2026-05-31T10:02:03.97Z / reuters.com
- 摘要
- 大法官将就另外两起重大选举法案件作出裁决
- 万斯与其他共和党人旨在削弱竞选资金限制
- 共和党挑战密西西比州邮寄选票政策
- 最高法院已在选区重划之争中助力共和党
5月31日路透社电——美国最高法院今年已在全国范围内的选举地图重划之争中，为唐纳德·特朗普总统及其共和党同僚提供了助力。在即将到来的几周内，它可能会在11月选举前的另外两起重大选举相关案件中作出有利于共和党人的裁决，此次选举将决定国会的控制权归属。
在一起来自密西西比州的案件中，共和党官员正试图废除州法律，该法律允许只要在选举日前加盖邮戳，迟到的邮寄选票仍可被计入选票总数。特朗普一直试图质疑邮寄选票的安全性，尽管选民欺诈的证据极为罕见，且民主党选民比共和党选民更倾向于使用这种投票方式。
通过《每日案卷》新闻简报，将最新法律新闻直接发送到您的收件箱，开启您的清晨时光。点击此处订阅。
在另一起涉及特朗普副手J·D·万斯的案件中，共和党人正寻求进一步削弱对政治竞选资金的法律限制—— specifically涉及政党组织与候选人之间的协调支出。
他们辩称，此类限制违反了美国宪法第一修正案中保护公民不受政府剥夺言论自由的条款。最高法院已证实对这类论点持接受态度，包括其2010年具有里程碑意义的“联合公民诉联邦选举委员会”案判决。
两起案件的裁决预计将在6月底前后作出。
共和党人在11月3日的中期选举中，将在众议院和参议院都维持微弱多数优势。如果民主党赢得任何一院的控制权，他们可能会阻碍特朗普的立法议程，并对他及其政府展开调查。
选举权案件裁决
最高法院目前拥有6比3的保守派多数席位。在4月一项由保守派大法官主导的来自路易斯安那州的案件判决中，最高法院削弱了《选举权法案》的一项关键条款，使得根据这项具有里程碑意义的民权法律，质疑选举地图存在种族歧视变得更加困难。
这项判决为共和党在中期选举前带来了直接优势，尽管法律专家表示，即将到来的两项裁决的影响更难估量。
《选举权法案》的这项判决为共和党州议员打开了大门，使其能够在全美南部地区解散民主党掌控的、黑人和拉丁裔人口众多的国会选区，这可能会在未来多年为共和党带来选举优势。黑人和西班牙裔选民通常会投票给民主党候选人。
圣路易斯华盛顿大学法学院教授特拉维斯·克拉姆表示，这项判决对共和党来说是“福音”。
部分得益于这项判决，共和党在11月的选举中有望通过选区重划——即重新划定投票区边界——的方式，夺取多达12个目前由民主党掌控的国会众议院席位。
11月的选举中不利于共和党的因素包括：受不受欢迎的伊朗战争及其导致的汽油价格上涨影响，特朗普的支持率持续下滑，以及历史上总统所在政党会在中期选举中失去国会席位的趋势。
竞选资金案件
万斯与其他共和党人就下级法院的一项裁决提起上诉，该裁决维持了对政党在其支持的候选人参与下用于竞选的资金数额的限制——这类支出被称为协调党派支出。2022年万斯在俄亥俄州竞选联邦参议员期间，与其他挑战者一同提起了诉讼。
根据1971年美国联邦选举筹款监管的基础法律，政党为支持或反对某一候选人而进行的、未与候选人竞选团队协调的支出，被视为独立支出，不受金额限制。但法律确实限制了政党与竞选团队之间的协调捐款。
这些限制的支持者表示，它们有助于防止腐败。他们称，如果没有这些限制，富有的捐赠者可以通过政治党派向候选人输送巨额资金，从而规避个人在每个选举周期内向候选人捐款的限额，以此讨好候选人。
保守派选举法律师丹·贝克尔表示，废除对协调支出的限制将加强政治党派，与特殊利益集团相比，“政党通常会对美国政治产生温和化的影响”。
“实力强大的政党总体上有利于政治体制，”贝克尔说道，他曾代表共和党候选人和右翼组织。
在去年12月的案件辩论中，保守派大法官似乎对反对这些限制的第一修正案论点持同情态度。
明尼苏达大学政治学教授蒂莫西·约翰逊表示，作出有利于共和党人的裁决似乎是大概率事件，这可能会让他们利用相对于民主党人的筹款优势。
三大共和党委员会——共和党全国委员会、全国共和党国会委员会和全国共和党参议员委员会——在4月底拥有2.51亿美元现金且无债务。这一数额约为民主党对应委员会所持有约1.25亿美元资金的两倍，民主党委员会还背负着超过1700万美元的债务。
“在党派委员会的资金方面，共和党无疑拥有优势，”约翰逊说道。“一旦裁决公布，这些委员会与候选人之间几乎可以立即展开协调。”
约翰逊补充道，一些处于高关注度竞选活动中的民主党个别候选人筹款业绩斐然，这可能会削弱有利于共和党人的裁决所带来的影响。
这项裁决可能会促使政党委员会寻求候选人长期以来享有的电视和广播广告折扣费率，不过选举法律专家表示，这将引发一个未经检验的法律问题。
在“联合公民”案的裁决中，最高法院援引第一修正案，废除了竞选资金限制，允许企业和工会等外部团体在选举中支出无限金额。
邮寄选票案件
最高法院在邮寄选票“宽限期”案件中的裁决可能会在全国范围内催生更严格的投票规则。
邮寄投票在部分共和党选民中颇为常见，尤其是农村和年长的选民。但特朗普在2020年败选给民主党人乔·拜登后，关于邮寄选票存在广泛选民欺诈的虚假言论，使得这种投票方式在共和党人中的受欢迎程度有所下降。
特朗普于3月签署了一项旨在收紧邮寄投票规则的行政命令，引发了法律挑战，争议焦点在于他的指令是否侵犯了各州规范选举的宪法权利。
根据麻省理工学院选举实验室的数据，在2024年美国大选中，37%的民主党选民表示通过邮寄方式投票，而共和党选民的这一比例为24%。在新冠疫情期间举行的2020年大选中，60%的民主党选民和32%的共和党选民通过邮寄方式投票。
最高法院于3月就密西西比州的上诉进行了听证，下级法院此前裁定该州的邮寄选票法非法，这一挑战由该州共和党提起。该法律规定，只要在选举日前加盖邮戳，并在选举日后五个工作日内收到，邮寄选票即可被计入选票总数。
此次争议涉及联邦规定的联邦选举日期是否优先于任何允许在选举日后接收选票的州法律。
在3月的案件辩论中，大多数大法官似乎准备宣布密西西比州的法律无效。
根据全国州议会会议的数据，14个州加上关岛、波多黎各、美属维尔京群岛和华盛顿哥伦比亚特区，会接受并统计在选举日后收到但在选举日当天或之前（有时仅指选举日前）加盖邮戳的邮寄选票。
克拉姆表示，大法官可能会宣布密西西比州的法律无效，但根据“珀塞尔原则”这一法律概念，在选举临近时避免大幅修改投票规则以防止选民混淆，该法律可能会在中期选举期间继续有效。
民主党全国委员会提交的法律简报警告称，如果法院在该案件中支持共和党，将带来“灾难性后果”。
