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

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

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

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

Ending gerrymandering by using school districts in drawing congressional maps

Ending gerrymandering by using school districts in drawing congressional maps

Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger speaks at an anti-gerrymandering rally in 2019.

Photo by Howard Gorrell
Howard Gorrell
By Howard GorrellMay 23, 2023
Howard Gorrell
See More Writings by author

Gorrell is an advocate for the deaf, a former Republican Party election statistician, and a longtime congressional aide.

On December 12, 2000, major television news networks assigned their fastest staffers on feet to deliver a written issuance of the U. S. Supreme Court decision on the Bush v. Gore case from the court clerk's office to their respective two-news reporters' teams on the Court's 252-foot-wide oval plaza. While speeding, the runners flipped to the last few pages and verbally told the final ruling to their first reporter, and then the first one announced the result to the viewers quickly, while the second reporter flipped 158 pages to add more comments for the viewers.

Being deaf since birth, I focused on the closed caption on my television to know the result.

Today, having television to know what the Supreme Court will rule on the Moore v. Harper case is unnecessary since we use our smartphones to quickly get the result.

The Moore watchers are waiting to know if the Court would moot the "single most important case on American democracy in the nation's history" (according to a leading conservative former federal judge J. Michael Luttig) or if the Court would decide by late June or early July. (Several scholars and I believe the Court may issue a narrow final opinion by ruling the Independent State Legislature Doctrine/Theory applying only to redistricting.)

In this case, the Supreme Court is considering whether a state legislature itself could have the power to set rules on congressional district lines and the state judiciary could play no role.

Will it end gerrymandering if the Court rules in favor of Moore? Nay, it will be the opposite - making partisan and racial gerrymandering even worse. The ISL theorists have feared that the North Carolina state legislature is free to adopt new maps or use old ones for 2024 that eliminate up to four Democratic seats.

This favor would also eliminate nine independent redistricting commissions. If so, the Democratic-controlled New York state legislature could go from a 19D-8R map to a 23D-3R map, including gerrymandering Rep. George Santos (R) out. Same as Maryland, where the state government is controlled entirely by Democrats for the first time in eight years, for sweeping all eight congressional seats in 2024.

If mooted or the Court denies the Petitioners, it shall continue the gerrymandering war for another decade!

For 53 years since I got a job with the National Republican Congressional Committee as Assistant Election Statistician in 1970, I have been tired of reading/listening to the Democratic Party and Republican Party pointing to each other for gerrymandering congressional maps every decade.

For example, I got confused by The New York Times declaring "the fairest House map of the last 40 years." The indisputable fact is that forty years ago, in 1982, the Democratic Party gained 27 seats in the House of Representatives of the 83rd Congressional Session - 269 Democrats and 166 Republicans. 269 was the highest seat number in the last 40 years. Twenty-three Democratic state legislatures gerrymandered most seats.

However, 28 years later, in 2012, a Republican wave (fueled partly by fundraising for the Republican State Leadership Committee’s Redistricting Majority Project) resulted in all-GOP state governments getting to draw almost half the 435 congressional districts the following year. Also, the Republican Party took over the House of Representatives for the first time in 56 years (1954.) This result was one of President Barack Obama’s most embarrassing moments.

Today, most of the public has blamed the Republican Party for gerrymandering during the 2020 census cycle. It is slightly true, but they must have forgotten that the Democratic Senate did zero to end the gerrymandering during the 213 days of their filibuster-proof 60-vote majority in the Senate from July 7, 2009, to February 4, 2010.

This commentary urges state legislatures and independent redistricting commissions to use school districts to draw congressional maps.

In Maryland, interested residents could draw congressional maps to submit for consideration to its redistricting commission. On September 19, 2011, I sent my third-party submission to the commission. One month later, my congressional district plan caught the eyes of Maryland's well-known election analyst, Dr. Todd Eberly. He wrote about my proposal in his political blog, "The Free Stater Blog."

Eberly believed that the plan truly represents the diversity of the state - my decision to rely on the school district as the basic unit of "community" represents a true understanding of the building blocks of neighborhoods and common ground.

A few days later, I received a surprise email from Maryland Delegate Susan McComb (R). She congratulated me by informing me, "Actually, the Harford County Council Redistricting Commission used your idea of the schools as communities of interest. It was very successful since there was no opposition to the proposal at the public hearing. Naturally, common sense and communities of interest will not win the day, but you have done a good job."

To know how to add clusters of high schools and their feeder schools in redistricting, you may read my five drawing steps.

Eberly admitted that he tried to keep counties together at all costs. He thought "[my] use of school districts was a great way to keep community connections intact even when crossing county lines." So Eberly strongly believes that using school clusters is an excellent way to define “communities of interest.” Reminder that 23 states that do not have criteria for preserving communities of interest.

A decade later, Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) sponsored his doomed bill, the "For the People Act of 2021," which stated that, among other things, calls for including this language: "Communities of interest may include political subdivisions such as counties, municipalities, tribal lands, and reservations, or school districts."

At the New York State Independent Redistricting Commission public hearing last February, a local school superintendent, Daniel Henner, gave his feedback --- encouraging the commissioners to “think not just of county lines but also school district lines as the schools build relationships with their district's legislators.” He paused, "Where the school building is might not be where the representative is. They might represent people in our district, but not where the school building is."

So you, standing in front of the school building, would wave at only a congressional candidate of each party, instead of two or three sets of political candidates from the other gerrymandered congressional districts, in your local parades.


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