2026年8月29日 美国东部时间下午6:09 / 福克斯新闻
根据最高法院的卡莱裁决，挑战者必须证明存在故意歧视，而非仅证明影响力减弱
作者：伊莱恩·马伦 福克斯新闻
首席国会通讯记者查德·珀格拉姆详细报道了南部各州日益升级的重划选区斗争，民主党议员正挑战共和党主导的国会选区重划计划。包括众议员阿雅娜·普雷斯利和参议员科里·布克在内的民主党人认为，这些调整旨在压制少数族裔的投票权。众议院议长迈克·约翰逊则表示，此举旨在确保符合宪法的选区地图。
NEW 您现在可以收听福克斯新闻的文章！
2021年，时任总统乔·拜登将佐治亚州共和党支持的选举改革法案称为“21世纪的吉姆·克劳法”，使该州成为全国选举权斗争的焦点。
如今五年后，一场涉及种族歧视指控的佐治亚州选举权纠纷正在联邦法院审理，再度引发全国关注。此次争端的核心是该州2021年重划的国会及州级选区地图，而在最高法院就“路易斯安那州诉卡莱案”作出裁决后，挑战者面临的举证责任大幅提高。
最新进展是，美国第十一巡回上诉法院撤销了下级法院推翻佐治亚州2021年选区地图的判决，并将案件发回美国地区法官史蒂夫·琼斯审理。
上诉法院指示琼斯依据“卡莱案”确立的新框架重新审理这起挑战案，该裁决提高了在重划选区问题上指控种族歧视的原告的举证门槛。
根据这一标准，仅凭地图削弱了黑人选民的选举影响力这一证据本身是不够的。原告必须提供证据，形成“强烈推论”，证明存在故意的种族歧视，并将种族因素的影响与党派政治的影响区分开来。
最高法院就关键《选举权法案》条款作出裁决，共和党与民主党展开重划选区大战
2023年11月30日，在亚特兰大佐治亚州议会大厦，佐治亚州四名共和党参议员——从左至右史蒂夫·古奇、约翰·肯尼迪、比尔·考泽特和博·哈切特——投票支持本党为州参议院绘制新选区的计划。一名联邦法官认定当前选区非法稀释了黑人选民的投票权后，下令议员们增设多个以黑人选民为多数的选区。（美联社照片/杰夫·埃米）
这一区分在佐治亚州尤为重要，因为黑人选民绝大多数支持民主党候选人，使得种族与党派归属高度重叠。这种重叠可能使挑战者更难证明，划分选区边界的动机是种族而非政治优势。
2021年12月至2022年1月期间，黑人选民和选举权组织提起了三起诉讼，挑战这些选区地图，称这些选区稀释了黑人选民的投票权，违反了《选举权法案》第2条。
琼斯法官2023年作出有利于挑战者的裁决，下令佐治亚州增设多个以黑人选民为多数的选区，包括一个国会选区、两个州参议院选区和五个州众议院选区。
佐治亚州随后通过了替代地图，既满足了琼斯法官的命令，又在其他地区保留了共和党的政治优势。这些地图在2024年选举中投入使用，并将在2026年选举周期继续沿用，而原地图的合法性仍是佐治亚州上诉的核心争议点。
媒体对最高法院《选举权法案》裁决的愤怒与现实碰撞
2021年11月19日周五，在亚特兰大的一次特别立法会议上，佐治亚州共和党参议员约翰·肯尼迪介绍该州目前使用的国会选区地图。（Hyosub Shin/亚特兰大宪法报 via 美联社）
在“卡莱案”裁决之前，依据《选举权法案》第2条提起诉讼的原告无需证明议员存在故意的种族歧视。法院主要关注地图是否产生了削弱少数族选民选举其所支持候选人的能力的效果。但根据“卡莱案”裁决，法院必须更仔细地审查，重划选区背后是否存在当代种族歧视，而非仅仅是政治利益考量。
推进美国自由协会高级研究员汉斯·冯·斯帕科夫斯基表示，他认为佐治亚州的这起挑战案无法通过新的测试。
“我认为挑战不会成功，因为没有证据表明州议会存在当前的种族歧视，”冯·斯帕科夫斯基说。“此前针对该州的裁决是基于法官错误解读和曲解《选举权法案》第2条，声称党派操纵选区划分导致了种族投票权稀释。”
“这不符合《选举权法案》第2条下的正确法律标准，”他补充道。“党派操纵选区划分是符合宪法的，并不违反《选举权法案》第2条。”
上诉法院推翻联邦法院判决后，佐治亚州重划选区斗争再起
佐治亚州可以辩称，议员们是在追求党派目标，而非基于种族针对性地针对黑人选民。由于该州的黑人选民群体与民主党选民群体高度重叠，区分这些可能的动机对挑战者来说将十分困难。
“最高法院在‘卡莱案’裁决中明确指出，只有存在当前种族歧视的证据，才能证明《选举权法案》第2条下的有效诉求，法官必须区分人们投票方式的种族动机和政治动机，”冯·斯帕科夫斯基说。
“换句话说，当选民出于政治原因以特定方式投票时，就不存在种族投票权稀释的问题，”他补充道。
琼斯法官现在必须决定如何处理这案发回重审的案件。原告可以申请补充案卷，提交修订后的地图、最新统计分析或其他符合最高法院新要求的证据。但第十一巡回上诉法院并未自动准予他们重新审理，也未授权他们从头重建案件。
佐治亚州可以辩称，原告已经获得了完整的庭审机会，琼斯法官应仅依据现有案卷适用新的标准。
点击此处下载福克斯新闻APP
无论琼斯法官作出何种裁决，都不太可能在2026年11月中期选举前改变佐治亚州的选区布局。上诉法院并未下令该州恢复2021年的原始地图，而佐治亚州已经使用2023年地图生成的替代选区完成了初选。
