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

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

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

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

An illustration of two hands controlling a small person attached to strings.

Parallels and Patterns: George Orwell’s 1984, Hitler’s Nazi, and Trump 2.0

Connecticut voters approved early voting. Here’s how their new secretary of state wants to make it happen

Connecticut voters approved early voting. Here’s how their new secretary of state wants to make it happen

A woman drops her Connecticut 2020 presidential primary ballot at a secure ballot drop box at a Stamford library on August 11, 2020 in Stamford, Connecticut.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Barbara Rodriguez, The 19th
By Barbara Rodriguez, The 19thFeb 14, 2023
Barbara Rodriguez, The 19th
See More Writings by author

Barbara Rodriguez is a state politics and voting reporter with The 19th.

Last November, Connecticut voters made two choices with big implications for how they vote in future elections: They approved a ballot measure to institute early voting, and they elected Stephanie Thomas as their next secretary of state.

Thomas, a Democrat and former state lawmaker who campaigned on expanding voting access, defeated Republican Dominic Rapini, who questioned the 2020 election results and claimed without proof that voter fraud is rampant. In the process, Thomas made history as the first Black person to be elected as Connecticut’s secretary of state.

Now part of Thomas’ job will be to figure out how to actually implement early voting and get Connecticut off the dwindling list of states without it (leaving just Alabama, Mississippi and New Hampshire). Early voting has been linked to increased turnout for women voters — advocates say it helps caregivers and people who work nontraditional hours, who are disproportionately likely to be women, and all voters from marginalized communities, who may face more barriers with long lines on Election Day.

So far, several competing ideas are floating around the Democratic-controlled legislature, which will have the final say on a bill. The cost of enacting early voting could also be a major factor in negotiations.

While Thomas will not determine what happens, she hopes to play a role in the legislative process. As the former chair of a key elections committee, she wants to use her experience at the statehouse to maintain lines of communication with policymakers who will finalize a proposal before it goes to Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont, who previously expressed support for the ballot measure.

“In terms of ballot access, early voting is certainly the number one priority,” Thomas told The 19th.

The early voting proposals in the legislature range from a few days’ length to 14 days. Thomas has expressed support for 10 days of early voting, including two full weekends and flexible hours.

“The number of days is almost one of the least relevant parameters, in my opinion,” she said. “Meaning, if you had seven days, 24 hours — that might be better than 30 days, two hours a day.”

Thomas added: “Very much part of my role is to think about implementation, and what our office can and can’t do and in what time frame — and to make sure that I assess [the legislature’s] priorities correctly and roll out everything in due course. But you can’t always do every single thing at once.”

Patricia Rossi is vice president for advocacy and public affairs for the League of Women Voters (LWV) of Connecticut, which advocated heavily for the early voting ballot measure. She said determining the quality of Connecticut’s early voting will come down to state funding and its ripple effect on polling locations, hours of operation, staffing and other resources.

“Budget is going to be a big issue for anybody who wants to implement early voting,” Rossi said.

Most voting rights advocates also agree that some of the state’s election equipment needs to be updated soon. Thomas has indicated that will be a priority for her as well, and estimated a roughly $25 million price tag to updating the state’s tabulators, which is machinery that helps record election results. (Thomas declined to estimate the cost of early voting without a formalized plan yet from the legislature.)

Rossi said Thomas has met with the LWV and other voting rights groups to discuss priorities for early voting. Rossi said no matter what Thomas does, it will be a lot of juggling.

“The secretary of state has a lot to accomplish in her first year in the post, but we know that she is as firm of a supporter of early voting as we are. And she is as firm of a supporter of voter education as we are,” she said.

Jess Zaccagnino, policy counsel for the ACLU of Connecticut, also wants any early voting plan that considers hours, number of polling locations, and accessibility for the elderly and people with disabilities.

The group supports at least 14 days, with at least one Saturday and one Sunday. She said the group would back even more, noting that 23 is the average number of early voting days in the other 46 states that allow it. Policymakers including Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy also want more days.

More women registered voters have turned out to vote in states with in-person early voting, according to a data analysis by Voting Rights Lab, a nonpartisan organization that tracks voting legislation.

“It hurts working people to not have flexible hours,” said Zaccagnino. “We have to make sure that the actual locations, the polling sites, are equitable and distributed well across the state.”

The ACLU and the LWV are also backing a state-level voting rights bill to protect against voting discrimination. The policy is a state version of the federal John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act that has stalled in Congress. Thomas recently attended a news conference on the policy proposal. There are also efforts in the legislature this year to get another ballot measure to voters that would allow for no-excuse absentee voting.

“We really have the opportunity to make this a session of voting rights,” said Zaccagnino.

Semedrian Smith, deputy executive director for the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State, said the pandemic and 2020 election created a surge in expanded options for voting in states led by both Democrats and Republicans. Now more legislatures are stepping in to make some of these changes permanent.

“We’re seeing these wonderful success stories come through and voters using their voice at the ballot box and clearly demonstrating that they are supportive of pro-democracy initiatives and processes,” she said.

Thomas said whatever advances, it should include a budget that allows for early voting this fall, before the 2024 presidential election, in order to give election workers time to address any issues that come with new rules. Connecticut has 169 municipalities that make up its cities and towns. Nearly half have just one polling location because of population size.

“If we try to pass along the cost to each individual town, it will not have the intended benefits that we would like to see,” she said.

Lamont shared a budget proposal publicly this month that did not include money for early voting. But as one of the first steps in the process, it doesn’t necessarily mean lawmakers won’t attach state money in the end.

Zaccagnino said she was disappointed that early voting was not spelled out in Lamont’s budget. But she hopes upcoming budget hearings will recognize that state funding has to be a part of the equation.

“The governor and the legislature both need to demonstrate that they value democracy and the will of people by fully funding early voting,” she said.

Thomas added that it’s important for the public to remember that voters have a voice in the process in the weeks ahead. She described her office as “one cog in the wheel” that includes other policymakers and real people.

“The people have a real opportunity to help shape what this looks like through the public hearing process, whether they show up in person to testify or submit something in writing,” she said. “For me, this just reminds me that civic engagement is the most important tool that we have in this representative democracy … so I hope we will also hear from [voters] as we decide how it’s shaped.”

This article originally appeared in The 19th.


Latest news

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

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

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”
Ethics & Leadership

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift
Elections

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift

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