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

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

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

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

Voting in 2022: The impact of partisan gerrymandering

Rep. Jerrold Nadler

Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York was forced to run in a primary against a fellow Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, after a court tossed out the party's gerrymandering plan.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Kristin Shiuey
By Kristin ShiueyAug 24, 2022
Kristin Shiuey
See More Writings by author

This is the first in a two-part series examining how the political landscape has been affected by partisan gerrymandering and changes to voting rights.

Election prognosticators have been predicting a Republican wave in November, based on historical trends, the decennial redrawing of House district lines and President Biden’s low approval ratings. While recent polling and primary results indicate Democrats may do better than expected this fall, redistricting likely has cemented GOP advantages for the next decade.

Every 10 years, following the census, states redraw district lines to account for population shifts, as required by the Constitution. But over the course of American history, the process has taken on another name, one that refers to the politicization of redistricting: gerrymandering,

In states where lawmakers or other partisans control redistricting, those in power have drawn congressional and state legislative maps to benefit their own party and limit competition. An entire industry of activism has evolved at the state and national level to combat partisan gerrymandering, fearing the ongoing practice has done significant damage to American democracy.

There’s plenty of evidence that gerrymandering is alive and well in 2022.

According to an analysis conducted by FiveThirtyEight, only 40 of the 435 House seats can be considered highly competitive, with 187 leaning toward Democrats and 208 leaning Republican. That’s six fewer competitive seats than under the previous maps.

Thanks to the Campaign Legal Center, which compiled 50 years of congressional maps, we can see how states have shifted political leanings through the years based on partisan gerrymandering. CLC’s findings show states like Tennessee, North Carolina, Indiana and Texas had largely Democratic delegations for two decades starting in the 1970s before veering toward the middle in the mid-1990s. However, by 2012, all four states had skewed red.

This pattern has continued to develop especially after the 2020 Census, despite disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. According to a report conducted by the Brennan Center for Justice, Across the South, Republicans were able to create seven additional GOP-leaning districts resulting in a 70 percent majority in the region’s 155 seats. This was a 4 percent increase from the period before the maps were reconfigured.

Those safe seats, coupled with Republican-drawn maps in the Midwest and Plains give Republicans the upperhand in the House after the 2022 general election. The GOP would have an even easier path to the majority, but Democrats engaged in aggressive gerrymandering of their own in states such as California and Illinois. Democrats had attempted to improve their stances in New York, but the map they approved was thrown out by the courts and had to be re-drawn and ended up improving the Republican position. And an effort to eliminate the one Republican district in Maryland was erased by a court.

The courts have looked more favorably on Republican-drawn maps that were challenged by Democrats, like in Ohio.

While Republicans hope to leverage their advantages in the South, Plains and Midwest, Democrats are leaning on the Northeast and the West Coast in an effort to hang on to their House majority.

To be sure, control of every state isn’t subject to partisan gamesmanship.

After the 2010 census, Republicans drew the maps in Michigan and secured a steady advantage in the congressional delegation. For example, in 2014 Republicans won a 9-5 edge in the delegation despite earning less than half of the votes across the state. But in 2018, a grassroots initiative led by Voters Not Politicians led to adoption of a ballot initiative establishing an independent redistricting commission in the state. The commission’s work following the 2020 census began a rebalancing of the state. Michigan lost one seat due to population shifts and one of the Republican leaning seats is now competitive.

Fewer than a dozen states use such independent commissions.

The early consensus on the midterms held that Republicans would ride a wave to majorities in the House and Senate. But bipartisan legislative successes, renewed interest on the left following the Supreme Court ruling on abortion rights and the results of recent primaries may indicate the battle for control of the House will be more competitive than previously thought.

Although the GOP still seems likely to take control of the House this year, Democrats may be able to win it back even under the current maps. If Democrats can win a chunk of 30 districts Donald Trump won by fewer than 8 percentage points in 2020 — while holding on to their “safe” districts — or if they win most of the 30 districts that Biden marginally won, there could be another shift in power.

These two options will be very difficult for Democrats. Due to the new redistricting, previous Biden districts are all extremely competitive making it very possible for Democrats to come up short on votes. Republican districts, on the other hand, are virtually all assured of supporting the GOP or on the verge of becoming noncompetitive with gerrymandering in play. Although gerrymandering has heavily influenced the political environment, it is still very difficult to predict what the future of elections will be.


Latest news

Marco Rubio is the only adult left in the room
Ethics & Leadership

Marco Rubio is the only adult left in the room

​President Donald Trump and other officials in the Oval office.
Governance & Legislation

Trump Signs Substantial Foreign Aid Bill. Why? Maybe Kindness Was a Factor

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”
Ethics & Leadership

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”

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