NOT FAVORS

OUR RIGHTS ARE NOT FAVORS

A democracy cannot run on promises from people powerful enough to break them.

That is the thread connecting Louisiana's congressional map, Washington's embrace of artificial intelligence, and Ghana's refusal to surrender control over its health information. These are different struggles with a shared question: who gets power, and who gets a remedy when power is abused?

In April, the Supreme Court's Louisiana v. Callais decision invalidated Louisiana's map containing an additional majority-Black district. It narrowed Section 2 districting claims to circumstances supporting a strong inference of intentional racial discrimination, while recognizing partisan advantage as a permissible nonracial objective.

The Court did not prohibit every majority-Black district. But where race and party overlap, its framework makes the distinction between racial exclusion and partisan maneuvering extraordinarily consequential. Calling a map political does not answer the democratic question: whose votes can translate into representation?

Now consider today's White House gathering. AFP reports that President Trump promoted an AI accord as "morally binding." Its commitments include internal controls, external auditing, and board oversight; future legislation remains possible.

Those measures can matter. They cannot substitute for enforceable public rights. A company reviewing its own risks is not the same as a worker challenging an automated firing, a family contesting a benefits denial, or a community demanding protection for its water supply.

Voluntary restraint is welcome. Democratic accountability is mandatory.

Critical race theory helps connect these questions without pretending every institution operates identically. It asks how apparently neutral rules can preserve racial hierarchy through their effects, history, and allocation of power. A global system of white supremacy need not announce itself in every statute or contract to reproduce unequal control.

The test is not whether every decision-maker confesses prejudice. It is whether people historically denied power can challenge decisions, protect their communities, and share in the wealth they create.

That standard also belongs in college sports. On Roland Martin Unfiltered, policy analyst Christian Collins argued that the proposed sports framework would settle important working conditions without athletes' collective bargaining. His critique exposes a basic democratic failure: treating the people who produce value as objects of policy instead of participants in governing it.

Historically Black colleges deserve investment. Their students deserve rights. Making those goals compete is a failure of political imagination.

Ghana offers another answer. Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, President John Dramani Mahama said his government rejected a proposed American health compact over demands involving medical records, pathogen information, and limits on Ghanaian regulatory scrutiny.

His account makes the principle plain: partnership requires consent. People's health and data are not bargaining chips that powerful countries should acquire by exploiting need.

These connections do not establish a single secret plan. They reveal a recurring danger: decisions moving beyond the reach of the people who bear their costs.

Democrats should offer a governing alternative, not another promise to manage concentrated power more politely.

Protect voting rights. Give workers meaningful bargaining power. Require independent AI oversight, accessible appeals, and accountable human review. Make public contracts transparent. Build international partnerships that respect sovereignty. Ensure communities can negotiate enforceable protections before infrastructure projects reshape their lives.

And begin with practical civic action. Use Vote.gov to reach official state guidance, check your registration, and make a voting plan. Verify deadlines and available methods; do not let rumors close lawful options.

Voting is necessary. Organizing, public scrutiny, and enforceable remedies must continue afterward.

The choice is not between progress and protection. It is between a future people help govern and one they are merely told to trust.

Our equal rights are not political favors. Our future is not private property.