政治
6分钟阅读
最高法院保守派可能显著改变2026年选举
作者:[琼·比斯库皮克],美国有线电视新闻网首席最高法院分析师
19分钟前
发布于2026年3月24日,美国东部时间凌晨3:00
主题标签:最高法院、选举权、国会新闻、人权
[查看全部主题]
[分享到Facebook][推文][邮件][链接][Threads]
已复制链接!
上排:首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨、大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯和塞缪尔·阿利托;下排:大法官尼尔·戈萨奇、布雷特·卡瓦诺和艾米·科尼·巴雷特
美国有线电视新闻网
美国最高法院周一似乎准备限制邮寄选票,这一举措将强化大法官们缩减选民保护措施的模式,从根本上有利于共和党利益和特朗普政府。
在一些大法官公开淡化内部分歧的同时,周一涉及”邮寄选票是否可在选举日后接收”的案件,暴露了左右两派对投票权的巨大分歧。
这一案件是两个可能显著影响即将到来的中期选举的重大最高法院争议之一。法院预计将于今年春季就路易斯安那州的一个待审案件作出裁决,该案件涉及《选举权法案》中旨在防止种族歧视的条款适用范围。
选举法争议对民主的影响不容忽视。谁投票决定谁获得公职,而谁掌权则决定塑造所有美国人生活的政策、资金和其他政府福利。
保守派大法官周一对密西西比州一项允许邮寄选票在选举日后五个工作日内凭邮戳接收的法律表示怀疑,认为其是否符合联邦选举法。这些可追溯至1845年的法律规定,联邦选举日为11月第一个星期一之后的星期二。
共和党全国委员会和其他反对密西西比州法律及类似措施的人士表示,这种迟到的选票会引发不确定性并加剧选举后混乱。
自由派大法官则强调对当今普遍存在的缺席投票做法的尊重。约30个州在不同程度上允许选举日前邮寄的选票在收到后仍被计票。
支持密西西比州的包括民主党全国委员会和民权组织,他们强调人们因年龄或残疾、工作或教育责任以及兵役等原因依赖缺席投票。他们表示,改变这一做法将打乱数百万美国选民的预期,这些选民因各州现行做法而相信,选举日后收到的选票仍会被计票。
在长达两小时的激烈辩论中,自由派的不满情绪显而易见。资深自由派大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔表示:”应该决定这个问题的不是法院,而是国会。”
右翼大法官质疑密西西比州的主张,认为从历史上看,国会希望所有选票都在单一的全国选举日当天收到。
保守派大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺抓住了”迟到选票存在欺诈担忧”的论点,并可能为回应民权活动人士对特定选民群体潜在伤害的指控,他向密西西比州副检察长斯科特·斯图尔特质问道:”你会说那些要求选举日当天收到选票的州是在剥夺选民权利吗?”
“不会,”斯图尔特回答,”合理的投票截止日期不会这样做。我会在这里加个注脚,即海外军事选民存在实际障碍。”
选举日只是一天吗?
根据宪法,各州负责选举的”时间、地点和方式”,但国会可以”制定或修改”这些规定。本案的核心是一系列联邦法律,它们规定了总统选举人团和国会议员的选举日期。
“《选举日法》采用了简单规则:各州必须在选举日确定官员最终人选,”斯图尔特向大法官们表示。他称,当选民”在选举日作出个人选择”时,即使邮寄选票未在当天收到,该规定也已得到满足。
斯图尔特在为该州共和党控制的立法机构通过的法律辩护时指出,这些法律并未排除任何截止日期延长,且数十年来国会一直尊重各州允许选举日后计票的做法。
代表共和党全国委员会和其他挑战者的律师保罗·克莱门特告诉大法官们,密西西比州的观点违反联邦法律,将导致选举结果进一步混乱。
“如果有人在选举日后的一天在格尔夫波特问选举是否结束,常识性答案是没有,还没结束。选票仍在陆续到来,”克莱门特说,”如果有人问谁赢了,真实答案是我们还不知道,因为选票仍在陆续到来。它们可能持续数周或数月。事实上,不同州的不同规则可能导致有或没有邮戳的选票以不同方式流入。这一现实驳斥了存在统一全国选举日的说法。”
保守派大法官表达了对无限期和极端可能性的担忧。
“你会遇到各种界限划分问题,”大法官塞缪尔·阿利托向斯图尔特指出,”有些州在选举数周后仍接受选票。那么是否没有限制?除非是总统选举人团任命日或下一届国会开始日…”
阿利托还提及了”欺诈选票”的幽灵。
“一些简报认为,如果选举日结束后大量选票突然出现并改变选举结果,会严重损害对选举结果的信心,”阿利托说。
特朗普政府曾毫无具体证据地提出欺诈指控,该政府与共和党共同反对密西西比州法律。唐纳德·特朗普总统试图终止大多数邮寄投票,并正施压国会通过一项联邦选举改革法案,该法案将增加严格的选民身份和公民身份证明要求。
“显然,他们强调了反欺诈主题,”斯图尔特回应阿利托时说,”但他们在本世纪没有引用过任何选举日后收到选票存在欺诈的例子。”
《选举权法案》的未来
