Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Bills limiting student voter access put colleges on the front lines of democracy

Clarissa Unger is the Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Students Learn Students Vote Coalition.

Jen Domagal-Goldman is the Executive Director of the ALL IN Campus Democracy Challenge.


Mike Burns is the National Director for Fair Elections Center’s Campus Vote Project.

As institutions of higher education everywhere prepare for the fall term, their students’ right to vote is under attack.

In 2023 alone, state legislatures have passed and proposed laws that would ban the use of student IDs at polling places, ban polling places on college campuses, or would effectively prohibit out-of-state college students from voting where they attend school. More efforts will surely emerge between now and the 2024 presidential election as some lawmakers seek to influence its results through voter suppression.

What makes these efforts so disheartening is that they take aim at arguably our country’s most successful pro-democratic movement of the last decade - surging youth voter participation, led by historic voter turnout among eligible college students.

For decades conventional wisdom, backed by data, was that college students don’t vote. Then, according to Tufts University’s Institute for Democracy & Higher Education, from the 2014 midterm elections to 2018, college student voter turnout more than doubled. In 2020, college student voter turnout reached 66%, matching the overall population’s turnout rate while increasing at twice the rate of all voters compared to 2016. While student-specific voting rates in the 2022 midterms won’t be known until later this year, ample data suggests high youth voter turnout, buoyed by strong student voter participation.

These increases, which have outpaced the macro trends of the overall voting population, coincide with an extraordinary proliferation of institutional support aiding students in becoming voters. These impactful efforts include a national nonpartisan coalition founded in 2016 with about 300 local, state and national partners committed to growing the student vote on college campuses; more than 500 nonpartisan campus voting coalitions that drafted democratic engagement action plans over the last election cycle; commitments to work toward 100% student voter participation by nearly 600 university presidents; training hundreds of students to be voting rights advocates, and guidance and encouragement from the U.S. Department of Education.

Ideally, the rise of a young, new, and influential section of the electorate - one with more racial diversity and less party loyalty than past generations - would inspire all politicians to prioritize winning their votes over suppressing them. By appealing to these voters and implementing pro-democracy measures such as expanding access to vote-by-mail, automatic voter registration, and putting polling sites on college campuses, political parties and candidates could strengthen both the future of our country’s democracy and their electoral prospects for years to come. By tracking, advocating, and imagining how to design our democracy to meet the needs of young and student voters, including with model legislation, student voter advocates have already demonstrated a way forward.

Instead, bad-faith actors in leadership positions are attempting to prevent these eligible voters from casting ballots at all. They are motivated purely by short-term political gain, and many of their proposed and implemented measures, such as restrictions on acceptable ID and early voting, would disproportionately impact Black and Latino students by exacerbating barriers that already make voting more difficult for people of all ages in their communities. Cursory attempts to justify these measures with lies about voter fraud or lack of patriotism should not distract from what they really are: intentional efforts to systematically suppress the democratic rights of young voters - especially young voters of color.

If these measures succeed in making voting more difficult for young people, they could do long-term damage to our democracy. Research shows engaging and encouraging young people to engage with elections leads to greater participation. By stripping away the protections and practices that make voting accessible to college students, bad-faith actors send the exact wrong message to our youngest, most diverse generation. As Mae Roos, a Boise high school senior, testified at a February 10 hearing regarding Idaho’s now-enacted student ID removal bill, “When we’re taught from the very beginning, when we first start trying to participate, that voting is an expensive process, an arduous process, a process rife with barriers, we become disillusioned with that great dream of our democracy,” Ms. Roos said. “We start to believe that our voices are not valued.”

An absence of government support or acceptance leaves institutions of higher learning in a crucial position to prevent new, young voters from becoming “disillusioned.” Even after the extraordinary proliferation of institutional support for student civic engagement in recent years, universities, especially those in states that suppress the student vote, must consider going above and beyond in order to protect their students’ fundamental democratic rights. That means working to ensure students understand their rights, have the resources and guidance necessary to navigate evolving voting laws, and advocating as an institution for legitimacy and fair access for student voters.

This begins by pointing out to leaders intent on disenfranchising them that college students bring youth, diversity, and innovation to their campuses and surrounding communities, and their institutions are often crucial economic drivers in their regions. They also bear the consequences of public officials and government offices that oversee their schools and touch their lives as residents of their campus communities. This includes the approximately 20% of college students who attend school out-of-state, whose right to choose where they vote is protected under the 26th Amendment.

Voting access isn’t partisan - it’s a fundamental democratic right, one that institutions of higher learning must help protect as they foster learning environments for students to develop their civic identities. Too many politicians have shown they’re willing to pervert democracy for short term partisan gain, even if it risks damaging our country and alienating a generation of voters. To foster a healthy and thriving democracy and country, it’s up to the entire higher education community to counteract these efforts by building nonpartisan pathways for the newest members of our democracy to become civically and politically engaged.


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