2026-06-02T21:22:00-0400 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
撰稿
更新时间：2026年6月2日 / 美国东部夏令时晚上10:54 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
华盛顿讯—— 美国最高法院周二允许阿拉巴马州使用一套更有利于共和党的国会选区地图用于今年的中期选举，尽管下级法院曾认定该计划故意歧视黑人选民。
在以6票对3票的分裂表决中，最高法院同意冻结下级法院阻止该州使用2023年共和党绘制的选区地图的裁决。阿拉巴马州共有7个国会选区，该计划仅包含1个非裔占多数的国会选区。下级法院曾认定，三年前阿拉巴马州在绘制国会选区界线时故意歧视黑人选民。
下级法院法官此前下令该州继续使用法院选定的国会选区地图，这套地图曾在2024年选举中使用，包含两个黑人选民有机会选出心仪候选人的选区。根据该地图，阿拉巴马州7名国会代表团成员中，共和党占5席，民主党占2席。
如今，根据最高法院的裁决，阿拉巴马州可以启用2023年的选区计划，该计划将重新划分现任民主党众议员肖马里·菲格尔斯 currently代表的选区，共和党有望以6比1的席位占比占据优势。受2023年选区地图调整影响的4个国会席位的特别初选定于8月11日举行，另外3个选区的初选已于5月19日结束。
在周二发布的未署名判决书中，最高法院写道，下级法院“干预了阿拉巴马州根据民选代表选定的选区地图开展即将到来的2026年国会选举的持续努力”。法院认为，“使用法院指定的选区地图对该州来说更为便利”，但这并非进行这种干预的正当理由。
最高法院表示，阿拉巴马州关于2023年选区地图合法的论点很可能会得到支持。
索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官撰写了异议意见，得到了法院另外两名自由派大法官的支持。她认为，搁置当前的国会选区地图并将众多选民重新分配到新的国会选区，可能会导致“一场前所未有的、故意歧视阿拉巴马州黑人选民的混乱选举”。
她表示，法院的保守多数派“无视民主价值观和法治”。
上周，下级法院裁定2023年的选区地图因故意基于种族歧视而非法后，阿拉巴马州共和党官员向最高法院寻求紧急救济。他们表示，在绘制选区界线时，地图绘制者的目的是帮助共和党，并将墨西哥湾沿岸地区整合到一个国会选区内。
特朗普政府支持阿拉巴马州将2023年绘制的国会选区地图用于中期选举的努力，辩称联邦法院不应干预选举或篡夺州政府绘制国会选区的职权。
但一群选民和投票权组织反驳了阿拉巴马州的说法，即该州三年前绘制国会选区地图时是为了实现党派目标。在提交给最高法院的文件中，他们表示，州议会当时并未提及党派目标，并指出下级法院发现“没有任何证据”表明地图绘制者的动机是党派或保护现任议员。
“批准阿拉巴马州的请求将使最高法院介入一场正在进行的选举，打乱既定预期，造成选民困惑，并给即便最勤勉的选举官员也带来混乱和无法实现的截止日期，”由全国有色人种协进会和美国公民自由联盟代表的选民团体表示。
全国有色人种协进会总法律顾问克里斯汀·克拉克批评了最高法院的这项裁决，但仍鼓励黑人选民在即将到来的选举中投票，以表达反对意见。
“最高法院持续在我们的民主进程中制造混乱，通过这一最新行动，批准阿拉巴马州使用此前被认定为故意歧视的国会选区地图，”她在一份声明中说道。“这是一个以令吉姆 Crow时代法官都汗颜的速度剥夺黑人选民权力和声音的法院。”
围绕阿拉巴马州选举边界的法律纠纷，是最高法院4月底削弱《选举权法案》关键条款并废除路易斯安那州一个非裔占多数的国会选区这一重磅裁决的早期考验。该裁决出台后，包括阿拉巴马州在内的多个南方州纷纷重新调整原本有利于民主党的国会选区地图。
最高法院做出这项裁决之际，特朗普总统正推动由共和党掌控的州重新绘制国会选区地图，以提高共和党在11月保住众议院多数席位的几率，这引发了中期选区重划争端。
阿拉巴马州围绕其国会选区边界的长期法律斗争可追溯至2020年人口普查后对众议院选区的重新划分。2023年，最高法院裁定2021年通过的包含1个非裔占多数选区的国会选区地图可能违反了《选举权法案》第2条后，该州由共和党主导的州议会于2023年夏季制定了新的选区地图，但仍只保留了1个非裔占多数的选区。
但下级法院阻止了该州使用这套地图，并认定其非法稀释了阿拉巴马州黑人选民的选票。法院下令任命特别专员制定新方案，该方案于2023年10月由下级法院选定，并在2024年选举中使用。
最高法院在路易斯安那州选举权案件中做出裁决后，阿拉巴马州请求最高法院解除下级法院的禁令，允许其恢复此前被封锁的2023年选区地图。最高法院同意搁置下级法院的裁决，并将案件发回重审。
当三名法官组成的地区法院合议庭再次审查2023年的选区地图时，维持了此前的裁决，认定该计划存在种族歧视。
“最终，我们无法认同要求阿拉巴马州选民在2026年选举中使用带有故意种族歧视污点的选区划分方案，”巡回法官斯坦利·马库斯以及地区法官安娜·马纳斯科和特里·穆勒尔写道。
阿拉巴马州共和党官员请求最高法院介入，辩称该州2023年的选区地图“当时合法，现在也合法”。
Supreme Court lets Alabama use House map that favors GOP in midterms
2026-06-02T21:22:00-0400 / CBS News
By
Updated on: June 2, 2026 / 10:54 PM EDT / CBS News
Washington — The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional map that is more favorable to Republicans in this year’s midterm elections, despite a lower court finding that the plan intentionally discriminated against Black voters.
