From El Paso to Central Islip: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Protects Democracy at All Levels

As leaders across law and government must know: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act remains a powerful tool to protect against partisan overreach which manifests discrimination based on race. Race neutral in its structure, Section 2 is a shield for voters—Black, Latino, Asian, and white alike—against racial discrimination in the way districts are drawn and election systems are designed. And for over sixty years, courts have enforced it no matter who crosses the line.

Fortunately, that legacy came into sharp relief yesterday in Texas. A three-judge panel—in an opinion authored by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown, joined by Senior District Judge David C. Guaderrama—granted a preliminary injunction blocking Texas from using its newly enacted 2025 congressional map. The court ordered the 2026 congressional election to proceed under the Legislature’s 2021 map.

Why? Because, as Judge Brown wrote in plain terms, “Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.” The opinion explains that the court’s relief squarely targets racial gerrymandering claims and maintains continuity by reverting to the 2021 lines while the litigation proceeds. In other words: restore the status quo, stop racial sorting, and protect voters’ rights.

You don’t have to agree or disagree with the political choices made in Texas to see the rule of law at work in League of United Latin American Citizens, et al. v. Abbott. Section 2, like the Constitution, does not come with party labels; it applies with equal force whether the offending conduct is dressed in red or blue.

Now All Eyes on New York.

That’s exactly the point of the case our firm recently filed challenging to New York’s Even Year Election Law (EYEL) (New York Republican State Committee, et al. v. Hochul.) The statute moves hundreds of county and town elections off their long-standing odd-year schedules and onto even-year ballots dominated by federal and statewide contests—precisely where national partisanship drowns out local issues. Our complaint alleges the EYEL violates the First Amendment and Section 2 because it suppresses local political speech and predictably exacerbates racially polarized voting and down-ballot roll-off.

This isn’t an academic concern. Section 2 makes it unlawful for any state to impose a voting “standard, practice, or procedure” that results in minority voters having “less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” That is the yardstick. Not turnout in the abstract. Not which party benefits. Equal opportunity to participate and to elect.

The EYEL flunks that test. By drowning local contests beneath the noise of the national cycle, the law raises the cost of local speech, compresses the time and space for voter learning, and turns what should be community conversations into partisan proxy wars. Our filing documents how this dynamic converts local races into “low-information, partisan contests,” forcing candidates—often those from minority communities or cross-party coalitions—to compete in a media market saturated with federal races and inflated ad rates. That is not a neutral “calendar change”; it is a structural choice that predictably diminishes certain voters’ ability to translate preferences into representation.

The state will say the EYEL boosts “turnout.” But the First Amendment’s core is not body-count; it is the quality and freedom of political dialogue. Less restrictive alternatives—targeted outreach, voter-information programs—exist to improve participation without flooding local races with national noise.

Contrast that with the Texas order. There, the court did not tinker with turnout or seek partisan equilibrium. It looked at evidence of racial line-drawing and applied familiar remedies: enjoin the unlawful map; use the last lawful map; minimize disruption to officials and voters alike. The opinion underscores that reverting to the 2021 plan respects legislative primacy while preventing the State from conducting an election under a map clearly tainted by race. That is what fidelity to law looks like.

The lesson is simple and urgent:

• Racial gerrymandering has no place in American elections. When it appears—whether urged by a president, a governor, a legislature, or a party apparatus—courts should stop it.

• Election-system engineering that predictably dilutes minority voting power or suppresses local political speech violates federal law. That principle binds Democrats and Republicans alike.

So what should policymakers, litigators, and civic leaders do now?

First, recommit to Section 2 compliance as a non-negotiable design constraint. If the foreseeable effect of a proposal is to sort voters by race or to interact with known social conditions to deprive minority communities of equal political opportunity, it is unlawful—no matter who proposes it. That is the statute’s text and the Supreme Court’s framework.

Second, protect the oxygen of local democracy. The century-old choice to hold local elections odd years was about preserving a forum where voters could evaluate neighbors—not national tribes. When states contemplate changes to that balance, they must show their work: why a shift is necessary, why less restrictive options won’t suffice, and how they will ensure that minority communities retain equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. Moreover, the people who live in the affected local communities should be given a voice in the decision. On November 4, 2025, the voters in New York City were given that voice and they resoundingly rejected a shift to even-year elections. Our firm is advocating for an amendment to the EYEL to give the 60% of New Yorkers who live outside of New York City that same voice, which they were deprived of by the state legislature and the Governor.

Third, expect scrutiny. As our New York case makes clear, when laws are structured in ways that predictably intensify racially polarized voting and bury local contests, litigation will follow—and should. Remedies will aim to restore lawful baselines and preserve voters’ equal voice, just as the Texas order did in returning to the 2021 map for 2026.

The Light Up-Ahead

The path forward isn’t complicated. Draw maps without regard to race. Build election systems that amplify—not smother—local speech. And measure success by whether every community, including minority communities, has a fair chance to elect representatives of their choice. That is the promise of Section 2. The developments in a courtroom in El Paso reminds us that the rule of law—not political expediency—has the final word. It should in Central Islip too.