该简报称，废除密西西比州的法律并对各州施加严格的选举日邮寄选票接收截止期限，可能会剥夺数百万选民的选举权，“包括驻扎海外的军人、海外公民、农村选民、老年人和残疾选民，以及缺乏可靠交通方式的选民”。
自由意志主义智库R街研究所的研究员克里斯·麦卡锡认为，要求邮寄选票在选举日当天送达是合理的，但他表示，在选举仅剩数月之际实施新规则可能会面临行政挑战。
“选举办公室在选举前发布的所有选民沟通和信息，包括告知选票截止日期的内容，都是提前很久准备的，”麦卡锡说道。“其中一些内容需要重新印制。”
简·沃尔夫报道；威尔·邓汉姆编辑
How the Supreme Court is reshaping the US midterm elections
2026-05-31T10:02:03.97Z / reuters.com
- Summary
- Justices due to rule in two more major election-law cases
- Vance and other Republicans target campaign finance curbs
- Republicans challenge Mississippi mail-in ballot policy
- Court already boosted Republicans in redistricting fight
May 31 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court this year already has given a boost to President Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans in the nationwide battle over redrawing electoral maps. In the coming weeks, it could rule in favor of the Republicans in two more significant cases related to elections ahead of the November elections that will decide control of Congress.
In a case from Mississippi, Republican Party officials are seeking to strike down state laws that allow late-arriving mail ballots to be counted as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Trump has sought to cast doubt on the security of mail-in ballots, though evidence of voter fraud is rare, and Democratic voters tend to use this mode of voting more than Republicans.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
In a separate case involving Trump’s Vice President JD Vance, Republicans are seeking to further chip away at legal limits on money in political campaigns – specifically involving spending coordinated between party organizations and candidates.
They argue such curbs violate the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protections against government abridgment of freedom of speech. The court has proven receptive to such an argument, including in its landmark 2010 decision in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Rulings in both cases are expected by around the end of June.
Republicans are defending slim majorities in both the House of Representatives and Senate in the November 3 midterms. If Democrats win control of either chamber, they could impede Trump’s legislative agenda and mount investigations of him and his administration.
VOTING RIGHTS CASE RULING
The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. In an April decision powered by the conservative justices in a case from Louisiana, it gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, making it harder to challenge electoral maps as racially discriminatory under the landmark civil rights law.
That decision provided an immediate advantage to Trump’s party ahead of the midterms, though legal experts said the impact of the two forthcoming rulings is harder to gauge.