周一,自由派大法官(由民主党任命)与保守派大法官(由共和党任命)的冲突,与10月关于《选举权法案》的听证会类似。
右翼大法官暗示可能会缩减1965年《选举权法案》的适用范围,该法案旨在确保黑人和其他少数族裔平等参与投票。这也将强化法院的一贯做法,即近几十年来,保守派多数派已逐步削弱这部里程碑法律的多项保护条款。
路易斯安那州案件争议的是”多数族裔选区”,这些选区用于纠正国会地图中稀释黑人和西班牙裔选民投票权的问题,并为他们提供选举偏好候选人的机会。
联邦法院在认定州立法机构在划分选区时存在歧视后,传统上会下令创建种族意识选区。
保守派中的几位大法官明确表示,他们认为这些可追溯至1960年代的种族意识措施在当代美国已不再必要。
周一的争论中也出现了类似的意识形态分歧。
卡根大法官质疑,如果密西西比州及其盟友败诉,联邦《选举日法》是否可能随后被发现优先于其他既定的州惯例。
“一旦我们认定这些未明确规定的法律实际上具有重大优先效力,我们会走向何方?”
主题标签:最高法院、选举权、国会新闻、人权
[查看全部主题]
[分享到Facebook][推文][邮件][链接][Threads]
已复制链接!
[广告反馈]
[订阅]
[登录]
我的账户
- [设置]
- [新闻通讯]
- [关注的主题]
- [退出]
您的CNN账户 [登录您的CNN账户]
[登录页面链接]
*
[收听][观看]
*
- [美国]
- [犯罪与司法]
- [移民]
- [教育]
- [交通]
- [种族与身份]
- [世界]
- [非洲]
- [美洲]
- [亚洲]
- [澳大利亚]
- [中国]
- [欧洲]
- [印度]
- [中东]
- [英国]
- [政治]
- [特朗普]
- [事实核查]
- [CNN民调]
- [2026年选举]
- [重新划分选区追踪]
- [爱泼斯坦文件]
- [商业]
- [科技]
- [媒体]
- [计算器]
- [视频]
- [市场]
- [盘前]
- [盘后]
- [恐惧与贪婪]
- [投资]
- [市场动态]
- [夜报]
- [健康]
- [生活,更美好]
- [健身]
- [饮食]
- [睡眠]
- [正念]
- [人际关系]
- [CNN精选]
- [电子]
- [时尚]
- [美容]
- [健康与健身]
- [家居]
- [评论]
- [优惠]
- [礼物]
- [旅行]
- [户外]
- [宠物]
- [娱乐]
- [电影]
- [电视]
- [名人]
- [科技]
- [创新]
- [风格]
- [艺术]
- [设计]
- [时尚]
- [建筑]
- [奢华]
- [美容]
- [视频]
- [旅行]
- [目的地]
- [美食与饮品]
- [住宿]
- [新闻]
- [视频]
- [体育]
- [职业橄榄球]
- [大学橄榄球]
- [篮球]
- [棒球]
- [足球]
- [奥运会]
- [科学]
- [太空]
- [生活]
- [发掘]
- [气候]
- [解决方案]
- [天气]
- [天气]
- [视频]
- [气候]
- [俄乌战争]
- [以哈战争]
- [观看]
- [精选]
- [节目与电影]
- [有线电视]
- [片段]
- [头条新闻]
- [CNN短片]
- [节目列表]
- [CNN 10]
- [CNN电视节目表]
- [收听]
- [CNN五件事]
- [桑杰·古普塔博士追踪生命]
- [奥迪·科尼什任务]
- [一件事]
- [拔河]
- [CNN政治简报]
- [斧头档案]
- [安德森·库珀全记录]
- [所有CNN音频播客]
- [游戏]
- [每日填字]
- [字母填字]
- [照片洗牌]
- [Sudoblock]
- [数独]
- [五件事测验]
- [亚马逊Prime日]
- [关于CNN]
- [订阅]
- [照片]
- [调查]
- [CNN人物]
- [CNN领导层]
- [CNN新闻通讯]
- [在CNN工作]
*
[登录页面]
The Supreme Court’s conservatives could significantly alter the 2026 election | CNN Politics
Politics6 min read
The Supreme Court’s conservatives could significantly alter the 2026 election
By
[Joan Biskupic]
, CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst
19 min ago
PUBLISHED Mar 24, 2026, 3:00 AM ET
Supreme Court Voting rights Congressional news Human rights
[See all topics]
Facebook Tweet[Email]Link Threads
Link Copied!
