2026年5月15日 美国东部时间下午6:37 / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：约翰·弗里茨
更新于2026年5月15日 美国东部时间下午6:56
2026年4月21日星期二，弗吉尼亚州费尔法克斯市费尔法克斯市政中心外摆放的弗吉尼亚州重划选区公投标语牌。（美联社照片/朱莉娅·德马雷·尼基森）
朱莉娅·德马雷·尼基森/美联社
本周五，美国最高法院驳回了弗吉尼亚州官员提出的紧急请求，该请求旨在恢复原本可在今年中期选举中帮助民主党人的国会选区地图。这一早已被广泛预料的判决，标志着最高法院再次卷入全国范围内的重划选区争端。
此次判决挫败了民主党借助新地图在今年众议院选举中额外拿下至多四个席位的计划。
由6名保守派大法官、3名自由派大法官组成的最高法院近期在路易斯安那州和阿拉巴马州的案件中站在共和党一边，允许这两个州快速重划选区地图。但弗吉尼亚州的案件更多涉及州法律问题，而非联邦法律问题，许多专家此前就预测，此次上诉充其量不过是孤注一掷的最后尝试。
判决书中没有记录不同意见，最高法院也未在这一简短的单句命令中解释其推理过程。
弗吉尼亚州州长、民主党人阿比盖尔·斯潘伯格本周暗示，该州无论如何都将放弃这一努力。她周三对记者表示，无论美国最高法院如何裁决这起紧急上诉，州政府都将继续沿用旧的选区地图。
弗吉尼亚州民主党官员周一紧急向美国最高法院提起上诉，敦促大法官们推翻州最高法院4比3的裁决——该裁决实际上推翻了民主党提出的新地图方案。州最高法院的裁决依据是，州议会在推进一项公投时存在程序 timing 错误，该公投旨在授权议员重划选区，这是美国全国范围内一场不同寻常的中期重划选区争端的一部分。
民主党人士称州最高法院的裁决“极具误导性”，并对美国全国产生了“深远的实际影响”。
这起快速推进的上诉提交至由保守派主导的最高法院之际，大法官们正因一系列总体上有利于共和党的选区地图判决面临大量批评，其中甚至包括来自内部的批评。近期几天，最高法院已批准路易斯安那州和阿拉巴马州使用对共和党极为友好的新地图，让这场持续数月的重划选区之争的天平向共和党倾斜。
这一切始于4月底一项引发轰动的判决，该判决削弱了1965年《投票权法案》的适用范围，为共和党州议员提供了政治掩护，使其得以响应唐纳德·特朗普总统的号召，在两次人口普查之间重划选区，以图保住对众议院的控制权。美国多个南部州已着手重划或已重新制定选区地图，部分州还推迟了党内初选。
但尽管弗吉尼亚州的政治动机与其他州一致，法律争议点却大不相同。针对弗吉尼亚州民主党友好型地图的质疑，并非涉及种族考量，而是关乎该州最初为允许重划选区而启动的宪法修正案的程序顺序。州最高法院裁定，州议会未在大选前就该修正案进行首轮投票，违反了州宪法。弗吉尼亚州议员于2025年10月底首次投票批准该修正案，当时距离选举日仍有一段时间，但提前投票已全面展开。
民主党面临的困境在于，美国最高法院在解释州法律问题上通常会尊重州法院的裁决。
意识到这一困境，弗吉尼亚州民主党人提出了一项新论点，称州法院误读了联邦法律中“选举”的定义，他们坚称该定义仅指选举日。他们还重拾了共和党更常提出的一项主张，即根据美国宪法中要求各州“议会”制定联邦选举规则的条款，州法院应尊重州议会在选举事务上的决定权。
弗吉尼亚州的重划选区方案本可让民主党额外拿下至多四个席位，有可能将该州的共和党国会席位缩减至仅一个。
弗吉尼亚州的上诉提交之时，大法官们正就最高法院对今年中期选举的影响展开公开辩论。继上月有关《投票权法案》的判决之后，自由派大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊与保守派大法官塞缪尔·阿利托就路易斯安那州重划选区的速度问题展开了唇枪舌剑。杰克逊指责最高法院为了影响选举而放弃了其“原则”。阿利托则回击称这一指责“极具侮辱性”，并称杰克逊的异议意见书提出了“微不足道”且“毫无根据”的论点。
本文已更新补充更多细节。
US Supreme Court tosses longshot appeal from Virginians to use new congressional map that would benefit Democrats
May 15, 2026 6:37 PM ET / CNN
By John Fritze
Updated May 15, 2026, 6:56 PM ET
Signs are seen outside Fairfax Government Center during the Virginia redistricting referendum, Tuesday, April 21, 2026, in Fairfax, Va. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP
The Supreme Court on Friday tossed out an emergency request from Virginia officials to reinstate a congressional map that would have benefited Democrats in this year’s midterm election, a widely expected decision that represented the court’s latest foray into a nationwide redistricting war.
