2026-06-03T01:24:51.134Z / https://www.reuters.com/world/us-supreme-court-clears-way-alabama-use-pro-republican-voting-map-2026-06-03/
- 摘要
- 下级法院曾叫停亲共和党国会选区地图
- 三名法官组成的陪审团指控存在故意种族歧视
- 此次争议源于最高法院关于《选举权法案》的裁决
- 特朗普领导的共和党正努力保住国会控制权
华盛顿6月2日路透社电——美国最高法院周二为阿拉巴马州使用一份亲共和党国会选区地图扫清了道路，该地图将该州两个黑人选民占多数或接近多数的国会选区缩减为一个，这为唐纳德·特朗普总统在11月中期选举中捍卫共和党对国会的控制权提供了助力。
大法官们叫停了下级法院的一项裁决，该裁决曾阻止阿拉巴马州官员实施一项旨在将目前由黑人民主党议员掌控的美国众议院选区转交给共和党人的地图计划。
路透社伊朗简报通讯将为您提供伊朗局势的最新动态和分析。请在此注册。
最高法院以6票支持、3票反对的保守派多数作出了这项无署名裁决。三名自由派大法官对此表示异议。
在裁决中，保守派多数表示，阿拉巴马州很可能最终会在包括一群黑人选民在内的多组原告提起的对其 favoured 地图的法律挑战中获胜。
黑人选民通常支持民主党候选人。共和党人正在中期选举中捍卫他们在众议院和参议院的微弱多数席位。
周二的裁决让人们对挑战者的主张产生了质疑，他们认为阿拉巴马州的亲共和党地图违反了1965年旨在防止投票歧视的《选举权法案》，以及美国宪法中法律面前人人平等的承诺。
“州政府在这两项主张上都很可能在实质问题上胜诉，”保守派多数派写道。他们补充道：“各州可以自由决定是否在选举前最后一刻更改选举规则符合自身最佳利益。”
最高法院的这项行动正值南部各州新一轮疯狂的国会选区重划之际，由共和党主导的州正争相利用4月份最高法院一项大幅削弱《选举权法案》的裁决。
在这项具有里程碑意义的裁决之后，田纳西州批准了一份新地图，打破了以孟菲斯为中心的由民主党掌控的多数黑人选区；路易斯安那州则通过了一项计划，取消该州两个拥有大量黑人选民的选区中的一个。
阿拉巴马州共和党人曾请求最高法院解除5月26日由联邦三名法官组成的陪审团施加的司法禁令，该禁令曾阻止共和党支持的地图在2026年选举中使用。
下级法院表示，亲共和党地图故意歧视黑人选民，违反了平等保护原则，即使按照4月份裁决中大幅提高的法律标准，也很可能违反《选举权法案》。
最高法院的三名自由派大法官在索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官撰写的意见书中谴责了多数派的决定，埃琳娜·卡根和凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊大法官也联名加入了该意见书，称该裁决“无视民主价值观和法治”。
代表一群挑战阿拉巴马州地图的黑人选民的全国有色人种协进会法律辩护基金律师杜尔·罗斯表示，最高法院周二的裁决“为阿拉巴马州和其他州公然歧视黑人选民提供了保护伞，让他们不用担心会有任何后果”。
“法院恢复一项故意歧视性地图的无耻决定，无视了任何对法律的深思熟虑或一致适用，”他说，并补充道，他的团队将继续为阿拉巴马州选民争取“他们应得的公平代表权”。
阿拉巴马州州总检察长、共和党人史蒂夫·马歇尔称这项裁决是“阿拉巴马州和自治原则的重大胜利”。
“美国最高法院证实了我们一直以来的认知：阿拉巴马州的国会选区地图在《选举权法案》下是符合宪法且合法的，”他说。
“法院撤销地区法院禁令的决定证实，阿拉巴马州的民选代表，而非联邦法官，在阿拉巴马州选民选举自己领导人的地图绘制方面拥有主要权限。”
近年来，关于阿拉巴马州国会选区地图的诉讼一直在最高法院和联邦三名法官组成的陪审团之间反复拉锯。
共和党州议员试图恢复他们在2023年批准的一份地图，而同一三名法官组成的陪审团此前曾认定该地图存在歧视性。该地图将该州7个美国众议院选区中黑人选民占多数或接近多数的选区数量从两个减少到一个。黑人约占阿拉巴马州人口的四分之一。
5月11日，最高法院批准了阿拉巴马州的请求，解除下级法院此前阻止阿拉巴马州使用该地图的裁决，但几周后，三名法官组成的陪审团又施加了新的司法禁令，促使阿拉巴马州最近一次向大法官提起诉讼。
阿拉巴马州共和党人在提交给最高法院的文件中辩称，如果该州被迫使用下级法院批准的地图而非他们自己的地图，选民将面临“无法弥补的伤害”。
在所谓的选区重划过程中，美国各地的立法选区边界会根据每十年一次的全国人口普查所统计的人口变化进行重新调整。选区重划传统上在每个新十年伊始由州议会进行，因此目前这场十年间的选区重划斗争显得非常不寻常。
特朗普去年推动由共和党人执政的德克萨斯州重新划分选举地图，以期拿下五个由民主党掌控的美国众议院席位，从而引发了当前这场斗争，其他多个共和党和民主党主导的州也纷纷效仿。
约翰·克鲁泽尔报道；威尔·邓纳姆、林肯·费斯特和凯特·梅伯里编辑
我们的标准：汤森路透信托原则。
US Supreme Court clears way for Alabama to use pro-Republican voting map
2026-06-03T01:24:51.134Z / https://www.reuters.com/world/us-supreme-court-clears-way-alabama-use-pro-republican-voting-map-2026-06-03/
- Lower court blocked pro-Republican congressional map
- Three-judge panel cited intentional racial discrimination
- Dispute follows Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act ruling
- Trump’s Republicans fighting to keep control of Congress
WASHINGTON, June 2 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Tuesday for Alabama to use a pro-Republican congressional map that eliminates one of its two districts where Black voters make up a majority or near-majority, giving a boost to President Donald Trump as his party defends its control of Congress in November’s midterm elections.
