Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Georgia is ground zero for the fight over voting in 2022, and women of color are on the front lines

Georgia state Rep. Bee Nguyen

Georgia state Rep. Bee Nguyen fought against legislation, passed in March, that rolled back voting access across the state.

Megan Varner/Getty Images

Originally published by The 19th.

Bee Nguyen said she watched with alarm as the lies began trickling in about alleged widespread voter fraud in Georgia after the 2020 election. What the Democratic state representative heard behind closed doors from Republican lawmakers, she said, was different from what they said publicly.

They sowed doubt, she said, even as they privately “admitted that they didn’t believe the election was stolen, but went along with everything that was being facilitated in Georgia and across the country.”

Nguyen challenged those false assertions, including at a highly publicized legislative meeting late last year about election results. One day after polls closed on a pair of close U.S. Senate races in Georgia that gave Democrats control of the chamber, the January 6 insurrection became a physical manifestation of the flawed fears of a rigged election. Soon, Georgia’s Republican-led legislature was introducing bills with a host of changes to the state’s election system.


Not all made it into law, but lawmakers ultimately passed legislation that restricted absentee voting, added new voter identification requirements and limited drop boxes. Nguyen said she was most troubled by new oversight of local election administration that voting experts said would add partisanship to the process.

“The bill that they passed was not just about making it harder for people to vote, but it was about being able to open the door for the subversion of democracy,” she said.

Nguyen is now running, along with a handful of other Democrats, for the party’s nomination to be Georgia’s secretary of state — a once low-profile elections administration job that has been propelled to key race status in the state’s midterms next year. Also on the ballot will be the race for governor, where Democrat Stacey Abrams is seeking the party’s nomination after leading a nationwide effort to get people access to the ballot. A high-profile Senate race features incumbent Democrat Raphael Warnock.

The three races, against the backdrop of baseless attacks by former President Donald Trump on election integrity and nationwide voting restrictions, effectively places Georgia at the center of the country’s 2022 midterm elections. While Warnock’s reelection bid could mean the difference for Democratic control in a deeply divided chamber, it’s Nguyen’s and Abrams’ campaigns that solidify Georgia’s standing in the fight for voting rights next year.

“We all understood that everybody would still have their eyes on Georgia with Sen. Warnock being back on the ballot in 2022,” Nguyen told The 19th. “But now with the addition of Stacey, I think it creates even more excitement and mobilization across our state.”

The increasingly purple state, which has had massive population growth due in part to people of color, nearly put Abrams in the governor’s mansion when she first ran in 2018. Abrams accused her opponent, Brian Kemp, then Georgia’s secretary of state and now its Republican governor, of unfair tactics that led to her loss. He denied those allegations.

As governor, Kemp refused to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results and signed new voting restrictions into law. Next year could be a rematch for the two though that has yet to be determined; Kemp has lost Trump’s backing and now faces a primary challenge from former U.S. Sen. David Perdue, who has said he would not have certified Georgia’s 2020 election results. The Republican primary for secretary of state is expected to include a supporter of Trump who has claimed inaccurately that the 2020 election was rigged.

LaTosha Brown, co-founder of Black Voters Matter, isn’t surprised that voting is shaping up to be such a defining topic for candidates next year.

“It is an issue that will determine whether we have a reflective democracy or if we have a plutocracy. It is the single most critical issue because it is the fundamental foundation of having a democratic system,” she said. “If we don’t have a democratic system, every other issue that we care about is actually at stake and is vulnerable.”

At the forefront of this fight are women of color, who are also running for key elective seats in other parts of the country with a focus on voting rights. Several U.S. Senate seats — including in Florida and North Carolina — could help determine which party controls the chamber and future policy discussions about federal voting legislation.

The secretary of state office is expected to get new attention in 2022, as Trump has already backed a handful of candidates seeking the job. At least 27 elections for secretary of state are scheduled next year, with many of them focused on oversight of elections. But it’s the offices in battleground states that could have the most outsized role.

Trump has endorsed in multiple races, including in the key states of Arizona and Michigan, where he’s announced backing for Kristina Karamo, a Black woman who challenged Michigan’s 2020 election results and is now seeking the Republican nomination for secretary of state. Democratic Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, among several women election officials who challenged disinformation after the 2020 election, is expected to seek reelection.

