2026-05-03 10:05 AM UTC / 路透社
作者：约瑟夫·阿克斯
2026年5月3日 10:05 UTC 更新于1小时前
节点运行失败
2026年2月24日，美国总统唐纳德·特朗普抵达美国华盛顿特区国会大厦众议院会议厅，向国会联席会议发表国情咨文。REUTERS/EVELYN HOCKSTEIN 购买授权，将在新标签页打开
5月3日（路透社）——在本周三美国最高法院的裁决为更激进的政治化选区划分打开大门之前，今年秋季中期选举中具有竞争力的美国众议院选区数量已经接近历史低位。
专家表示，最高法院的这项裁决正值一场前所未有的全国性国会选区划分争议之际，可能会开启一个赤裸裸的党派操纵选区的新时代，导致更缺乏竞争力的选举，让选民的权力比以往任何时候都更小。
通过《每日案卷》通讯将最新法律新闻直接发送到您的收件箱，开启您的早晨。点击此处订阅。
广告 · 滚动继续
路透社的一项分析发现，缺乏竞争席位意味着美国众议院的控制权可能在11月的中期选举中由不到10%的美国人决定，绝大多数选区的赢家在任何选票投出之前就几乎已经板上钉钉。
根据该分析，众议院435个席位中目前仅有32个被视为具有竞争力。这32个选区被三大独立选举预测机构——库克政治报告、弗吉尼亚大学水晶球报告和内部选举——评为摇摆不定或倾向民主党或共和党。
广告 · 滚动继续
其他绝大多数选区已经基本没有悬念。例如，库克政治报告将超过85%的众议院席位，即375个席位，评为“绝对共和党”或“绝对民主党”，这意味着其分析师预计这些席位不会受到严肃挑战。根据库克的数据，另有28个选区属于“可能”共和党或民主党掌控，这意味着它们目前不具有竞争力，但在新的情况下可能会发生变化。
根据库克此前的评级档案，今年是至少自2008年以来，选举周期这个阶段众议院竞争席位最少的一次。
民主党只需额外赢得3个席位就能获得众议院多数控制权，从而有权阻止唐纳德·特朗普总统的立法议程，并启动对其政府的调查。
众议院竞争战场不断缩小是多种因素共同作用的结果，包括政治两极分化加剧。但专家表示，国会选区划分的武器化，或称操纵选区边界——自去年唐纳德·特朗普开始推动共和党人绘制新选区地图以来，这一做法已经大幅升级——是一个关键因素，而且在最高法院的裁决之后，这种情况只会加速恶化。
“我们现在正处于选区操纵战争的周期中，”洛约拉法学院教授贾斯汀·莱维特说道，他运营着“重新划分选区全解析”网站。“曾经的冷战已经变得非常激烈。”
最高法院削弱了联邦《选举权法案》中的一项条款，该条款曾阻止州议会解散以少数族裔选民为主的选区。政治观察人士预计，由共和党控制的州将瞄准十几个或更多此前享有更强保护的民主党掌控的黑人选区和拉丁裔选区。
“我认为情况在好转之前会变得更糟，”莱维特说。“而且我认为情况还有很大的恶化空间。”
「毫无约束」
库克政治报告的众议院分析师马修·克莱因表示，缺乏竞争选区会对国会产生影响。如果众议院候选人只需讨好其基础选民就能赢得选举，而无需争取温和派或反对党成员，那么他们更有可能走向极端，而非政治中间立场。
“如果你看看20年前、30年前甚至更早的国会，你会看到一个既不那么尖锐对立，也更具生产力的国会，”他说。“过去，重大议题的法案会以压倒性多数通过。我们现在已经很少看到这种情况了。”
操纵选区边界长期以来一直是美国民主的一个特征，但近年来，随着法律和体制上的约束被打破，这种做法变得愈发猖獗。2019年，最高法院裁定，尽管党派操纵选区可能违背民主原则，但联邦法院无权对此进行监管。
去年，特朗普成功施压得克萨斯州共和党人废除原有选区地图，重新绘制新地图，针对五名民主党现任议员，引发了一场全国性的军备竞赛，蔓延到近十二个其他州。这一举措打破了传统惯例——大多数选区划分通常在每十年一次的美国人口普查完成后才会进行。
与此同时，本周三最高法院的裁决进一步放宽了议员为所在政党利益划分选区的空间。而所有这些发展都伴随着技术进步，地图绘制者能够精确到普查街区识别民主党和共和党选民。
“如果没有约束，那就真的没有约束了，”莱维特说。“我认为现在的限制因素是现实政治和想象力，而非‘我们就是不这么做’。”
操纵选区边界并不是导致竞争席位减少的唯一罪魁祸首。选民的地理分布愈发集中，农村地区愈发倾向保守，而郊区则转向左翼。
正如众议院议员愈发两极分化，选民也同样如此。分裂投票——即选民在高级别选举中选择一个政党的候选人，而在低级别选举中选择另一个政党的候选人——曾经相当普遍，但现在已经不复存在。
根据水晶球报告主编凯尔·康迪克的研究，2000年时有86名众议院议员所在选区投票支持了反对党的总统候选人。2024年，这一数字降至16人。
约瑟夫·阿克斯报道；杰森·兰奇补充报道；保罗·托马斯奇和丹尼尔·沃利斯编辑
我们的标准：汤姆森路透社信任原则，将在新标签页打开
How redistricting and the Supreme Court have cut voters out of US House races
2026-05-03 10:05 AM UTC / Reuters
By Joseph Ax
May 3, 2026 10:05 AM UTC Updated 1 hour ago
节点运行失败
U.S. President Donald Trump arrives to deliver the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 24, 2026. REUTERS/EVELYN HOCKSTEIN Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
May 3 (Reuters) – The number of competitive U.S. House of Representatives districts in this fall’s midterm elections was already near historic lows before the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday opened the door to even more aggressive efforts to draw district lines for political gain.