Top row: Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito; Bottom row: Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett
CNN
The Supreme Court on Monday appeared ready to limit mail-in ballots, a move that would reinforce the justices’ pattern of shrinking voter protections and that has, at bottom, favored Republican interests and the Trump administration.
And at a time when some justices publicly minimize their internal divisions, Monday’s case testing whether mail-in ballots may be received after Election Day exposed the chasm between the left and right with respect to ballot access.
The case is one of two major Supreme Court disputes that could significantly affect the upcoming midterm elections. The court is expected to rule this spring on a pending case from Louisiana that involves the reach of a Voting Rights Act provision intended to protect against race discrimination.
Ad Feedback
The consequences of election-law disputes to democracy cannot be overstated. Who votes determines who obtains public office. And who holds office determines the policies, funding and other government benefits that shape the lives of all Americans.
Conservative justices expressed suspicion Monday that a Mississippi law permitting ballots with a timely postmark to be received within five business days of the election is valid under federal election laws. Those statutes, dating to 1845, establish the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the date for federal elections.
As a practical matter, the Republican National Committee and other challengers to the Mississippi law and similar measures say such late-arriving ballots generate uncertainty and add to post-election chaos.
Liberal justices, meanwhile, emphasized regard for today’s widespread absentee-voting practices. About 30 states, to varying degrees, allow ballots that were mailed by Election Day to be counted if received soon after.
Among those supporting Mississippi are the Democratic National Committee and civil rights groups that emphasize people’s reliance on absentee voting for reasons of age or disability, work or educational responsibilities, and military service. They say a change would upset the expectations of millions of American voters who rely on absentee ballots and who, because of prevailing state practices, believe that a ballot that arrives just after Election Day will still be counted.
During the intense two hours of arguments, frustration on the left wing was palpable. “The people who should decide this issue are not the courts but Congress,” senior liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.
Right-wing justices poked holes in Mississippi’s claims and suggested they believed that, historically, Congress wanted all ballots to be received by a single national election day.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh latched onto arguments that late-arriving ballots bring concerns of fraud. And perhaps to counter claims by civil rights activists about the potential harm to certain classes of voters, he challenged Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart at one point: “Would you say that the states that require receipt by Election Day are disenfranchising voters?”
“No,” Stewart replied. “A reasonable ballot deadline does not do that. I would (add an) asterisk just there are the practical barriers for those overseas military voters.”
Is Election Day just one day?
Under the Constitution, states are responsible for the “times, places and manner” of elections, but Congress can “make or alter” such regulations. At the heart of the case is a series of federal statutes that set the election date for presidential electors and members of Congress.
“The Election Day statutes adopt a simple rule: States must make a final choice of officers by Election Day,” Stewart told the justices. He said that mandate is satisfied when voters “make their individual selections by Election Day,” even if the mailed ballot does not arrive then.
Stewart, defending a statute adopted by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature, noted that the statutes do not preclude any deadline extensions and that for decades Congress has respected state policies allowing the counting of ballots received after Election Day.
Lawyer Paul Clement, representing the RNC and other challengers, told the justices that Mississippi’s view defies federal law and would lead to further confusion in election results.
“If somebody in Gulfport the day after the election asks is the election over, the commonsense answer is no, it’s not. The ballots are still coming in,” Clement said. “And if somebody asks who won, the truthful answer is we don’t know why yet. The ballots are still coming in. And they may trickle in for weeks or months. And, in fact, they may trickle in for weeks or months with or without a postmark in differing ways in differing states. That reality gives the lie to the idea that we have a uniform national election day.”
Conservative justices voiced such fears of open-ended and extreme possibilities.
“You have a variety of line-drawing problems,” Justice Samuel Alito told Stewart, noting that a few states accept ballots weeks after an election. “So there’s no limit? Except I suppose the day when the presidential electors have to be appointed or the day when the next Congress begins …”
Alito also raised the specter of fraudulent ballots.
“Some of the briefs have argued that confidence in election outcomes can be seriously undermined if the apparent outcome of the election, on the day after the polls close, is radically flipped by the acceptance later of a big stash of ballots that flip the election,” Alito said.
Claims of fraud, raised without specific evidence, have been routine for the Trump administration, which argued with the Republican Party against the Mississippi law. President Donald Trump has sought to end most mail-in voting and is pressuring Congress to adopt a federal elections overhaul bill that would add strict voter-identification and proof-of-citizenship requirements.
