican.

The Michigan House of Representatives has remained in Republican hands for most of the past 20 years, except in 2006 and 2008 when Democrats gained the majority. In recent midterms elections, the president’s party has reliably lost out. Democrats lost seats in 2010 and 2014, while the 2018 midterms saw them gaining a few back. Democrats may struggle to overcome this trend and gain seats with President Biden in the White House.

Key factors

The 2020 redistricting cycle will likely have a major impact on Michigan’s state legislative election this year. New maps were approved by the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission for the first time last December, after decades of maps drawn by the Republican legislature. Data from the Campaign Legal Center indicates that the previous maps were skewed heavily in favor of the GOP. The Senate map skewed 15 percent and the House map skewed 8 percent. Though there is not yet any evidence of how these maps will perform, they will assuredly lessen the gerrymandered advantage the Michigan GOP has enjoyed for many years.

While the primary elections are set to occur on August 2, current polls show Whitmer still ahead of her prospective Republican challengers. This means that Michigan’s government will likely remain divided after the general election this fall. If Democrats win the Senate and/or House, they may be better able to further their legislative agenda with the support of a Democrat in the governor’s seat.

Impact

Michigan has passed little election-related legislation in recent years, with Whitmer at odds with the Republican legislature. In 2019, they launched an online voter registration system and implemented automatic voter registration. Additionally, the legislature passed a resolution urging national level politicians to oppose the For the People Act, a sweeping voting rights bill led by U.S. House Democrats. If Republicans retain control of the legislature, it is likely that this stalemate will continue. Democrats, however, would almost certainly work to pass legislation expanding voter access if they win the majority in one or both chambers.

Reproductive rights will be on the ballot in November, as Michiganders collected the most signatures in the state’s history for a ballot initiative to introduce a constitutional amendment protecting abortion. However, if this fails to pass, abortion rights in Michigan will be dependent on the votes of the state legislature. The GOP gubernatorial frontrunner has voiced support for a near-total abortion ban without exceptions for minors or victims of rape.

Minnesota

The 67-member Senate and the 134-member House of Representatives comprise the Minnesota Legislature. Republicans currently have control of the Senate, while Democrats control the House, making it one of the few divided state legislatures in the country. Democratic Gov. Tim Walz completes Minnesota’s state government. Minnesota will hold its primary election on August 9 ahead of November’s general election.

Senate

Cnalysis rates the Minnesota Senate Lean D. This Senate is much larger than many other state senates, and many districts could go either way. Cnalysis predicts that 35 percent of the districts will almost certainly go to Democrats, while 46 percent are solidly Republican. Of the remaining 12 districts, Democrats would need to win all five districts that lean their way, plus five of those that lean towards GOP candidates.

Sabato’s Crystal Ball also rates the Senate Lean D. Sabato points out the key role that districts in the Twin Cities’ suburbs will play. However, though both chambers are contentious, a GOP win in the House is more likely than the Democrats flipping the Senate.

Over the past 20 years, partisan control of the Minnesota Senate has fluctuated. Democrats held the majority from 2002 until the 2010 midterms when it switched to Republican hands. In 2012, it flipped back to Democratic control. Four years later, the GOP regained control of the majority and has held it since. This means that this chamber does not necessarily follow typical midterm trends.

House of Representatives

The Minnesota House of Representatives, currently held by Democrats, is very contentious. Cnalysis gives it a rating of Tilt R, while Sabato’s Crystal Ball considers it anyone’s game, rating it one of the few tossup chambers.

Solidly Democratic districts make up 40 percent of the seats, while 41 percent are solidly in the Republican camp. In this chamber, Democrats face an uphill battle to retain their tenuous majority. Unless they win all three districts that lean toward their party, all nine tossup districts and one of the Republican leaning districts, the GOP will be able to take control.

The House seems to follow nation midterm trends more reliably than the Senate. In 2010 and 2014, the chamber flipped from Democrat to Republican control during the two midterms while Obama was president. In 2018, it flipped back to Democratic control during Trump’s presidency. This suggests that Republicans are likely to gain at least some seats this November, as Biden faces backlash.

Key factors

Minnesota enacted new legislative maps this February, following the 2020 redistricting cycle. These maps were created by a special judicial redistricting panel, as the divided government could not agree on a plan. In 2010, the maps were also created by a judicial panel as the Democratic governor vetoed the maps drawn by the Republican legislature. Data from the Campaign Legal Center indicates that the 2010 map was slightly biased in favor of the GOP, particularly in the state House. The new maps will likely perform similarly, maintaining a slight edge for Republican candidates.

It is unlikely that Minnesota will become a trifecta for either party this November. Polls show that Gov. Walz is likely to be reelected, regardless of which GOP candidate he faces. Meanwhile the Senate appears likely to remain in Republican hands. Whether or not Republicans flip the House, both parties will remain at odds and unable to freely pass their legislative agendas.

Impact

Little changes in election law have been made in recent years due to Minnesota’s divided government. In fact, out of 166 bills introduced in the past two years, only one that enhanced security for absentee ballot dropboxes has been enacted, according to Voting Rights Lab. If the Democrats flip the Senate and maintain the House, they will most likely pass laws to expand voter access. However, the more likely scenario of Republicans retaining control of the Senate and flipping the House will likely result in GOP-backed bills intended to restrict voter access being blocked by Democrat Walz.


One other key area is abortion. Without Roe v. Wade, the current divided government has preserved Minnesota’s status quo, and if the government stays divided, it will almost certainly stay that way. Abortion is neither banned nor codified, though it is protected by the state constitution. With control of both houses, Republicans would probably attempt to pass legislation banning abortion, especially if Walz loses to his most likely opponent, Dr. Scott Jensen, who vehemently opposes abortion. Meanwhile, if Democrats manage to win out, they will presumably work to codify abortion access.

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