2026-09-16T08:00:29.249Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/16/politics/supreme-court-mail-ballot-wont-be-last-word
美国最高法院近期出台的一系列与选举相关的零散裁决，未能向公众透露多少线索，无法说明大法官们在今年秋季面临一场将最终决定哪个政党控制国会，或是2028年选举走向的关键纠纷时，会采取何种行动。
周一，大法官们以未具名命令的形式驳回了唐纳德·特朗普总统提出的、允许美国邮政总局可能拒绝递送选票的计划，该裁决隐晦不明。而更早前在6月作出的、同样驳回了一项强行施加邮寄选票新规则的裁决，则是以一票之差作出的。
部分大法官——尤其是塞缪尔·阿利托和克拉伦斯·托马斯——呼应了特朗普政府关于邮寄投票存在欺诈的毫无根据的说法。而布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官周一暗示，未来可能会允许美国邮政总局管控选票，或许是在2028年总统大选周期。
华盛顿律师唐纳德·韦里利曾是奥巴马政府时期的美国副检察长，他周二表示，他预计邮寄选票相关的法律纠纷将持续上演。
他指出，尽管没有证据表明邮寄选票容易引发欺诈，但这类说法甚嚣尘上，而阿利托周一晚间的异议意见更是助长了这一论调。
“随着本次选举周期的推进，乃至进入2028年，”韦里利在乔治城大学法学院的一场座谈会上表示，“我认为围绕这些问题将会出现大量动荡。”
由六名保守派大法官主导的九人最高法院，在处理相关案件时行动迟疑，这表明他们既担心给选民造成混乱，同时也坚守着既定的优先事项。
自特朗普2025年1月重返白宫以来，针对政府政策的诉讼如潮水般涌来，其中涉及选举程序的诉讼 stakes 尤其高。这类案件事关宝贵的投票权，以及全体公民通过民选官员获得代表的能力。
今年早些时候，多数派大法官削弱了1965年《选举权法案》，给予州议员更大的空间来划分选区，这可能会削弱黑人和拉丁裔选民的投票权。多个州随即开始重新划分选区，以消除“少数族裔占多数”的选区，为共和党候选人创造优势。最高法院允许部分此类调整在初选季期间继续推进。
尽管周一晚间的命令显然是起诉以阻止邮政总局新规实施的民主党领导的州和投票权倡导者的胜利，但该裁决并未透露出大法官们自身的明确立场。
这份两句话的命令未附带任何 underlying 法律推理。它仅写道：“政府不太可能在其对地区法院初步禁令的质疑中胜诉。而适用于从本院获得紧急救济的衡平法因素，并不支持暂缓执行。”
这种简洁或许源于大法官们之间跨意识形态的妥协，但这些句子仅仅是解除下级法院禁令的指导方针，例如政府能否证明其诉求有可能在实质问题上胜诉，以及若不暂缓执行，政府是否可能遭受不可弥补的损害。
大法官们未提及下级法院法官曾探讨过的诸多问题，包括双方的宪法和法定权力，以及邮政总局筛查计划的可行性。
参议院司法委员会资深民主党议员就最高法院打击特朗普邮寄选票计划的裁决作出回应
1:53 • 来源：CNN
参议院司法委员会资深民主党议员就最高法院打击特朗普邮寄选票计划的裁决作出回应…
1:53
卡瓦诺在其简短的协同意见中写道，“至少有合理前景表明，最终规则属于邮政总局的法定权限范围”，这似乎为特朗普的相关努力提供了又一张可能的赞成票。
州选举官员、投票权倡导者和政治运作人士一直在密切关注最高法院可能如何影响今年的中期选举，并可能为2028年的总统选举奠定基础。
存在争议的州选举程序已成为大法官们待审案件的常客，并可能持续到11月3日选举之后，甚至可能延续更久。目前参众两院均由共和党控制。民主党有机会至少拿下众议院，甚至可能拿下两院。
卡瓦诺谈及2000年布什诉戈尔案
1:20 • 来源：CNN
卡瓦诺谈及2000年布什诉戈尔案
1:20
特朗普2020年大选的反应——他在败选给乔·拜登后仍坚称选举结果存在欺诈——至今仍笼罩着选票争议，2000年布什诉戈尔案的记忆亦是如此。
在近26年前的那起案件中，最高法院叫停了佛罗里达州的选票重新计票，确保该州具有决定性的选举人票投向共和党候选人、时任得克萨斯州州长乔治·W·布什，实质上决定了这场对决的结果。
特朗普周二对大法官们的命令感到愤怒，他谴责自己任命的三名大法官明显加入了多数派，反对其筛查各州邮寄选票的计划。（仅有阿利托和托马斯公开持异议，但未记录投票情况。）
在第一任期内，特朗普分别于2017年任命尼尔·戈萨奇、2018年任命卡瓦诺，以及2020年任命艾米·科尼·巴雷特。
特朗普在Truth Social的帖子中宣称：“这些人并不是我当初面试要任命到美国最高法院的人选，他们不过是原本自我的空壳而已。”
司法部长托德·布兰奇表示，司法部将继续努力限制邮寄投票。
“在邮寄投票问题上，我们所做的事情没什么好意外的，我们希望确保投票安全，确保选举具有完整性、自由且公平，确保一人一票，且投票者具备参选资格，”布兰奇周二在罕见的白宫玫瑰园公开活动中说道。
在周一的案件中，8月底最终敲定的邮政总局新规原本将迫使各州向美国邮政总局提交合格选民名单。该新规还要求采用新的信封标准，包括追踪条形码。若不符合要求，美国邮政总局将禁止递送选票。
全美约30%的选民通过邮寄而非亲自投票。军人、老年人和残疾人尤其依赖邮寄选票。
以加利福尼亚州为首的州方挑战者辩称，特朗普的计划既不可行，也不合法。整个夏季，民主党和共和党籍的州及地方选举官员都警告称，美国邮政总局的提议可能导致大规模剥夺选举权。部分州已经寄出了选票，官员们曾被告知，全国范围内可能甚至没有足够的信封可供重新印制。
6月份另有一起最高法院审理的邮寄选票纠纷，源于特朗普支持的对密西西比州邮寄选票在选举日当天邮戳后可接收的五天宽限期的质疑。
最高法院以5票对4票的投票结果驳回了共和党全国委员会针对密西西比州的诉讼。巴雷特为多数派撰写意见称，规定11月第一个星期一之后的星期二为选举日的联邦选举法律，并未禁止密西西比州将正确加盖邮戳的选票的计数宽限期延长至选举日后五天。
在谈及共和党全国委员会和特朗普在该案（沃森诉共和党全国委员会）中的欺诈主张时，巴雷特补充道：“选举欺诈及其表象都是严重问题。不过，与其他类似问题一样，必须通过民主程序加以解决。”
阿利托在周一的裁决中所持立场早有预兆：他在6月份的案件中撰写了异议声明，提出了“可能进一步削弱美国人对本国选举完整性信心的选民欺诈”的幽灵。
布兰奇：我们将遵守邮寄投票相关裁决