Chelsea Clark, a Black woman who is seeking the Democratic nomination to be Ohio’s secretary of state, said she was motivated to run because of the work of longtime activists in her community and national figures like the late John Lewis, a civil rights activist who represented the Atlanta area in Congress. Clark, a city council member in the Cincinnati suburb of Forest Park City, said she has witnessed long lines to vote as a precinct leader in her community.

“The fact that we can have folks 60+ years in the making still with the same mission, to make sure that we have equitable access to something as basic for birthright, it blows my mind,” she said.

Clark said that if elected secretary of state, she would be vocal as a member of a key commission that oversees redistricting, which can come up every four years in the state. The latest proposal is in litigation.

“You would have an ardent voice that’s going to push back to try to make sure that we don’t end up with gerrymandered maps, that we actually are following the Constitution to make sure that every voice is heard,” Clark said. “Because the way it is right now, there’s no way they could be heard.”

Elsewhere, local election jobs are expected to gain new prominence. Amanda Litman is the co-founder of Run for Something, an organization that supports Democrats in down-ballot races. She said a recent organizing meeting with potential candidates interested in election posts included hundreds of participants. Litman said it’s too soon to know how that will break down in terms of gender, but candidates are bringing their lived experience to the table.

“A lot of the folks who have expressed interest in running for these positions have done so because of either them or their communities’ experience having trouble getting to the polls or having trouble getting access,” she said. “So it’s personal for a lot of them.”

Women of color acutely understand the ramifications of voting restrictions because of their long history of trying to secure the right to vote, both for women and people of color, said Aimee Allison, founder and CEO of She the People, a voter engagement organization that focuses on women of color.

“We’re the least supported, and yet we’re the most important organizers and advocates for this vision of where the country needs to go,” she said.

Allison said with little movement on the federal level to solidify voting protections, people are turning their attention to policy solutions and candidates on the state level.

“It’s one of those few roles where they could make a difference, not just for ’22 but ’24 and beyond,” she said.

Only 12 women are currently secretaries of state, and most are White women. Shirley Weber in California is the only Black woman in the position, and she was appointed; Nellie Gorbea in Rhode Island is the only Latina.

Brown expects representation of women of color in statewide office and federal office to increase with time as the political landscape shifts and voters seek more action from their elected leaders on voting.

“I think that we’re in an environment where we’re seeing the rise of white supremacy. We’re seeing the rise of an intensified White male patriarchy,” she said. “I think that there is a different kind of appetite. Communities are actually pushing, encouraging, supporting and drafting women of color to run for office.”

In Georgia, Trump is supporting primary challenger Georgia Rep. Jody Hice against Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state who refused to alter 2020 election results. Hice has said he doesn’t believe Georgia had fair elections in 2020.

Nguyen said the rhetoric about widespread fraudulent voting worries her the most.

“I’m very concerned about the future of our country,” she said. “Because it’s not just happening in Georgia. It’s happening across the board. And this very idea that the results of an election can be overturned by an individual because they didn’t like the results of the election … it will fundamentally change what our democracy is going to look like in the future.”

Nguyen recognizes there’s only so much she can do if elected, especially if she is in the role while Republicans have power in the legislature to further change election rules. She hopes, if she wins, to invest in training and resources for election boards, public communication and education. She also wants to create a division that solely focuses on combating disinformation, improving cybersecurity and addressing foreign interference. Most importantly, she pointed out, the certification of elections lies within the secretary of state’s office.

“It’s really thinking through — what are the things that the secretary of state can do under these limitations that will ultimately increase access to voters?” she said.

Brown said Republicans have responded to Georgia’s shifting demographics — voters of color helped secure President Joe Biden’s 2020 win — with voting restrictions and redistricting maps that favor the party. She added that an explosion of voting restrictions passed in Republican-controlled state legislatures in 2021 around the country could also impact elections next year. Georgia’s new law shortened the window for returning absentee ballots. An analysis by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution shows election officials rejected 4 percent of absentee ballot requests in the recent November municipal elections, an increase from less than 1 percent in 2020.

“I think we’re going to have an uphill battle next year … and it shouldn’t be,” Brown said. “The only reason why I think it is going to be that extensive is because we have a Herculean responsibility to try to overcome the voter suppression that’s been enacted in the state.”


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