伊莱恩·马伦是福克斯新闻数字频道和福克斯商业频道的撰稿人，报道全国政治议题。
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6395944924112
Dems face uphill battle in challenge to Georgia Congressional map under new SCOTUS rules
August 29, 2026 6:09pm EDT / Fox News
Under the Supreme Court’s Callais ruling, challengers must show intentional discrimination, not just diminished influence
By Elaine Mallon Fox News
Chief congressional correspondent Chad Pergram details the escalating redistricting battles in Southern states, where Democratic lawmakers are challenging Republican-led efforts to redraw congressional maps. Democrats, including Rep. Ayanna Pressley and Sen. Cory Booker, argue these changes are designed to suppress minority voting power. Speaker Mike Johnson states the aim is to ensure constitutional maps.
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
Then-President Joe Biden put Georgia at the center of the national voting-rights fight in 2021 when he branded the state’s Republican-backed election overhaul “Jim Crow in the 21st century.”
Now, five years later, a separate Georgia voting-rights battle involving allegations of racial discrimination is garnering national attention as it plays out in federal court. This time, the dispute centers on the state’s redrawn Congressional and state maps redrawn in 2021, with challengers facing a significantly tougher burden of proof following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais.
The latest development came when the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a lower court judgment striking down Georgia’s 2021 maps and returned the case to U.S. District Judge Steve Jones.
The appeals court instructed Jones to reconsider the challenge under the new framework established in Callais, which raised the bar for plaintiffs alleging racial discrimination in redistricting.
Under that standard, evidence that a map weakened Black voters’ electoral influence is not enough by itself. Plaintiffs must present evidence supporting a “strong inference” of intentional racial discrimination and distinguish the effects of race from those of partisan politics.