The court’s ruling, which arrived amid what was already an unprecedented national fight over congressional redistricting, may usher in a new era of nakedly partisan gerrymandering that results in still fewer competitive elections, leaving voters with less power than ever, experts said.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The lack of competitive races means that control of the U.S. House of Representatives will likely be determined in November’s midterm election by fewer than 10% of Americans, with the winners in the vast majority of districts all but assured before a single ballot is cast, a Reuters analysis found.
Only 32 of the House’s 435 seats are currently considered competitive, according to the analysis. Those districts were rated either toss-ups or leaning toward Democrats or Republicans by three leading independent forecasters: Cook Political Report, the University of Virginia’s Crystal Ball and Inside Elections.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Most other districts are simply out of play. Cook, for instance, rates 375 seats, more than 85% of the House, as either “Solid Republican” or “Solid Democrat,” which means its analysts do not expect them to be seriously contested. Another 28 races are “likely” Republican or Democratic, according to Cook, meaning they are not competitive at present but might become so under new conditions.
This year boasts the fewest competitive House races at this stage of the election cycle since at least 2008, according to an archive of prior Cook ratings.
Democrats need to gain just three seats to win a House majority, giving them the power to block President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda and initiate investigations into his administration.
The shrinking House battlefield is the result of several factors, including increased political polarization. But the weaponization of congressional redistricting, or gerrymandering – which has gone into overdrive since last year, when Trump began pushing Republicans to draw new maps – is a critical element that is only going to accelerate after the Supreme Court’s ruling, according to experts.
“We are now in a cycle of gerrymandering wars,” said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School who maintains the website All About Redistricting. “What used to be a cold war has gotten very hot.”
The court hollowed out a provision of the federal Voting Rights Act that had blocked state legislatures from dismantling districts with mostly racial minority voters. Political observers expect Republican-led states to target a dozen or more Democratic-held majority-Black and majority-Latino seats that previously enjoyed stauncher protections.
“I think it gets worse before it gets better,” Levitt said. “And I think there’s plenty of room for it to get worse.”
‘NO GUARDRAILS’
The lack of competitive districts can have consequences for Congress, said Matthew Klein, a House analyst with Cook. If House candidates only need to appeal to their base voters to win elections, rather than moderates or members of the opposing party, they are more likely to move toward the extremes instead of the political middle.
“If you look at Congress and how it acted 20 years ago, 30 years ago, even farther back, you see a Congress that is both less acrimonious and also more productive,” he said. “There used to be bills that passed with huge majorities on major issues. We just don’t really see that anymore.”
Gerrymandering has long been a feature of American democracy, but the practice has been supercharged in recent years as guardrails, both legal and institutional, have been torn down. In 2019, the Supreme Court found that while partisan gerrymandering may be undemocratic, federal courts had no role in regulating it.
Last year, Trump successfully pressured Texas Republicans to rip up their map and draw a new one targeting five Democratic incumbents, triggering a nationwide arms race that spread to nearly a dozen other states. That move eviscerated what had been a traditional norm limiting most redistricting to the start of each decade, after the U.S. Census population count is completed.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Wednesday, meanwhile, has given even more leeway to lawmakers to draw districts for their party’s benefit. And all of those developments have come against a backdrop of technological advances, with mapmakers able to identify Democratic and Republican voters down to the census block.
“If there are no guardrails, there are no guardrails,” Levitt said. “I think the constraint is now realpolitik and imagination, not, ‘We just don’t do that.’”
Gerrymandering is not the only culprit to blame for the lack of competitive districts. Voters have become more geographically sorted, as rural areas have trended conservative while suburban regions moved left.
And just as House members have become more polarized, so too have voters. Split-ticket voting, in which voters choose a candidate of one party for a higher office and another for a lower office, was once fairly common, but no longer.
In 2000, there were 86 House members elected whose districts voted for the opposing party’s presidential candidate, according to research by Kyle Kondik, the managing editor of Crystal Ball. In 2024, that number was down to 16.
Reporting by Joseph Ax; Additional reporting by Jason Lange; Editing by Paul Thomasch and Daniel Wallis
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
发表回复