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

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

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

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

Is this the year for two-woman tickets?

Nan Whaley and Cheryl Stephens

Nan Whaley (left) and Cheryl Stephens are running together for governor and lieutenant governor, respectively, in Ohio.

Barbara Rodriguez, The 19th
By Barbara Rodriguez, The 19thMay 06, 2022
Barbara Rodriguez, The 19th
See More Writings by author

Originally published by The 19th.

A record number of women could end up running together as nominees for governor and lieutenant this November, signaling shifting perceptions about women’s electability.

Nan Whaley won the Democratic nomination for Ohio governor Tuesday night alongside Cheryl Stephens, her running mate for lieutenant governor. In at least 13 states, women are running for both governor and lieutenant governor this year, according to a preliminary tally by the Center for American Women and Politics. Additional primary races this month could set up more two-woman tickets for the general election — and if one is successful, it will be the first time in U.S. history that voters have elected two women to a state’s top two executive spots,

“I think the fact that we’re looking at multiple all-female tickets for governor and lieutenant governor is extraordinary,” said Erin Loos Cutraro, the founder and CEO of She Should Run, a nonpartisan nonprofit that encourages women to run for office. “It tells us how far we’ve come. It tells us to be hopeful for the future.”

Limited information is available on the number of women who have run concurrently for governor and lieutenant governor during a primary, and the data carries a caveat: Two-woman tickets are not always intentional. In some states, candidates for the top two posts run together on a ticket in both the primary and general, in some they’re separate, and in some candidates run separately during the primary and together on a ticket for the general election. In six elections since 2000, two women have run from the same major party for lieutenant governor and governor, but not as a ticket; none were successful.

In Ohio, Whaley and Stephens appeared on the primary ballot together. Whaley, a former mayor of Dayton, and Stephens, who is an organizer and former mayor, will go up in November against Republican Gov. Mike DeWine, who won a crowded primary Tuesday, and his running mate, current Lt. Gov. Jon Husted.

Whaley and Stephens’ primary win means 2022 already matches the record for the number of gubernatorial tickets with women running on a ticket together. In the past 30 years, there has never been more than one in a general election:

  • Democrats Dawn Clark Netsch and Penny Severns in Illinois in 1994
  • Republicans Peppy Martin and Wanda Cornelius in Kentucky in 1999
  • Democrats Barbara Buono and Milly Silva in New Jersey in 2013
  • Democrats Susan Wismer and Susan Blake in South Dakota in 2014
  • Republicans Andria Tupola and Marissa Kerns in Hawaii in 2018

All lost. In at least one instance, the candidates did not intend to run together. Tupola and Kerns ran separately in their primary but then together on a ticket in the general election. (That dynamic sometimes caused friction between the two.)

At least one all-woman ticket could happen unintentionally this year. In Arkansas, which holds its primary May 24, Republican Sarah Huckabee Sanders is the party’s presumptive nominee for governor. Republican Leslie Rutledge, the state’s current attorney general, is in a crowded race for lieutenant governor that could go into a runoff. The winners of the GOP primary in the conservative-leaning state are likely to be elected in November.

In Georgia, also holding primaries May 24 — and which, like Arkansas, has never elected a woman governor — Democrat Stacey Abrams faces no challengers within her party as she makes another bid for governor. The race for the number two spot is crowded, but among the candidates is state Rep. Renitta Shannon, a Black woman and the only Democratic woman. Abrams has not weighed in on the lieutenant governor’s race, which could go into a runoff if no candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote. Shannon is seeking to run alongside Abrams, who could become the first Black woman ever elected governor in any U.S. state.

Christine Matthews is a pollster who has studied women’s candidacies and worked in gubernatorial races in the past, including that of Republican Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan. She noted that since at least the 1980s, there has been a model for the two-person ticket for governor and lieutenant governor: A man runs for governor and, increasingly, chooses a woman as his running mate.

This is reflected in the data. While just nine women currently serve as governors, 19 serve as lieutenant governors, a position that can vary widely in responsibilities and is sometimes largely a ceremonial role. More women of color are serving as lieutenant governors now than have ever served as governor.

The model for the top statewide office has changed as more women have been elected to all levels of government, Matthews said.

“I do think this cycle, voters are in the mindset where they’re ready to elect a woman governor and lieutenant governor because of the normalization of female candidates,” she said.

The conditions have been limited for two-woman tickets. Just 45 women have ever served as governors, compared with at least 1,000 men, according to a general estimate from the Eagleton Center on the American Governor.

No woman governor has ever served with a woman lieutenant governor on a permanent basis — though there have been multiple occasions where there was a woman governor and a woman next in the line of succession, according to CAWP. In 2021, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul briefly served with Andrea Stewart-Cousins, the Senate majority leader in the statehouse, but she later appointed Brian Benjamin as her number two. Benjamin resigned last month amid a campaign bribery investigation. Hochul has replaced Benjamin with U.S. Rep. Antonio Delgado, who is expected to campaign with her but will be separate from her on the primary ballot. Other women candidates could end up on the general ballot with Hochul because of the last minute shake-up.

Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who has worked for women candidates, noted that her research shows two-thirds of swing voters at the end of any given election cycle are usually women. She said it makes sense that nominating women candidates is a good way to gain independent swing women voters. She also noted more Republican women are finally getting early primary support and winning primaries.

“Both parties have realized that when they run women, they win,” she said.

Still, there are potential barriers for the women candidates, particularly those who run for governor. Research shows gender inequalities in the fundraising process, including the fact that men outnumber women as donors in gubernatorial races.

Lake added that her research has shown women candidates for governor have had to prove that they are qualified while men are assumed to be qualified. She said in a general election with two-woman tickets, women candidates may have to work twice as hard to prove themselves.

This could play out in gubernatorial races where two women are running against each other as well. New research by the Barbara Lee Family Foundation, which advocates for women’s political representation, shows that in woman vs. woman matchups, gender bias is amplified. Women candidates at the top of the ticket have to do more to prove they are qualified. Voters also disproportionately scrutinize women candidates’ appearance, including clothing and posture.

While gender can play a role in voters’ decision-making, it’s usually not as large as that of party affiliation and partisanship. In Ohio, Whaley and Stephens face an uphill battle in a state where more than twice as many people voted this week in the Republican gubernatorial primary as the Democratic one, and where in 2016 and 2020, former President Donald Trump won by about eight points.

“The fact that you’ve got two women running in Ohio as Democrats. If they lose, the politics of being a Democrat in Ohio is going to have almost everything to do with it and much less the fact that it’s two women,” Matthews said.

Cutraro said while she’s happy to see a jump in women’s representation for the top statewide offices, she noted the importance of investing in encouraging more women to run. She pointed to research that shows how women are taught to lose political ambition at an early age. And for now, 19 states still have never had a woman governor. At least six states with the potential for two-woman tickets have never had a woman elected governor.

“It reminds us that as we look at cities and statehouses across the country, how much more work we have to do to make a moment like this not seem so extraordinary,” she said.

Ohio has had a woman governor before — for 11 days in 1998, when then-Lt. Gov. Nancy P. Hollister ascended to the top spot when the Republican’s predecessor had resigned to join the U.S. Senate. But the state’s voters have never elected a woman governor. Whaley is now the first woman to be nominated by a major party in Ohio for the office.

Whaley celebrated the achievement in part by highlighting her campaign with Stephens.

“What could be more different than two women from the working class who will fight for the working class?” Whaley tweeted with a photo of the pair.


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