SUPREME COURT RULES ON KEY VOTING RIGHTS ACT RULE AS REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS WAGE REDISTRICTING WAR
Four Republican Georgia state Sens., from left, Steve Gooch, John Kennedy, Bill Cowsert and Bo Hatchett vote in favor of their party’s plan to draw new voting districts for the state Senate on Nov. 30, 2023, at the Georgia Capitol in Atlanta. Lawmakers were ordered by a federal judge to draw additional Black-majority voting districts after he found current districts illegally dilute Black voters’ power.(AP Photo/Jeff Amy)
That distinction is especially important in Georgia, where Black voters overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates, creating significant overlap between race and partisan affiliation. That overlap could make it more difficult for the challengers to prove that race, rather than political advantage, drove the district lines.
Black voters and voting-rights organizations filed three lawsuits challenging the maps between December 2021 and January 2022, arguing that the districts diluted Black voting power in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Jones ruled for the challengers in 2023 and ordered Georgia to create additional majority-Black districts, including one Congressional district, two state Senate districts and five state House districts.
Georgia subsequently enacted replacement maps that satisfied Jones’ order while preserving the Republican Party’s political advantage elsewhere. Those maps were used in the 2024 elections and remain in place for the 2026 election cycle, while the legality of the original maps remained at the center of Georgia’s appeal.
MEDIA OUTRAGE OVER SUPREME COURT’S VOTING RIGHTS ACT DECISION COLLIDES WITH REALITY
Republican Georgia state Sen. John Kennedy, presents the state’s now-current congressional maps in during a special legislative session in Atlanta, Friday, Nov. 19, 2021.(Hyosub Shin/Atlanta Journal-Constitution via AP)
Before Callais, plaintiffs suing based on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act could win their case without proving that lawmakers intentionally discriminated on the basis of race. Courts focused heavily on whether a map had the effect of diminishing minority voters’ ability to elect their preferred candidates. But under Callais, courts must more closely examine whether present-day racial discrimination was behind the redrawing of the maps rather than political advantages.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior fellow at Advancing American Freedom, said he does not believe the Georgia challenge will survive the new test.
“I don’t think a challenge will succeed because there is no evidence of current racial discrimination going on in the state legislature,” von Spakovsky said. “Prior rulings against the state were based on judges misconstruing and misinterpreting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by claiming there was racial dilution resulting from partisan gerrymandering.”
“That is not the correct legal standard under Section 2,” he continued. “Partisan gerrymandering is constitutional and is not a violation of Section 2.”
GEORGIA REDISTRICTING BATTLE REVIVED AFTER APPEALS COURT OVERTURNS FEDERAL COURT DECISION
Georgia can argue that lawmakers were pursuing partisan objectives rather than targeting Black voters because of their race. Because the state’s Black and Democratic voting blocs substantially overlap, separating those possible motivations could prove difficult for the challengers.
“The Supreme Court in the Callais decision specifically said that a viable claim under Section 2 can only be shown if there is evidence of current racial discrimination, and judges must distinguish between racial and political bases for the way people vote,” von Spakovsky said.
Black Louisiana voters and civil rights advocates call on SCOTUS to uphold a fair and representative congressional map in Louisiana v. Callais at Supreme Court of the United States on Mar. 24, 2025, in Washington, D.C.(Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Legal Defense Fund)
“In other words, there’s no racial dilution going on when individuals are voting a particular way because of their politics,” he added.
Jones must now decide how to handle the remanded case. The plaintiffs could ask to supplement the record with revised maps, updated statistical analyses or additional evidence addressing the Supreme Court’s new requirements. The 11th Circuit, however, did not automatically grant them a new trial or authorize them to rebuild their case from the beginning.
Georgia could argue that the plaintiffs already received a full trial and that Jones should apply the new standard solely to the existing record.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Whatever Jones decides is unlikely to alter Georgia’s districts before the November 2026 midterm elections. The appeals court did not order the state to reinstate the original 2021 maps, and Georgia has already conducted its primaries using the replacement districts created from the 2023 map.
Elaine Mallon is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business covering national politics.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6395944924112
发表回复