Your Vote Is the Target: Why Your Job Can’t Keep You From Going to the Polls

Your Vote Is the Target: Why Your Job Can’t Keep You From Going to the Polls

With the November 2026 midterm elections about five weeks away, a familiar strategy is back. According to a recent New York Times article, disinformation campaigns targeting Black communities are on the rise, but unlike typical political messaging, these campaigns are not designed to change anyone’s mind about a candidate or issue but to discourage voting altogether. The disinformation campaigns seek to accomplish this by casting doubt on whether a ballot will even be counted, whether the process is worth navigating to vote, and whether showing up to voting centers is even safe.

Voter suppression is usually discussed in terms of polling place closures and strict ID laws. But for many working class individuals, the obstacle to voting appears much earlier, in the form of a rigid schedule, a lost paycheck, or an employer who makes their political preferences known and discourages those with differing views from voting. Both federal and California law take steps to encourage all individuals, even those with rigid jobs, to vote.

The Voting Rights Act and How It Was Weakened

To understand what is at stake this November, it helps to look at how the country’s most important voting rights law has been chipped away at over time.

Congress passed the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) in 1965, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, after decades in which literacy tests, intimidation, and violence kept Black Americans from voting. The law included two key protections. Section 2 of the VRA applied nationwide and allowed voters to challenge election rules and district maps that weakened the voting power of communities of color. Section 5 of the VRA went a step further by creating a process known as preclearance. It required states and counties with a history of discrimination to get approval from the U.S. Justice Department or a federal court before making any change to their voting rules, whether that meant moving a polling place, redrawing a district, or adding a new ID requirement. This allowed discriminatory changes to be stopped before they ever took effect. Over the following decades, the law helped narrow the gap between minority and white voter turnout.

Those protections began to erode in 2013. In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b), the formula that decided which states and counties were subject to the Section 5 preclearance process. While Section 5 technically still exists, without the Section 4(b) formula Section 5 can no longer be enforced unless Congress enacts a new formula. As a result, states that once needed approval to change their voting laws, can now modify those laws without any oversight.

This spring, the Supreme Court cut back the Voting Rights Act again, this time by limiting what Section 2 can require. In Louisiana v. Callais, which is premised on an earlier lawsuit. Black voters in Louisiana sued under Section 2, arguing that the state’s congressional map packed them into a single district and diluted their votes, and a federal district court agreed that the map likely violated the law.

To comply, Louisiana drew a new map with a second district in which Black voters made up a majority. A different group of voters then challenged that new district and the Supreme Court agreed to hear that challenge in the Callais matter. On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court  ruled that drawing a district based on race violated the Constitution, despite Louisiana following the requirements of Section 2 of the VRA.

Section 2 was the main tool voters had to challenge election maps that diluted the votes of marginalized communities. Before this decision, voters could win by showing that a map actually diluted their votes, without having to prove that anyone meant to discriminate. While the Court did not strike Section 2 down, it made finding election maps that dilute votes that much harder to be found as illegal. As Justice Elena Kagan explained in her dissent, voters must now effectively prove that lawmakers intended to discriminate, and a state can defend almost any map by saying the lines were drawn to help one political party rather than to hurt a racial group. She warned that unless a state leaves behind “smoking-gun evidence of a race-based motive,” which she called “an almost fanciful prospect,” Section 2 will play no role. In her words, the decision “renders Section 2 all but a dead letter.” With the midterms approaching, the ruling opens the door for states to redraw maps that undercut the voting strength of Black communities and we have seen many states take such steps.

Disinformation adds another layer to discouraging voters from participating in the midterm elections this November. In 2020, political operatives used a misleading robocall campaign to try to discourage Black voters in New York from voting. With the technological advancements in the last couple of years the scale and the tools have changed dramatically, with fake images, AI-generated content, and false claims spreading faster than anyone can correct them. The goal, however, is the same as it has always been, which is to keep eligible voters from participating.

For workers, the stakes are personal. The officials elected in November help decide the minimum wage, how strongly anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws are enforced, whether workplace protections are expanded or rolled back, and who sits on the courts that interpret those laws. When voters are pushed out of the process, the people most affected by those decisions lose their say in them.

What California Law Guarantees You

Knowing your rights at work is one of the simplest ways to protect your vote.

You can take paid time off to vote. Under California Elections Code section 14000, if you do not have enough time outside of work to vote, you can take time off to do it. Up to two hours of that time must be paid. The time off is usually taken at the beginning or end of your shift, unless you and your employer agree otherwise. Employers must also post a notice explaining this right at least 10 days before a statewide election, under Elections Code section 14001.

Your employer cannot control your politics. California Labor Code section 1101 prohibits employers from making rules or policies that forbid employees from participating in politics or that control or direct their political activities. Section 1102 goes further by stating that an employer cannot coerce or influence employees, through the threat of firing or losing their job, to support or oppose a particular candidate, cause, or political action.

In plain terms, your boss can have their own personal political opinions. But what your boss cannot do is threaten your job over how you vote, whether you vote, or what political causes you support. If an employer violates these protections, workers may have a legal claim.

What to Do Before November 3

• Check your registration. Confirm you are registered and your address is current. If you miss the deadline, California allows same-day registration at county election offices and polling places.
• Make a plan. Decide whether you will vote by mail, vote early, or vote in person on Election Day, and check whether your work schedule leaves you time to do it.
• Give notice early. If you will need time off work to vote, tell your employer in writing at least two working days before the election, and keep a copy.
• Rely on trusted sources. Get election information from your county elections office or the California Secretary of State.
• Document any pressure. If your employer refuses to let you vote, threatens your job over your political views, or pressures you to support a candidate, write down what happened, when, and who was involved.

The people spreading disinformation are counting on confusion and fear to do their work for them. The best answer is to show up as your vote matters, and the law protects your right to cast it.

If you believe your employer has interfered with your right to vote, contact Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C.