The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to release an opinion any day now on Brnovich v. DNC and with it could strike another devastating blow to the Voting Rights Act. The court heard the case back in March. At issue are two Arizona laws, one requiring election officials to toss ballots that are cast in the wrong precincts, and another that would restrict the delivery of mail-in ballots, allowing for just the voter, a family member, or caregiver to collect and deliver a voted ballot. That would prevent campaign workers, community activists, or members like church groups from delivering group ballots, making it a felony to do so.

The third-party ballot collection ban is particularly detrimental to Native American voters, who are less likely to have access to reliable mail services in the state. Just 18% of Native American voters outside of the state’s largest counties—Pima and Maricopa—have physical addresses and receive mail at home. The Tohono O’odham reservation has no home delivery and only one post office.

Preventing ballots cast in the wrong precinct—even in statewide or federal races—is targeted primary at Latino and other people of color, the DNC argued, because the state frequently changes precinct locations in urban counties with large populations of people of color. In 2016, when 3,709 out-of-precinct ballots were rejected, these voters were twice as likely as their white counterparts to have their votes tossed out.

Campaign Action

This, the DNC argues, is in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which “prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups” identified as protected by the law. It bans any voting procedure that “results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race,” a denial or abridgment that occurs when “based on the totality of circumstances,” racial minorities “have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” This is the part of the VRA, incidentally, that Attorney General Merrick Garland is suing Georgia for violating with its new voter suppression laws.

As of June 21, the Brennan Center for Justice reports, 17 states have enacted 28 new laws that restrict access to the vote. Most of these new laws are specifically targeted to burden poor people, young people, and voters of color. Section 2 is pretty much the last vestige of the VRA left to protect these voters after the Roberts Court struck down much of the law in 2013. It tossed the key formula of Section 5 of the law, which determined which states with a history of discrimination needed to seek approval, or preclearance, from the federal government before enacting new voting laws. Arizona was one of those states, pre-2013, that was required to have election laws reviewed and approved by the Justice Department.

In the majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, that VRA decision, Roberts wrote that voters would always have Section 2 as a remedy. Instead of protecting discriminated voters before the fact, he dismissed their concerns, saying they could be addressed after the fact. “Section 2 is permanent, applies nationwide and is not at issue in this case,” he wrote. Except now that Section 2—or the meat of it anyway—is not before the court again, its permanence isn’t such a sure bet.

Meanwhile, Arizona is continuing to worst itself and has taken even more steps to undermine elections, taking the legal authority over elections away from of the Democratic secretary of state, Katie Hobbs, and handing it off to the Republican attorney general, Mark Brnovich. The attorney general defending the state at the Supreme Court now. This power grab by Republicans is on Gov. Doug Ducey’s (another Republican) desk now.

Oral arguments are not always a clue as to where the court is going to go, but it doesn’t look good for voting rights, judging by what the justice said back in March when the case was heard. “Several members of the court’s conservative majority said the restrictions were sensible, commonplace and at least partly endorsed by a bipartisan consensus reflected in a 2005 report signed by former President Jimmy Carter and James A. Baker III, who served as secretary of state under President George Bush,” The New York Times’ Supreme Court reporter, Adam Liptak, wrote after the arguments, saying the court “seemed ready” to uphold the state’s restrictions.

Which means two essential things: The Senate has to pass the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Restoration Act, two bills that will protect the vote. For all voters. It also means the Senate is going to have to get rid of the filibuster in its current form. Sen. Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans in the Senate are not going to provide the 10 votes Democrats would need to pass either of these key bills. It’s that simple.

Even filibuster-loving Kyrsten Sinema is going to have to see that. The Arizona Democrat seems to be delighting in trolling progressives these days, but pretty soon reality is going to sink in. She’s in Arizona, where the people who got her elected are being blocked from the polls. If she’s going to have a future in politics, she’s going to have to ensure it, because she sure as hell isn’t going to get elected with Republican votes.