If They Won’t Protect Your Vote, Pull Your Talent.

(ThyBlackMan.com) In April 2026, the Supreme Court dismantled a significant component of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Republican-controlled legislatures in the South quickly got to work redrawing congressional districts to comply with the new ruling. For Black communities who had long fought for the ability to elect candidates of their choice to Congress, the redrawing of the districts was a disaster of epic proportions.

Instead of another press release criticizing the unlawful actions of certain states, the NAACP would launch a campaign focused on an area in which those states are highly concerned — money, sports, and the talent that the two bring to a state.

The Ruling That Started All of This

The case at issue was Louisiana v. Callais. In April, the Supreme Court’s six-justice conservative majority found that a congressional map drawn up by the legislature to create two majority-black districts for two members of Congress constituted an illegal racial gerrymander. Essentially, the lines were drawn to aid in the creation of districts in which Black voters would have a majority and thus real representation in Congress. But according to the court, that was discriminatory.

Justice Elena Kagan in a scathing dissent noted that her colleagues’ decision effectively renders Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — the part that protected the interests of minority voters when maps were gerrymandered to silence their votes — into oblivion. This was the core part of the Act that had been used since 1982 to challenge prejudiced mapmaking all over the country. The decision of the six justices was going to allow states for the first time in decades to redraw the lines of their congressional districts without much fear of being challenged in court.

States like Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina began redrawing districts within months. Mississippi and Texas followed suit. The maps showed a marked decline in the number of majority-black congressional districts for black voters.

“Out of Bounds”: The NAACP’s Answer

The NAACP responded to the court’s ruling two weeks later with the launch of “Out of Bounds” campaign. Simply stated, the campaign asks that if a state is taking away the political power of Black people, then Black athletes should not help build the wealth of that same state through college athletics.

“Out of Bounds” started with a simple observation from NAACP President, Derrick Johnson. He said Black athletes have built up some of the country’s most profitable college sports programs. The revenue from these programs are pouring into the coffers of the states that are simultaneously stripping away the voting power of their Black citizens. Johnson’s message was clear — until something changes, Black athletes should take their money elsewhere.

The campaign asks Black student-athletes, recruits, alumni and fans to take their support away from public universities in the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas. These are the states where almost every school on the list is a member of the Southeastern Conference (SEC), the most profitable college sports operation in the country.

Why Sports? Why Now?

Nothing else has moved fast enough and lawsuits can take years to be heard in a court of law. Elections are held months away. Protests bring attention for a moment and then typically fade away within a matter of days or weeks, without forcing any changes within the state’s legislative bodies. Money, on the other hand, brings a response by morning.

D.L. Hughley recently explained why a boycott would be effective in bringing attention to this cause. He said that if the top athletes in the country stopped going to Tennessee and Louisiana then the university presidents, ESPN executives, and local chambers of commerce would be making phone calls in a short amount of time. The economic pressure of a serious boycott is one of the few things that will prompt action in a short amount of time and that is why this approach is effective than protests alone.

Some notable boycotts in the past have yielded similar results. The NFL moved the 1993 Super Bowl from Arizona after the state refused to recognize a federal holiday for Martin Luther King Jr. day. The NCAA similarly moved several championship events from North Carolina after the state passed the anti-LGBTQ bathroom bill. Both states later reversed the laws in question. The important thing to note here is that the playbook works when institutions have much to lose.

The Congressional Black Caucus Adds Pressure

But the NAACP wasn’t alone in its response to the illegal redistricting. The Congressional Black Caucus sent a letter the day before the “Out of Bounds” campaign launched to the commissioners of the Southeastern Conference and Atlantic Coast conference, and to the president of the NCAA, Charlie Baker.

In a strongly worded message, the Congressional Black Caucus expressed its absolute outrage that the redistricting happening in member states, is being condemned by conference leaders. Unless conference leaders across the country publicly denounce the unconstitutional actions taking place in the states where their member schools reside, the CBC vowed to oppose the SCORE Act currently making its way through Congress. The SCORE Act would allow college athletes to sign contracts with anyone, standardizing athlete rights across the country. Conference leaders would be loathe to see the SCORE Act taken down. Holding that bill hostage was a very serious threat.

The CBC stated in their letter that all institutions who profit from the talent of Black athletes have a responsibility to stand with the Black community when their fundamental rights are being attacked. The silence from the conferences and from the NCAA will not be interpreted as neutrality, but rather, as a choice.

What This Actually Means for the SEC

Black athletes make up a substantial majority of rosters on top teams in both SEC football and basketball. A serious boycott of recruitment to these programs could therefore affect depth charts and scholarship classes within one or two seasons. These changes would affect how a team would fare in comparison to other schools in terms of rankings. Programs that rely so heavily on their ability to land the very best young talents from Georgia, Alabama, and Florida would quickly feel the effect of a boycott.

The counter from some governors such as South Carolina’s was immediate. They claimed that the athletes should not be used as political pawns. The NAACP had framed the campaign in a way that anticipated this response however. Instead of arguing over whether athletes should be used for politics, the question was whether they would choose to be used for their politics or someone else’s.

What’s Actually at Stake

This is not really about football. It’s about what happens to a community that has lost its voice in politics and has turned to find another lever to pull.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was signed into law after peaceful marchers were beaten on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama while attempting to exercise their right to vote. The law was put into place because the courts and Congress realized that without federal protection, the voting rights of African Americans would be taken away state by state.

That is what is happening today — only instead of fire hoses and beatings, maps and legal briefs are being used to deny citizens their right to vote. Being angry about this is appropriate. The NAACP’s response says: don’t just stay angry — make the anger count. If the institutions won’t protect your vote, make them feel what your absence look like.

Associate Editor; Stanley G. Buford

Feel free to connect with this brother via Twitter; Stanley G. and also facebook; http://www.facebook.com/sgbuford.

Also his email addy is; StanleyG@ThyBlackMan.com.