2026年5月27日 美国东部时间下午12:28 / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：约翰·弗里茨
3小时前发布
发布于2026年5月27日，美国东部时间下午12:28
2026年5月14日（周四），美国最高法院位于华盛顿特区。
埃里克·李/彭博社/盖蒂图片社
内容摘要
- 阿拉巴马州官员已请求最高法院允许使用一份联邦法院认定存在歧视黑人选民行为的国会选区地图。
- 此次紧急上诉旨在为中期选举启用该地图，此举可能会推翻民主党众议员绍马里·菲格斯的席位。
- 阿拉巴马州辩称，最高法院近期一项削弱《选举权法案》效力的裁决证明其立场合理，尽管下级法院提出了反对意见。
AI生成的摘要已由CNN编辑审核。
阿拉巴马州官员于周三再次向最高法院提起紧急上诉，请求允许使用一份有望在明年为众议院增加一个共和党席位的选区地图，这再次将大法官们卷入由唐纳德·特朗普总统引发的全国范围内中期选举前重新划分选区的争端中。
阿拉巴马州的共和党官员正在就联邦法院的一项裁决提起上诉，该裁决阻止该州使用一份有望让共和党有机会推翻民主党众议员绍马里·菲格斯席位的国会选区地图。菲格斯是该州7名国会代表团成员中的两名黑人选议员之一。由三名法官组成的特别法庭认定，阿拉巴马州目前希望在今年中期选举中使用的该选区地图故意歧视黑人选民。
此次紧急上诉是最高法院4月底一项重磅裁决的最新后续影响，该裁决削弱了《选举权法案》在限制重新划分选区歧视方面的效力。这项在“路易斯安那州诉卡莱”案中以6票对3票作出的裁决，推动共和党人今年重新划分州选区地图，以帮助特朗普所在政党保住众议院控制权。
“卡莱案证明了阿拉巴马州2023年计划的合法性，”阿拉巴马州在向最高法院提交的文件中表示，“但地区法院却在一周内裁定，卡莱案并未带来任何改变。”
阿拉巴马州请求最高法院在周一之前对其请求作出裁决。
在最新的上诉中，阿拉巴马州部分辩称，距离选举已为时过近，联邦法院无权在今年中期选举前更改选区地图。该州的论点依据是所谓的“珀塞尔原则”，这一司法原则警告联邦法院不要在选举前最后时刻更改投票规则的现状。
尽管阿拉巴马州已于本月初完成了初选，但共和党州长凯·艾维已签署立法，授权如果法院允许该州使用新地图，将于8月为受影响的国会选区举行特别选举。
此次最新上诉背后的法律历史错综复杂，可追溯至特朗普的第二任期，阿拉巴马州多次与民权团体和联邦法院对簿公堂。该州的国会选区地图此前已经两次提交至最高法院。
2023年，最高法院实际上要求阿拉巴马州重新划分国会选区地图，以增设一个黑人选民占多数的选区，维持了下级法院的裁决，即该州通过带有歧视性的选区地图可能违反了《选举权法案》。最终，阿拉巴马州选民在2024年的投票中使用了法院划定的国会选区地图，该地图最终选出了两名黑人选民出身的民主党众议员。
相关报道 2026年5月26日（周二），得克萨斯州总检察长肯·帕克斯顿在得克萨斯州普莱诺的初选决选选举之夜活动上登台演讲时挥手致意。托尼·古铁雷斯/美联社 特朗普完成其共和党复仇月，以及得克萨斯州决选的其他要点 阅读时长7分钟
在阿拉巴马州继续就该地图提起上诉的同时，最高法院于4月29日就《选举权法案》相关案件作出裁决。这项引发争议的裁决涉及路易斯安那州的国会选区地图，但该裁决也大幅增加了黑人选民和民权团体挑战潜在歧视性地图的难度。基于这项重大裁决，阿拉巴马州在5月中旬敦促最高法院在今年中期选举前废除法院划定的选区地图。最高法院的保守派多数于5月11日同意了这一请求，三名自由派大法官持反对意见。
但阿拉巴马州的一个由三名法官组成的特别法庭于周二再次一致驳回了该州的地图请求。该法庭裁定，即便按照最高法院新确立的高标准，阿拉巴马州仍可能违反了《选举权法案》，同时也违反了第十四修正案的平等保护条款。
“归根结底，我们无法认同让阿拉巴马州选民在2026年选举中，在带有故意基于种族歧视色彩的选区划分方案下投票，”该法庭在裁决书中写道。
Alabama urges US Supreme Court to bring back GOP-friendly House map for midterm elections
2026-05-27 12:28 PM ET / CNN
By John Fritze
3 hr ago
PUBLISHED May 27, 2026, 12:28 PM ET
The US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on Thursday, May 14, 2026.