In a divided 6-3 decision, the high court agreed to freeze the district court decision that prevented the state from using the map drawn by Republicans in 2023, which included one majority-Black congressional district out of Alabama’s seven. The lower court had found that Alabama intentionally discriminated against Black voters when it crafted those House district lines three years ago.
The lower court judges instead ordered the state to keep using a court-selected congressional map, which was in place for the 2024 elections, that includes two districts where Black voters have the opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. Under that map, the state’s seven-member congressional delegation is divided between five Republicans and two Democrats.
Now, under the 2023 plan that Alabama can swap in as a result of the Supreme Court’s order, which reconfigures the district currently represented by Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures, Republicans are likely to be favored 6-1. A special primary for four House seats altered by the 2023 map is set for Aug. 11. Primaries for the other three districts were held May 19.
In Tuesday’s unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court wrote that the lower court “interposed itself into Alabama’s ongoing efforts to conduct its imminent 2026 congressional elections under maps that its elected representatives selected. Its view that conducting the elections under court-imposed maps would be more convenient for the State was not a valid justification for that intervention.”
The high court said that Alabama was likely to prevail on its argument that the 2023 map is lawful.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a dissent that was joined by the court’s two other liberal justices, arguing that setting aside the current congressional map — and reassigning many voters to new congressional districts — could lead to a “chaotic election, held under a never-before-used congressional map that intentionally discriminates against Black Alabamians.”
She said the court’s conservative majority “disregards both democratic values and the rule of law.”
Alabama GOP officials turned to the Supreme Court for emergency relief last week, after the district court’s decision finding the 2023 map unlawful because it purposefully discriminates based on race. They said that when drawing the district lines, mapmakers aimed to help Republicans and keep the Gulf Coast region together in one congressional district.
The Trump administration backed Alabama in its effort to put the congressional districts drawn in 2023 in place for the midterm elections, arguing that federal courts shouldn’t interfere with elections or usurp states’ role in drawing congressional districts.
But a group of voters and voting rights groups pushed back on Alabama’s assertion that it was seeking to achieve partisan goals when it drew the congressional map three years ago. In a filing with the Supreme Court, they said the legislature did not cite partisan goals at the time, and noted that the district court found “zero evidence” that mapmakers were motivated by party or incumbent protection.
“Granting Alabama’s request would insert the Court into an ongoing election in a manner that upsets settled expectations, causes voter confusion, and creates chaos and unworkable deadlines for even the most diligent election officials,” the voters, represented by the NAACP and the ACLU, said.
Kristen Clarke, general counsel of the NAACP, criticized the Supreme Court’s order, but encouraged Black voters to cast ballots in upcoming elections to express their dissent.
“The Supreme Court continues to unleash chaos in our democratic process, and with this latest action, gives Alabama approval to use a congressional map that had previously been found to be intentionally discriminatory,” she said in a statement. “This is a Court that is stripping Black voters of power and voice at a speed that would put Jim Crow jurists to shame.”
The legal battle involving Alabama’s voting boundaries posed an early test of the Supreme Court’s blockbuster decision in late April that weakened a key provision of the Voting Rights Act and invalidated a majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana. On the heels of that ruling, several states in the South, like Alabama, have moved to reconfigure House districts that have favored Democrats.
The high court’s decision came amid a separate push by President Trump for GOP-led states to redraw their congressional maps to bolster Republicans’ chances of holding onto their House majority in November, which set off a mid-decade redistricting battle.
Alabama has been involved in a protracted legal fight over its congressional boundaries that dates back to the redrawing of its House districts after the 2020 Census. After the Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that a congressional map adopted in 2021 — which included one majority-Black district — likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the state’s GOP-led legislature crafted a new map in the summer of 2023 that maintained a single majority-Black district.
But a district court blocked the state from using that map and found that it unlawfully diluted the votes of Black Alabamians. It ordered a special master to come up with a new plan, which was selected by the district court in October 2023 and used in the 2024 elections.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in the Louisiana voting rights case, Alabama asked the high court to lift the district court’s injunction and allow it to revive the 2023 map that had been blocked. The Supreme Court agreed to set aside the lower court’s decision and sent the case back for more proceedings.
When the three-judge district court panel took another look at the 2023 map, it maintained its earlier finding that the plan is racially discriminatory.
“Ultimately, we cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination,” Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus and District Judges Anna Manasco and Terry Moorer found.
Alabama Republican officials asked the Supreme Court to step in, arguing that the state’s 2023 map was “lawful then, and it is lawful now.”