2026-06-20T10:30:26.478Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
五个由民主党主导的州已颁布新法案，以保护11月的中期选举免受潜在的联邦干预。
各州法案的提案者表示，他们此举是为了回应唐纳德·特朗普总统持续散播的选举舞弊言论，以及本届政府为重塑投票流程而采取的日益激进的举措。
法律专家指出，若州法律旨在规范本州选举官员的行为，而非直接约束联邦行动，则各州此举在法律上更站得住脚。
民主党领导的州正竞相保护11月的中期选举，防范特朗普政府及其盟友可能实施的干预，他们通过的新法案限制执法人员进入投票场所，或试图阻止联邦政府获取敏感选举资料。
据追踪选举相关立法的投票权利实验室（Voting Rights Lab）以及CNN的调查显示，加利福尼亚州、科罗拉多州、康涅狄格州、马里兰州和华盛顿州这五个州近期已通过立法，为本州选举筑起抵御联邦行动的屏障。
提案者称，他们的回应针对的是特朗普总统持续散播的选举舞弊言论，以及本届政府为重塑投票流程而采取的日益激进的举措。美国宪法规定，各州负责主持本州选举，国会则有权制定联邦选举的基本规则。
“特朗普政府竟然认为他们可以无视美国宪法，试图接管我们的选举，这令人愤怒，”马里兰州州参议员辛西娅·卡根（民主党人）说道。她共同提案了一项新法案，旨在维持本州对选举日后收到的邮寄选票的计数截止期限。
自去年重返白宫以来，特朗普总统多次试图单方面修改选举程序，尽管他推动新投票限制措施的尝试在国会屡屡受挫。
他已签署行政命令，旨在打击邮寄投票——他毫无根据地将邮寄投票污蔑为舞弊重灾区。他的政府已从佐治亚州和亚利桑那州的大型县获取了与他输掉的2020年大选相关的记录。此外，司法部正通过诉讼争取获取多个州的选民登记名册，以寻找包括非公民在内的无资格选民投票的证据。
此外，特朗普上月在被问及是否会派遣移民与海关执法局（ICE）人员或国民警卫队士兵前往投票站时回应称，他会“采取一切必要措施确保选举公正”。其他政府官员并未公开排除这一可能性。
这引发了一些民主党议员和选举官员的新担忧，他们担心今年秋季联邦执法人员可能会在投票点采取行动。
在康涅狄格州，将于7月1日生效的一项新法律条款规定，未经选举官员许可，执法人员不得进入距投票地点、选票投递箱或计票站点250英尺范围内。该州众议院政府行政与选举委员会主席、新法案主要提案人之一的民主党州众议员马特·布卢门撒尔表示。
“我们采取这些举措的原因，是唐纳德·特朗普及其包括政府官员在内的盟友所发表的令人震惊、史无前例的言论和采取的行动，这些言行威胁并攻击了我们的选举，”他在接受CNN采访时说道。
针对民主党各州近期的行动，白宫发言人阿比盖尔·杰克逊在一份声明中表示，特朗普“致力于确保美国民众对选举管理充满信心，这包括确保选民名册完全准确、最新，且不存在错误登记的非法非公民选民”。
“正是总统的这一竞选承诺，让数百万美国民众将他送回了白宫，”她补充道。
当被问及特朗普关于派遣联邦官员前往投票站的言论时，白宫援引了新闻秘书卡罗琳·利夫特对记者的回应，称她未听说总统“讨论过在投票点外部署移民与海关执法局人员的正式计划”。
其中一些州法案可能会引发与联邦政府的法律冲突。特朗普政府已与加利福尼亚州、康涅狄格州等州就禁止ICE人员在州内活动时佩戴口罩的法规爆发了法庭纠纷。
但法律专家表示，针对新一批明确规定州和地方官员应如何应对联邦在选举问题上越权行为的法案，各州在法律上可能更占优势。
以下是各州为应对潜在联邦行动而修改法律的具体情况：
- 在加利福尼亚州，民主党州长加文·纽瑟姆上月签署了一项法案，禁止选举官员在未获得法院命令的情况下，向未经授权的人员提供选民名册或投票机的访问权限。该法案还规定，未经有效搜查令，故意从选举官员手中拿走已投选票的行为将构成犯罪。
- 在科罗拉多州，民主党州长贾里德·波利斯本月早些时候签署的一项法案规定，在新设立的选票投递箱和投票地点周边100英尺缓冲区内，严禁干扰投票行为。该法案还赋予州长在咨询咨询委员会后宣布进入紧急状态的权力，以便在选举遭遇任何中断的情况下仍能顺利进行。
- 康涅狄格州的新法案还要求，收到传票或搜查令的市政官员或选举工作人员，必须在36小时内通知州检察长和州务卿。
- 在马里兰州，5月通过的一项法案允许本州继续对地方和州选举中选举日后收到的邮寄选票进行计数——即便联邦政府终止总统和国会选举的选举后宽限期。
