Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Meet the Faces of Democracy: Tonya Wichman

Ohio Republican discusses the joy of bringing democracy to voters and the importance of additional protections for election workers

Meet the Faces of Democracy: Tonya Wichman

Editor’s note: More than 10,000 officials across the country run U.S. elections. This interview is part of a series highlighting the election heroes who are the faces of democracy.

Kathryn Thomas is part of the research department at Issue One, the leading crosspartisan political reform group in Washington, D.C., uniting Republicans, Democrats, and independents in the movement to fix our broken political system and build an inclusive democracy that works for everyone!


Tonya Wichman, a registered Republican, serves as the director of the board of elections in Defiance County, a relatively small jurisdiction of roughly 40,000 people in northwestern Ohio.

The county seat is the city of Defiance, named after a military fort built in 1794 by the Founding Father General "Mad” Anthony Wayne. The county also includes three villages, 12 townships, and a number of unincorporated areas. In the early 1800s, Johnny Appleseed had an apple nursery in the area.

Election administration in Ohio is operated at the county level through a series of bipartisan county boards of elections that each appoint election directors to run and oversee elections. Wichman was hired as the Defiance County Board of Elections in May 2015. Since then, she has administered 20 elections and counting. She is a member of the Ohio Association of Elections Officials, where she serves on its legislative committee. She has also mentored four other counties through a program run by the Ohio Secretary of State’s office.

Before serving on the board of elections, Wichman managed two businesses with her husband. She and her husband also founded a scholarship program through the Defiance Area Foundation for “election ambassadors” as a way to engage and educate high school students in Defiance County.

Since March 2023, she has been part of Issue One’s Faces of Democracy project advocating for protections for election workers and for regular, predictable, and sufficient federal funding of elections.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Issue One: How did you end up in this profession?

Tonya Wichman: When I applied for this job, I didn't even tell my husband. When I told him I had a second interview, he said, “You hate politics.” I do. I really hate politics. But I love that people have a voice. So that was my journey here.

I actually got the job on Election Day in May 2015. I volunteered that day, to see my first election firsthand, and I have been here since. I think you get sucked into elections. Once you understand the process, it makes you want to make sure that it's getting done correctly.

Issue One: Election administration in the United States is very decentralized, with each state using its own system. In Ohio, each county has a multi-member board of elections that oversees elections. What are the key things that people should know about how boards of election operate in Ohio?

Tonya Wichman: We work in bipartisan teams. Our board is two Democrats and two Republicans, and they review everything we do. We can't even open a door to a programming room or a ballot room or any equipment without a fob from the other party. We have to walk in and do it together. So there isn't that “Well, the Republicans are rigging this, or the Democrats are rigging this.” There's no way we could possibly do something to the other party without them knowing.

In Defiance, we are the prime example of how parties can work together. In the eight and a half years I've been here, we've only had one no vote on a situation in the office, and that was actually a joke. One board member wanted to see what it felt like to say no, so he said no, we couldn’t buy a water cooler. Everything else has been a unanimous vote.

Issue One: How are elections in Defiance County funded, and what is the current typical price tag of an election?

Tonya Wichman: Each election varies, depending on what you need for it. We had an election earlier this year that cost us $16,000 because it was one location with three precincts. We didn't need as many poll workers. We didn't have as much testing or ballots mailed or anything like that. The August special election, with everything that we had to do last minute, probably cost us $60,000 to $65,000. It just depends on what requirements we have for each election.

This year, they changed the ID law, and we added a poll book, a check-in book, at our help desks where people go if they're not registered correctly or have the wrong ID. It was about $18,000 to add those. We had a lot more provisional ballots because of the new law, which went into place without a lot of education being done.

We had Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funding for our equipment, which was great. But there's no HAVA money there to sustain it. The yearly contract that we do for upgrades is close to $60,000. That funding is all out of the county budget. We have to pull that money from local taxpayers, even though we're doing all of the upgrades to run state and federal elections.

Issue One: Many people are surprised to learn that the federal government doesn’t routinely fund election administration. Why do you think the federal government should routinely invest in elections?

Tonya Wichman: It would be nice to have consistent funding. If we don't have consistent money, we don't know from year to year if we can upgrade anything. And there are some counties that have to beg their commissioners for their funds every year.

I've already been informed by four different companies that our expenses are going up. We have a new security system that we have to put in place. We had to add a dropbox camera. It’s $1,200 an election just to run that camera. That wasn't funded before, but it was put in place by a mandate from the state. The Election Assistance Commission is putting some new standards on election equipment, so that's going to cost money. And we know the batteries in our tablets for voting are going to need to be upgraded within the next year or two. Those are $90 apiece, which doesn't sound like much, but when you times it by 165, plus the maintenance costs, those types of things add up.

Issue One: Do you think federal politicians realize how much it costs to run elections?

Tonya Wichman: No. In Ohio, we charge back the costs of elections to all of the local entities when we run their elections. If we did chargebacks to the federal government, they'd be shocked at how much it costs us to run their portion!

In the presidential election, I will need more poll workers than we’ve ever had. We're going to have extra hours. We will work about 40 days straight by the time we get done. I don't think they realize that when they draw out the masses of people, that takes more manpower.

Issue One: If your jurisdiction had extra funding, how would you spend it?

Tonya Wichman: My biggest priority is the people that work for me, my poll workers. If you don't have good people running your elections, it doesn't matter how secure you are. You have to care about the people that work for you.

