Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Poll watching vs. electioneering: Unpacking more confusion sowed by Trump

Trump supporters

The potential for bigger crowds of partisans at the polls this fall has heightened anxiety around voter intimidation.

Yasin Ozturk/Getty Images

President Trump's directive to his supporters "to go into the polls and watch very carefully" has magnified anxiety that the election will soon become marred by violence and voter intimidation.

Since exhorting his allies in last week's debate, the president has not offered more detailed instructions. So it's not altogether clear if he wants fans to go through the process of becoming official partisan observers, who get to be inside voting stations — or if he was encouraging boisterous rallies of loyalists outside thousands of schools and libraries nationwide.

Either way, unnerved voting rights advocates and election officials fear his vague but incendiary call to action will lead to disturbances and chaos. Beyond the confusion between poll watching (formal and strictly overseen) and electioneering (informal and less regulated) are worries about an Election Day imperiled by polarized clashes between the left and the right.

Answers to several questions may help the nation rise above the muddle the president has created, if not the anger.


The concerns come at a time of already immense stress for election officials, who are contending with how to run an election during a pandemic and seeking to reassure voters the democratic process remains safe, fair and transparent despite Covid-19 and the president's baseless assertions about massive vote fraud.

The executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Kristen Clarke, says her organization has quadrupled its cohort to 21,000 attorneys in preparation for potential legal battles waged over voting and the election.

"We are deeply concerned about the chilling effect that President Trump's statements may have on the electorate," she told reporters after the debate, adding that her group is "committed to making sure voters can participate in this process free of intimidation."

Three Democratic attorneys general from battleground states — Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin — banded together to warn this week that anyone using tactics to scare away voters will be prosecuted.

"Intimidating voters to prevent them from casting a ballot is not only unacceptable — it's a felony," Wisconsin's Josh Kaul said. "Anyone who engages in that kind of illegal conduct should expect to be investigated and prosecuted."

At the same time, the Trump campaign is circulating training videos for the cadre of thousands of poll watchers it's hoping to deploy nationwide on Election Day. They emphasize rule-following, avoiding causing disruption and a focus on spotting suspicious behavior — not preventing the casting of legitimate ballots.

But they do not address the crowds of chanting Trump supporters who gathered at an early voting site in suburban Virginia last week.

To help understand the difference, here are answers to some of the most frequently asked questions.

Trump wants supporters to "go into the polls and watch very carefully." Is that legal?

Unless they are official poll watchers, no. Only election staffers and voters intending to cast a ballot are allowed inside polling stations while an election is ongoing.

So what is a poll watcher?

It's standard practice for political parties or candidates to enlist poll watchers to ensure ballots are being cast and counted properly. Partisan poll watchers are the most common type, but some states also authorize nonpartisan citizen observers, international observers and academic observers.

What is the poll watchers' job?

They observe Election Day activity at voting locations, including setup procedures before the polls open and onsite tabulating after they close, to ensure election administrators are complying with rules and regulations. While poll watchers can challenge a voter's eligibility, they cannot interfere directly with that voter. (Suspicions are reported to election administrators.) Poll watchers may also keep track of voter turnout for their political party.

Does every state allow poll watchers?

West Virginia is the only state that does not permit poll watchers of any kind while voting is in progress. Election officials are responsible for challenging voters.

Can anyone sign up to be a poll watcher?

Not necessarily. Forty states, plus D.C., have formal accreditation processes. Local party leaders, candidates or other political operatives can appoint observers, although in some cases the people must be approved by local or state election officials. Most states also require poll watchers to be registered voters. Law enforcement officers, candidates and their family members are often barred from serving as poll watchers.

How many poll watchers do states enlist for elections?

It varies, but generally one or two Republican and Democratic observers are allowed in each voting place. Some states require they wear badges identifying themselves.

Are poll watchers the same as poll workers?

No. Poll workers are trained (and in most cases, paid) temporary employees of the local election administrators. They help in the physical conduct of elections by setting up voting machines, checking-in voters and assuring they're registered, keeping the lines orderly, answering questions and passing out "I Voted" stickers.

What happens if a poll watcher, or somebody else, tries to interfere with a voter inside a polling place?

It is a federal crime to intimidate, threaten or coerce a person for the purpose of interfering with their right to vote. Many state laws also protect against voter intimidation. For more information about voter intimidation and how to report it, read this guide by the ACLU.

What about interfering outside?

Voter intimidation is forbidden inside or outside a polling location. It is also prohibited to interfere with or block voters in line or walking into a building to cast a ballot. However, beyond a certain perimeter outside of a polling location, electioneering is allowed.

What is electioneering?

The formal definition is audible or visible advocacy for or against a political issue, ballot measure or candidate. In other words, non-violent demonstration. Activity can include vocalizing political opinions or messaging, displaying campaign signs, waving flags or wearing candidate swag.

How close to a polling location can electioneering happen?

In 24 states, the electioneering perimeter is 100 feet from the door of a polling location. Thirteen states make people stand farther away — as far as 600 feet, in Louisiana. A dozen states allow electioneers to get closer, as close as 10 feet in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. Vermont leaves it up to county officials to decide, and Washington does not specify a distance (although it might not be as much of an issue because the state conducts elections primarily by mail).

Made with Flourish

Can military or law enforcement officers be present at polling locations?

Although Trump has promised to do so if voter fraud occurs, it is illegal to deploy federal troops or armed officers to polling stations. State and local laws also limit the presence of law enforcement at the polls. The Brennan Center for Justice released a report this week outlining the roles law enforcement can and cannot play at the polls.

Need more help?

For answers to additional questions, or assistance if challenged when trying to vote, one option is calling the Election Protection hotline. It offers help in English, Spanish, Arabic, Bengali, Cantonese, Hindi, Urdu, Korean, Mandarin, Tagalog and Vietnamese.


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