The decision thwarts Democratic plans to use the new map to pick up as many as four additional seats in the House of Representatives this year.
The 6-3 conservative court has recently sided with Republicans in Louisiana and Alabama – permitting those states to quickly redraw their maps. But the Virginia case dealt more squarely with questions of state law rather than federal questions, and many experts predicted that the appeal was, at best, a Hail Mary.
There were no noted dissents. and the court did not explain its reasoning in the one-sentence order.
Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, signaled this week that the state was abandoning the effort anyway, telling reporters on Wednesday that the state would move forward with the old maps regardless of how the US Supreme Court decided the emergency appeal.
Democratic officials in Virginia raced up to the US Supreme Court on Monday urging the justices to block a 4-3 decision from the state’s highest court that effectively struck down their proposed map. The state court ruling was based on what it found was a timing error in how the legislature handled a referendum empowering lawmakers to redraw their maps as part of a highly unusual mid-decade redistricting war playing out across the nation.
The state court’s ruling, Democrats said, was “deeply mistaken” and had “profound practical importance to the nation.”
The fast-track appeal landed at the 6-3 conservative court at a moment when the justices are facing significant criticism, including from within their own ranks, for a series of map decisions that have by and large favored the Republican Party. In recent days, the court has cleared the way for both Louisiana and Alabama to use new maps that are far more friendly to Republicans – tipping the balance in the monthslong redistricting race toward the GOP.
That started with a blockbuster decision in late April that weakened the scope of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, providing political cover to Republican state lawmakers eager to heed President Donald Trump’s call to redraw maps between census releases to try to retain control of the House. Several southern states have moved to redraw or have already recrafted their maps, in some cases pushing back their primary elections.
But while the political motivations in Virginia are the same as those other states, the legal issues were quite different. The challenge to Virginia’s Democratic-friendly map dealt not with racial considerations but rather with how the state sequenced an amendment to its constitution to allow the redistricting in the first place. The state’s highest court ruled that lawmakers violated the state’s constitution with that process by not holding the first vote on an amendment before a general election. Virginia lawmakers first voted to approve the measure in late October 2025, before Election Day but while early voting was already well underway.
The challenge for Democrats is that the US Supreme Court generally defers to state courts when it comes to interpreting state law.
Recognizing that challenge, Virginia Democrats engineered an argument that the state courts misinterpreted the definition of “election” in federal law, which they said clearly means only Election Day. And they resurrected an argument that has been more frequently raised by Republicans that state courts should have deferred to the state legislature on election matters under a clause of the US Constitution that requires “the legislature” of each state to set the rules for federal elections.
The redistricting in Virginia would have given Democrats the chance to win as many as four more seats, potentially reducing the state’s GOP representation to a single district.
The Virginia appeal arrived as the justices have openly debated the court’s impact on this year’s midterm election. Following the Voting Rights Act decision last month, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson traded barbs with conservative Justice Samuel Alito over how quickly Louisiana could redraw its map. Jackson accused the court of rolling over its “principles” in pursuit of influencing the election. Alito fired back, calling that “insulting” and saying that Jackson’s dissent raised “trivial” and “baseless” arguments.
This story is has been updated with additional details.
发表回复