As the midterm elections approach, it has become increasingly clear that rightwing Republicans’ endgame is limiting access to voting—particularly for people who are less likely to vote for them.
The writing was on the wall on January 6, 2021, when insurrectionists attacked the U.S. Capitol while a joint session of Congress was certifying the 2020 presidential election results. The attack was made possible by an insidious narrative that still has an alarmingly deep hold on U.S. politics: Elections must be won by certain people, and if they aren’t, that means the election was “stolen.” The nonsensical premise that only some votes are legitimate has nurtured the soil in which anti-voter efforts flourish.
More than sixty lawsuits challenging the 2020 election results were rejected by courts across the country. Yet the narrative of voter fraud persisted among President Donald Trump and his most ardent supporters, specifically targeting jurisdictions with significant Black and brown voter turnout such as Fulton County, Georgia; Milwaukee County, Wisconsin; Wayne County, Michigan; and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The message was clear: When multiracial coalitions decide elections, those results are naturally suspect.
January 6 made visible what had long been implicit. The premise was not merely that the election was lost—it was that the wrong people decided it. That logic has evolved into legislative proposals, administrative pressure campaigns, and efforts to narrow who can participate and whose ballots are easiest to challenge.
As the onslaught of lawsuits have concluded, Republican lawmakers have since made continual efforts to codify their pernicious worldview that in this republic, the leaders chose their voters, not the other way around—and the voters who do have a voice must be white.
One glaring attempt at regulating voter voice is done through off-year redistricting. Generally, redistricting cycles follow the decennial census. Alarmed at the multiracial direction of the country, Republican legislatures have recently taken the unconventional approach of mid-year redistricting, seemingly afraid of what current voters will say.
Redistricting is the architecture of political power. In Texas, where 95 percent of population growth between 2010 and 2020 came from communities of color, Congressional maps were drawn that largely preserved white political dominance. In 2025, the state legislature created new districts, wiping out the seats held in Black and brown communities and drawing new maps to maximize white voting power. Federal courts have previously found Texas maps to be discriminatory, yet the pattern of dilution persists.
In North Carolina, aggressive partisan gerrymanders have repeatedly been contested in court, with shifting judicial decisions consistently altering election outcomes from cycle to cycle.
States with Democratic legislatures like California and Virginia have passed measures to try to combat the unjust Republican voter enrichment, but both states have seen Republicans who championed redistricting in Texas vehemently reject and file lawsuits to challenge the responsive measures.
The inconsistency alone reveals the real motive. When redistricting entrenches existing white dominance, it is defended by Republican lawmakers as legislative authority. When it expands representation for historically excluded communities, it becomes controversial. The throughline is preservation of power, not neutral governance.
But how can a political party identify who may be helpful in its quest for power and who may be counter to its interests? The answer lies in the voter rolls, or the state lists containing voters names, addresses, and voting locations.
Following the dubious claims of election fraud by Trump and his supporters in 2020, artificial intelligence companies and rightwing activists have used third-party software to replicate Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) data, commonly referred to as the voter rolls. ERIC was established in 2012 as an official record of eligible voters within participating states, an effort to efficiently maintain accurate voter rolls as required by the National Voter Registration Act. Using the information gathered through voter registration data, Republican state officials have been able to better map out their potential advantageous districts to draw and have spearheaded efforts to purge people from the voter rolls. Purged voters are no longer eligible to vote unless they re-register. In states without same day registration, that often means showing up to vote at a polling place and being told you are not allowed to participate.
The recent Texas primary elections served as a harbinger of things to possibly come as access to voter information is manipulated to cause chaos and confusion. In Dallas County, Republican Party chairs changed the longstanding county-wide polling place voting in the majority-Black and brown county. With the recently gerrymandered maps, many had no idea where to vote and were turned away, heavily depressing the vote in those areas. Under the Voting Rights Act, such a last-minute change would previously have been prohibited; but with recent Supreme Court decisions diluting the law’s power, similar situations are likely to persist.
Government agencies have used increasingly aggressive methods to get access to confidential voting information both to disqualify voters and cast doubt on results they deem unsatisfactory. In late January, the FBI raided an election hub in Fulton County, Georgia, under the guise of addressing alleged voter fraud in the 2020 election. Reports indicate ballots, tabulator tapes, electronic ballot images, and voter rolls were seized. Such seizures undermine public trust of election integrity and heighten fears about government retribution among election workers and voters alike. The cumulative effect is not explicit disenfranchisement, but deterring people from voting through intimidation and exhaustion.
Similarly, in Minnesota, federal pressure escalated beyond rhetoric. Following deadly federal immigration enforcement actions in Minneapolis, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz demanding access to statewide voter registration data and other state records under a purported desire to review data and a nebulous connection between voter rolls and fraud. In essence, her letter said: Turn over Minnesota’s voting information in exchange for the withdrawal of federal immigration agents from the city. That’s extortion, plain and simple. The clear connection and power imbalance between an armed federal power and state voter data administration should alarm anyone committed to democratic norms.
The idea that armed federal agents could be stationed in or near voting infrastructure while the federal government simultaneously demands access to voter data should concern anyone committed to free and fair elections. The presence of law enforcement at polling sites has long been restricted, and for good reason: Selective militarization in diverse demographic areas signals not election integrity, but voter intimidation.
Most frightening of all, voters cannot easily avoid these predictable hurdles through the previously reliable mail-in voting system. This February, the Supreme Court ruled that the United States Postal Service could not be held accountable for mail it chooses to not deliver. When civil immunity for postal workers who want to tip the scales in an election is coupled with the possibility of overzealous polling place militarization, this ruling becomes even more harrowing.
What has become increasingly clear is that MAGA Republicans will do whatever it takes to dismiss marginalized people (who often don’t vote for them) when it comes to voting. The outright denial of election results, manipulated district lines, demands for voter data, and suppression tactics are becoming even more commonplace.
The electorate is diversifying quickly in ways that will redistribute political power. Rather than expand the appeal of their policies to bring in more supporters, some actors are finding more ways to shrink the participation pool. On top of that, measures like the SAVE Act could block millions of currently eligible voters from voting by imposing unnecessary documentation, disparately impacting women and voters of color. All the while, the President is threatening to illegally federalize the elections in the event that the myriad suppression efforts are still not enough.
The fight unfolding now is not partisan—it is existential. It asks whether a multiracial democracy will be protected or whether access to the ballot will once again be narrowed to preserve white political dominance.