To win Latino votes in 2016, Republicans are looking to  Pitbull for support. Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist, tried selling the rapper on Jeb Bush when she saw him at a party because, “It’d be professional negligence not to.” Another Democrat’s congressional aid quipped that a Latino icon siding with immigration opponents would not exactly be a Kodak moment. But suppose Pitbull is an average Latino whose vote both Republicans and Democrats are fighting over. Suppose he emails local election officials a question. According to a recent study, the officials are not as likely to respond, or respond accurately. He isn’t likely to vote, and Republicans and Democrats’ efforts are crushed. This is because Pitbull’s name is Armando Peréz, not Arnold Parker.

These are the results of  “What Do I Need to Vote?”, a series of unfortunate studies that show how implicit racial biases affect our political institutions. In a randomized experiment, researchers sent emails from Latino and non-Latino white aliases to 7,000 local election officials. Not only were emails from Latinos less likely to receive a response than emails from non-Latino white aliases, “los afortunados” were less likely to receive accurate information. It is tempting to argue that poor or non-responses from local election officials should not stop Latinos from finding information they need, but even the most dedicated voters will not show up to polls if the answers to their questions are not clear. Discrimination prevents Latino voters from participating in a bedrock of our society.

Discrimination is not exclusive to Latinos. Another study showed state legislators are less likely to respond to emails about voter registration from black constituents than white constituents. Yet it is not possible for local election officials to curb racism on their own. Districts that did not discriminate against Latinos were subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires districts with a history of discrimination to get approval from the federal government before they make changes to their voting procedures. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court gutted Section 5 in 2013 with Shelby County v. Holder. They ruled that Section 4 — determining which districts need preclearance — is unconstitutional because it unfairly targeted the South. Still, most — if not all — districts need to be watched. Racism is not a Southern problem, it is an American problem.

It is arguable that Navarro, Bush’s strategist, would have committed professional negligence had she not approached Pitbull, but it is inarguable Congress is committing professional negligence by not expanding Section 4 of the VRA. A political institution that excludes Latinos from giving it legitimacy is not a Kodak moment. Legislators should expand Section 4 and strengthen the fabric which holds this country together.

A version of this article appeared in the Feb. 18 print edition. Email Mark Secada at [email protected].