“Obviously, they’ve sounded the antifraud theme,” Stewart said as he responded to Alito, adding, “They haven’t cited a single example of fraud from post-Election Day ballot receipt in this century.”
Future of the Voting Rights Act
Monday’s clash between the Democratic-appointed liberals on the bench and the Republican-appointed conservatives mirrored October’s hearing over the Voting Rights Act.
Justices on the right signaled they are likely to curtail the reach of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, intended to ensure equal access to the polls for Black voters and other racial minorities. That would buttress the court’s pattern, too, as in recent decades the conservative majority has erased multiple protections under the milestone law.
In dispute in that Louisiana case are “majority-minority” districts, used to remedy congressional maps that diluted the voting power of Black and Hispanic voters and to give them an opportunity to elect a preferred candidate.
Federal courts have traditionally ordered the creation of race-conscious districts after a finding that a state legislature discriminated as it drew map lines.
Several justices on the conservative wing have made clear they believe such race-conscious measures, tracing to the 1960s, simply are no longer needed in contemporary America.
A similar ideological split arose in the dueling positions Monday.
Kagan questioned whether, if Mississippi and its allies lose, federal Election Day statutes might later be found to preempt other established state practices.
“Once we say that these statutes, which don’t say anything, actually have some significant preemptive effect, where are going to end up?”
Supreme Court Voting rights Congressional news Human rights
[See all topics]
Facebook Tweet[Email]Link Threads
Link Copied!
Ad Feedback
Subscribe
Sign in
My Account
- [Settings]
- [Newsletters]
- [Topics you follow]
- [Sign out]
Your CNN account Sign in to your CNN account
[](https://www.cnn.com/account/log-in)
*
[Listen][Watch]
*
- [US]
- [Crime & Justice]
- [Immigration]
- [Education]
- [Transportation]
- [Race & Identity]
- [World]
- [Africa]
- [Americas]
- [Asia]
- [Australia]
- [China]
- [Europe]
- [India]
- [Middle East]
- [United Kingdom]
- [Politics]
- [Trump]
- [Facts First]
- [CNN Polls]
- [2026 Elections]
- [Redistricting Tracker]
- [Epstein Files]
- [Business]
- [Tech]
- [Media]
- [Calculators]
- [Videos]
- [Markets]
- [Pre-markets]
- [After-Hours]
- [Fear & Greed]
- [Investing]
- [Markets Now]
- [Nightcap]
- [Health]
- [Life, But Better]
- [Fitness]
- [Food]
- [Sleep]
- [Mindfulness]
- [Relationships]
- [CNN Underscored]
- [Electronics]
- [Fashion]
- [Beauty]
- [Health & Fitness]
- [Home]
- [Reviews]
- [Deals]
- [Gifts]
- [Travel]
- [Outdoors]
- [Pets]
- [Entertainment]
- [Movies]
- [Television]
- [Celebrity]
- [Tech]
- [Innovate]
- [Style]
- [Arts]
- [Design]
- [Fashion]
- [Architecture]
- [Luxury]
- [Beauty]
- [Video]
- [Travel]
- [Destinations]
- [Food & Drink]
- [Stay]
- [News]
- [Videos]
- [Sports]
- [Pro Football]
- [College Football]
- [Basketball]
- [Baseball]
- [Soccer]
- [Olympics]
- [Science]
- [Space]
- [Life]
- [Unearthed]
- [Climate]
- [Solutions]
- [Weather]
- [Weather]
- [Video]
- [Climate]
- [Ukraine-Russia War]
- [Israel-Hamas War]
- [Watch]
- [Featured]
- [Shows & Films]
- [Network TV]
- [Clips]
- [CNN Headlines]
- [CNN Shorts]
- [Shows A-Z]
- [CNN 10]
- [CNN TV Schedules]
- [Listen]
- [CNN 5 Things]
- [Chasing Life with Dr. Sanjay Gupta]
- [The Assignment with Audie Cornish]
- [One Thing]
- [Tug of War]
- [CNN Political Briefing]
- [The Axe Files]
- [All There Is with Anderson Cooper]
- [All CNN Audio podcasts]
- [Games]
- [Daily Crossword]
- [Jumble Crossword]
- [Photo Shuffle]
- [Sudoblock]
- [Sudoku]
- [5 Things Quiz]
- [Amazon Prime Day]
- [About CNN]
- [Subscribe]
- [Photos]
- [Investigations]
- [CNN Profiles]
- [CNN Leadership]
- [CNN Newsletters]
- [Work for CNN]
*
[](https://www.cnn.com/
发表回复