Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Continued party-line voting in Texas among three new election easements

Texas voting

Voters in Texas, like these waiting in line in Houston for the March 3 primary, will be able to vote straight-ticket under a judge's ruling on Friday.

Mark Felix/Getty Images

A federal judge says that for this election, at least, Texas must preserve straight-ticket voting, which is how two-thirds of the state's ballots are usually cast.

The decision, if it survives a promised appeal by Republicans in charge in Austin, would likely assist Democrats within reach of their best showing in the state in decades this fall. But it would distress many democracy reform advocates, who lament how civic engagement is limited and two-party dominance is preserved when voters are allowed a single choice supporting all of one party's candidates.

As voting policies continue to shift, thanks to decisions in statehouses and courthouses across the country, the ruling was one of three developments in purple states Friday. Iowa joined the roster of states that will start processing absentee voting envelopes sooner than usual, and Montana joined the list of states extending the usual deadline for the arrival of mailed ballots.

These are details of the most recent developments.


Texas

The ruling came less than three weeks before the start of early in-person voting in the second-most-populous state, which for more than a century has given Texans the opportunity to cast a single-party line vote — which 5.1 million did just two years ago. The Republican-majority Legislature eliminated that option starting this fall.

But Judge Mariana Garcia Marmolejo of Laredo temporarily blocked implementation of the law on the grounds that, during the coronavirus pandemic, it would "cause irreparable injury" to voters "by creating mass lines at the polls and increasing the amount of time voters are exposed to Covid-19." She also said the switch would discriminate against Black and Latino voters because their waits would be especially long, in part because many live in urban and rural precincts with the fewest polling places per person.

Garcia Marmolejo's decision effectively reverses her ruling in June dismissing an earlier version of the lawsuit, in which the Democrats pressed essentially the same arguments the judge embraced this time. She said some procedural differences, but mainly the persistence of the health emergency, are what prompted her change of mind.

GOP Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Saturday he would press the federal appeals courts to act quickly to reverse the judge, because otherwise officials will have to scramble to reprogram voting machines and reprint ballots.

Texas historically has one of the nation's longest ballots, especially in presidential years, when many state and county legislative, administrative and judicial posts are also contested. Democrats argue the straight-ticket option allows many voters to do what they'd do anyway, if they had to mark dozens of ovals, and has the vital benefit of keeping people moving quickly through polling places.

Republican pushed the law ending the practice with arguments echoing many good-government experts, who say it will give underdogs and outsiders stronger chances and compel voters to become better-informed about all the contests and candidates.

Texas is one of seven seven states that have done away with straight-ticket balloting in the past decade, leaving just five sure to make the option available this fall: Battleground Michigan and solidly Republican Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma and South Carolina

President Trump carried Texas by 9 percentage points in 2016, extending a GOP winning streak that started in 1980, but two polls released last week had him ahead of Joe Biden by 3 and 5 percentage points — essentially within the margin of error. Democrats also are within reach at taking several congressional seats from the GOP and maybe reclaiming the state House for the first time in 18 years.

Iowa

The bipartisan state Legislative Council approved a request from Republican Secretary of State Paul to allow election clerks to open outer absentee ballot envelopes and verify signatures starting two days earlier than in the past — on the Saturday before Election Day. And now the counting of the ballots can begin a day ahead of, instead of on, Election Day.

Like so many other election officials expecting a record number of mailed-in votes, Iowa is worried that delayed starts to processing and counting will lead to delayed results in close races — and make voters anxious about the election's integrity.

Nearly 600,000 Iowans have requested absentee ballots so far, compared to fewer than 150,000 at this time in 2016. Trump appears to have a narrow but hardly impenetrable lead in the race for the state's six electoral votes, while GOP Sen. Joni Ernst's reelection quest and Democrats' bids to hold three of the four House seats are all too close to call.

The Legislative Council, a group of lawmakers empowered to make some policy switches in place of the Legislature, also decided to allow the mailing of ballots to voters in health care facilities — normally, the law requires hand delivery — and to allow the secretary of state to shift polling place locations in an emergency.

Montana

State trial Judge Donald Harris decided that absentee ballots postmarked by the time the polls close must still be counted if they arrive six days late — by Nov. 9.

The pandemic "presents an untenable problem for voters who wish to have all the available information prior to casting their ballot, who wish to reduce potential Covid-19 exposure, and who also wish to have their vote counted," he wrote. "Moving the Election Day receipt deadline to a postmark deadline would alleviate the pressures voters are facing in the November 2020 general election and result in less disenfranchised voters."

Unless there's an appeal, which did not immediately seem likely, Montana will be the ninth state to extend the deadlines this year — reducing the number of disenfranchisements but extending the timetable for knowing the results of close races. The other deadlines have ranged from three to 17 days.

Trump is confident of securing the state's three electoral votes again. The marquee election is the tossup Senate contest between GOP incumbent Steve Daines and Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock.


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