I'm not saying they should, but I'm enough of a political realist that I think it is at least possible and maybe inevitable.

Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prevent redistricting that dilutes the votes of protected minorities. But (although it sounds bad) dilution is what you want. Making minority-majority districts (which are common enough) was a good way to get minorities into Congress, but mimics the packing and cracking that would (if a minority were ideologically homogeneous) disenfranchise them.

Now, obviously, no minority is ideologically homogeneous. And Democrats can make a lot of money in mailers if Republicans stop trying to court minorities (these districts dramatically reduce the incentive to do so). Maybe they would prefer a system where their opponents appear racist, not because it would help them win elections, but because it would help them raise money by evoking a strong negative reaction? So here is what my systems-level prediction would be:

One party, with more minority votes, slowly accumulates more and more minority voters, and ends up winning big in districts created for those minorities by the Civil Rights Act, but starts seeing House races harder and harder to win, and state government races harder and harder to win, despite perhaps even achieving a majority vote occasionally. Qualified moderates abandon the local 45%-local party to primary against other potential winners, and now the actual wackos that run doomed local government races are truly so bad as to make the party's loss inevitable.

This (I observe) reflects reality fairly well, particularly the reality of state legislature races, where the districts are small and the effects of gerrymandering can be more pronounced. This process is the whole point of gerrymandering. Except, of course, modern Democrats are sort of doing this to themselves.

I can't be the only one to remember the outrage when the Supreme Court found some provisions in the now-50+ year old law to be antiquated. It was (to generalize only slightly) all from Democrats. Unsurprisingly, that controversy had to do with enforcement of Section 5.

Perhaps I am too cynical, to say people will abandon their "principles" when it doesn't suit their career goals. Democrats will want to win and will do what it takes to make that happen – at least, professional political operatives ought to. Or perhaps I am too optimistic, thinking people will realize their policies could harm those they are meant to help. In all honesty, I don't anticipate much change from the status quo on this – maybe I was only being too generous assuming anyone will notice or care about anything, politicians certainly never seem to.