Eric Lee/Bloomberg/Getty Images
Summary
- Alabama officials have asked the Supreme Court to allow use of a congressional map that a federal court found discriminated against Black voters.
- The emergency appeal seeks to implement the map for the midterm elections, potentially unseating Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures.
- Alabama argues a recent Supreme Court ruling weakening the Voting Rights Act vindicates its position despite lower court objections.
AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.
Alabama officials returned to the Supreme Court on Wednesday with an emergency appeal seeking permission to use a map that would likely add a Republican seat to the House of Representatives next year, once again thrusting the justices into the nationwide mid-decade redistricting battle instigated by President Donald Trump.
Republican officials in Alabama are appealing a decision from a federal court that blocked the state from using a congressional map that would give the GOP a chance to unseat Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures, one of two Black members of the state’s seven-seat congressional delegation. That special three-judge court found that the state intentionally discriminated against Black voters with the map it now wants to use for this year’s midterm elections.
The short-fuse appeal is the latest fallout from the Supreme Court’s blockbuster decision in late April gutting the power of the Voting Rights Act to restrain discrimination in redistricting. That 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais has boosted Republican efforts to redraw state maps this year to help the president’s party retain control of the House.
“Callais vindicates Alabama’s position on the lawfulness of the 2023 plan,” the state told the Supreme Court. “Yet the district court decided in one week that Callais changed nothing.”
Alabama asked for the Supreme Court to decide on its request by Monday.
In its latest appeal, Alabama argues in part that it is too close to the election for federal courts to order changes to the map for this year’s midterm election. The state’s argument relies on what’s known as the “Purcell principle,” a judicial doctrine that warns federal courts against making last-minute changes to the status quo of voting rules before an election.
Even though Alabama already held its primary election earlier this month, Republican Gov. Kay Ivey has signed legislation authorizing special elections in August for the affected congressional districts if courts allow the state to use its new map.
The latest appeal follows a complicated legal history that predated Trump’s second term and that has repeatedly pitted Alabama against civil rights groups and federal courts. The state’s congressional map has already made it up to the Supreme Court twice before.
The Supreme Court in 2023 effectively required Alabama to redraw its congressional map to allow for an additional Black majority district, upholding a lower court decision that found the state likely violated the Voting Rights Act by enacting a discriminatory map. Ultimately, voters in Alabama cast their 2024 ballots under a court-drawn congressional map that led to the election of two Black and Democratic representatives.
Related article Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton waves as he takes the stage to speak during a primary runoff election night event in Plano, Texas, on Tuesday, May 26. Tony Gutierrez/AP Trump completes his month of GOP revenge, and other takeaways from the Texas runoffs 7 min read
While Alabama continued to challenge that map on appeal, the Supreme Court decided the Voting Rights Act case on April 29. That contentious ruling dealt with a congressional map in Louisiana, but the decision also made it far harder for Black voters and civil rights groups to challenge potentially discriminatory maps. Based on that major decision, Alabama urged the Supreme Court in mid-May to toss out the court-ordered map in time for this year’s midterm election. The court’s conservative majority agreed to that request on May 11 over the dissent from three liberal justices.
But a special three-judge court in Alabama unanimously shot down the state’s map again Tuesday. The court ruled that Alabama likely violated the Voting Rights Act, even with the Supreme Court’s new high standard, as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
“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,” the court wrote.
发表回复