2026-10-25 / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
由三名法官组成的美国联邦巡回上诉法院合议庭周日对司法部的诉求表达了强烈质疑——该部门试图介入加州的中期计票流程，强迫选举官员搁置已收到选票的疑似非公民选民的投票。
在一场极不寻常的紧急听证会上，美国第九巡回上诉法院法官马克·贝内特对一名司法部律师表示，加州似乎拥有自行处理本州选举的法律权限，国会通过禁止非公民在联邦及州级选举中投票的刑事法律，并不意味着司法部有权监管加州的选举流程。
加州的这起法律诉讼是特朗普政府在中期选举投票进行之际，为试图证明特朗普总统毫无根据的大规模选民舞弊指控所采取的诸多举措之一。过去一周，司法部已在阿拉斯加州提起诉讼，试图阻止现任共和党参议员丹·沙利文的选举结果获得认证——因为同名的丹尼尔·J·沙利文也在该州的选票名单上。
特朗普任命的法官贝内特与拜登任命的加布里埃尔·桑切斯法官周日均对司法部在案件最初受理的加州联邦地区法院举行听证会之前就向第九巡回上诉法院提起上诉的决定提出质疑。他们还向司法部律师马修·唐纳利追问特朗普政府称加州选民名册上有2万名非公民的说法是否可信——司法部表示，这一信息来自一份外购选民名单，并经过第三方分析。
特朗普政府试图说服法院，鉴于担心非公民可能已提交选票，法院应立即下令改变加州的选票处理方式。目前加州已处理了逾30万张中期选举选票。
但合议庭中至少两名法官不认同联邦法律高于宪法（宪法规定各州主要负责选举事宜）的论点。
“在我看来，根据《选举条款》，加州有权决定选举方式，包括核查非公民选民，”贝内特在这场通过视频会议举行并在YouTube上直播的听证会上表示。
特朗普任命的法官帕特里克·布马泰则对特朗普政府的论点显得更为支持，他向加州及洛杉矶县的律师询问了如何在选民名册上调查非公民的问题。他还问及司法部在诉讼文件中提出的说法——若不搁置邮寄选票，加州将永远无法确认非公民是否在中期选举中非法投票。
周日的紧急听证会是特朗普政府迄今为止为介入某州中期选举所采取的最激进举措。本月早些时候，司法部起诉加州及洛杉矶县，试图阻止官员统计逾2万张与政府认定可能为非公民选民相关的邮寄选票。
代表加州及州务卿出庭的律师塞缪尔·西格尔周日指出，司法部要求法院“跳过民主程序”，而加州的选举早已进入投票阶段。
除宪法层面的争议外，贝内特与桑切斯均质疑法官为何应采信司法部关于选民名册上有2万名非公民的说法，他们向唐纳利追问政府是如何得出这一数字的，以及为何该数字足以作为采取极端行动的依据。
桑切斯表示：“你们的主张很大程度上依赖于这份名单的可信度。”
西格尔指出，特朗普政府声称的非公民选民名单并不可靠，称该名单的来源不明，且使用的数据“早已过时”。
“这一情况发生之际，联邦政府也曾编制过类似名单，而那些名单也被证明明显不可靠，”西格尔表示。
唐纳利对政府为何认定加州选民名单上的2万个名字可能包含非公民、以及该名单为何会出现在紧急听证会上等问题几乎未给出明确解释。
唐纳利表示：“特朗普政府收到的是一份从加州外购的名单。”
唐纳利主张，司法部的诉讼文件，包括国土安全部官员就其核查非公民选民以协助编制名单的流程所提供的宣誓声明，可信度已足以令法院下令分离有争议的选票。他称当前处于紧急状态，因为中期选举选票正在被计票，政府并非要求废除此类选票，而只是希望将联邦政府质疑的选票暂时搁置。
法官们还质问司法部为何在地区法院作出裁决之前就将案件提交至上诉法院。唐纳利回应称，司法部要求在本周原定听证会前作出裁决，是因为已有逾30万张邮寄选票被处理。
布马泰向西格尔询问，若禁令未获批准、选票得以处理，加州是否仍能确认非公民是否投票。
西格尔辩称：“我们不敢苟同，因为选民要证明公民身份需经过多个步骤。”
贝内特询问唐纳利，上诉法院是否需要在地区法院定于周二举行的听证会前作出裁决。唐纳利主张法院应尽快作出裁决，因为加州的投票仍在进行中。
Judges skeptical of Trump administration effort to force California to set aside mail ballots
2026-10-25 / CNN
A three-judge US Circuit Court of Appeals panel expressed significant skepticism Sunday over the Justice Department’s desire to inject itself into California’s midterm vote-counting process by forcing election officials to set aside the votes of suspected noncitizens who have been issued mail ballots.
