2026-09-06T16:18:21.530Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
美国总统唐纳德·特朗普的政府于周日再次请求最高法院允许美国邮政总局的邮寄选票规则立即生效，这一举措虽主要是程序性动作，但仍凸显了总统希望在关键的中期选举期间限制邮寄投票的意图。
在此次紧急上诉中，美国邮政总局指出，11月中期选举的邮寄选票已在北卡罗来纳州开始寄送，其他州也将很快跟进。美国邮政总局请求最高法院尽快批准其实施该规则，这将是多年来最高法院快速审理日程中最重要的选举案件之一。
最高法院此前已在9月3日审理了美国邮政总局提交的一份紧急上诉，敦促大法官允许该机构在11月选举前实施新的选票规则。此次选举将决定哪个政党控制国会。在当时的上诉中，美国邮政总局请求最高法院暂停马萨诸塞州地区法官英迪拉·塔尔瓦尼下达的临时禁制令，该禁令阻止该机构推进相关工作两周。
周五，也就是司法部提交首次上诉的次日，塔尔瓦尼再次作出裁决，下达了初步禁令。随后的这项命令无限期阻止了美国邮政总局的计划。政府正是针对这一第二次、无限期的禁令于周日向最高法院提起上诉。周日提交第二次上诉后不久，政府撤回了第一起案件。
司法部周日在致法院的一封信中表示，提起新上诉是出于“谨慎起见”，并撤回第一起案件是为了“简化诉讼程序”。
对于选民和各州而言，两起案件的差异几乎不会或根本不会产生影响。
最高法院被要求以极快的速度审理这起旨在赋予美国邮政总局前所未有的选举参与权的案件。北卡罗来纳州已开始寄送选票。阿拉巴马州将于9月9日开始寄送。据司法部透露，至少另有五个州将于9月13日开始邮寄选票。
“一旦这些选票信封进入邮寄流程，就无法追回，”司法部周日在提交给最高法院的文件中表示，“虽然该禁制令允许美国邮政总局和各州继续采取措施，确保其信封符合规则要求，但禁制令生效的每一天都有可能引发混乱和动荡，因为该禁制令将这些准备步骤变为自愿行为，而非强制要求。”
美国邮政总局的规则将要求州和地方选举官员将其邮寄选民名单上传至一个门户系统。该规则还要求选举官员在信封上使用特殊条形码，以便于跟踪邮寄选票。许多选举官员表示，现在实施这些要求已经为时过晚。
政府辩称，这些修改对于保障选票安全、确保只有符合资格的选民收到选票是必要的。但由23个民主党领导的州和投票团体组成的联盟将这一举措描述为总统的权力攫取，该长期以来 falsely 宣称邮寄选票系统存在广泛的选民欺诈，尽管他本人也经常通过邮寄投票。
“距离11月选举仅剩不到60天，没有丝毫证据表明各州能够在不剥夺依赖邮寄选票的选民投票权的情况下遵守这些规定，”美国公民自由联盟投票权利项目主任索菲亚·林·莱金说道，该联盟是质疑美国邮政总局提案的法律团队成员之一。
在周日的上诉中，副检察长D.约翰·佐尔辩称，“与地区法院和被上诉人所称的美国邮政总局试图将邮寄投票规则联邦化相反，美国邮政总局的最终规则仅对通过美国邮政邮寄的联邦选举选票提出了适度的信封设计和收件人信息要求。”
宪法赋予各州和国会制定选举规则的权力，而非总统或美国邮政总局。这也是塔尔瓦尼在周五的最新裁决中强调的一点。
“宪法的选举条款将选举管理职责赋予各州，仅受国会替代立法的约束，行政部门在这一共同事业中没有固有权力，”她写道。
此次新上诉不太可能大幅改变这起备受关注的案件的审理进度。负责审理来自波士顿的美国第一巡回上诉法院的紧急上诉的大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊曾要求各州在周二对首次上诉作出回应。周日，杰克逊下令要求反对美国邮政总局的各州和投票权利团体改为在周三对新上诉作出回应。
本文已更新，补充了新细节。
Trump admin renews Supreme Court ask to let mail ballot rule to take effect ahead of midterms
2026-09-06T16:18:21.530Z / CNN
President Donald Trump’s administration on Sunday again asked the Supreme Court to allow the US Postal Service plan for mail ballots to take effect immediately, a mostly procedural move that nonetheless underscores the president’s desire to restrict mail voting during the critical midterm elections.