- 在华盛顿州，3月通过的一项法案将未经州务卿许可，向州和地方选举官员以外的人员泄露选民登记档案中的个人信息的行为定为重罪，最高可判处五年监禁。该法案的提案人、民主党州参议员马库斯·里切利表示，该法案并不禁止政府机构提出获取此类信息的请求并有可能获得该信息。但他说，请求“必须通过管理我们全州选民登记数据库的州务卿来提交”。
在签署法案的仪式上，纽瑟姆称加州的这项法律是“为了应对民众对本届政府举措的合理焦虑”所必需的。
他还提及了去年加利福尼亚州里弗赛德县发生的备受关注的选票扣押事件：该县警长、共和党人查德·比安科（当时正在竞选州长）扣押了65万张在特别选举中投出的选票。当地法官签署了搜查令，比安科称此举是为了对潜在的选举舞弊进行“事实调查”。
今年早些时候，州最高法院叫停了此次调查，并下令封存被扣押的选票。大法官们已要求双方提交简要陈述，以说明这项试图限制此类选票扣押行为的新州法律将如何影响此案。
康涅狄格州新法案的主要提案人布卢门撒尔援引了联邦调查局1月28日在佐治亚州富尔顿县扣押2020年大选记录的事件。一份在当地官员提出法律挑战后公开的搜查令申请书显示，2020年大选否认者的主张被用作联邦调查局获取搜查令的理由。
布卢门撒尔表示，康涅狄格州的新法案不一定能阻止联邦特工在类似富尔顿县的情况下获取选举资料，但它试图让州官员有机会在根据搜查令扣押选票或机器之前，在法庭上进行干预。
“我们希望确保有司法机构听取双方的陈述，并确保，如果执行了搜查令，其实施方式不会干扰我们的选举，”他说道。
在马里兰州，民主党议员反对特朗普总统多次限制邮寄投票的努力。特朗普政府正在支持美国共和党全国委员会向美国最高法院提起的诉讼，要求停止对选举日后收到的联邦选举选票的计数。最高法院的裁决预计很快就会公布。
据全国州议会会议数据显示，马里兰州与哥伦比亚特区一样，是14个对选举日后收到的邮寄选票进行计数的州之一（另有一些州为海外和军人选民延长了选票接收截止日期）。马里兰州设有10天的宽限期，只要选票在选举日当天或之前加盖邮戳即可。
一些共和党议员认为，民主党试图通过此类法案干扰联邦政府对选举的合法监督。
反对本州新法案的加利福尼亚州州参议员托尼·斯特里克兰德（共和党人）表示，他预计将有人以违反宪法至上条款为由对该法案提起法律挑战。该条款禁止各州规范联邦政府的行为。
今年早些时候，联邦上诉法院援引该条款，叫停了加利福尼亚州一项要求ICE人员在州内活动时必须出示身份证件的法律。
“我认为我们各级政府都应该有能力监督选举，确保选举公正进行，”斯特里克兰德在接受CNN采访时说道。“你们有什么不可告人的吗？”
不过，纽约大学法学院民主项目联合主任理查德·皮尔什表示，华盛顿州等地出台的、对泄露敏感数据的地方官员处以刑事处罚的新法案，可能会在宪法挑战中幸存下来，因为这些法案并未试图监管联邦官员的行为。
“这些法案旨在告诉本州选举官员，如果收到请求，不要主动提供信息，”他说道。“它们是在规范本州自己的选举官员，而不是告诉联邦官员如何履行职责。”
曾在拜登政府期间担任白宫选举事务顾问的洛约拉法学院教授贾斯汀·莱维特表示，各州过去曾与联邦政府在选举规则方面发生过法律冲突，但大多数都围绕国会通过的修正案展开。
“如今的不同之处在于，总统正试图在联邦法律和其职权范围之外采取行动，”莱维特说道。不过他也表示，他认为今年秋季的选举不会面临严重的中断风险。
他表示，原因之一是佐治亚州和加利福尼亚州备受关注的扣押事件引发的争议，已让全国范围内的法官意识到，需要仔细审查任何未来获取投票资料的要求，尤其是在选举进行期间。
“各州本身掌控着选举进程，”莱维特补充道。“当总统下令采取行动时，各州根本不必听从。”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NNHGbxYJw&t=48s
Democratic states scramble to prevent potential Trump administration interference in their elections
2026-06-20T10:30:26.478Z / CNN
Five Democratic-led states have enacted new laws to shield November’s midterm elections from potential federal interference.
