We’re currently waiting on Supreme Court decisions on four cases that could fundamentally change how American elections are conducted — stripping federal protections that have been in place for sixty years and shifting even more power over voting rights and election administration to the states.
These decisions could remove critical guardrails that have protected American voters since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, with devastating consequences for who gets to vote, whether representatives reflect the will of the voters, and even whether voters will determine who wins elections in 2028 and beyond.
State legislatures hold the constitutional authority to determine the time, place, and manner of elections. When federal protections fall, state legislatures become the last firewall for our democracy. That’s why The States Project believes winning state legislative power in 2026 is the single most important thing we can do to protect the role of voters in every election after this one. The lawmakers who win power in state legislatures this November will set the election rules that determine who can vote and if their vote matters— in 2028 and beyond.
WHAT'S AT STAKE: FIVE CASES THAT COULD CHANGE EVERYTHING
LOUISIANA V. CALLAIS — ENDING REQUIREMENTS TO DRAW FAIR MAPS THAT REPRESENT COMMUNITIES OF DIVERSE VOTERS
This case challenges the requirement that district maps give minority communities an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. If the Supreme Court rules against that requirement, it could trigger mid-decade redistricting across Southern states — opening the door for rightwing-controlled states to draw maps that dilute the power of underrepresented voters to select their leaders.
What does this mean for voters?
For a Black voter in Louisiana or a Latino voter in Texas, this could mean living in a district deliberately drawn to dilute the power of your community’s vote, either by splitting voters across many districts or lumping as many voters as possible into one. The impact? Voting power in these communities would be too limited to have any real choice in your state or Congressional representatives.
What can state legislatures do?
With governing power, state lawmakers committed to fair elections can draw maps to ensure that representatives are chosen by voters — not the other way around.
WATSON V. RNC — ELIMINATING GRACE PERIODS FOR MAIL-IN BALLOTS
The question before the Court is whether federal law sets a single Election Day that requires ballots to be both cast and received by that date — part of a broader effort by Trump to curtail voting by mail, which he has claimed breeds fraud despite strong evidence to the contrary and decades of successful use across numerous states.
What does this mean for voters?
Currently, 19 states allow mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive within a few days. If the Supreme Court eliminates those grace periods, whether your vote counts will depend on postal service efficiency — voters who mailed their ballots on time could find them thrown out through no fault of their own. For elderly voters, rural voters, military voters stationed overseas, and anyone who relies on mail-in ballots, this could mean their vote simply doesn’t count. And the timeline makes this especially urgent: primaries for November have already begun in some states, leaving very little time to adjust if the Court rules against grace periods.
What can state legislatures do?
State lawmakers can launch public information campaigns to help voters know exactly when to mail ballots and where to find drop boxes and polling locations. They can expand the number of drop box locations and eliminate unnecessary restrictions on who can return a ballot, like allowing a household member to drop off a ballot. They can also improve ballot tracking and cure policies to give voters ample notice if their ballot hasn’t been received, and streamline the counting process so ballots are processed as they arrive.
TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND V. HOWE — STRIPPING ACCOUNTABILITY TO VOTERS
This case could eliminate the “private right of action” — the ability for a citizen or advocacy organization to sue election administrators — under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). If someone tries to stop you from voting, or if your polling place is moved to make it harder for eligible voters in your community to vote, right now you or a civil rights organization can go to court to stop it. If this case goes the wrong way, only the DOJ can do that — and right now the DOJ works for Trump.
What does this mean for voters?
Stripping the ability to take legal action to protect voters eliminates a critical check on election administrators who make it harder for certain communities to cast their ballots — for instance, rural voters who have to travel long distances, or hourly-paid workers who may lose part of their paycheck to vote.
What can state legislatures do?
State lawmakers can create their own private right of action through state law to give voters and civil rights organizations the ability to sue in state court, even if the federal path is gone. Minnesota and Virginia have already introduced this protection — and states across the country can follow their lead.
NRSC V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION — INTRODUCING EVEN MORE MONEY INTO POLITICS
This case argues that limits on how much a political party can spend in coordination with its own candidates conflict with Citizens United and other rulings that have already dismantled campaign finance limits. A ruling here could open the floodgates even further — allowing parties to pour unlimited, coordinated spending into the races that matter most, driving up the cost of elections, and making funding even more of a determining factor in who wins.
What does this mean for voters?
When unlimited money floods the most competitive races, the candidate with the most popular ideas doesn’t always win — the one with the most money does. And elected officials may feel more accountable to the corporations and special interests writing the checks than to the voters they represent.
What can state legislatures do?
State lawmakers can act now to ensure elections are decided by voters, not corporate checkbooks. They can enact policies to keep foreign-owned corporations from influencing who wins elections — blocking them from funding ballot initiatives and political parties. And they can require corporations to stay out of politics as a condition of doing business in their state.
BOST V. ILLINOIS BOARD OF ELECTIONS — REMOVING CHECKS AND BALANCES
Decided January 14, 2026
What happened: Before this ruling, only state candidates could sue to challenge state election policies. Now federal candidates — including candidates for Congress and the presidency — can sue to overturn state voting rules they claim affected their race.
Why it matters: This opens the door to more legal challenges against voting protections. It doesn’t mean those challenges will win — but it means more of them can be brought, forcing states to spend time and money defending their laws in court.
What does this mean for voters?
Right now, 19 states count ballots postmarked by Election day, even if they arrive a day or two later. This ruling makes it easier for federal candidates to sue to overturn those protections. Even if those lawsuits don’t ultimately succeed, the litigation itself can cause delays, create chaos in the counting process, and prevent states from certifying results on time — which is dangerous in its own right.
What can state legislatures do?
State lawmakers can pass clear, strong laws protecting the right to have mail ballots counted — and make sure those laws are written in a way that’s easy to defend in court. Just as importantly, they can fund and support the local election officials who will be on the front lines of defending against these challenges. More states with strong laws on the books also make the overall legal landscape harder for bad-faith challengers to navigate.
WHAT HAPPENS IF SCOTUS DECIDES AGAINST PROTECTING VOTERS?
Taken together, these rulings could do substantial damage to our democracy. If the Callais decision guts the VRA, without federal protections, states could engage in racial gerrymandering to dilute representation for diverse communities, deploy aggressive poll-watchers to intimidate voters, and even revive voter suppression tactics — like moral character and literacy tests — that remain on the books in some states but have been blocked by federal law. And if the Court overturns grace periods, millions of voters who rely on mail balloting could find their ballots thrown out simply because the postal service was slow.
Most critically, further gutting the VRA would supercharge the power of state lawmakers to draw new congressional maps — escalating a true arms race for state legislative power that will shape American politics for a decade.
WHY WE MUST BUILD POWER IN STATE LEGISLATURES THIS NOVEMBER
The Constitution gives state legislatures the power to determine the time, place, and manner of elections. That power doesn’t disappear when federal protections fall — it shifts to whoever controls your state capitol.
In states where lawmakers committed to fair elections hold governing power, they can pass state-level voting rights protections, draw fairer maps, and ensure that every eligible voter can cast their ballot and trust that it will be counted. In states where the rightwing holds complete control, the opposite is almost certainly true.
While some of these decisions could affect elections happening this November, the 2026 state legislative elections will determine which of those futures we’re living in by 2028. The maps drawn, the rules set, and the protections enacted — or stripped — by state lawmakers elected this year will determine whether voters choose our next president.
That’s why The States Project is investing in states where we can win power for lawmakers who will protect the role of voters in elections.
There is a path forward. It runs through state legislatures. And we need you with us.