I would also upgrade to the latest version of all of the equipment. I don't have to worry about getting to the point where I was in 2018, where we were taking parts from other machines to make the other parts work because they didn't make them anymore. But it would be nice to have money for consistent upgrades, or even maintenance. There are a lot of counties that do maintenance every other year because they can't afford to do more frequent maintenance.

Issue One: How many voters are on the rolls in your jurisdiction? And what are some of the challenges you face in a jurisdiction of that size?

Tonya Wichman: About 26,000. Part of our struggle is we have just two full-time employees. So we wear every hat — IT, programming, scheduling, training, everything.

We have four part-time clerks that are amazing. We're really lucky to have them. But when the state sends out directives and gives us things we have to get done in a certain timeframe, I don't think they realize that larger counties have departments for everything. We're just piling on top of everything that we had to do already.

That's a struggle. We put in a lot of extra hours. And unfortunately, I don't know that hiring more people is actually the solution. The county doesn't really have the money to do something like that.

Issue One: Earlier this year, you came to Washington, D.C., to meet with lawmakers and policymakers as a part of a bipartisan advocacy effort organized by Issue One’s Faces of Democracy campaign. What were your key takeaways from those conversations and meetings?

Tonya Wichman: The camaraderie and everyone being there for the same purpose gave me more of a sense of hope that there are people out there willing to stand up and fight for what's right. The members of Congress we spoke to listened to our stories and listened to our concerns. That was just an amazing experience. I think there needs to be more communication with the people who are running elections. We’re more than willing to be a source of information for lawmakers on how things work, how things would actually work if a new law was implemented, or what issues a new law may cause.

Issue One: What part of the election administration story in your area do you think isn't told enough or isn't widely understood enough?

Tonya Wichman: One thing that is missing is that it’s people running these elections. They're your neighbors. They're your friends. They're people you go to church with. My poll worker list, I know every single one of them. One is the girl that cuts my hair. One is my church organist. My parents have worked here. Everybody that is involved in my life in some way or another I have begged to be poll workers. People need to realize nobody's out to get anybody. Election workers are your community. We're not outside invaders or corrupt politicians.

Issue One: You’ve said that election officials across the country have been going through a mental health “crisis” in the wake of the 2020 election, leaving many “broken and exhausted.” What do you think state and federal lawmakers should be doing to combat this crisis?

Tonya Wichman: There should be some laws made about misinformation and disinformation. No matter how hard we try to explain, people say, “Well we saw it on the news. We saw it here. We saw it there.” That type of thing needs to be addressed. I'm all about free speech. I completely understand people have a right to free speech. But there's a right to know the truth, and there has to be a balance. Our platform is not nearly as large as some of the people whose platforms reach out to hundreds of thousands of people, giving them the wrong information about what's happening. That's a struggle that I think we’re going to see expand.

We're losing people to the threats and the stress. People say so many derogatory things about how we do our job, saying they’re going to charge you with treason or take everything you have because it's provided by taxpayer money. There needs to be protection for election officials who are doing their jobs, and I’d like to see some federal funding go to stopping mis- and disinformation on social media platforms.

My work as an election official helps ensure everyone has their voices heard. That’s what keeps me in this job year after year. But now, I am worried about my own safety as well as the safety of everyone working in elections across the country. All it would take is one angry, unhinged person with an online account to dox, threaten, or come after any of us.

Issue One: Earlier this year, you traveled to Sierra Leone with the Carter Center to observe elections in Africa. What did you learn from this experience?

Tonya Wichman: It's been an interesting year. Last November, I got to a really bad point where I was ready to leave. Election Day was really tough for me. I just felt like I was done. I had been praying for patience and perspective, and through this trip, I got more perspective than I ever thought I would ever see in my life. I think I got more out of the experience than I gave them.

In Sierra Leone, they were so excited to vote, despite the fact that they were threatened. There were areas we were in where signs were put up that said, “If you vote for this party, we're going to burn down your houses and kill your families.” But they were still lined up to vote. And they know if they vote because they ink their fingers.

Democracy is something huge, and something we take for granted. In Sierra Leone, they’ve only had democracy for about 20 years, since the end of their civil war. You could just see the celebration when everything was done for the night, the joy of getting to be a part of it. In the United States, we're begging people to be poll workers. It was just such a difference. I want to bring that excitement back here.

Making sure that my people feel joy in giving democracy to our county, that was kind of a reset for me. We have one job here — to hear the people's voices.

Issue One: Outside of being passionate about running safe and secure elections, what are your hobbies? Or what’s a fun fact that most people might not know about you?

Tonya Wichman: I have five grandkids, so, basically, any free time I have is with them or doing something fun with my husband. We like to take the grandkids to the zoo and to Cedar Point [an amusement park]. Just doing fun stuff that lets the kids be kids.

Issue One: Which historical figure would you have most liked to have had an opportunity to meet and why?

Tonya Wichman: I would have loved to meet the suffragettes that were standing up for women to vote, the entire group of them. I probably would have been one of the girls in the white dresses with the sash going “Let women vote.” People don't even realize that just a century ago women weren’t voting, let alone running elections.

Issue One: What is your favorite book or movie?

Tonya Wichman: My favorite book is one I read recently. It’s called Fervent. It teaches you how to pray for the right things — not just for what you think you need. That's my favorite book right now because it has led me to so many places.

That's how I ended up praying for patience and perspective. It led me to the perspective that I never thought I would see, in a country I had never dreamed of going to.

Going forward, I could definitely see myself going on any mission that [the Carter Center] gives me. I would go anywhere in the world to make sure democracy is set up.


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