Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Nonprofits have the power to create a more inclusive democracy

People singing in a chorus

Nonprofits can help expand the voices in the chorus that is democracy, writes Miller.

tezzstock

Miller is executive director of Nonprofit VOTE, which works to help other nonprofits across the nation boost civic engagement and voter turnout among their allies.


Our democracy is a chorus, one that only improves when more and diverse voices join, adding richness to the sound. Despite the volume of last year's election — one that broke a century-old record for voter turnout — there were nonetheless missing and underrepresented voices. Those gaps in turnout are even more pronounced in local election cycles like 2021, resulting in an older, whiter electorate.

So how do we achieve a truly representative electorate? Voter-friendly policies are important, but they are not enough by themselves. Yes, everyone can have a right to a music stand and a song book, but who is conducting the auditions? In the end, voter turnout is largely a reflection of who is contacted about voting ... and who is not.

Political parties and campaigns have failed to close voter participation gaps because that's not their goal. Their goal is to win an election, not foster an inclusive electorate. Even the most well-meaning campaigns have to prioritize their resources on "likely" voters — the experienced singers who performed last time. The uninvited singers don't show and the cycle repeats itself.

So who has the capacity and motivation to expand the invite list and create the truly diverse and representative chorus of voices? One key to that question is America's nonprofits, from food pantries to housing clinics, which are motivated by broader values of inclusivity and ensuring the communities they serve are heard.

The newly-released Nonprofit Power Report, which details our work with 180 nonprofits across seven states in 2020, shows that nonprofits that marry voter engagement with their mission can help foster a more inclusive and representative democracy. It also provides a roadmap for nonprofit leaders eager to ensure our country lives up to its promise as a diverse chorus of citizenry.

The report explores nonprofit reach and impact on turnout among other things. Let's start with whom nonprofits reach.

Nonprofits typically offer their services to the very communities that are most underrepresented in our democracy. So it only makes sense that when those same organizations do voter engagement work, they are engaging a part of the electorate most often left out of the national conversation. In fact, the report shows that voters engaged by nonprofits in our program were:

  • More than twice as likely to be voters of color.
  • More than twice as likely to earn less than $30,000 annually.
  • Nearly twice as likely to be young (18-24).

Often described as "low propensity" voters, these groups are rarely contacted by political campaigns. They represent the choral singers who don't get invited. Without that contact, they don't show up to the polls and the next election sees candidates once again not engaging them — completing the vicious cycle of exclusion.

As trusted actors with a vested interest in uplifting the communities they serve, nonprofits can sow the seeds of real and inclusive political participation. Where campaigns see low-propensity voters, nonprofits see high-potential voters hungry for genuine engagement and respect.

The Covid pandemic also provided a learning opportunity as many nonprofits pivoted to online and digital strategies, while others continued in-person engagement with social distancing and PPEs. The organizations that did Covid-safe, in-person engagement were 1.7 times more likely to reach low-income voters and 1.4 times more likely to reach voters of color than those who relied on digital strategies.

But reaching voters is just the first step in ensuring our democracy lives up to its promise. What impact do nonprofits have in getting those newly engaged voters, some for the first time, to the polls?

The Nonprofit Power Report shows that voters engaged by nonprofits have a turnout advantage over voters not contacted by nonprofits. Even in a highly saturated election year like 2020, voters engaged by nonprofits saw their turnout increase by 3 percentage points. However, when we dialed into specific voter demographics, especially people of color, young voters and low-income voters, the results were even more encouraging:

  • Low-income voters saw a 7 percentage point boost.
  • Asian American and Pacific Islander voters saw a 6 percentage point boost.
  • Hispanic voters saw a 5 percentage point boost.
  • Young voters saw a 5 percentage point boost.

At Nonprofit VOTE, we believe in this work because we believe in the power of nonprofits. Whether that's through hands-on training, our webinar series, robust resource library or research, we know that organizations genuinely embedded in their communities can be powerhouses for democracy. That's why we encourage you to take a deep dive into the Nonprofit Power Report, including the Practitioner's Report providing a roadmap for your organization.

In the end, there is no question that nonprofits that commit to voter engagement can have a positive impact on the communities they serve and the nation at large. The only question is what role your organization will play to ensure our democracy is a song for all, by all.


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