Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Nominations for key election leadership positions up for grabs Tuesday in four northern states

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon is waiting to see which Republican will challenge him in November.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

In most years, races for secretary of state draw little attention. But as election administration has become an increasingly hot topic, the contests to be the state’s top election official have taken on greater importance. Voters will choose their candidate for that post in four states on Tuesday.

Voters will also select candidates for a variety of federal, state and local elections, as well as decide special elections for vacated seats. In addition to facing the voters, candidates will deal with complications that endorsements can bring, as well as challenges from within their own parties.

As voters from Connecticut, Minnesota, Vermont and Wisconsin — all states with open primaries — head to the polls to choose the candidates who will represent their parties in the general elections later this year, here’s a rundown of the key races at hand, as well as the changes in election policy that govern the primaries.


Connecticut

The highest profile race in Connecticut is the Republican primary to challenge Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal. With Blumenthal’s approval rating dipping, Republicans see an opportunity to flip the seat.

Republican frontrunners are socially moderate Themis Klarides, a previous minority leader in the Connecticut House, and Trump loyalist and political fundraiser Leora Levy. Klarides is an outlier in her party, supporting abortion rights, marriage equality and gun control, and acknowledging systemic racism — positions that have drawn attacks from Levy.

Still, Klarides gained the party endorsement and polls show that she has a better chance of beating Blumenthal than Levy in November (although still likely to lose), which may convince voters on the fence.

The Democratic primary for secretary of state features Stephanie Thomas and Maritza Bond, either of whom would be the first person of color to hold the post in Connecticut. The primary winner will face either Dominic Rapini, who has made concern about voter fraud central to his campaign, or Rep. Terrie Wood, who hasn’t gone that far but agrees the state should tighten election rules, including requiring an ID to vote. Voters will also pick candidates for state Treasurer. Democrats have held both posts for more than 20 years and will likely win in November.

As a state that previously had some of the most restrictive voting laws in the country, Connecticut has enacted many bills in recent years to expand voting access. These laws include measures to restore voting eligibility to convicted felons upon their release from prison, expand absentee voting, require employers to allow two hours of paid time off on election days and adopt online voter registration.

Just this year, the state further extended absentee voting by broadening the requirements to include caregivers, not just people who are ill or disabled.

Read more about election law changes in Connecticut.

Minnesota

In Minnesota, a special election for a U.S. House seat will determine who finishes the term started by Rep. Jim Hagedorn, who died in February. Some voters in that district will actually vote twice for the same seat, once for whether Republican Brad Finstad (the favorite) or Democrat Jeff Ettinger will finish out the year, and again in the primary for the regularly scheduled November election.

While the district is considered to be solidly Republican, it has been represented by Democrats such as Gov. Tim Walz when he was in the House. The underdog for the special election, Ettinger, a former CEO of Hormel, is favored to win the primary so he could have another shot in November. Finstad, who served in the Department of Agriculture under Donald Trump, is being challenged by state Rep. Jeremy Munson who lost the May primary for the special election to him and is running to his right.

To make matters more confusing, the borders of this district changed in the 2020 redistricting cycle. Some voters who are no longer in the district will only have the special election on the ballot, while those who have been drawn in will only be able to vote in the primary.

The top of the ballot features a Republican primary for governor. Former state Sen. Scott Jensen is expected to win the right to challenge Walz. Minnesota hasn’t had a Republican governor since 2007.

The Republican primary for attorney general has also made headlines. Doug Wardlow, who was endorsed by the Republican Party in 2018, is now facing the GOP’s wrath. He has continued to fight for the nomination after the party endorsed Jim Schulz, despite pledging to honor the endorsement system. The winner will face incumbent Keith Ellison, whose office led the prosecution of Derek Chauvin, the police officer convicted of killing George Floyd.

In the race for secretary of state, the leading GOP candidate, Kim Crockett, has been very critical of how Minnesota handled the 2020 election but usually does not go so far as to say the race was stolen from Trump. The winner is expected to face the incumbent, Steve Simon, in November.

Two House Democrats representing the twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul are facing challengers. Rep. Ilhan Omar, who made headlines last week when she was arrested at a protest for abortion rights with several colleagues, is facing a well-known community activist Don Samuels. While they share many positions, Samuels was instrumental in stopping a bill Omar supported that would have abolished the Minneapolis Police Department and replaced it with a department of public safety.