4:59 • 来源：CNN
布兰奇：我们将遵守邮寄投票相关裁决
4:59
阿利托在共和党全国委员会一案中得到了托马斯、戈萨奇和卡瓦诺的支持。
周一晚间，他仅得到了托马斯的支持。他们主张邮政总局拥有广泛权限，并且在谈及政府执行该规则的利益时，呼应了政府关于提高“联邦邮寄选票的可见性，以便更好地检测欺诈”的论点。
阿利托进一步将部分挑战者的主张比作“一次长传冲吊……在此不太可能成功”。
What the Supreme Court’s cryptic mail ballot ruling means for future elections
2026-09-16T08:00:29.249Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/16/politics/supreme-court-mail-ballot-wont-be-last-word
The Supreme Court’s recent patchwork of election-related decisions gives the public scant clues of how the justices would act if faced with a crucial dispute this fall that would definitively settle which party controls Congress or what to expect in 2028.
The justices’ unsigned order Monday rejecting President Donald Trump’s plan to let the US Postal Service possibly refuse to deliver ballots was cryptic. And an earlier June decision, similarly rejecting an attempt to foist new rules on mail-in ballots, came down to a single vote.
Some justices, notably Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, have echoed the Trump administration’s unsubstantiated claims of fraud regarding mail-in voting. And Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested on Monday an openness to letting the Postal Service control ballots in the future, perhaps for the 2028 presidential election cycle.
Washington lawyer Donald Verrilli, a former US solicitor general in the Obama administration, said on Tuesday that he anticipates continued legal conflict around mail-in ballots.
He observed that although no evidence exists that such ballots are conducive to fraud, that drumbeat is “in the air,” reinforced by Alito’s dissent Monday night.
“As the rest of this electoral cycle unfolds, and into 2028,” Verrilli said at a Georgetown Law panel, “I think there’s going to be a lot of turbulence around these issues.”
The nine justices, dominated by six conservatives, have moved haltingly through cases, suggesting some concern about chaos for voters but also hewing to their established priorities.
Amid a torrent of lawsuits challenging administration policy since Trump returned to office in January 2025, litigation involving electoral practices is especially high stakes. Such cases determine cherished voting rights and the ability of all citizens to be represented by elected officials.
Earlier this year, the majority retrenched on the 1965 Voting Rights Act and provided state legislators greater latitude to draw maps that may dilute the voting power of Blacks and Latinos. Several states immediately began redistricting to eliminate “majority-minority” districts and give Republican candidates an advantage. The court allowed some of those changes to go ahead in the middle of the primary election season.
