Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Will 2021 be defined by voting rights and electoral reform?

Opinion

This story was originally published by Ms.

Reilly is the outreach and communications coordinator for RepresentWomen, a nonpartisan organization advocating for policies that would result in more women holding office.


"Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor; not the learned, more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons [and daughters] of obscurity and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States."
Federalist No. 57

Despite the rhetorically progressive foundations of the United States, more than 200 years later the U.S. struggles to uphold this quote from James Madison and Alexander Hamilton and many more of the ideals laid down by the founding fathers.

Throughout 2020 and into 2021 — whether it was the continued police brutality against Black men and women, the post hoc attempt to question and disenfranchise votes cast in diverse districts, or the inequitable distribution of the Covid-19 vaccine across the country — a larger and larger swath of the public is beginning to understand what activists have been sounding the alarm about for decades: U.S. democratic institutions are far from fair. And while the U.S. touts being a representative democracy, many individuals and communities remain underrepresented and face increasing obstacles to exercise their right to vote.

With 2020 being largely defined by the crises which continue to wrack American democracy, democratic reformers hope 2021 will be defined by the actions we take to address and correct the pitfalls of our electoral system and the continued disenfranchisement of huge portions of the American population.

And there is no shortage of work to do, since voting rights are still under attack, especially at the state level. Although the 2020 presidential and congressional elections saw some of the largest voter turnout in U.S. history, a February report from the Brennan Center shows 33 states have introduced 165 bills suppressing and restricting the right to vote — up from 35 such bills across 13 states in February of 2020.

As the 117th Congress begins to consider legislation, the voting rights and electoral reform communities have coalesced around bills with growing support both inside Congress and across the country — reforms which "respond directly to Americans' desire for real solutions that ensure that each of us can have a voice in the decisions that govern our lives." Reforms aimed to create a more accessible democracy, which reflects the true diversity of our country.

Voting Rights Reforms to Keep an Eye Out for

These bills have been endorsed by voting rights advocates including the NAACP, the Brennan Center, and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

HR 1: For the People Act

The For the People Act was the very first piece of legislation proposed by the Democratic Party in both chambers — in the House, HR 1, introduced by Rep. John Sarbanes of Maryland, and in the Senate, S 1, introduced by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of Ne York, Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.

Considered"the most important legislation considered by Congress in decades," the has been endorsed by every House Democrat and will go to the floor of the House for a vote in early March. The act includes many reforms to ensure every American can exercise their right to vote and ensure elections are conducted safely and fairly. The act would:

  • Expand vote-by-mail and lay out universal standards, including eliminating the need for a notary, witness or ID to vote-by-mail; eliminating the need to submit a reason for a vote-by-mail ballot; and making it easier to obtain and cast mail-in ballots.
  • Increase opportunities for voter registration by allowing for online voting registration, automatic voter registration; same-day voter registration; pre-registration for 16 and 17 year olds.
  • Put in protections to prevent the purging of voter rolls.
  • Restore voting rights to those with past criminal convictions.
  • Implement protections against discrimination and partisan gerrymandering.
  • Increase election security and authorize election administration funding.

HR 4: John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act

The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act builds upon and expands the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965. The act implements a new preclearance formula, which was stripped from the VRA in the 2015 Shelby v. Holder Supreme Court decision. The act would:

  • Expand the time period in which election observers can be sent by the Department of Justice.
  • Increase transparency provisions, requiring jurisdictions to provide notice of voting changes within 180 days of federal election and give notice of changes in polling places within 30 days of federal elections.
  • Allow for private right to action, expanding what the VRA emphasizes, which was right of action from attorneys general and other election officials.

HR 51: DC Admission Act

The DC Admission Act, introduced by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, currently has 210 co-sponsors in the House, 46 supporters in the Senate and is considered a top priority by both Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Schumer. If passed, the act would enfranchise 712,000 Americans currently living without a vote in Congress.

Electoral Reforms To Keep an Eye Out For

While the above voting reform bills set out to ensure all individuals can exercise their right to vote, the right to vote alone will not cure the systemic underrepresentation many communities continue to face. Electoral reforms including changes to voting systems, district design and the size of the U.S. House would improve the elected representation of women and communities of color.

These reform bills have been endorsed by several electoral reform groups and advocates including RepresentWomen and FairVote.

The Fair Representation Act

The Fair Representation Act sponsored by Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia implements fair representation voting to replace our current winner-take-all system, which favors incumbents, hindering diversity and often leading to a divisive, two-party system. The act would:

  • Implement ranked-choice voting for congressional elections, lowering the cost of running for office; incentivizing positive and issue-focused campaigns; allowing for healthy competition by decreasing the incumbency advantage; and improving the diversity of our elected officials.
  • Replace the single-member districts currently used for congressional elections with multimember districts. Multimember districts with ranked-choice voting creates a proportional representation system associated with higher diversity of elected officials.
  • Expand the size of the House of Representatives. The size of the House was frozen in 1929 at 435 despite the House growing in conjunction with the country every decade since 1787. Increasing the number of open-seats will lead to new voices in government, voices more likely to be younger, more female, and more demographically representative of the United States, according to a study by the Fordham University School of Law.

The Ranked Choice Voting Act

The Ranked Choice Voting Act sponsored by Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democat, requires all House and Senate elections to be conducted with ranked-choice voting, eliminating the need for congressional runoff elections.

The Congress Commission Act

The Congress Commission Act sponsored by Rep. Alcee Hastings, a Florida, Democrat, includes provisions to create a bipartisan commission to analyze the current size of the House, study alternative voting methods to elect the House, and study the impact of gerrymandering.

In support of the bill, RepresentWomen's executive director Cynthia Richie Terrell has said, "Processes like this are increasing the number of women elected to office in the 70 or so countries that rank above the United States in women's representation."

Despite centuries of rhetoric saying otherwise, the U.S. government and electoral systems do not work equally for everyone. Our representative democracy is failing in one critical way, it fails to represent everyone; over-representing cis, white men at the cost of everyone else.

To ensure "the electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States," activists must continue to fight for systemic reforms and structural change and legislators must pass bold legislation designed to protect all American's right to vote and ensure fair and equitable representation for all communities.


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