And Rep. Betty McCollum, who has been in Congress for over 20 years, is facing a challenge from her left. Political organizer Amane Badhasso is running against her, claiming that a new generation of progressive Democrats is needed to solve issues such as climate change, systemic racism and income inequality.

Few changes in election law have passed in recent years due to Minnesota’s divided government. Though 166 bills have been introduced in the past two years, only one has been enacted. It increased security measures for absentee ballot drop boxes, required lists of rejected absentee ballots to be made available to the public after voting ends on Election Day, and appropriated funds to improve election administration and security.

Read more about changes to election laws in Minnesota.

Vermont

The Green Mountain State’s primary features a pair of statewide contests for open federal seats, triggered when Vermont’s senior senator, Patrick Leahy, announced plans to retire in 2021. Three Democrats are running for the nomination to succeed Leahy, with Rep. Peter Welch favored over Niki Thran and Issac Evans-Frantz.

On the Republican ballot, Gerald Malloy, Myers Mermel and Christina Nolan will all be running for the nomination.

For the first time in 16 years, Vermont has an open spot in the House of Representatives because Welch is giving up that seat to run for Senate. On the Democratic side, two women — state Sen. Becca Balint and Lt. Gov. Molly Gray — are the frontrunners for the nomination. Republicans Ericka Redic, Anya Tynio and Liam Madden are seeking the GOP nomination.

The Democrats have a solid hold on both seats.

Any of the four women running for the House nomination would make history as the first woman in Congress from Vermont – the only state yet to send a woman to Congress.

Other races on primary day include governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, and secretary of state. The gubernatorial race will feature Democrat Brenda Siegel and the winner of the Republican primary featuring Stephen Bellows, Phil Scott and Peter Duval.

Three candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination for the open secretary of state position. (Jim Condos is retiring after 12 years in office.) All have said they want to continue Vermont’s recent work to make it easier to vote. The only GOP candidate, H. Brooke Paige, who regularly appears on the ballot, is not given much chance of winning.

Since 2019, Vermont has enacted few bills affecting elections, but one of them took many steps to make it easier to vote. In addition to establishing a vote-by-mail system in which all registered voters received a mail-in ballot, the bill requires the state to use ballot drop boxes and created a method for voters to correct, or “cure” ballots that contain errors.

Read more about this bill and other changes to Vermont election law.

Wisconsin

Wisconsin’s primaries this Tuesday will be dominated by two headlining races — for Senate and for the governor’s office.

The Democratic primary for Senate will likely be won by Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, who seeks to challenge Sen. Ron Johnson in the general election, after the most influential of his rivals withdrew from the GOP race. Three of Barnes’ competitors dropped out and endorsed Barnes in the span of one week in late July.

Johnson is largely considered one of the most vulnerable Republican senators on the ballot this November. Polls from early in the primary showed that Johnson would face a tough challenge from any of his Democratic opponents.

In the Republican primary for governor, the winner of which will challenge Gov. Tony Evers, the race has been condensed to a battle between former Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch and Tim Michels, a construction executive. The two represent different sides of the party, with Trump endorsing Michels and former Vice President Mike Pence supporting Kleefisch.

The secretary of state race in Wisconsin generally gets little coverage, even compared to the same post in other states. In Wisconsin, that office has nothing to do with elections. But this year, the three GOP candidates seeking the nomination want the state to give that office more control over elections, at the expense of Wisconsin’s bipartisan elections commission.

Only relatively minor voting law changes happened in Wisconsin in recent years, largely because Evers vetoed multiple restrictive laws sent to him by the Republican-controlled Legislature. Litigation did yield some restrictive changes to procedure — for instance, a federal appeals court restored a requirement in 2020 that voters must reside in their district for 28 days rather than 10 to be eligible to vote. The same court ruled that emailing or faxing absentee ballots would be unconstitutional. And home-schooled students at least 16 years of age were allowed by a 2021 law to serve as poll workers.

In 2022, the state has enacted just one bill related to voting rights and procedure. It prohibited donations or private grants for election administration and detailed who can perform related tasks, according to the Voting Rights Lab.

Read more about election law changes in Wisconsin.


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