The 2026 midterm will be a referendum on the direction of our country, but without the fair and complete participation of Black voters and communities of color, next fall’s election will not truly reflect the voice of the people. 

Unfortunately, in granting a stay in the Texas redistricting case and allowing Texas’s 2025 maps to stand, the Supreme Court all but guaranteed this outcome, leaving Black and Brown communities without fair representation in the process. In the wake of the Court’s recent decision, eligible Texas voters in multiple congressional districts will vote in November using maps a three-judge federal district court found were racially gerrymandered. The Court has once again shortchanged the right most essential to a functioning democracy: the right to vote.    

How Redistricting Becomes Voter Suppression

Much of the recent fight about the right to vote has focused on redistricting that camouflages discrimination against Black and Brown voters as merely efforts to achieve partisan advantages. But behind the camouflage, the harms are real, and they are serious. The neighborhoods and districts of these voters are divided and parceled out to districts with no common interests. And the concerns of these voters often go unheard as politicians handpick who they represent, choosing their constituents rather than the other way around. Keeping Black and Brown communities in the minority, depriving them of the opportunity to elect their preferred candidates, is no accident. It is anti-democratic. And it should be deemed unlawful.

And Texas was only the start of this unfair redistricting. Right after the State House approved its racially discriminatory maps, Missouri mimicked the tactic, diluting Black power in racially diverse Kansas City. North Carolina’s changes will weaken the pull of Black voters in its 1st district, an area historically represented by Black lawmakers. Lawmakers in Indiana blocked a redistricting bill that would’ve split heavily Black and Brown Indianapolis into four districts. And more states will likely seek to redistrict, emboldened by the Supreme Court’s indifference to discrimination and aversion to voting rights claims. 

The Threat Posed by Louisiana v. Callais

The Supreme Court is poised to potentially extend this anti-voting-rights approach in Louisiana v. Callais. If the Court in that case substantially curtails Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, it may only exacerbate the unfair treatment of Black and Brown communities. That result would lose sight of the reasons why Congress adopted the Act.  President Johnson observed in 1965 that “Every device of which human ingenuity is capable” had been used to deny Black people the vote. The function of the Voting Rights Act was to root out those hidden tricks, to address racial bias in our election process, and to ensure that political influence was not contingent on race. 

Now, as the Supreme Court and opponents of equal opportunity chip away at the protections for voting rights, human ingenuity is at work again to disenfranchise Black and Brown voters. Both recycled and new, these tactics are growing more sophisticated. In response, we must be nimble and strategic to defeat this new wave of discrimination and to make the best use of the limited opportunities we have in the courts. 

The Fight for Voting Rights Isn’t Over

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law was forged and deployed for this mission over six decades ago. As the right to vote faces its greatest threat since that time, our Voting Rights Project is meeting the moment through critical litigation, advocacy, voter protection efforts, and public education initiatives. 

Even amid the assault on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court and politicians, the statute retains vitality as a bulwark against discrimination. It is very much alive, and we intend to use it for its intended purpose.  If the Court curtails Section 2, however, we will pursue other valid legal options and pry open new doors of legal opportunity. We will bring well-founded constitutional claims and seek remedies that achieve equal opportunity without using race. And, where appropriate, we will deploy other foundational protections in the Voting Rights Act. Section 11(B), for example, protects voters from intimidation. 

We invoked that provision in a case concerning voter-suppressive robocalls to Black voters during the 2020 election. We will marshal the Act’s important language access provisions to ensure people with limited English proficiency can participate in the electoral process. And where they apply, we will employ other statutes, like the National Voter Registration Act, to protect access to the polls. We will use all the tools at our disposal to protect voting rights. 

Voting Rights Adversaries Won’t Define Our Reality

We can also fiercely advocate for expanded protections through the legislative route, whether through the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act or another bill. We’re setting the groundwork for several possibilities, so we’re ready to act when the time comes. We refuse to let the adversaries of voting rights define our reality. 

Access to the ballot should not be a political game of “keep away.” It should not be rationed by the color of someone’s skin. As obvious as that may sound, our country stands at a dangerous crossroads. What happens next will determine whether our democracy expands to include everyone, whether it contracts to serve only those already in power, or whether it even survives. 

It is imperative to remember that we’re not powerless against these tactics. We have more tools to use than Thurgood Marshall did in the 1940s and ‘50s when he was seeking to end segregation.  With focus, skill, and determination, Marshall and his colleagues achieved monumental reforms.  We intend to follow that example, to act with an unstinting commitment to protecting the right to vote, to build reform brick by brick . The fight for the future of our communities is the fight for a real democracy. 

Shaylyn Cochran is deputy executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee and Rob Weiner is director of the Voting Rights Project