The justices halted a lower court ruling that had blocked Alabama officials from putting in place a map that aims to flip a U.S. House of Representatives district currently held by a Black Democratic congressman to the Republicans.
The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.
The action by the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, came in an unsigned order. The three liberal justices dissented from the decision.
In its ruling, the conservative majority said Alabama was likely to ultimately defeat a legal challenge to its preferred map that was brought by several sets of plaintiffs including a group of Black voters.
Black voters typically support Democratic candidates. Republicans are defending narrow majorities in the House and Senate in the midterms.
The ruling on Tuesday cast doubt on the challengers’ claim that Alabama’s pro-Republican map violates the Voting Rights Act, a 1965 law intended to prevent discrimination in voting, and the U.S. Constitution’s promise of equal protection under the law.
“The state is likely to succeed on the merits as to both claims,” the conservative majority wrote. It added that, “States are free to decide for themselves whether last-minute changes to an election are in their best interests.”
The court’s action came amid a new and frenzied round of congressional redistricting that has unfolded across the South, as Republican-led states have scrambled to take advantage of an April Supreme Court decision that severely weakened the Voting Rights Act.
In the wake of that landmark decision, Tennessee approved a new map that broke up a majority-Black, Democratic-held district based in Memphis, while Louisiana adopted a plan to eliminate one of two districts with sizable Black populations in that state.
Alabama Republicans asked the Supreme Court to lift the judicial block put in place on May 26 by a federal three-judge panel that had halted the Republican-backed map’s use in the 2026 elections.
The lower court said the pro-Republican map intentionally discriminated against Black voters in violation of the equal protection principle and likely still violated the Voting Rights Act, even under the significantly heightened legal standard announced in the April ruling.
The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices condemned the majority’s decision in an opinion authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing that the ruling “disregards both democratic values and the rule of law.”
Deuel Ross, a lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which represents a group of Black voters that challenged Alabama’s map, said the Supreme Court’s ruling on Tuesday “gives cover to Alabama and others to deliberately and openly discriminate against Black voters without fear of any consequence.”
“The court’s shameless decision to reinstate an intentionally discriminatory map defies any thoughtful or consistent application of the law,” he said, adding that his group would continue to fight for Alabama voters “to have the fair representation that they deserve.”
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, a Republican, called the ruling “a major victory for Alabama and for the principle of self-governance.”
“The United States Supreme Court confirmed what we always knew: that Alabama’s Congressional maps are constitutional and lawful under the Voting Rights Act,” he said.
“The court’s decision to stay the district court’s injunction affirms that Alabama’s elected representatives, not federal judges, have the primary authority to draw the maps under which Alabamians choose their own leaders.”
Litigation over Alabama’s congressional map has ricocheted between the Supreme Court and the federal three-judge panel in recent years.
Republican state legislators have sought to return to a map they approved in 2023 that the same three-judge panel previously had deemed discriminatory. That map would drop the number of districts where Black voters comprise a majority or near-majority from two to one out of the state’s seven U.S. House districts. Black people make up about a quarter of Alabama’s population.
On May 11, the Supreme Court granted the state’s request to lift the lower court’s prior ruling blocking Alabama from using the map, before the three-judge panel weeks later imposed a new judicial block, prompting Alabama’s most recent filing to the justices.
Alabama Republicans had argued in their filing to the Supreme Court that voters would face “irreparable harm” if the state were required to use a map approved by the lower court instead of theirs.
In a process called redistricting, the boundaries of legislative districts across the United States are reconfigured to reflect population changes as measured by the national U.S. census every 10 years. Redistricting traditionally has been carried out by state legislatures at the start of each new decade, making the mid-decade redistricting fight now unfolding highly unusual.
Trump ignited the current battle last year by pushing Republican-governed Texas to redraw its electoral map in a bid to flip five Democratic-held U.S. House seats, setting off similar efforts in a number of other Republican- and Democratic-led states.
Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham, Lincoln Feast and Kate Mayberry
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.