Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Protecting voters in November means keeping polling places open

Opinion

Atlanta primary voters June 9, 2020

Long lines, like those experienced by Atlanta primary voters on June 9, can be prevented by keeping more polling locations open and expanding early voting.

Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images

Benson is Michigan's secretary of state and Underwood, a fellow Democrat, is a congresswoman from Illinois. Firestone and Palfrey are attorneys with the Voter Protection Corps.


After a series of deeply disrupted spring elections, it's clear that Covid-19 is the latest threat to voting rights in America. Many advocates and election officials, ourselves included, are working to expand vote-by-mail, which reduces risks of transmission of the coronavirus and can increase turnout. In recent primaries, mail-in voting rates have skyrocketed by 10 or even 20 times.

But protecting the November election requires an all-of-the-above approach that keeps polling places open. If we fail to act, we will disenfranchise the same Americans historically excluded from voting.

In the last presidential election, three-quarters of all Americans who cast a ballot — nearly 110 million people — did so in person at an early voting site or on Election Day. Members of historically marginalized groups voted in person at even higher rates. In a 2018 census report, Black Americans were the most likely racial group tracked to participate in in-person voting, at 88 percent, and the least likely to vote through the mail. Native Americans, younger voters with less stable mailing addresses, the homeless, voters with disabilities and those who need language assistance all use in-person voting more heavily.

Unfortunately, in primary after primary this spring, election officials have restricted or interfered with in-person voting, particularly in urban areas.

For Wisconsin's primary, Milwaukee slashed the number of polling locations open April 7 down to just five — down from 180. While turnout across the rest of the state dropped 4 percent from the 2016 presidential primary, turnout in the state's largest city dropped 37 percent.

Before Pennsylvania's primary June 2, Philadelphia eliminated 600 voting sites, citing poll worker shortages. A curfew that cut into voting hours was lifted only hours before polls opened. Turnout in the city dropped by 30 percent compared to 2016, six times the rate across the rest of the state.

During the April 9 primary in Georgia, thousands of voters in Atlanta were forced to wait in hours-long lines. Two weeks later in Kentucky, election officials opened just one in-person location in each county, causing concern about the potential for long lines impacting citizens voting in person especially in Louisville and Lexington, the state's most urban and diverse places.

Without preparation, we'll see the same dysfunction play out across the country 13 weeks from now. To ensure that voters are protected this fall, state and local officials must prepare now. Here are the most important four steps to take.

Keep neighborhood polling locations open. Closing polls creates longer lines, bigger crowds and higher risks. Officials should commit not to close polls and consolidate voting, which disproportionately impacts voters in urban areas. The vast majority of the country's Election Day voting places are multi-functional locations and the majority are controlled by local governments.

Election officials should begin planning now to reconfigure or relocate these locations and ensure all have access to cleaning supplies, hand sanitizer and protective materials. States and localities should also expand curbside voting, allowing voters in need to stay in their cars.

Recruit, train and protect new poll workers. This is a watershed moment to invite new generations to fill a critical civic role, including some of the millions of Americans who have joined peaceful protests. But we have to start asking now.

This spring, the coronavirus led to massive shortages of poll workers, and a 2017 report found that most jurisdictions already struggled to recruit the workers needed. In the last presidential election, more than half of the country's 918,000 poll workers were older than 60. Election officials need to create simple online sign-up portals for volunteers and expanded partnerships, like Adopt-a-Precinct, that allow businesses and nonprofits to recruit. Schools should allow high school and college students to take the day off to serve. Jurisdictions should relax or eliminate service requirements that bar otherwise qualified individuals. Poll workers need to be properly trained and provided with protective equipment.

Expand early voting. A straightforward way to protect in-person voting is to spread out the period of time when voters can cast their ballots. In 40 states, voters may already vote early, but the days and hours vary widely. Wherever possible, state and counties should expand early voting to include multiple weeks in October.

To accommodate working Americans, local jurisdictions should expand voting into evening hours and, to the greatest extent possible, allow early voting on both Saturday and Sunday in the final weekends before Election Day. In urban areas, communities should demand early voting sites in neighborhoods — not just central, downtown locations. Rural officials should also look closely at how best to ensure broad access.

Communicate clearly and repeatedly that voting is safe. Elected officials and voting rights groups must repeatedly assure the public that voting will be safe and secure. We've already seen Covid-19 weaponized as this year's voter suppression tactic of choice. Failure to clearly communicate will undermine public confidence and leave the door open to disinformation.

As America prepares for national elections in the middle of a pandemic, the strength of our democracy will be measured by how well we uphold the voting rights of the vulnerable. Do we allow the coronavirus to deepen existing disparities in voter turnout or do we plan and prepare to include everyone? To help ensure that all jurisdictions can afford to run a safe election, Congress should approve the $3.6 billion in aid that has already passed the House.

By acting now, in communities across the country, we can disrupt old patterns of disenfranchisement and make our elections more fair and free.


Read More

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
The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin
us a flag on pole
Photo by Saad Alfozan on Unsplash

The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin

Where is our nation headed — and why does it feel as if the country is spinning out of control under leaders who cannot, or will not, steady it?

Americans are watching a government that seems to have lost its balance. Decisions shift by the hour, explanations contradict one another, and the nation is left reacting to confusion rather than being guided by clarity. Leadership requires focus, discipline, and the courage to make deliberate, informed decisions — even when they are not politically convenient. Yet what we are witnessing instead is haphazard decision‑making, secrecy, and instability.

Keep ReadingShow less