During a highly unusual emergency hearing, 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals Judge Mark Bennett told a Justice Department attorney that California appears to have legal authority to handle its elections on its own, and that the fact that Congress passed a criminal law prohibiting noncitizens from voting in federal and state elections doesn’t mean the Justice Department has authority to regulate California’s voting process.
The legal action in California is one of many steps the Trump administration has taken as voting is underway in the midterm elections to try to help prove President Donald Trump’s baseless claims of massive voter fraud. This past week, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit in Alaska, seeking to block certification of the election of incumbent GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan loses, because a candidate named Daniel J. Sullivan is also on the ballot.
Bennett, a Trump appointee, and Judge Gabriel Sanchez, a Biden appointee, on Sunday both questioned the Justice Department’s decision to appeal to the 9th Circuit before the US District Court in California, where the case was originally filed, had held a hearing. They also pressed DOJ attorney Matthew Donnelly about the reliability of the Trump administration’s claims that there are 20,000 noncitizens on California’s voter rolls, information the DOJ has said came from a purchased list of voters and analyzed by third parties.
The Trump administration is attempting to convince the court that it should be able to immediately change California’s ballot processing because of a fear that noncitizens could have sent in votes. The state has already processed more than 300,000 midterm ballots.
But at least two of the three judges on the panel disputed the argument that federal law trumps the Constitution giving the power of running elections primarily to the states.
“It seems to me that under the Elections Clause, they have the right to determine the manner of the elections, including sorting out noncitizens,” Bennett said during the hearing, which was held over videoconference and broadcast on YouTube.
Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, appeared more sympathetic to the Trump administration’s argument, questioning attorneys for California and Los Angeles County about how noncitizens are investigated on the voter rolls. He also asked about DOJ’s suggestion in court filings that not setting aside mail-in ballots would keep California from ever learning whether noncitizens illegally voted in the midterms.
Sunday’s emergency hearing was the Trump administration’s sharpest effort to date to inject itself into a state’s midterm elections. DOJ sued California and Los Angeles County earlier this month, seeking to prevent officials from counting more than 20,000 mail-in ballots associated with people the government believes are likely noncitizens.
Samuel Siegal, an attorney arguing on behalf of California and the secretary of state, argued Sunday that the Justice Department was asking the court “to short-circuit the democratic process” while California’s election was already underway.
Beyond the constitutional issues, Bennett and Sanchez both questioned why the judges should rely on the Justice Department’s claims that 20,000 noncitizens were on the voter rolls, pressing Donnelly to explain how the administration came up with that number and why it should be relied upon to take extraordinary action.
“Your claims very much depend on the reliability of that list,” Sanchez said.
Siegal argued that the Trump administration’s list of alleged noncitizens voters was unreliable, saying it isn’t clear where the Trump administration’s list came from and that the data being used was “wildly outdated.”
“This is coming against the backdrop of the federal government compiling similar lists, and those also demonstrate having been demonstrably unreliable,” Siegal said.
Donnelly offered little clarity about why the administration believes 20,000 names on a list of California voters may include noncitizens, and how that list became part of the emergency hearing.
The Trump administration “was supplied a list that was purchased” from California, Donnelly said.
Donnelly argued that the DOJ’s briefs, including sworn declarations from Department of Homeland Security officials about their process for learning about noncitizen voters they say helped solidify the list, should be reliable enough to warrant segregating the ballots in question. He argued they are in an emergency situation because midterm ballots are being counted, and the administration isn’t asking to throw out votes and instead just set aside ballots the federal government would like to question.
The judges also questioned why the Justice Department took its case to the appellate court before the district court ruled. Donnelly responded that DOJ had asked for a ruling ahead of a hearing schedule for this week because more than 300,000 mail ballots had already been processed.
Bumatay questioned Siegal about whether California would be able to know whether noncitizens voted without an injunction, if the ballots are processed.
“We would respectfully disagree with that because of the number of steps that people have to take to attest to their citizenship,” Siegal argued.
Bennett asked Donnelly whether the appeals court needed to rule ahead of a planned hearing in district court Tuesday. Donnelly argued the court should rule as soon as possible, because voting is still ongoing in the state.
发表回复