Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Your Take: Early Voting

Your Take: Early Voting

Early voting is already underway in many states and polls suggest turnout will be particularly high for a midterm election. As of Oct. 17, nearly 16 million people have already cast their ballots in the general election, 10.5 million of them via the mail, according to the U.S. Election Project.

However, the high ratio of mail-in ballots has caused some individuals to question their validity – despite the precautions taken to ensure ballot integrity.


Regardless of the widespread, yet unfounded concerns about mail-in ballots, they have become a popular mode of voting, especially since the pandemic. The ease and convenience of mail-in ballots may have also contributed to the high voter turnout, a promising sign for democracy.

So we asked for your take on early voting, mail-in ballots, and their effect on election integrity.

  • Will you vote early? Why or why not?
  • What is your opinion on our election integrity? And what informs your opinion?

Responses have been edited for length and clarity.

This year, I decided to vote early, because I am volunteering as a precinct election official and will not be able to get away during Election Day to vote at my designated polling place. I decided to volunteer, so I could see the process up close and get a better understanding of how it all works. The knowledge already received through training in the lead-up has been enlightening and empowering. At least in Ohio, there seems to be a lot of procedures and checks and balances in place to help ensure election integrity. As a volunteer, it is a lot of information to learn and process, though, so I think more extensive training for volunteers would be a good idea. I highly recommend folks volunteer to serve at a polling place, so they can see for themselves how our democracy functions on Election Day. -Valerie Minerovic

We voted early as we will be out of town on Election Day. I do not have confidence that our votes will be counted or counted fairly, as I believe MAGA Republicans across the country have gotten positions where they are the ones counting the votes. I believe our democracy is in major crisis and will remain so, or be lost completely over the next few years. I am deeply saddened by this. -Lesley Heller

1. I've generally voted on Election Day. There's a special feeling about joining one's neighbors in the common task of exercising our voting rights. But as I've gotten older (though I'm only 82) I now usually vote early, to avoid standing in long lines.

2. I think our U.S. election integrity is as well guarded as anywhere on earth, and our last election has been well documented as being reliable. But I am in favor of requiring a legal form of identification in order to vote, as is required in most countries. That will reduce doubt about our election integrity by removing one possible weakness in the system. Since the law requires that only citizens 18 or older can vote, I see no objection to having to show that you are in fact a citizen of ago. (We require ID to buy a bottle of beer.)

As to voting by mail, that clearly introduces a couple of additional weak points. The voter is not seen by election workers, and the authenticating witness signature – where required – may not be verifiable. Mail-in voting also requires more staff work and incurs additional costs. In my view, voting in person should be preferred for greatest security, if only to minimize the points of attack by those who seek to challenge the election's security. It would be good to have a national requirement regarding the number and spacing of polling places, so that everyone will have a voting location nearby. Some (Republican) jurisdictions have reduced the number of polling places unconscionably, causing day-long waits in line to vote. This should be seen as a failure to uphold the voters' rights. -Paul Lillebo

Will I vote early? Yes, absolutely! I have voted in every election for which I was eligible since 1968. Why? I vote in San Mateo County, in Northern California, where all registered voters receive a mail-in ballot. The process is very secure, familiar and transparent. It has built trust over many elections. I also met our county election administrator at a League of Women Voters meeting; he described the full process for election administration and how secure it is. I have also been a poll worker in past elections, so I know the process from the inside. I am very proud to be in a place that takes election integrity so seriously.

I have a very high and favorable opinion about election integrity in our county. In general, I have faith that election officials have done the best they could, considering all the challenges over the years, to ensure that elections are fairly conducted and that the results are accurate. Recently, however, particularly in certain states, I have seen troubling evidence that partisanship has crept into the administration of elections, the counting of ballots and the certifying of the results. I don’t know how widespread it is, and I hope this upcoming election will continue the tradition that fair and impartial election administration is a fundamental (indeed sacred) duty in a democracy. But I am deeply concerned about these issues. -Robert Barrett

It is likely I will vote early as I am an elected official and have been actively involved in candidate forums and state and local politics. Thus I have already made my decisions. Is the process once ballots are received secure? I believe generally so. Note the use of “generally.” Our election has a long history of some level of electoral manipulation. In school during the 1940s and 1950s, we learned of Tammany Hall, Huey Long, and the Daley machine in Chicago. And later, JFK winning with help from the Chicago mob. A study of Teddy Roosevelt and his battles to clean up politics offers an excellent look into our often corrupted systems. The Democrats in an effort to "double down" on anti-Trump efforts by claiming "No fraud" simply added to the distrust within the "basket of deplorables" and I am finding distrust in a widespread "blue" population. -Michael Marthaller

Coal miners, nurses, teachers, people with long commutes, students, the aged, mothers with toddlers, etc etc. Everyone benefits from:

  • Early in-person voting at vote centers.
  • Voting by mail.
  • Same-day registration and voting (permitted in 20 states and D.C.).

What is important is the act of voting. Our vote is our voice. We need to use it without intimidation. What we must not do is allow state legislatures, who have self-serving, political partisan interests, control the processing of elections. If necessary, the Justice Department needs to step in to ensure one person, one vote and every vote counted. Ignorance and partisan politics suppress the vote and make noise, not good public policy. -Alice Smith

I believe in the integrity of our system, not in the politicians who are trying to discredit it. They couldn’t lie, intimidate, threaten or murder their way into office. So that is why the dishonest side is at voting places intimidating poll workers and why felons are being misled into believing they can vote but then arrested. Calling state senators and intimidating them, threatening their families, acting like bullies and mobsters. I will vote in person and not by mail because I will not be intimated while exercising my right to vote. I want to honor the good men and women who have fought for my freedom to vote, to speak my mind and to carry firearms. I wish I werein a position where I could drive people to polls who have no ride there. I wish more people understood that you can not vote for the person you find qualified in primary elections. I don’t want to vote by party. I want to vote for people who represent us, not a Republican/Democrat backed agenda. -Sherri Aument

I'm a Washington resident and so I have my ballot on the desk right next to me. I'll probably vote early just because I'll get bored at some point and do it before Election Day. If not I'll drop it off on Election Day. I don't think early voting should be a thing though. I think we should have one day for voting, a national holiday with remote voting only done in specific circumstances. If you want a reason why just watch the Fetterman/Oz debate in Pennsylvania and recognize that a lot of people have already voted for Fetterman and probably regret it. -Jeff Freeman


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