The Voting Rights Act ruling opened the door for Republican state legislators to dismantle Democratic-held U.S. House districts with large Black or Latino populations across the South, potentially giving Republicans an electoral advantage for years to come. Black and Hispanic voters tend to vote for Democratic candidates.
That decision has been a “boon for Republicans,” said Travis Crum, a Washington University in St. Louis School of Law professor.
Thanks in part to that ruling, Republicans are positioned in November to gain up to a dozen U.S. House seats currently held by Democrats through the process of redistricting – redrawing the boundaries of voting districts.
Working against Republicans in November are Trump’s sagging approval ratings, as measured by public opinion polls, amid the unpopular Iran war and the higher gasoline prices it caused, and the historical trend of a president’s party losing congressional seats in midterms.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASE
Vance and other Republicans appealed a lower court’s ruling that upheld restrictions on the amount of money parties can spend on campaigns with input from candidates they support – called coordinated party expenditures. Vance was running for the U.S. Senate in Ohio in 2022 when he and other challengers sued.
Under the bedrock 1971 law regulating fundraising in U.S. federal elections, spending by a political party to advocate for or against a candidate that is not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign is considered an independent expenditure not subject to amount limits. But it does restrict contributions coordinated between a party and a campaign.
Supporters of these restrictions have said they help prevent corruption. Without them, they said, wealthy donors could curry favor with candidates by routing massive sums to them through political parties, evading limits on how much any individual can donate to a candidate per election cycle.
Conservative election law attorney Dan Backer said striking down limits on coordinated spending would strengthen political parties, which “have a generally moderating impact” on U.S. politics compared to special interest groups.
“The overall political system is benefited by very strong parties,” said Backer, who has represented Republican candidates and right-leaning organizations.
During December arguments in the case, conservative justices appeared sympathetic to the First Amendment argument against these limits.
University of Minnesota political science professor Timothy Johnson said a ruling in favor of the Republicans seems likely, and it could let them capitalize on their fundraising advantage over the Democrats.
Three major Republican committees – the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee – ended April with $251 million in cash and no debt. That was about double the roughly $125 million held by their Democratic counterparts, who also carried more than $17 million in debt.
“There certainly is an advantage, monetarily, on the Republican side in terms of the party committees,” Johnson said. “Once that ruling comes down, there could be coordination between those committees and candidates pretty instantaneously.”
Johnson added that some individual Democratic candidates in high-profile races have impressive fundraising hauls that could blunt the impact of a ruling in favor of the Republicans.
The ruling may lead party committees to seek the same discounted rates for television and radio advertisements that candidates have long received, though election law specialists said this would raise an untested legal question.
In the Citizens United ruling, the court cited the First Amendment, invalidating campaign finance limits and letting corporations and other outside groups such as labor unions spend unlimited money on elections.
MAIL-IN BALLOTS CASE
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the mail-in ballots “grace period” case could lead to stricter voting rules around the country.
Casting ballots by mail has been common among some Republican voters, particularly among rural and older ones. But Trump’s false claims about widespread voter fraud, including allegations involving mailed ballots, after he lost the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, have made the practice less popular among Republicans.
Trump in March signed an executive order aiming to tighten mail-in voting rules, drawing legal challenges involving whether his directive infringed on the constitutional rights of individual states to regulate elections.
In the 2024 U.S. election, 37% of Democratic voters reported casting ballots by mail, compared to 24% of Republicans, according to the MIT Election Lab. In the 2020 election conducted during the COVID pandemic, 60% of Democratic voters and 32% of Republican voters cast mail-in ballots.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in March in Mississippi’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling that deemed its mail-in ballot law illegal in a challenge by the state’s Republican Party. The law permits mail-in ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by, and then received within five business days of, Election Day.
The dispute involved whether federal laws setting the dates for federal elections preempt any state laws that allow ballots to be received after Election Day.
During March arguments in the case, a majority of the justices appeared ready to invalidate Mississippi’s law.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 14 states, plus Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C., accept and count mailed ballots if they are received after Election Day but postmarked on or before – sometimes only before – Election Day.
Crum said the justices could strike down Mississippi’s law but let it remain in effect for the midterms under a legal concept called the Purcell principle under which courts should strive to avoid changing voting rules too close to an election to avoid voter confusion.
The Democratic National Committee filed a legal brief warning of “disastrous consequences” if the court backs the Republicans in the case.
Striking down Mississippi’s law, it said, and imposing on states an inflexible Election Day deadline for receiving mail-in ballots could disenfranchise millions of voters, “including military voters stationed away from home, overseas citizens, rural voters, elderly and disabled voters, and voters lacking reliable transportation.”
Chris McIsaac, a researcher at the R Street Institute libertarian think tank, viewed requiring mail ballots to arrive by Election Day as reasonable, but said there could be administrative challenges to implementing new rules just months before an election.
“All of the voter communications and information that election offices publish in advance of elections that give the instructions for when ballots are due – that stuff happens pretty far in advance,” McIsaac said. “Some of that would need to be reprinted.”
Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Will Dunham