Sponsors of the state laws say they are responding to President Donald Trump’s continued rhetoric about fraud in voting and the administration’s increasingly aggressive moves to reshape how voting is conducted.
Legal experts say states may be on firmer ground when laws regulate their own election officials rather than federal actions.
Democratic-led states are racing to safeguard November’s midterm elections against potential interference from the Trump administration and its allies, passing new laws that restrict the presence of law enforcement at polling places or seek to thwart the federal government’s efforts to obtain sensitive election material.
Five states – California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland and Washington state — have recently enacted legislation to shield their elections from federal actions, according to the Voting Rights Lab, which tracks election-related legislation, and CNN’s research.
Sponsors say they are responding to President Donald Trump’s continued rhetoric about fraud in voting and the administration’s increasingly aggressive moves to reshape how voting is conducted. The US Constitution gives states the primary task of running elections and Congress the power to set the ground rules for federal contests.
“It’s infuriating that the Trump administration believes they can ignore the Constitution of the United States and try to take over our elections,” said Maryland state Sen. Cynthia Kagan, a Democrat who co-sponsored a new law aimed at maintaining the state’s deadline for counting mail-in ballots that are received after Election Day.
Since returning to the White House last year, the president has repeatedly tried to single handedly change election procedures as his attempts to muscle through new voting restrictions have faltered in Congress.
He has signed executive orders aimed at cracking down on mail-in voting, which he has baselessly cast as rife with fraud. His administration has taken records related to the 2020 election he lost from the largest counties in Georgia and Arizona. And his Department of Justice is fighting in court to gain access to multiple states’ voter rolls as it searches for proof of ineligible individuals, including noncitizens, casting ballots.
Additionally, asked last month whether he would send Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers or National Guard troops to the polls, Trump responded he would do “anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections.” Other administration officials have declined to rule out the idea publicly.
That’s set off fresh alarms among some Democratic lawmakers and election officials about potential federal law enforcement action at polling places this fall.
In Connecticut, a new provision of state law that goes into effect July 1 seeks to largely bar law enforcement from being within 250 feet of a polling location, ballot dropbox or vote-counting site without the permission of election officials, according to state Rep. Matt Blumenthal, a Democrat who chairs his chamber’s government administration and election committee and is a lead sponsor of the new law.
“The reason why we’ve entertained these steps is because of the shocking and unprecedented statements and actions that Donald Trump and his allies, including in government, have undertaken to threaten and attack our elections,” he told CNN.
Responding to the recent moves by Democratic states, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement that Trump “is committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections, and that includes totally accurate and up-to-date voter rolls free of errors and unlawfully registered non-citizen voters.”
“This campaign pledge from the President is why millions of Americans sent him back to the White House,” she added.
When asked about Trump’s remarks on deploying federal officers to the polls, the White House pointed to press secretary Karoline Leavitt telling reporters that she had not heard the president “discuss any formal plans to put ICE outside of polling locations.”
Some of these state laws could set up legal clashes with the federal government. Court disputes have already erupted between the Trump administration and states such as California and Connecticut over statutes that seek to prohibit ICE officers from wearing masks while operating within the states’ borders.
But legal experts say states are likely on firmer ground when it comes to the new batch of laws that spell out how state and local officials should respond to any federal overreach on elections.
Here’s a look at how states are changing their laws to confront potential federal action:
- In California, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom last month signed legislation that prohibits election officials from providing unauthorized access to voter rolls or voting machines without a court order. It also makes it a crime to knowingly take voted ballots from election officials without a valid warrant.
