Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Lessons from a local election 57 years ago for boosting turnout now

Opinion

Cohoes, N.Y.

In 1963, 85 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in the city elections for Cohoes, N.Y. Last year, turnout for the city's municipal election was just 24 percent.

Van Buskirk is an engineer and urban planner who has been active in politics since the 1960s. This summer he self-published "Big Mike, Uncle Dan and Me: How I Beat 20th Century New York State's Most Corrupt Political Machine."


In Cohoes, the suburb of Albany, N.Y., where I grew up, 85 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in the city elections of 1963. Last year, turnout for the municipal election was just 24 percent. What was the key factor that caused this phenomenon?

The Census Bureau pegged turnout for the 2016 presidential election at 61.4 percent. In Belgium, one of the handful of developed nations where voting is compulsory, 88 percent participated in last year's national election — so perhaps that's a reasonable upper limit to expect across the United States.

But turnout in our local elections is abysmally low. Research by Jan Brennan of the National Civic League found the highest recent participation in a mayoral election was 47 percent in Bradenton, Fla. — and the lowest was 6 percent. She recommended local contests always be on even-numbered years to coincide with federal and most state contests.

Many local candidates complain their races would then be overshadowed and they could not get their messages out. Other research concludes that many local elections lack competition, which results in low turnout. And Eric Oliver, an expert on local politics at the University of Chicago, says getting people to the polls for city contests is not necessarily best if they are not informed.

One way to address low turnout is to increase the number of potential voters. And one way to do that is by allowing eligible voters with valid ID to register and vote on the same day. Research suggests the 21 states with same-day registration have consistently higher turnout.

Modest increases in turnout are also reported by the five states that, even before the pandemic, had started sending return-by-mail ballots to everyone eligible for each election. And the same goes for the 16 states that automatically register residents to vote (unless they ask to opt out) whenever they do business with the motor vehicle bureau or some other state agency that keeps identifying records on people.

Many critics claim that the easier it is to vote, the easier it is to commit voter fraud. One Gallup poll found 59 percent of people have no confidence in the honesty of our elections. At the same time, a Pew Research Center poll after the 2018 midterm found 76 percent support for requiring an ID at the polls — which many in the political establishment oppose because it discourages minority voters.

Judicial Watch, a conservative foundation, recently reported on a county clerk in Michigan altering 193 absentee ballots. Los Angeles County had 1.6 million inactive voters on its rolls two years ago. And a close Democratic primary in June for a New York City congressional seat took weeks to decide after the mail-in system was beset with problems, from the Postal Service to the Board of Elections, with over 65,000 absentee ballots eventually disqualified.

In synthesizing the research there is general agreement on the following: Voter rolls need to be accurate. They need to be regularly updated to create confidence in the election process. Local elections need to be more competitive and voters need better information on local issues. And everyone who is legally registered should be encouraged to vote.

Now, back to my hometown.

Six decades ago, its 20,000 people included almost 13,000 eligible voters. They had to be at least 21 to vote in those days and they had to pass a literacy test. They had four days in October to register to vote in the November general election.

An entrenched and corrupt political machine controlled the city government and school board, so there was limited political competition. Apathy resulted in such slogans as "My vote won't count."

I was part of the group of citizens that organized to challenge the machine at the polls. This Citizens Party solicited candidates, raised money and built a get-out-the-vote organization. And its leadership designed and implemented this strategy to optimize turnout:

First, people in all 23 precincts were assigned to assemble a file with the name, address, phone number, party affiliation and voting record of every eligible voter. City directories, telephone books, motor vehicle registrations and canvassing helped create the databases.

Next, people were identified for registration during the four-day window, using personal contact to provide would-be voters information on the issues. One targeted group was the 1,500 who had recently voted in presidential and gubernatorial contests — but not local ones. By the end of the drive, 87 percent of eligible voters were on the rolls, a record.

Then, an information campaign began. The new party got its message out by having a four-page flier, outlying the party in power's corruption, delivered to every household in the city. Other activities were rallies, canvassing of every household, a parade and letters targeting various issues for various groups.

Finally, the party arranged for 21 deputy state attorneys general to be at polling places on Election Day to ensure the integrity of the vote and challenge ineligible voters.

Thanks to all that, a record 18 of every 20 eligible voters cast a ballot — and the Cohoes Citizens Party won by 1,462 votes.

By 2019, apathy had returned with 24 percent turnout for a noncompetitive mayoral election.

Voter turnout correlates with politically competitive elections, a key factor. The more competitive the higher the correlation.


Read More

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
The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin
us a flag on pole
Photo by Saad Alfozan on Unsplash

The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin

Where is our nation headed — and why does it feel as if the country is spinning out of control under leaders who cannot, or will not, steady it?

Americans are watching a government that seems to have lost its balance. Decisions shift by the hour, explanations contradict one another, and the nation is left reacting to confusion rather than being guided by clarity. Leadership requires focus, discipline, and the courage to make deliberate, informed decisions — even when they are not politically convenient. Yet what we are witnessing instead is haphazard decision‑making, secrecy, and instability.

Keep ReadingShow less