While Monday night’s order was a clear win for the Democratic-led states and voting-rights advocates who sued to block the Postal Service regulations from being enforced, it lacked a robust signal from the justices themselves.
The two-sentence order was devoid of any underlying legal reasoning. It said only, “The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction. And the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court do not favor a stay.”
Perhaps the terseness was the result of the cross-ideological compromise among the justices, but those sentences merely reflect guideposts for dissolving a lower court injunction, such as whether that the government can show it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim and is likely to suffer irreparable harm without the stay.
The justices said nothing about the myriad issues that had been explored by lower court judges, related to the constitutional and statutory powers of the dueling parties and the feasibility of the Postal System screening plan.
Top Democrat on Senate Judiciary Panel reacts to the Supreme Court’s legal blow to Trump’s mail-in ballot plan
1:53 • Source: CNN
Top Democrat on Senate Judiciary Panel reacts to the Supreme Court’s legal blow to Trump’s mail-in ballot …
1:53
In his brief concurrence, Kavanaugh wrote, “there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority,” appearing to provide another possible vote in favor of Trump’s efforts.
State election officials, voting rights advocates and political operatives have been closely anticipating how the Supreme Court might affect this year’s midterms and possibly lay groundwork for the presidential election in 2028.
Disputed state electoral practices have become a staple of the justices’ docket and will likely continue through – and possibly after – the November 3 elections. The House of Representatives and Senate are currently controlled by Republicans. Democrats have a chance to flip at least the House and maybe both chambers.
Kavanaugh talks Bush v. Gore case (2000)
1:20 • Source: CNN
Kavanaugh talks Bush v. Gore case (2000)
1:20
Trump’s reaction to the 2020 election, when he lost to Joe Biden yet insisted the results were fraudulent, still shadows ballot controversies, as does the memory of the 2000 Bush v. Gore litigation.
In that case nearly 26 years ago, the Supreme Court essentially decided the contest between then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore by stopping ballot recounts in Florida and ensuring that the state’s decisive electoral votes went to Bush, the Republican candidate.
Outraged Tuesday about the justices’ order, Trump denounced his three appointees who apparently joined the majority against his plan to screen states’ mail-in ballots. (Only Alito and Thomas dissented publicly, but there was no recorded vote.)
In his first term, Trump had named Neil Gorsuch in 2017; Kavanaugh in 2018; and Amy Coney Barrett in 2020.
Trump declared in a Truth Social post: “These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of the original selves.”
Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Justice Department would continue to try to restrict mail voting.
“There should be nothing surprising about what we’re trying to do when it comes to mail-in voting, which is we want to make sure that there is safe voting and that there is integrity, free and fair elections, and that there is one person placing one vote and that that person is eligible to vote,” Blanche said Tuesday during a rare White House Rose Garden appearance.
In Monday’s case, the postal rules finalized in late August would have forced states to submit lists of eligible voters to the US Postal Service. The rules also called for new envelope requirements, including tracking barcodes. Without them, the USPS would have prohibited the delivery of ballots.
About 30% of voters across the country cast their ballots by mail, rather than in-person. People in the military, the elderly and disabled especially rely on mail-in ballots.
The state challengers, led by California, had argued that the Trump plan was unworkable as well as unlawful. Democratic and Republican state and local election officials warned throughout the summer that the USPS proposal could have led to mass disenfranchisement. Some states had already sent out ballots, and officials had been told there may not even be enough envelopes nationwide to start over.
A separate Supreme Court mail-in ballot dispute in June arose from a Trump-endorsed challenge to Mississippi’s five-day grace period for receipt of mail ballots postmarked by Election Day.
By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court snubbed the Republican National Committee lawsuit against Mississippi. Barrett, who wrote for the majority, said that federal election-day laws, which designate the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, did not prevent Mississippi from counting properly postmarked ballots up to five days later.
Addressing the RNC and Trump claims of fraud in that case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, Barrett added, “Election fraud and its appearance are serious issues. Like other such issues, however, they must be addressed through the democratic process.”
Foreshadowing where Alito would land on Monday, he penned the dissenting statement in June, raising the specter of “voter fraud that may further undermine Americans’ faith in the integrity of this country’s elections.”
Blanche: We’re going to comply with decision on mail-in voting
4:59 • Source: CNN
Blanche: We’re going to comply with decision on mail-in voting
4:59
Alito was joined in the RNC case by Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
On Monday night, he drew support only from Thomas. They argued for broad Postal Service authority, and, as they addressed the government’s interest in enforcing the rule, they echoed the administration’s arguments about enhancing “the visibility of Federal Ballot Mail in order to better detect fraud.”
Alito further compared some of the challengers’ claims to a “Hail Mary pass … unlikely to be successfully completed here.”
发表回复