- In Colorado, a law signed earlier this month by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis prohibits interfering with voting within a newly established 100-foot buffer zone around ballot drop boxes and polling locations. It also gives the governor, with input from an advisory committee, the power to declare an emergency to allow elections to proceed in the event of any disruption.
- Connecticut’s new law also requires municipal officials or election workers who receive a subpoena or warrant to notify the attorney general and secretary of state within 36 hours.
- In Maryland, a statute enacted in May allows the state to continue to count votes for local and state elections on mail ballots received after Election Day – even if the federal government ends the post-election grace period for presidential and congressional contests.
- In Washington state, a law enacted in March makes it a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, to disclose personal information contained in the voter registration file to people other than state and local election officials without the permission of the secretary of state. The measure’s sponsor, Democratic state Sen. Marcus Riccelli, said it doesn’t bar a government entity from requesting the information and potentially obtaining it. But the request “has to go through our secretary of state who manages our statewide voter registration database,” he said.
During the signing ceremony, Newsom described California’s law as needed “to address the legitimate anxiety” about the administration’s moves.
He also referred to the high-profile seizure of 650,000 ballots cast in last year’s special election from Riverside County, California, by the county’s sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican who was running for governor. A local judge had signed a warrant for what Bianco called a “fact-finding mission” into potential election fraud.
Earlier this year, the state Supreme Court halted the probe and ordered the seized ballots preserved. The justices have asked both sides to prepare briefs on how the new state law that tries to restrict such ballot seizures might affect the case.
Blumenthal, the lead sponsor of Connecticut’s new law, pointed to the FBI’s January 28 seizure of 2020 election records in Fulton County, Georgia. An affidavit unsealed after a legal challenge from local officials showed that claims from 2020 election deniers were used to justify the FBI’s warrant.
The Connecticut law wouldn’t necessarily prevent federal agents from obtaining election material in circumstances similar to those in Fulton County, but it tries to give state officials the opportunity to intervene in court before ballots or machines are seized under a warrant, Blumenthal said.
“We want to ensure that some judicial authority has heard both sides of the story and also ensure, that if it is executed, it’s done in a way that doesn’t interfere with our elections,” he said.
In Maryland, Democratic lawmakers have objected to the president’s repeated efforts to curb mail-in voting. The Trump administration is backing a push by the Republican National Committee before the US Supreme Court that seeks to stop the counting of ballots in federal elections that arrive after Election Day. A decision from the high court is expected soon.
Maryland is one of 14 states, along with the District of Columbia, which counts mail ballots received after Election Day, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. (Additional states have extended ballot receipt deadlines for overseas and military voters.) Maryland has a10-day grace period as long as ballots are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Some Republican lawmakers argue that Democrats are trying to interfere with legitimate scrutiny of elections by the federal government.
California state Sen. Tony Strickland, a Republican who opposes the new law in his state, said he expects a legal challenge to it on grounds that it could violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which prohibits states from regulating the federal government.
A federal appeals court cited the clause earlier this year when it blocked a California law that attempted to force ICE agents to display identification while operating in the state.
“I think that we should have the ability at all levels of government to be able to monitor elections to make sure elections are done properly,” Strickland told CNN. “What do you have to hide?”
However, Richard Pildes, the co-director of the Democracy Project at New York University’s Law School, said new laws in places such as Washington state that create criminal penalties for local officials who share sensitive data may survive challenges on constitutional grounds because they do not attempt to police federal actions.
“They are designed to tell their election officials not to voluntarily give the information over if it’s requested,” he said. “They’re regulating their own election officials. They’re not telling federal officials how to conduct their responsibilities.”
Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor who served as a White House adviser on voting during the Biden administration, said states have had legal skirmishes with the federal government over election rules in the recent past but most centered on changes enacted by Congress.
“What is different now is that the president is trying to act outside federal law and his powers,” Levitt said. Still, he said he believes that this fall’s elections will not face serious disruption.
For one thing, he said, the controversy over the high-profile seizures in Georgia and California, has sensitized judges around the country to the need to carefully scrutinize any future demands for voting materials, particularly once an election is underway.
“States themselves are in charge of the process,” Levitt added. “And when the president orders stuff to get done, the states just don’t have to listen.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NNHGbxYJw&t=48s
