Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Senate Democrats take fight to protect voting rights to Georgia

Sen. Amy Klobuchar leads a field hearing on voting rights in Georgia

Sen. Amy Klobuchar leads a Rules Committee field hearing in Georgia to examine GOP-proposed voting bills.

Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images

Originally published by The 19th

ATLANTA — Senate Democrats, with their options limited in Washington, were in Atlanta on Monday to hold a rare field hearing they hope will draw public attention to restrictive voting bills proposed or enacted by Republican state legislatures.

Amy Klobuchar, the Democratic head of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, which oversees federal elections along with the chamber's day-to-day procedures, said the panel decided to convene its first field hearing in more than 20 years in Georgia because its legislature passed an “egregious" restrictive voting law earlier this year.

“We cannot keep our heads in the ground, you've got to go out there and see exactly what's happening," Klobuchar told The 19th ahead of the hearing.


“There's been over 400 bills introduced, 28 have passed and been signed into law, and one of them is right here in Georgia and it's probably the most egregious example," she added.

The 19th Represents 2021 Virtual Summit
Join us this August for our free #19thRepresents summit with virtual conversations on representation in democracy, sports, business, culture and voting.
Join Us

Georgia's Republican-controlled legislature passed a bill in April that is expected to make it considerably more difficult for some of the state's voters to cast ballots. The measure, which was quickly signed into law by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, imposes additional identification requirements for absentee voters, limits the use of ballot drop boxes, curbs the authority of state and local election officials, and makes it a crime to offer voters food, or even water, while they are waiting in line.

The Republican effort followed record turnout in Georgia during the November 2020 elections, which resulted in Joe Biden's historic win in a state that had not backed a Democratic presidential candidate since Bill Clinton in 1992. Then, Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff both won Senate seats in January runoff elections that handed their party control of the chamber. They are the first Democrats Georgia has elected to the Senate since 2000.

Warnock said at Monday's hearing that the record turnout “should have been celebrated ... instead, it was attacked by craven politicians more committed to the maintenance of their own power than they are to the strengthening and maintenance of our democracy."

Former President Donald Trump has blamed his loss on unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud. In the days after the election, he criticized Georgia's election officials and pressured them to “find" the votes he needed to win the state. Kemp, who initially drew the former president's ire, told the New York Times earlier this year that Republicans “quickly began working" to “make it easier to vote and harder to cheat."

Klobuchar rejected Kemp's characterization of their effort. “They decided that instead of trying to fix their national policies or messages or candidates, that, after suffering a loss, they would respond by trying to disenfranchise people," she said in an interview.

Warnock is also the first Black senator to be elected in Georgia, where the population is roughly 58 percent white and 40 percent Black. High turnout among the state's Black voters was a driving force behind his and other Democratic wins. Witnesses at the hearing described how Georgia's law will disproportionately impact communities of color in the state, which already contended with longer wait times at the polls. Critics of restrictive voting measures in Georgia and elsewhere say they are designed that way, in a throwback to the Jim Crow-era laws that made it difficult for Black voters to cast ballots and supported racial segregation.

Georgia voter José Segarra, an Air Force veteran, said that when he went to cast his ballot during the state's early-voting period in October, it took two trips to the polls. He showed up on the first day with friends in their 70s, one of whom is a candidate for a knee replacement and another who has acute arthritis and uses a walker. They found a line snaking around their courthouse polling location. Unable to stand for what they anticipated would be an hours-long wait, they left. Serraga attempted again the next week with his wife and ended up waiting several hours.

“We were able to handle those three hours standing in line but we know that not everybody can," Serraga testified. “This is wrong, it should not take so long to vote."

Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley, who is also on the rules panel, said he was “struck" by witness testimony that communities of color in Georgia had fewer voting locations and therefore faced longer lines. He said it sounded like a violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court in 2013 struck down a key provision of the law that required areas with a history of discrimination to preclear changes to voting rules before implementation. The justices further weakened the statute in a ruling earlier this month. The erosion of the landmark civil rights statute has added to the urgency felt by Democrats and voting-rights advocates to counter the Republican push to pass voting restrictions.

Monday's field hearing came roughly a month after a sweeping bill to curtail the influence of money in politics and preserve voting access — known as H.R. 1, S. 1 or the For the People Act — failed to clear a procedural hurdle in the evenly split, 100-seat Senate, where nearly all legislation requires the support of 60 senators to proceed and Republicans are united in opposition.

The partisan battle over voting has also become enmeshed in another Democratic fight over whether they should change Senate rules to do away with the 60-vote filibuster threshold. The Democrats do not currently have enough support within their own caucus to change it.

Ahead of Monday's hearing, Klobuchar, along with Merkley and voting-access advocate Stacey Abrams, held a roundtable with four Georgia voters who had difficulty casting ballots in the 2020 general election or Senate runoffs, before the state's new restrictive law was in effect.

More from The 19th

One was Keli Benford, a 21-year Air Force veteran who waited nearly seven hours to cast her ballot on the first day of early voting in October. Benford, who is Black, said on the hot day it was a “blessing" when someone brought water to those in line, she added. Under Georgia's new law, the provision of water to a voter like Benford would be a criminal act.

Rules Committee Democrats Klobuchar, Merkley, Ossoff and Alex Padilla attended the hearing. None of the panel's Republicans were there. Warnock and Democratic state Rep. Billy Mitchell read opening statements. Sworn witnesses were Segarra, along with a Democratic state Sen. Sally Harrell and Helen Butler, a former county elections official. Klobuchar said Republicans declined the opportunity to provide witnesses to defend Georgia's law. Greater Georgia, a group founded by former Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler, who lost to Ossoff in the runoff, called the hearing “political theater."

“Over the past year Georgia has become ground zero for the sweeping voter suppression efforts we've seen gain momentum all across our country," Warnock said at the hearing.

“I want to be clear: Congress must take action on voting rights and we have no time to spare, there is nothing more important for us to do this Congress."


Read More

​President Donald Trump and other officials in the Oval office.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, in Washington, before signing a spending bill that will end a partial shutdown of the federal government.

Alex Brandon, Associated Press

Trump Signs Substantial Foreign Aid Bill. Why? Maybe Kindness Was a Factor

Sometimes, friendship and kindness accomplish much more than threats and insults.

Even in today’s Washington.

Keep ReadingShow less
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