In its emergency appeal, the Postal Service noted that mail ballots for the November midterms are already being sent in one state, North Carolina, and that other states will soon follow. The USPS asked the high court to quickly allow it to implement its rule, setting up one of the most significant election cases on the court’s quick-turn docket in years.
The Supreme Court was already considering an emergency appeal filed by the USPS on Sept. 3 that urged the justices to allow the agency to implement the new ballot rule ahead of the November elections that will determine which party controls Congress. In that appeal, the USPS asked the Supreme Court to stay a temporary restraining order from US District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts that barred the agency from moving forward for two weeks.
On Friday, a day after the Justice Department filed that appeal, Talwani ruled again, handing down a preliminary injunction. That subsequent order blocked the USPS plan indefinitely. It is that second, indefinite block on the plan that the administration appealed to the Supreme Court on Sunday. Shortly after filing the second appeal on Sunday, the administration withdrew the first case.
In a letter to the court on Sunday, the Justice Department said it had filed the new appeal out of “an abundance of caution” and that it withdrew the first case “to simplify proceedings.”
For voters and states, the difference between the cases will make little or no difference.
The high court is being asked to rule with an extraordinarily quick timeline on an effort by the administration to give the USPS an unprecedented role in elections. North Carolina has already begun mailing out ballots. Alabama will begin doing so on Sept. 9. At least five additional states will begin mailing ballots on September 13, according to the Justice Department.
“Once those ballot envelopes enter the mailstream, there is no retrieving them,” the Justice Department told the Supreme Court in its filing on Sunday. “And while the injunction allows the Postal Service and the states to continue taking steps to ensure that their envelopes satisfy the rule’s requirements, each day the injunction is in place risks sowing confusion and chaos because the injunction makes those preparatory steps voluntary, rather than mandatory.”
The USPS rule would require state and local election officials to upload lists of their mail voters to a portal. It would also require election officials to use special barcodes on the envelopes to ease tracking of that mail. Many election officials have argued that it’s already too late to implement those requirements.
The administration has argued that the changes are needed to secure the ballots and ensure that only eligible voters receive one. But a coalition of 23 Democratic-led states and voting groups have described the effort as a power grab by a president who has long falsely alleged widespread voter fraud in mail ballot systems, even as he has frequently voted by mail himself.
“With fewer than 60 days to go before the November election, there is not a shred of evidence that states could comply with it without disenfranchising voters who rely on mail ballots,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the Voting Rights Project at the ACLU, part of the legal team challenging the USPS proposal.
In the appeal on Sunday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that, “Contrary to the claims of the district court and respondents that the Postal Service is trying to federalize the rules for mail-in voting, the Postal Service’s final rule imposes only modest envelope-design and addressee-information requirements for federal-election ballots sent via US mail.”
The Constitution empowers states and Congress to set the rules for elections, not the president nor the Postal Service. That was a point that Talwani stressed in her latest decision on Friday.
“The Constitution’s elections clause tasks the States with the role of election administration, subject only to Congress’s superseding legislation, and the executive has no inherent authority in this joint endeavor,” she wrote.
The new appeal is unlikely to change the timeline of the high-profile case very much. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who handles emergency appeals rising from the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals, had required the states to respond to the first appeal on Tuesday. On Sunday, Jackson ordered the states and voting rights groups challenging the USPS to respond to the new appeal on Wednesday, instead.
This story has been updated to include new details.
发表回复